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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is noted that examiner has not taken any official notice and the argument that affidavit should be presented by examiner is not correct. This was explained to applicant’s representative in an interview on 1/20/2026. Applicants’ representative provided that this is a generic paragraph (third paragraph under Introduction in response filed on 1/2/2026) used in many of the responses to the US patent office.
Applicants’ argument the claims are in condition for allowance is not persuasive in view of the rejection below.
Applicants’ argument that the reference of Watanabe does not teach the limitation of angles being different is not persuasive since as shown in figures the angles are different and as stated that the grooves in a piston have an angle and the angle of the piston rings facing the grooves are same or larger (see abstract).
As explained to applicants representative that orientation such as lower and upper are relative turns and claims are directed to just a piston ring (when right side up the ring teaches the limitation that the lower flat surface is smaller similar to applicants figure 2 and left side up the ring teaches that the upper flat surface is smaller).
Applicants’ argument that the translation has a typo graphical error may be correct or may not be correct but figures shown the limitation of the claims as discussed with applicant’s representative on 1/20/2026 (see annotated figures below).
Applicants’ argument are not persuasive since as stated that theta 1 and/or theta 2 are larger compared to angles of the groove on piston.
As stated to applicant’s representative the upper and lower are relative terms and the figure 4 teach that lower surface can be considered 23 and upper surface can be considered to be 24. As explained by reference that theta of 25 and 26 can be reversed, since the reference states that the angle theta 1 is larger or angle theta 2 is larger relative to angle of the groove.
Lower surface is smaller than upper surface, see figure below:
PNG
media_image1.png
278
330
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Upper surface is smaller than lower surface, see figure below:
PNG
media_image2.png
377
404
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It is further noted that optimizing an angle is considered to be a matter of design choice.
It noted that all claims are rejected below and no claims are allowable in view of the rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 9-11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe (JP2001182831A). See annotate figures above.
Watanabe discloses a piston ring, comprising an upper side face (e.g. face having 15) configured to face towards a cylinder top face of an engine, and a lower side face (e.g. face having 16) facing away from the upper side face, the upper side face and the lower side face are both inclined relative to a reference plane (e.g. incline of 15 and incline of 16), the reference plane being a plane perpendicular to a direction of reciprocation of the piston (see figure 2), an upper flat surface (e.g. 13) and a lower flat surface (e.g. 14), the upper flat surface being located at an outer periphery of the upper side face (see figure 3) and configured to face towards the cylinder top face, and the lower flat surface being located at an outer periphery of the lower side face and facing away from the upper flat surface (e.g. figure 3 shows this), wherein the upper side face and the lower side face have different angles of inclination relative to the reference plane (e.g. see figure 3), and the upper flat surface and the lower flat surface have different extents of coverage in a radial direction of the piston ring (e.g. see figure 3). Applicant should review theta 1 and theta 2 and also abstract.
Regarding claim 6: Wherein an edge of the lower flat surface at a radial inner side has a larger radial dimension than an edge of the upper flat surface at the inner side (e.g. compare figures of the reference to applicants’ own figures). As shown in figure 3 the extent of surface 13 is larger than the extend of surface 14.
Regarding claim 9: Wherein no chamfer is provided at a radial inner side of the upper side face (e.g. figure 3).
Regarding claim 10: Wherein the piston ring is configured to be disposed in a first ring groove of a piston that faces towards the cylinder top face (e.g. intended use but the piston ring of Watanabe is capable of being placed in a first ring groove of a piston).
Regarding claim 11: Watanabe discloses a piston ring, comprising an upper side face (e.g. 15) configured to face towards a cylinder top face of an engine, and a lower side (e.g. 16) face facing away from the upper side face, wherein the upper side face and the lower side face are both inclined relative to a reference plane (e.g. see figure 3), the reference plane being a plane perpendicular to a direction of reciprocation of a piston (e.g. see figure 3), an upper flat surface (e.g. 13), the upper flat surface being located at an outer periphery of the upper side face (e.g. see figure 3) and configured to face towards the cylinder top face and a lower flat surface (e.g. 14), the lower flat surface being located at an outer periphery of the lower side face (e.g. see figure 3) and facing away from the upper flat surface, wherein the upper side face and the lower side face have different angles of inclination relative to the reference plane (e.g. see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 16: see rejection of claim 6 and also annotated figures above.
With regard to particular size and ranges applicant should see prior art of assignee and/ inventors (CN 215672477 U).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 2-5, 12-15 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Sytsma et al (US.7017914).
Watanabe discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to disclose that the angle of inclination of the upper side face relative to the reference plane is 2-3 times the angle of inclination of the lower side face relative to the reference plane. Sytsma discloses a piston ring with an upper incline surface with an angle 1 relative to a reference plane and a lower incline surface with angle 2 relative to a reference plane, the angle 1 being greater than the angle 2 by 2-3 times (angle 1 is 12 degrees and the angle 2 is 3 degrees). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to having the angle of the upper side face of Watanabe to be 1 to 3 times larger than the angle of the lower side face as taught by Sytsma with reasonable expectation of success to produce superior twisting feature (e.g. see description of A1 and A2 of figure 2 of Sytsma).
Regarding claims 3-4: The combination of Watanabe and Sytsma teaches the limitation of claim 3.
Regarding claim 5: The combination of Watanabe and Sytsma teach this limitation due to the tolerance (plus or minus of degrees) stated in Sytsma.
Claim(s) 5, 7-8, 15, 17 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe and Sytsma.
Watanabe and Sytsma discloses the claimed invention except for the range stated in claim 5. Discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Without the showing of some unexpected result. Since applicant has not shown some unexpected result the inclusion of this limitation is considered to be a matter of choice in design. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the range be 10-11 degrees with reasonable expectation of success as a matter of design choice and also depending on the size of piston and/or piston groove and/or piston ring and/or machine having the piston and piston ring.
Regarding claims 7, 17 and 23: Watanabe and Sytsma discloses the claimed invention except for the range stated in claims 7 and 17. Discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Without the showing of some unexpected result. Since applicant has not shown some unexpected result the inclusion of this limitation is considered to be a matter of choice in design. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have less than 0.3 mm for lower flat surface and/or less than 0.7mm for upper flat surface with reasonable expectation of success as a matter of design choice and also depending on a gap size between piston and cylinder (small gap between the piston and cylinder than small flat surfaces and larger gap between the piston and cylinder than larger flat surfaces).
Regarding claims 8: Watanabe and Sytsma discloses the claimed invention except for the range stated in claim 8. Discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Without the showing of some unexpected result. Since applicant has not shown some unexpected result the inclusion of this limitation is considered to be a matter of choice in design. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the piston ring height be 2.5mm to 3.0mm in an axial direction with reasonable expectation of success as a matter of design choice and also depending on size of machine and/or piston and/or cylinder and/or ring groove in the piston (smaller machine and/or piston and/or cylinder and/or ring groove the piston ring height would be small or larger machine and/or piston and/or cylinder and/or ring groove the piston ring height would be large).
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 VISHAL A PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-7060. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am to 4:00pm.
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, Christine Mills can be reached at 571-272-8322. 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.
/VISHAL A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675