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 1-13 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.
The term “about” in claims 1, 6 and 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. One of skill would be unable to determine what is required of the phrases “about 100 in-lbs”, “about 71.44 mm”, etc.
In claim 1, it is not understood what is meant by “an adjoining aperture”. Is this one of the previously-introduced apertures?
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “adjoining” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “closest other” while the accepted meaning is “joined to.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Also in claim 1, the phrase “not to exceed 72 mm” is also indefinite as it is couched in terms of intent, rather than specifying an existing physical characteristic of the device.
Regarding claim 8, the preamble recites an apparatus whereas the body recites method steps. It cannot be determined which is controlling for purposes of claim interpretation. For purposes of applying prior art, it will be assumed that the preambles of claims 8-12 should be amended to match the form of the body of claim 8.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7 and 13 as understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavin (US 2,702,185) in view of either Carter (US 1,802,135) or Foster (US 2,656,166).
Regarding claim 1, Lavin discloses a carburetor comprising:
a throttle body (7) with six apertures (through which bolts 64 pass) positioned along a base (see FIGS 1, 2, 5), each aperture spaced apart from an adjoining aperture at a distance not to exceed 72 mm (as understood, this is drawn to an intent of the designer, also it is unclear what constitutes “an adjoining aperture”);
a float bowl housing (12) to include six threaded receptacles (which receive the bottom ends of bolts 64) placed in-line with said six throttle body apertures (FIGS 1, 2, 5, threads shown in FIG 7);
a fastener bolt (64) through each said aperture for engaging each said threaded receptacle;
wherein each fastener bolt is torqued to about 100 in-lbs (as understood, this is drawn to an intended use of the positively-recited bolt, and does not structurally define over Lavin; met by the capability of Lavin’s bolts to be torqued to 100 in-lbs).
Lavin does not disclose a gasket between said throttle body and said float bowl housing. However each of Carter and Foster teach that it was known in the art before the effective filing date to use a gasket (Carter at p. 1 lines 31-42; Foster at element 12) between a similar throttle body and float bowl housing. To prevent leaks between Lavin’s throttle body and float bowl housing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to use a gasket therebetween, as claimed by Applicant and taught by either of Carter and Foster.
Regarding claims 2-5, 7 and 13, Lavin discloses each fastener bolt to include a threaded shank (e.g., see FIG 1), but does not disclose each bolt to be 12-24, high strength, corrosion plated, including a hex head and an anti-vibration washer, and to be tied with the other bolts using a safety wire as claimed. However 12-24 high strength, corrosion plated bolts with hex heads and anti-vibration washers, and the use of safety wires as claimed were well-known in the art before the effective filing date (official notice), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use 12-24, high strength, corrosion plated bolts, including a hex head and an anti-vibration washer, and tied with the other bolts using a safety wire as claimed in order to create a strong and durable bolt that can be securely fastened while reducing localized stresses and wear and preventing loosening. (Regarding claims 7 and 13, note that wiring all bolts together with a safety wire would meet the recited limitations.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action, without broadening the scope of the claims.
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, without broadening the scope of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2016/0097347 discloses a rectangular float bowl housing with a bolt at each corner for securement to a throttle body housing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM M MCCALISTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1869. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 7am to 6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CRAIG SCHNEIDER, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3607, or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/WILLIAM M MCCALISTER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
7/23/26
Prosecution Insights