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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the contact surface" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colwell (US 3209659) in view of Han (CN 2665549).
Regarding claim 1, Colwell discloses a gas sealing structure Fig. 1 for an internal combustion engine, the internal combustion engine comprising: a cylinder block 2 that includes a space part 6 formed in a columnar shape; a cylinder liner 5 that is formed in a cylindrical shape and that is disposed in the space part; a piston 7 that is movably supported in an axial direction by the cylinder liner; a cylinder head 18 that is fastened to top of the cylinder block; and a gasket 25 that is disposed between the cylinder block and the cylinder head and between the cylinder liner and the cylinder head, and that includes a fire ring 26, the fire ring has one face in contact with both the cylinder block and the cylinder liner Fig. 2, and a face opposite the one face in contact only with the cylinder head (at 17), the radial length of the cylinder liner at a contact surface with the cylinder liner is shorter than the radial length of the cylinder head at the contact surface with the cylinder head wherein a contact area between the cylinder liner and the fire ring and a contact area between the cylinder head and the fire ring are the same.
However, Colwell fails to explicitly disclose a first groove along a peripheral direction of the fire ring is provided on a contact surface of the cylinder liner and a second groove provided on a contact surface of the cylinder head. Han, a gas sealing structure Fig. 1, discloses the use of a first groove 5 Fig. 2 provided on a contact surface of the cylinder liner 3 and a second groove 5 provided on a contact surface of the cylinder head 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cylinder head and liner of Colwell with first and second grooves as taught by Han in order to reduce pressure thus providing reliable sealing.
Colwell also fails to explicitly disclose the configuration of the fire ring. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the configuration of the fire ring to an array of shape necessary to accommodate a space in which it is positioned and since it has been held that the configuration of the claimed element was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed element was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Regarding claim 4, the combination discloses wherein the second groove 5 Fig. 2 includes a plurality of second groves, the first groove 5 includes one or more first groves, and a number of second grooves is greater than a number of first grooves.
Regarding claim 5, the combination discloses wherein the second grooves 5 Fig. 2 include an inner second groove provided radially inside the first groove 5, and an outer second groove provided radially outside the first groove, and a radial length between the first groove and the inner second groove, and a radial length between the first groove and the outer second groove are same.
Regarding claim 6, the combination discloses wherein the gasket 25 is formed of a soft material capable of forming a first convex part and a second convex part capable of penetrating into the first groove 5 and the second groove 5, by plastically deforming under surface pressure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/27/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the Cowell reference does not describe the formation of a groove, stating that there is no teaching in Cowell that states that the contact area is uniform. This is not persuasive, since there is nothing in the claim that discloses the contact area uniform. Moreover, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Colwell discloses a gas sealing structure Fig. 1 for an internal combustion engine, the internal combustion engine comprising: a cylinder block 2 that includes a space part 6 formed in a columnar shape; a cylinder liner 5 that is formed in a cylindrical shape and that is disposed in the space part; a piston 7 that is movably supported in an axial direction by the cylinder liner; a cylinder head 18 that is fastened to top of the cylinder block; and a gasket 25 that is disposed between the cylinder block and the cylinder head and between the cylinder liner and the cylinder head, and that includes a fire ring 26, the fire ring has one face in contact with both the cylinder block and the cylinder liner Fig. 2, and a face opposite the one face in contact only with the cylinder head (at 17), the radial length of the cylinder liner at a contact surface with the cylinder liner is shorter than the radial length of the cylinder head at the contact surface with the cylinder head wherein a contact area between the cylinder liner and the fire ring and a contact area between the cylinder head and the fire ring are the same. Han teaches the use of a first groove 5 Fig. 2 provided on a contact surface of the cylinder liner 3 and a second groove 5 provided on a contact surface of the cylinder head 1. It is this teaching that is being applied to Colwell. Colwell already disclose all the other features required by the claim.
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 EUGENE G BYRD whose telephone number is (571)270-1824. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at 5712727376. 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.
/EUGENE G BYRD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights