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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0325812 to Arminjon
In Reference to Claim 1
Arminjon discloses:
[AltContent: textbox (C)][AltContent: textbox (D)][AltContent: textbox (B)][AltContent: textbox (A)]
PNG
media_image1.png
576
711
media_image1.png
Greyscale
An exhaust manifold, comprising:
an exhaust manifold flange 40;
a first exhaust passage A extending from the exhaust manifold flange and having a first exhaust passage first end and a first exhaust passage second end, the first exhaust passage first end in fluid communication with the exhaust manifold flange via a first opening 42 defined in the exhaust manifold flange;
and a second exhaust passage B extending from the exhaust manifold flange and having a second exhaust passage first end and a second exhaust passage second end, the second exhaust passage first end in fluid communication with the exhaust manifold flange via a second opening 44 defined in the exhaust manifold flange, wherein the second opening is substantially the same shape as the first opening.
wherein the first opening and the second opening are substantially circular, see paragraph [0038] “opening are rectangular shape, however, any other shape is possible... maybe be of circular shape”.
In Reference to Claim 2
Arminjon discloses:
wherein the first opening 42 and the second opening 44 have substantially the same diameter.
In Reference to Claim 3
Arminjon discloses:
wherein a cross section of the first exhaust passage at a location distal from the first exhaust passage first end is non-circular, see fig.2.
In Reference to Claim 4
Arminjon discloses:
wherein a cross section 8of the second exhaust passage at a location distal from the second exhaust passage first end is non-circular, (the cross section are shown as non circular) see Fig.5.
In Reference to Claim 5
Arminjon discloses:
a dividing wall 45 positioned between the first exhaust passage and the second exhaust passage.
In Reference to Claim 6
Arminjon discloses:
wherein the dividing wall 45 at least in part defines the first opening 42.
In Reference to Claim 7
Arminjon discloses:
wherein the dividing wall 45 at least in part defines the second opening 44.
In Reference to Claim 8
Arminjon discloses:
wherein a cross-section of the first exhaust passage is non-uniform along a length of the first exhaust passage, see fig.3.
In Reference to Claim 9
Arminjon discloses:
Wherein a cross-section of the second exhaust passage is non-uniform along a length of the second exhaust passage, see fig.3.
In Reference to Claim 11
Arminjon discloses:
wherein a cross-section of the first opening remains substantially constant within the exhaust manifold flange, see Fig.3.
In Reference to Claim 12
Arminjon discloses:
wherein a cross-section of the second opening remains substantially constant within the exhaust manifold flange, see Fig.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.
Claim(s) 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0325812 to Arminjon.
In Reference to Claim 16-17
Arminjon does not disclose: wherein a cross-section of the first exhaust passage is shaped differently from a cross-section of the first opening, wherein a cross-section of the second exhaust passage is shaped differently from a cross-section of the second opening.
The claimed dimensions/shapes are provided as preferred configurations of the invention and provide no inherent advantage. Limitations drawn to the specific/different shapes of the opening would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, absent criticality or unexpected results, as the skilled artisan would have chosen from various dimensions/shapes based on suitability for the intended results. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues:
“Arminjon does not teach an exhaust manifold with first and second exhaust passages, where the first end of each exhaust passage is in fluid communication with an exhaust manifold flange via substantially circular openings defined in the exhaust manifold flange”
Examiner Response:
Applicant argument are fully acknowledged however they are not persuasive Arminjon does disclose the “substantially circular opening” paragraph [0038]. Thus the claim rejection is maintained.
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 ANTHONY AYALA DELGADO whose telephone number is (571)270-3452. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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 III Laurenzi can be reached on (571) 270-7878. 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.
/ANTHONY AYALA DELGADO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746