DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims Status
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 07/05/2025. As directed by the amendment: claim(s) 1-2, 5, 9, 10 has/have been amended, claim(s) 3 & 8 has/have been cancelled, and new claim(s) 11 has/have been added. Thus, claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-11 are presently pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 7-8, the term “a central axis (18)” should be corrected to “the central axis (18)” to allow for claim language consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, claim 9 recites “…fitting obviously a piston with a matching squared section…”. This subject matter is not described or found anywhere in the specification. Note, the specification only specifically discloses that the combustion chambers 80 or 90, which are defined by the piston itself, are embedded in the ceiling (20), wherein these chambers can either be a rounded or squared shape. However, the specification fails to set forth any disclosure that the piston itself can “obviously” be a piston with a matching squared section, as now claimed in claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7 & 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RICHARD et al. (US 2016/0341106 A1)
RICHARD ‘106 discloses the claims as follows:
1. (CURRENTLY AMENDED) A piston (16) suitable for a Diesel engine (FIG. 1; 0042-0043), the piston 16 comprising a flat ceiling (i.e., plane surface 74; par. 0064), an annular head (FIG. 2), a skirt (FIG. 2) extending axially from the annular head and a circular combustion chamber (34, FIG. 1; 0046) embedded in the ceiling (74) and centered on a central axis (X, X’; fig. 2; 0046), the combustion chamber (34) comprises:
- a central dome (48; fig. 2, 0058) with a flat top 50,
- a side wall (54; FIG. 2) of the dome (50), having a double slope (52, 58) with respect to the central axis (X, X’),
- a flat bottom (56; fig. 2, 0058 & 0060),
- a lateral wall (62; fig. 2, 0060) radially external, flat and parallel to the central axis (X, X’), and
- a tapered step (68, 69; fig. 2, 0062) for connection between the radially external lateral wall (62) and the ceiling (74) of the piston (16);
and wherein said tapered step (68, 69) has an inclination of an angle (a7; see FIG. 2, par. 0065, 0095-0096) with respect to a horizontal plane (see ENLARGED portion of FIG. 2) perpendicular to the central axis (X, X’); and wherein said tapered step favors a high use of air in conditions of high power while avoiding an almost proportional formation of smoke because of a wall portion (72; fig. 2), curbing almost vertically, having a function of stopping combustion flames; and wherein said tapered step (68, 69) also provides a smooth transition between the lateral wall (62) of the combustion chamber and an outer wall of the combustion chamber, providing efficiency as the load of said Diesel engine increases.
RICHARD teaches the invention as essentially claimed, including an angle (a7; see FIG. 2, par. 0065, 0095-0096) of inclination of the tapered step (68, 69) with respect to a horizontal plane (see ENLARGED portion of FIG. 2) perpendicular to the central axis (X, X’), whose difference is with respect to angle a2 is less than 45 degrees.
However, RICHARD is completely silent to wherein an angle (a7) of inclination of the tapered step (68, 69) with respect to a horizontal plane (see ENLARGED portion of FIG. 2) perpendicular to the central axis (X, X’) is in a range between 20 deg. and 30 deg..
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the angle (a7) of inclination of the tapered step with respect to the horizontal plane perpendicular to the central axis (X, X’) of whichever relative angles were desired, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402.
Note, the recitations underlined and bolded above are considered as the functional language. RICHARD ‘106 discloses all the structural components of a piston system, which are read on those of the instant invention. Therefore, the RICHARD piston assembly is capable of performing the same desired function(s) as the instant invention having been claimed in claim 1.
Re claim 2, RICHARD ‘106 discloses the piston (16) according to claim 1, wherein the side wall (54; FIG. 2) is formed by a first portion (52) close to the top 50 of the dome (48) and by a second portion (58), distal with respect to the top 50 of the dome (48) and the first portion (52) is more inclined than the second portion (58) with respect to the central axis (X, X’).
Re claim 4, RICHARD teaches the invention as essentially claimed, including a diametral length of the flat top 50 of central dome 48 (only half of piston 16 is shown in FIG. 2), and an external diameter of the piston 16 (again, only half of the piston 16 is shown).
However, RICHARD is completely silent to wherein the ratio between a diametral length of the top of the dome (50) and an external diameter of the piston (16) is comprised in a range between 0.012 and 0.042.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the external diameter of the piston 16 and the diametral length of the flat top 50 of the central dome 48 of whichever relative sizes/ratios were desired, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402.
Re claim 5, RICHARD teaches the invention as essentially claimed, including that angle of inclination a3 = a1 = A1/2 (see par. 0033 & 0096; FIG. 2), and that a4 = greater than 100 degrees.
However, RICHARD is completely silent to wherein an angle (a4) between the first portion (52) of the side wall (54) of the dome (48) and the second portion (58) of the side wall (54) of the dome (48) is included in an interval between 165 deg. and 180 deg..
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different angle (a4) between the first portion (52) of the side wall (54) of the dome (48) and the second portion (58) of the side wall (54) of the dome (48) of whichever relative angles were desired, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402.
Note, with respect to claim 5, the recitation “to generate a localized turbulence and a rapid mixing of fuel” is considered as the functional language. RICHARD ‘106 discloses all the structural components of a piston system, which are read on those of the instant invention. Therefore, the RICHARD piston assembly is capable of performing the same desired function(s) as the instant invention having been claimed in claim 5.
Re claim 6, RICHARD teaches the invention as essentially claimed, including a linear dimension of the flat bottom 56 (FIG. 2), and the external diameter of the piston 16.
However, RICHARD is completely silent to wherein the ratio between a linear dimension of the flat bottom (56) and the external diameter of the piston (16) is in a range between 0.006 and 0.06.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the external diameter of the piston and the linear dimension of the flat bottom 56 of whichever relative sizes/ratios were desired, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402.
Re claim 7, RICHARD teaches the invention as essentially claimed, including a linear dimension (L3) of the radially external lateral wall 62 (FIG. 2), and the external diameter of the piston 16.
However, RICHARD is completely silent to wherein the ratio between a linear dimension (L3) of the radially external lateral wall (62) and the external diameter (D) of the piston (16) is in a range between 0.024 and 0.042.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the external diameter of the piston and the linear dimension (L3) of the radially external lateral wall 62 of whichever relative sizes/ratios were desired, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402.
With regards to claim(s) 10, the claim(s) is/are commensurate in scope with claim(s) 4 & 6-7, and is/are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above. Note, the combustion chamber 34 (fig. 1; par. 0046) is a substantially rounded shape.
Re claim 11, RICHARD ‘106 discloses the piston (16) according to claim 1, wherein it accommodates a circular combustion chamber (see fig. 2) which is recessed into the ceiling (74) within an upper edge (fig. 2) and centered on the central axis (X,X’).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RICHARD ‘106 in view of YANAGISAWA (EP 0269093 A2).
With regards to claim(s) 9, the claim(s) is/are commensurate in scope with claim(s) 4 & 6-7, and is/are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above. However, RICHARD ‘106 fails to teach, either implicitly or explicitly, that the combustion chamber 34 (fig. 1; par. 0046) has substantially squared shape.
However, the patent application YANAGISAWA ‘093 teaches that it is conventional in the art of pistons for internal combustion engines to provide the piston with a combustion chamber 103 embedded in the ceiling 111 thereof, wherein the combustion chamber 103 (see fig. 3-4) has a substantially squared shape. YANAGISAWA ‘093 also explicitly teaches in the ABSTRACT that the squared shape structure of the piston’s combustion chamber would allow a uniform dispersion and distribution of fuel together with the optimized flow of air in the combustion chamber, whereby the air utilization rate is raised and the combustion unburnt matters are decreased.
In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the embedded combustion chamber of the piston of RICHARD ‘106, such that the combustion chamber has a substantially squared shape, as clearly suggested and taught by YANAGISAWA ‘093, in order to allow a uniform dispersion and distribution of fuel together with the optimized flow of air in the combustion chamber, whereby the air utilization rate is raised and the combustion unburnt matters are decreased (see ABSTRACT).
Note, with respect to claim 9, the recitations “and wherein said combustion chamber (80), of squared shape, and fitting obviously a piston with a matching squared section, is used in heavy-duty applications, for Diesel engines with a unit displacement greater than 1000cc, with high efficiency, equipped with high-flow ducts, and with very low turbulence” are considered as the functional language. RICHARD ‘106, in view of YANAGISAWA ‘093, discloses all the structural components of a piston system, which are read on those of the instant invention. Therefore, the modified RICHARD piston assembly is capable of performing the same desired function(s) as the instant invention having been claimed in claim 9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 & 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Note, with respect to the newly added limitations, as underlined and bolded above, those limitations are considered functional language. As such, RICHARD ‘106 and/or RICHARD ‘106 in view of YANAGISAWA ‘093, discloses all the structural components of a piston system, which are read on those of the instant invention. Therefore, the RICHARD piston assembly or the modified RICHARD piston assembly is capable of performing the same desired function(s) as the instant invention having been claimed in claims 1 & 9.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5424. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7am-3pm (CST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Kish can be reached on 571-272-5554. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
HUNG Q. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/HUNG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799