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 .
2. This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant's Communication received on August 22, 2024 for application number 18/812,969. This Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Specification, Drawings, Abstract, Oath/Declaration, and Claims.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN 202410554221.7 filed on May 07, 2024.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claims 2-19 are objected as allowable subject matter.
Claims 1 and 20 are rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by enough structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites enough structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting enough structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting enough structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
“Electric locking mechanism” in claim 1.
“Manual locking mechanism” in claims 1-5
Examiner Comments:
“Electric locking mechanism” is interpreted as a “means for” place holder only in claim 1. It is noted that in claims 2-20, the “Electric locking mechanism” have enough structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is preceded by a structural modifier.
“Manual locking mechanism” is interpreted as a “means for” place holder only in claims 1-5. It is noted that in claims 6-20, the “Manual locking mechanism” have enough structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (CHEN – US 2017/0314485 A1), in view of (NAKAMURA – US 2009/0159027 A1).
Regarding claim 1, CHEN discloses:
An engine overspeed air shut-off system (engine shut-off valve system 1: Figs. 1-2), comprising:
an electric locking mechanism (rotating lever 100: Figs. 1-2), a manual locking mechanism (pull handle 136: Figs. 1-2), a valve plate (gate member 50: Figs. 1-2) and a support seat (gate latch 80: Figs. 1-2), provided with an air passage (passageway 20: Figs. 1-2) communicated with the air circuit (air flow to an engine intake: [0033]); and the valve plate (gate member 50: Figs. 1-2) is rotatable under an electric or manual driving action ([0033, 0045]: “The rotating lever 100 can be automated or manual, and the power of the rotating lever 100 may be pneumatic, hydraulic, electric or any known means”) of the electric locking mechanism (rotating lever 100: Figs. 1-2) or the manual locking mechanism (pull handle 136: Figs. 1-2) to cut off (close) or open (open) the air passage (passageway 20: Figs. 1-2).
But CHEN does not explicitly and/or specifically meet the following limitations:
(A) wherein the support seat is installed on an air circuit of a diesel engine.
However, regarding limitation (A) above, NAKAMURA discloses/teaches the following:
An intake valve timing varying mechanism in the variable valve actuating system.
The variable valve actuating systems according to the present embodiments are applicable to compression ignition engines such as diesel engines ([0129]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the engine overspeed air shut-off system of CHEN incorporating said shut-off systems into diesel engines as taught by NAKAMURA to decrease the quantity of residual burned gas.
Regarding claim 20, CHEN as combined above disclose the engine overspeed air shut-off system according to claim 1, and further on CHEN as combined above also discloses:
wherein the support seat (gate latch 80: Figs. 1-2) comprises a base body (housing 10: Figs. 3-6) and a base cover (first half 12: Figs. 3-6), which are detachably connected by fasteners (set screws 34, 36: Figs. 5-6) and are respectively provided with corresponding body holes and cover holes (holes for set screws 34, 36: Figs. 3-6), wherein the body hole and the cover hole (holes for set screws 34, 36: Figs. 3-6) together form an air passage; the adjacent surfaces of the base body (housing 10: Figs. 3-6) and the base cover (first half 12: Figs. 3-6) are also provided with concave parts for the valve plate (gate member 50: Figs. 1-2) to move, and the electric locking mechanism (rotating lever 100: Figs. 1-2) and the manual locking mechanism (pull handle 136: Figs. 1-2) are respectively arranged on the opposite surfaces of the base body (housing 10: Figs. 3-6) and the base cover(first half 12: Figs. 3-6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ruben Picon-Feliciano whose telephone number is (571)-272-4938. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday within 11:30 am-7:30 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lindsay M. Low can be reached on (571)272-1196. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUBEN PICON-FELICIANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/GRANT MOUBRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747