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
2. 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 1-7 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.
Regarding Claim 1
Lines 8-9 recite the limitation “the valve is provided on a rear side than the turbocharger in a vehicle length direction and on a lower side than a top surface of the turbocharger in a vehicle height direction” (emphasis added). It is unclear what limitations the “rear side” and “a lower side” are components of. For examination purposes, the claim limitation has been interpreted as if the claim read –the valve is provided [[on]] at a rear side of the internal combustion engine at a location closer to the rear of the vehicle than the turbocharger in a vehicle length direction and [[on]] at a lower side of the internal combustion engine than a top surface of the turbocharger in a vehicle height direction—
Lines 13-14 recite the limitation “air flowing on an upper side of the turbocharger from a front side toward a rear side in the vehicle length direction” (emphasis added). It is unclear what limitations the limitations “a front side” and “a rear side” are components of. For examination purposes, the claim limitation has been interpreted as if it read –air flowing on an upper side of the turbocharger from a front side of the vehicle toward a rear side of the vehicle in the vehicle length direction—
Regarding Claim 2
Line 3 recites the limitation "the upper side". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Lines 3-4 recite the limitation “a protruding portion that protrudes to the upper side than the top surface of the turbocharger in the vehicle height direction” (emphasis added). It is unclear what is meant by “the upper side than the top surface of the turbocharger”. For examination purposes, the claim limitation has been interpreted as if it read –a protruding portion that protrudes above top surface of the turbocharger in the vehicle height direction—
Lines 5-6 recite the limitation “a flat portion provided on a lower side than the protruding portion in the vehicle height direction and extended along the vehicle height direction” (emphasis added). It is unclear what is meant by “the upper side than the top surface of the turbocharger”. For examination purposes, the claim limitation has been interpreted as if it read –a flat portion provided below
Regarding Claim 3
Lines 1-2 recite the limitation “the protruding portion is tilted toward a front side in the vehicle length direction” (emphasis added). It is unclear what limitation “the front side” is a component of. For examination purposes, the claim limitation has been interpreted as if the claim read –the protruding portion is tilted toward a front side of the vehicle in the vehicle length direction—
Regarding Claim 4
Line 4 recites the limitation “a shape that surrounds an upper side portion and a left-right portion of the opening”. It is unclear what is meant by the limitation.
Regarding Claim 5
Lines 1-2 recite the limitation “a lower end of the flat portion is located on a lower side than an upper end of the valve in the vehicle height direction” (emphasis added). It is unclear what limitation “a lower side” is a component of. For examination purposes, the claim limitation has been interpreted as if the claim read –a lower end of the flat portion is located
Regarding Claim 6
Claim 6 is rejected insofar as it is dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Regarding Claim 7
Lines 8-10 recite the limitation “the valve is provided on a rear side than the turbocharger in a vehicle length direction and on a lower side than a top surface of the turbocharger in a vehicle height direction” (emphasis added). It is unclear what limitations the “rear side” and “a lower side” are components of. For examination purposes, the claim limitation has been interpreted as if the claim read –the valve is provided [[on]] at a rear side of the internal combustion engine at a location closer to the rear of the vehicle than the turbocharger in a vehicle length direction and [[on]] at a lower side of the internal combustion engine than a top surface of the turbocharger in a vehicle height direction—
Lines 13-14 recite the limitation “air flowing on an upper side of the turbocharger from a front side toward a rear side in the vehicle length direction” (emphasis added). It is unclear what limitations the limitations “a front side” and “a rear side” are components of. For examination purposes, the claim limitation has been interpreted as if it read –air flowing on an upper side of the turbocharger from a front side of the vehicle toward a rear side of the vehicle in the vehicle length direction—
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) 1-3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Matsunaga, JP 2014163289 A, in view of Suzuki et al., US 2007/0157900.
Regarding Claim 1
Matsunaga teaches a vehicle comprising:
an internal combustion engine (2); and a turbocharger (23) that compresses gas with a compressor on the same axis by rotating a turbine with exhaust gas from the internal combustion engine (2), and sends the gas into the internal combustion engine (2) (Matsunaga, [0036] and [0041], Figure 2),
wherein the vehicle further comprises an air introduction member (53) provided adjacent the turbocharger (23) in the vehicle length direction and having a shape that guides air flowing on an upper side of the turbocharger (23) from a front side toward a rear side in the vehicle length direction (Matsunaga, [0055]-[0056], Figure 5).
However, Matsunaga does not explicitly disclose that the internal combustion engine includes a variable valve timing mechanism configured to change an opening/closing timing of a suction valve or an exhaust valve by driving a valve, wherein the valve is provided at a rear location in the vehicle length direction and on a lower side than a top surface of the turbocharger in a vehicle height direction, wherein the introduction member is provided between the turbocharger and the valve in the vehicle length direction such that the introduction member guides air to the valve.
Suzuki discloses a vehicle comprising: an internal combustion engine (E) including a variable valve timing mechanism (60) configured to change an opening/closing timing of a suction valve or an exhaust valve by driving a valve (62) (Suzuki, [0041] and [0048], Figure 2), wherein the valve (62) is provided at a rear location in the vehicle length direction (Suzuki, [0048], Figure 2).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the engine of Matsunaga to include a variable valve timing mechanism configured to change an opening/closing timing of a suction valve or an exhaust valve by driving a valve provided on a rear side of the internal combustion engine as is taught by Suzuki as well known in the art in order to improve fuel efficiency and reduce exhaust emissions. Therefore, the combination of Matsunaga and Suzuki teaches a vehicle in which the valve is provided at a rear location in the vehicle length direction and on a lower side than a top surface of the turbocharger in a vehicle height direction, wherein the introduction member is provided between the turbocharger and the valve in the vehicle length direction such that the introduction member guides air to the valve.
Regarding Claim 2
Matsunaga and Suzuki teach the vehicle according to claim 1. Matsunaga further discloses that the air introduction member (53) includes:
a protruding portion (P, annotated Figure 5 of Matsunaga below) that protrudes to the upper side than the top surface of the turbocharger (23) in the vehicle height direction (Matsunaga, annotated Figure 5 below), and
a flat portion (F, annotated Figure 5 of Matsunaga below) provided on a lower side than the protruding portion (P, annotated Figure 5 of Matsunaga below) in the vehicle height direction and extended along the vehicle height direction (Matsunaga, annotated Figure 5 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
602
639
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Annotated Figure 5 of Matsunaga
Regarding Claim 3
Matsunaga and Suzuki teach the vehicle according to claim 2. Matsunaga further discloses that the protruding portion (P, annotated Figure 5 above) is tilted toward a front side in the vehicle length direction (Matsunaga, [0055], annotated Figure 5 above).
Regarding Claim 6
Matsunaga and Suzuki teach the vehicle according to claim 1. Matsunaga further discloses an air stop plate [vehicle body] provided on a rear side of the valve [taught by combination of Matsunaga and Suzuki] in the vehicle length direction and extended along the vehicle height direction [it is inherent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the internal combustion engine of Matsunaga is enclosed by a vehicle body] (Matsunaga, Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 7
Matsunaga discloses a cooling member comprising:
an internal combustion engine (2) (Matsunaga, Figures 1-2); and
a turbocharger (23) that compresses gas with a compressor on the same axis by rotating a turbine with exhaust gas from the internal combustion engine (2), and sends the gas into the internal combustion engine (2) (Matsunaga, [0036] and [0041], Figure 2), and
wherein the cooling member has a shape (53) that guides air flowing on an upper side of the turbocharger (23) from a front side toward a rear side in the vehicle length direction (Matsunaga, [0055]-[0056], Figure 5).
However, Matsunaga does not explicitly disclose that the internal combustion engine includes a variable valve timing mechanism configured to change an opening/closing timing of a suction valve or an exhaust valve by driving a valve, wherein the valve is provided on a rear side than the turbocharger in a vehicle length direction and on a lower side than a top surface of the turbocharger in a vehicle height direction.
Suzuki discloses a vehicle comprising: an internal combustion engine (E) including a variable valve timing mechanism (60) configured to change an opening/closing timing of a suction valve or an exhaust valve by driving a valve (62) (Suzuki, [0041] and [0048], Figure 2), wherein the valve (62) is provided at a rear location in the vehicle length direction (Suzuki, [0048], Figure 2).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the engine of Matsunaga to include a variable valve timing mechanism configured to change an opening/closing timing of a suction valve or an exhaust valve by driving a valve provided on a rear side of the internal combustion engine as is taught by Suzuki as well known in the art in order to improve fuel efficiency and reduce exhaust emissions. Therefore, the combination of Matsunaga and Suzuki teaches a vehicle in which the valve is provided at a rear location in the vehicle length direction and on a lower side than a top surface of the turbocharger in a vehicle height direction, wherein the introduction member is provided between the turbocharger and the valve in the vehicle length direction such that the introduction member guides air to the valve.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takashiba (US 2023/0250739) – Variable valve timing system
Ozeki (US 2001/0017120) – Installation structure of oil control valve
Takashiba (US 2023/0250740) – Variable valve timing system
Nakada et al. (US 2019/0101051) – Internal combustion engine
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY L STANEK whose telephone number is (571)272-3565. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30am-3:00pm.
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, DEVON KRAMER can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/K.L.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/PHUTTHIWAT WONGWIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights