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
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.
Claim 11 is 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 11 recites in the 3rd line of the claim “a resilient element”. It is unclear if this is a second resilient element, wherein claim 11 depends on claim 1, and claim 1 has been amended to recite “a resilient element” in the 3rd line of the claim. For the purposes of examination, it will be understood as “the resilient element” for claim 11, and refer to the “resilient element” recited in claim 1.
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustafson et al (US 2016/0025018 hereinafter “Gustafson”) in view of Nono et al (US 4,598,674 hereinafter “Nono”).
In regards to claim 1:
Gustafson teaches a rocker arm for actuating at least a first engine valve (16) in an internal combustion engine and having a motion imparting end (Shown below in annotated Figure 1), the rocker arm comprising: an actuator piston (50) slidably disposed in a vertical bore (52) formed in the motion imparting end of the rocker arm, the actuator piston (50) and vertical bore (52) configured to align with the at least the first engine valve (16) (Shown in Figure 1); a hydraulic chamber (48) in fluid communication with the vertical bore; a checking element (62) in fluid communication with the hydraulic chamber (48) and configured to permit one-way passage of selectively applied hydraulic fluid into the hydraulic chamber; and a reset plunger (74) in sealing engagement with a reset plunger bore that is in fluid communication with the hydraulic chamber (48), the reset plunger (74) having an end extending out of the rocker arm and configured to contact a reaction surface (76) external to the rocker arm in response to positioning of the rocker arm, thereby interrupting the sealing engagement of the reset plunger with the reset plunger bore and permitting hydraulic fluid to vent out of the hydraulic chamber (Shown in Figures 1 and 2, wherein Figure 2 shows the fluid venting out of the hydraulic chamber).
Gustafson does not teach a biasing contact surface configured to receive a force from a resilient element to bias the motion imparting end toward the at least the first engine valve.
Nono teaches a biasing contact surface (64) configured to receive a force from a resilient element (50) to bias the motion imparting end of a rocker arm toward an engine valve.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have the rocker arm of Gustafson to have a resilient element as taught by Nono in order to bias an imparting end of a rocker arm toward an engine valve (Col 3, Lines 1-15 recites “to urge the righthand end of the rocker arm 24 into contact with the top of the valve stem.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
679
907
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of Gustafson
In regards to claim 2:
Gustafson as modified teaches the biasing contact surface is disposed on an upward facing surface of the rocker arm (Shown in Figure 2 of Nono).
In regards to claim 4:
Gustafson teaches an actuator spring (54) to bias the actuator piston into the vertical bore.
In regards to claim 5:
Gustafson teaches an actuator piston spring (54) is disposed within the actuator piston and vertical bore and configured to bias the actuator piston into the vertical bore.
In regards to claim 7:
Gustafson teaches the reset plunger is biased into sealing engagement with the reset plunger bore (Shown in Figure 1 of Gustafson).
In regards to claim 8:
Gustafson teaches a reset plunger spring (64) configured to bias the reset plunger into sealing engagement with the reset plunger bore.
In regards to claim 9:
Gustafson teaches the reset plunger bore is perpendicular to an axis of rotation of the rocker arm (Shown in Figure 1 of Gustafson).
In regards to claim 12:
Gustafson teaches a valve actuation system for actuating the first engine valve and comprising the rocker arm of claim 1, the system further comprising a fixed structure (76) relative to movement of the rocker arm, wherein the reaction surface is formed on the fixed structure.
In regards to claim 14:
Gustafson teaches a valve actuation system for actuating at least two engine valves (Paragraph [0020]), wherein the at least two engine valves include the first engine valve, the valve actuation system comprising the rocker arm of claim 1.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustafson and Nono as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Janak et al (US 2006/0005796 hereinafter “Janak”).
In regards to claim 3:
Gustafson does not teach the rocker arm comprising a lateral projection wherein the biasing contact surface is formed on the lateral projection.
Janak teaches a rocker arm comprising a lateral projection (211) wherein the lateral projection forms a biasing contact surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have the rocker arm of Gustafson have a lateral projection as taught by Janak in order to allow flexibility in the placement of the biasing element, wherein the projection provides a surface to impart a force on the rocker arm at different angles
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustafson and Nono and further in view of Schwoerer et al (US 11,230,951 hereinafter “Schwoerer”).
In regards to claim 6:
Gustafson teaches the hydraulic chamber comprising a first bore but does not teach the first bore parallel to an axis of rotation of the rocker arm, wherein the checking element is arranged in the first bore.
Schwoerer teaches a bore (150) that is parallel to an axis of rotation of a rocker arm, wherein a checking element (450) is arranged in the bore.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the bore of Gustafson to be arranged parallel to the axis of rotation of the rocker as taught by Schwoerer in order to advantageously position and integrate the valve into the assembly with other components (Col 7, Lines 6-14).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustafson and Nono and further in view of Baltrucki et al (US 2019/0293001 hereinafter “Baltrucki”).
In regards to claim 10:
Gustafson does not teach a reset plunger sleeve disposed within a second bore formed in the rocker arm, the reset plunger sleeve defining the reset plunger bore.
Baltrucki teaches a reset plunger sleeve disposed within a bore formed in a rocker arm, and the reset plunger sleeve defining a reset plunger bore (843) (Shown below in annotated Figure 12 of Baltrucki).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the rocker arm of Gustafson to have a reset plunger sleeve as taught by Baltrucki in order to house and guide the reset plunger.
PNG
media_image2.png
1184
836
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 12 of Baltrucki
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustafson and Nono and further in view of Grynberg et al (US 2021/0108542 hereinafter “Grynberg”).
In regards to claim 11:
Gustafson teaches a valve actuation system for actuating the first engine valve and comprising the rocker arm of claim 1, wherein the rocker arm is rotatably mounted on a rocker shaft (30), but does not teach the resilient element attached to the rocker shaft and configured to apply the force to the biasing contact surface.
Grynberg teaches a resilient element (71) that is mounted to a rocker shaft (61) (Shown in Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have the resilient element of Gustafson to be connected to the rocker shaft as taught by Grynberg in order to use an optional mounting point for the biasing element. Grynberg teaches that biasing elements may be mounted in different parts of the valve train system to impart forces on the rocker arm. Using an available surface to provide structural stability would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustafson and Nono and futher in view of Hittle (US 2020/0018194).
In regards to claim 13:
Gustafson does not teach the fixed structure is a camshaft bearing support.
Hittle teaches a fixed structure (16) that supports a camshaft bearing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have the fixed structure of Gustafson to be the fixed structure as taught by Hittle in order to use a readily available surface such as an engine head that offers structural stability. The engine head of Hittle shows multiple components fastened to the engine head (Figure 2 of Hittle) and the engine head supporting a plurality of components including a camshaft bearing (Shown in Figure 6).
In regards to claim 15:
Gustafson is silent to the valve actuation system further comprising another rocker arm for actuating a second engine valve of the at least two engine valves.
Hittle teaches a plurality of rocker arms to actuate a second engine valve (Shown in Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to specify the engine of Gustafson to be a multi-cylinder engine having a plurality of rocker arms actuating a plurality of engine valves as taught by Hittle in order to operate the intake and exhausting of a combustion chamber (plurality of rocker arms are shown in Figure 1 of Hittle, wherein each cylinder (18) has its own designated rocker arm to operate each respective cylinder’s valves).
In regards to claim 16:
Gustafson teaches the valve actuation system of claim 15, further comprising a first valve actuation motion source configured to provide a main event valve actuation motion and one or more first auxiliary valve actuation motions to the first engine valve (Paragraph [0020] recites “System 10 also includes a cam (not shown) configured to pivot rocker lever 12. A cam roller 26, mounted on one end of rocker lever 12 via a roller pin 28, is positioned in biased abutment against the cam's surface. The cam may include four portions which define four operational phases of the system: an inner base portion, a brake lift portion, a dwell portion and a main lift portion.”).
In regards to claim 17:
Gustafson teaches the valve actuation system of claim 16, further comprising a second valve actuation motion source configured to provide the main event valve actuation motion and one or more second auxiliary valve actuation motions to the second engine valve, wherein the first auxiliary valve actuation motions are not identical to the second auxiliary valve actuation motions (Paragraph [0020] recites “System 10 also includes a cam (not shown) configured to pivot rocker lever 12. A cam roller 26, mounted on one end of rocker lever 12 via a roller pin 28, is positioned in biased abutment against the cam's surface. The cam may include four portions which define four operational phases of the system: an inner base portion, a brake lift portion, a dwell portion and a main lift portion.”, wherein each rocker arm has its own designated cam to impart movement).
In regards to claim 18:
Gustafson is silent to a valve actuation system for actuating at least two engine valves, wherein the at least two engine valves include the first engine valve, wherein the system includes a first rocker arm for actuating the first engine valve and a second rocker arm for actuating a second engine valve of the at least two engine valves, and wherein the first and second rocker arms are rocker arms in accordance with claim 1.
Hittle teaches a plurality of rocker arms (Shown in Figure 1 of Hittle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to specify the engine of Gustafson to be a multi-cylinder engine having a plurality of rocker arms actuating a plurality of engine valves as taught by Hittle in order to operate the intake and exhausting of a combustion chamber (plurality of rocker arms are shown in Figure 1 of Hittle, wherein each cylinder (18) has its own designated rocker arm to operate each respective cylinder’s valves). Furthermore the duplication of parts is not inventive and in the instant case, duplicating the rocker arm of Gustafson for an additional engine cylinder to operate the valves of said additional cylinder would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 3-4 of Remarks, filed 3/31/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art to address the amendment of the resilient element imparting a force on a biasing contact surface of the rocker arm.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 JAMES JAY KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-7610. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
/JAMES J KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3747 /HUNG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights