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 .
Examiner Note
This rejection is made non-final due to the previous rejection’s failure to address previous claim 3 which is now included within claim 1 as amended on 04/28/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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) 1-2, 4-5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al (US 4,006,720)
Regarding claim 1, Sato discloses a prechamber-type engine (Abstract) comprising:
a cylinder and a cylinder head 4 (Fig.1, shown); and
a piston 11 that defines a main combustion chamber between the cylinder and the cylinder head (Fig. 1, shown),
wherein a pre-combustion chamber 2 that communicates with the main combustion chamber through a nozzle hole 3 is defined inside the cylinder head (Fig.1, shown),
the nozzle hole extends from a prechamber-side opening toward a main chamber-side opening such that a distance between a center line of the nozzle hole and a central axis line of the cylinder is reduced (Fig. 1, the nozzle hole 3 is an angled one which moves toward the central axis),
a top surface of the piston has a concave piston cavity (Fig. 1, the piston includes a concave cavity in the top of it facing the combustion chamber), and
in a cross-sectional view in which the central axis line of the cylinder and a center of the main chamber-side opening are present, a first end on a side far from the central axis line of the cylinder in a peripheral edge of the main chamber-side opening is located farther from the central axis line of the cylinder than a second end on a side close to the nozzle hole in a peripheral edge of the piston cavity (Fig. 1, shown passage 3 includes its peripheral edge opening into the main-chamber at a point further than the edge of the piston cavity wherein at TDC the piston cavity will be such that the peripheral edge of the piston will occlude, at least partially, the opening nozzle 3); and
wherein in the cross-section view, a first tangent line that is a tangent line of a far-side wall surface of the wall surfaces of the nozzle hole on a side away from the central axis line of the cylinder and that passes through the first end passes through the second end of the piston cavity at a predetermined angle of a crank angle of the prechamber-type engine (Fig. 1, the described line would pass from the outer edge of the nozzle and intersect with the top of the piston on the “second end” at a time following TDC).
However, while Sato shows a range that will fall sometime after top dead center for the line to pass through the second end, Sato fails to specify that the range of 5 to 20 degrees after a top dead center. This is best shown in the modified figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
792
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include such a range within the device of Sato since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In this case, Sato discloses the nearly identical conditions to that of the claims, including the alignment of the second and first end tangential line at some point after top dead center but simply fails to specify these exact angle or range of angles. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art could and would arrive at the best angles through routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 2, Sato discloses the prechamber-type engine according to claim 1, but fails to specify wherein in the cross-sectional view, in a case where a width of the main chamber-side opening is denoted by D, and a distance between the first end and the second end in a direction orthogonal to the central axis line of the cylinder is denoted by L, L/D >0.1 is satisfied.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include such shapes/angles within the device of Sato since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In this case, Sato discloses the slanted passage sizing and construction as that described in the claims but simply fails to specify these exact numbers or ranges of the specified parameter. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art could and would arrive at the best ranges through routine experimentation. Further, it has been held to be an obvious matter of design choice to perform a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). As various engines would require various sizing ratios to accomplish there design task, simply altering sizing of the various engine parts would involve nothing more than routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, Sato disclose the prechamber-type engine according to claim 1, wherein in the cross-sectional view, the piston cavity has an R portion that passes through the second end (Fig. 1, the cavity shown has an R portion (defined in the spec to be the curved/rounded portion of the combustion chamber cavity in the piston) which passed through the second end).
Regarding claim 5, Sato disclose the prechamber-type engine according to claim 4, wherein the R portion has a deepest portion having a largest distance from the top surface of the piston to the piston cavity (Fig. 1, the piston cavity is shown rounded to a flat bottom wherein the “deepest” portion would be the entire bottom and thus have a largest distance from it to the top of the piston as it is equal to the other areas and thus all are largest).
Regarding claim 7, Sato disclose the prechamber-type engine according to claim 5, wherein in the cross-sectional view, the piston cavity has a flat portion in which a distance from the top surface of the piston is constant (Fig. 1, the bottom of the piston cavity is shown as a flat portion).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Regueiro (US 6,065,441).
Regarding claim 6, Sato discloses the prechamber-type engine according to claim 5, but fails to disclose wherein a peripheral edge of the main chamber-side opening has the first end on a side far from the central axis line of the cylinder and a third end on a side close to the central axis line, wherein a peripheral edge of the piston cavity has the second end on a side close to the nozzle hole and a fourth end on a side far from the nozzle hole, and wherein in the cross-sectional view, the piston cavity has an inclined portion that extends from the deepest portion toward a fourth end on a side far from the nozzle hole in the peripheral edge of the piston cavity such that a distance from the top surface of the piston is reduced.
Regueiro discloses a pre-chamber type combustion engine (Abstract) wherein the engine includes a pre-combustion chamber 46 and a piston 16 having a cavity in its top surface wherein the side of the cavity toward the nozzle 52 of the pre-combustion chamber includes the deepest portion 40 which slants upwards away from the nozzle (Fig. 1, shown). This shape allows for the flow to be guided and transfer of pre-combustion products to the main combustion chamber to ensure smooth flow to allow for complete and quick combustion within the cylinder (Col. 12, Lns. 11-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the engine of Sato to include the combustion chamber of the piston shape of Regueiro, wherein doing so would allow for a more quick and complete combustion of pre-combustion chamber products through efficient movement of the products from the pre-combustion chamber.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2 and 4-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN A LATHERS whose telephone number is (571)272-1050. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10a-6p.
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 5712721196. 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.
/KEVIN A LATHERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights