DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This is the initial office action based on the 18/982,090 application filed December 16, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been fully considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) dated December 16, 2024 and January 22, 2025 are noted. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the IDS are being considered by the Examiner.
Examiner note: attention is brought to the lined through citations and the foreign references included with the IDS dated December 16, 2024. The citations do not correspond to the references provided and the references provided are irrelevant to the instant application and have therefore not been considered.
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) 1-3, 7-9, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bittner et al. (WO 2013023858 A1, herein “Bittner”). Note: reference herein to the text of Bittner is directed to the appended machine translation.
Regarding Claims 1 and 9, Bittner discloses an engine (see Abstract) that includes a cylinder block defining a plurality of cylinders (inherent features of any known engine, see also paragraph [0017] “chamfering leads to a significant increase in the tumble flow in the cylinder”), and a cylinder head assembly having a cylinder head (1), a plurality of channels (1.1) defined within the cylinder head (see Figure 1), wherein the plurality of channels fluidly coupled to the plurality of cylinders via a plurality of cylinder ports (inherently well-known features of any known engine, see also paragraph [0037]).
Furthermore, Bittner discloses that each of the plurality of cylinder ports (1.1) includes a chamfered portion ((3), (3’)) defines an offset angle (ϕ) measured as a minor arc between a primary axis (MG) of the cylinder port and an offset direction (see Figure 1). Bittner discloses that the engine includes a plurality of valves, each of the plurality of valves (see paragraph [0023], “intake valves”), selectively coupled to a respective cylinder port of the plurality of cylinder ports (inherently well-known function and design of known engines).
Regarding Claim 2, Bittner discloses that the engine includes an exhaust system fluidly coupled to the plurality of channels (exhaust channels (7.1), inherently well-known features of any known engine).
Regarding Claim 3, Bittner discloses that the chamfered portion ((3), (3’)) defines a central chamfer axis (2.1) corresponding to an axis along which a respective valve of the plurality of valves operates (see Figure 2 and paragraph [0037]).
Regarding Claim 7, Bittner discloses that the central chamfer axis is offset from a corresponding channel of the plurality of channels by the offset angle (see Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 8, Bittner discloses that the chamfered portion of a first cylinder port of the plurality of cylinder ports defines a first shape, and a second cylinder port of the plurality of cylinder ports defines a second shape, wherein the first shape is different than the second shape (see Figure 1). Note: since the specification does not elaborate on how exactly the shapes of the chamfered portions differ, the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification (see MPEP § 2111). Accordingly, Claim 8 reads upon Bittner Figure 1 in that the shapes are not the same.
Regarding Claim 16, Bittner discloses that a height of the chamfered portion ((3), (3’)) increases from a minimum height to a maximum height along the edges of the chamfered portion (see Figure 1 which illustrates the chamfer portion are crescent shaped and therefore have a minimum and maximum height).
Regarding Claim 17, Bittner discloses that the chamfered portion ((3), (3’)) protrudes away from a central channel axis of a respective channel of the plurality of channels ((1.1), (1.1’)), the chamfered portion protruding farther away from the central channel axis at the maximum height than at the minimum height (see Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding Claims 18 and 19, Bittner discloses that the chamfered portion ((3), (3’)) tapers along a height from a first width to a second width, wherein the second width is greater than the first width (see Figure 1 which illustrates the chamfer portion are crescent shaped and therefore have differing widths at various sections).
Regarding Claim 20, Bittner discloses that the plurality of cylinder ports is formed within the cylinder head (1) (see Figure 2).
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.
Claim(s) 4-6 and 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bittner in view of Hashimoto et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,335,634, herein “Hashimoto”).
Regarding Claims 4-6, Bittner discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but is silent concerning inclusion of the valves and related structure.
However, Hashimoto discloses the very well-known structure of an engine valve having a valve stem and a valve head (see Figure 3), wherein the valve head is contiguous with the valve stem (see Figure 3), wherein a corresponding chamfered portion accepts the valve head (see Figure 7, wherein the valve head is received by the illustrated valve seat). Further, the shape of the valve seat corresponds to the shape of a valve head of the valve associated with a respective cylinder port of the plurality of cylinder ports (see Figure 7), wherein each of the plurality of valves forms a seal with the seat associated with a respective cylinder port of the plurality of cylinder ports.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the engine of Bittner to include a valve that corresponds to the shape of the valve seat/chamfered portion as described in Hashimoto in order to facilitate a proper seal of the valve during engine operation, as is very well-known in the art of internal combustion engines.
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, Bittner discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but is silent concerning inclusion of a plurality of valve guide bores defining a guide bore axis
However, Hashimoto discloses that the engine (1) includes a plurality of valve guide bores (see Figure 7) defining a guide bore axis (27). wherein a central seat axis defined by each of the seat portions is co-axial to the guide bore axis of a respective valve guide bore of the plurality of valve guide bores (see Figure 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the engine of Bittner to include valve guide bores as described in Hashimoto in order to facilitate a proper seal of the valve during engine operation, as is very well-known in the art of internal combustion engines.
Regarding Claim 12, Bittner discloses that the central chamfer axis is offset from a central channel axis by an offset distance, the central channel axis defined by a respective channel of the plurality of channels (see Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Bittner and Hashimoto discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but is silent concerning the recited offset distance.
It nevertheless would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide an offset distance of 1.3 mm as claimed, since Applicant has not disclosed that doing so solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any appropriately sized and shaped offset.
Regarding Claim 14, Bittern discloses that the central chamfer axis is offset from a respective channel of the plurality of channels by the offset angle (see Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Bittner and Hashimoto discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but is silent concerning the recited offset angle.
It nevertheless would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide an offset angle of 45 degrees as claimed, since Applicant has not disclosed that doing so solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any appropriately sized and shaped offset.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, various references are cited that provide detail of relevant engines.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES G MOUBRY whose telephone number is (571)270-5658. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM - 6:30PM.
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 M. 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.
/GRANT MOUBRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747