DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is in response to applicant's amendment received on 7/9/2026. Amended claims 1 and 5 and new claims 6-10 are acknowledged and the following new grounds of rejection below are formulated. Claims *** are cancelled. The amendments to the specification have been considered and accepted.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/9/2026 has been entered.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masahiko (JP 3576286), hereinafter “Masahiko” in view of Mizoguchi (U.S. Publication 2019/0300053), hereinafter “Mizoguchi”.
Regarding claim 1, Masahiko discloses the same invention substantially as claimed such as an assembly to turn off one or more cylinders of an engine to reduce load from a crankshaft, wherein the said assembly comprises: one or more butterfly valves (9) of a pre-defined shape housed inside one or more corresponding intake manifolds (manifold of intake passages 10a) of at least one cylinder of the engine, wherein each of the one or more butterfly valves (9) comprises at least one hole (9c and 9c’) sized to allow an air flow greater than a clearance volume (volume of air in the cylinder when the piston is at TDC) of the one or more cylinders to pass through when the one or more butterfly valves are closed, the at least one hole being placed at a pre-defined position in the corresponding at least one butterfly valve (9, shown in figure 2), and configured to reduce effect of negative pressure; and at least one actuator (13) operatively coupled to the corresponding one or more butterfly valves (9), and configured to operate the corresponding cylinders of the engine (paragraphs 14-17), but is silent to disclose the actuator being controlled by the ECM. However, Mizoguchi teaches the use of an ECU (23) controlling the throttle valve actuator (26) to close based upon a drive signal for the purpose of generating a desired engine output (paragraph 57, can be to provide better gas mileage, reduce emissions or even reduce load). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Masahiko by incorporating an ECU to control the throttle valve actuator as taught by Mizoguchi for the purpose of generating a desired engine output. Examiner notes that Masahiko’s holes (9c and 9c’) allow for an air flow greater than a clearance volume of the cylinder to pass through since the intake manifold portion is large. The clearance volume is just the amount of air within a cylinder at TDC which is somewhat small. The throttle body (10) of Masahiko shown in figure 6 after the throttle valve (9) is fairly large. Surely there is more air volume withing throttle body (10) after the throttle valve (9) compared to a clearance volume of the cylinder. Examiner notes that when the throttle valve is closed, maybe at idle, a lot of air flow still stacks up within the throttle body over time and would be greater than the clearance volume.
Regarding claim 2, Masahiko discloses the assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein the engine comprises one of a petrol engine (spark ignition) or a diesel engine (compressed ignition). Examiner notes that it is inherent that the engine is either a spark ignition engine or a compression ignition engine.
Regarding claim 3, Masahiko discloses the assembly as claimed in claim1, wherein the one or more cylinders comprising the butterfly valve (9) corresponds to one of alternate butterfly valves, butterfly valves (9, shown in figure 2) in series, or one or more customized butterfly valves.
Regarding claim 4, Masahiko discloses the assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein the one or more conditions comprises one of a no-load condition (idle condition mentioned in paragraphs 3 and 9), an engine start condition, or a combination thereof.
Claim(s) 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masahiko and Mizoguchi and further in view of Insixiengmai (U.S. Publication 2018/0230926), hereinafter “Insixienhmai”.
Regarding claims 5-10, Masahiko and Mizoguchi discloses the same invention substantially as claimed but is silent to disclose the ECM configured to turn off a subset of the two or more cylinders by turning off the corresponding one or more butterfly valves, providing a an even number of cylinders, turning off the subset including cylinders 1, 3, and 5, and the other subset having cylinders 2, 4, and 6. However, Insixiengmai teaches the use of two throttle valves (91 and 93) in the V-type engine for the purpose of providing independent air-fuel mixing for each bank and improve throttle response, torque, and acceleration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Masahiko and Mizoguchi by incorporating two throttle valves in a V-type configuration as taught by Insixiengmai for the purpose of providing independent air-fuel mixing for each bank and improve throttle response, torque, and acceleration. Examiner notes that Masahiko teaches a V-type engine and incorporating a secondary throttle valve would be obvious. With regards to claims 6-10, it would be obvious to shut off certain subsets according to the banks of the engine whether it is a 4 cylinder engine or a 6 cylinder engine.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on the new Insixiengmai reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892.
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 SYED O HASAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0990. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 11AM-7PM.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (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 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.
/SYED O HASAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747 9/2/2026
Prosecution Insights