DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse in the reply filed on 1/14/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “the Examiner provides no distinction of the alleged species - other than generic language from the application which notes the examples as embodiments, for example in the brief description.” The Examiner finds the arguments persuasive based on the nature of the various embodiments, and hereby withdraws the election requirement. All claims are under examination.
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 1-12 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 that there are “a plurality of gas discharge paths”, specifically:
1) “a gas discharge path, along which the gas leaves the cylinder head high-pressure chamber, passes through a gas guide hole in the cylinder head gasket, a gas guide hole in the valve plate, a gas guide hole in the intake valve and a gas guide hole in the valve gasket in sequence to the crankcase channel to enter the crankcase high-pressure chamber, then enters the crankcase discharge hole through the crankcase discharge channel, and is discharged through the cylinder head discharge hole”; and
2) “at least one further gas discharge path, along which the gas leaves the cylinder head high-pressure chamber and returns to be discharged through the cylinder head discharge hole.”
Regarding the second recited path: it is stated that the gas “leaves the cylinder head high-pressure chamber and returns to be discharged through the cylinder head discharge hole.” This claim limitation is indefinite for multiple reasons. First, it is unclear how this path differs from the initially recited path, because it reads like a broadly described version of said initial path. Secondly, the recitation of “and returns” is indefinite because it is unclear to where and from where the gas is returning. Is the use of “returns” simply a poor word choice? A grammatical/translational error? Does the “at least one further gas discharge path” go directly from the cylinder head high-pressure chamber to the cylinder head discharge hole? Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite.
Claim 4 recites, “a cylinder head discharge hole” in line 7. This claim limitation is indefinite because it is unclear if this is the same cylinder head discharge hole recited in claim 1, or an additional cylinder head discharge hole. Therefore, claim 4 is indefinite.
Claim 5 recites, “the at least one further gas discharge path comprises: a gas discharge path” in lines 1-2 and then again recites, “a gas discharge path” in line 8. These limitations are indefinite because it is unclear if they are the same discharge path, or two separate discharge paths. Therefore, claim 5 is indefinite.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the crankcase gas guide channel” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim, or in claim 1, the claim from which claim 7 depends. Therefore, claim 7 is indefinite.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in the attached form 892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter J Bertheaud whose telephone number is (571)272-3476. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm M-F.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at 5712707878. 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.
PJB
/PETER J BERTHEAUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights