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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 7/29/2026. These drawings are accepted.
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.
Claims 11-13, 20, 22-30, 32, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Custer et al. (U.S. PGPub 2006/0054405) in view of Quaas (DE102005017561, with reference to translation).
Claim 11: Custer et al. discloses a method of making a rocker shaft assembly (100 - paragraph 26) configured to support a rocker arm (300, Id.) and deliver oil (the hydraulic fluid may be oil - paragraph 36) to the rocker arm, the method comprising (see especially embodiment of Figs. 5-6, paragraph 37): providing a core shaft (100) having a core body (generally the body of 100); providing a sleeve (150); milling a main oil supply channel (one of grooves 140) around an outer diameter of the core body in the form of a groove (channels 140 are grooves, and are located around the outer diameter, and each also has some degree of extent about the circumference of the shaft based on its respective width in the circumferential direction); milling a brake oil supply channel (another one of grooves 140) around the outer diameter of the core body in the form of a groove (similarly as discussed above for the main oil supply channel); milling a cylinder deactivation (CDA) supply channel (yet another one of grooves 140) around the outer diameter of the core body in the form of a groove (similarly as discussed above for the main oil supply and brake oil supply channels); fitting the sleeve around the core shaft (as shown); and delivering oil along the main oil supply channel (as one of the channels 140) to a rocker arm assembly during a variable valve actuation event (e.g. paragraphs 26, 28, 36).
It is further noted that the designations of the channels as “main oil supply”, “brake oil supply”, and/or “cylinder deactivation (CDA)” are in name only, refer to the intended use of those passages, and do not necessarily limit the structures of the passages. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is also noted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have milled the channels around an outer diameter of the core body since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Please note that in the instant application, paragraphs 35 and 38, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the arrangement or orientation of the channels. Additionally, it has been held that the configuration of a claimed product is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed product is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Please note that in the instant application, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the specific geometry of the channels.
Custer does not specify press-fitting the sleeve around the core shaft. However, Quaas teaches a similar assembly method wherein the sleeve is press-fit around the core shaft (e.g. paragraphs 30, 40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have press fit the sleeve around the core shaft in order to have achieved an adequate seal therebetween (Id.).
Claim 12: Custer further discloses passages (160) in the sleeve, but does not specify cross-drilling the sleeve to define them. However, Quaas further teaches drilling similar passages (9 - paragraph 62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have cross-drilled the passages 160 since drilling is a common and available means for forming holes.
Claim 13: Referring to Custer, press-fitting (as taught by Quaas) the sleeve (150) around the core shaft (100) further comprises: aligning the passages (160) on the sleeve for fluid communication with the main oil supply channel, the brake oil supply channel and the CDA supply channel on the core body (passages 160 are aligned with respective channels 140).
Claim 20: The CDA supply channel is configured to alter motion of a valve during the variable valve actuation event (the channel would be capable of doing so if such components were connected thereto, see also paragraphs 26, 28).
Claim 22: Custer does not explicitly disclose milling at least two cylinder deactivation (CDA) supply channels onto the core body, but does disclose “one or more grooves 140” (paragraph 37). Custer also discloses an embodiment with at least six grooves (e.g. Fig. 4G). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided two of each of the channels since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Please note that in the instant application, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the number of grooves. One of ordinary skill would have simply provided as many grooves as needed for the application.
Claim 23: Custer does not disclose wherein a first CDA supply channel is spaced apart from a second CDA supply channel in a longitudinal direction along the core body. However. Quaas teaches dividing channels into separate channels along a longitudinal direction (e.g. using dividers 10 - Figs. 2-3, 5, 7; paragraphs 28-29, 42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a first VVL and CDA supply channel spaced apart from a second VVL and CDA supply channel in a longitudinal direction along the core body in order to have configured the fluid paths differently as needed.
Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), and that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) Please note that in the instant application, paragraphs 35 and 38, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the arrangement or orientation of the channels, and has also generally provided no criticality for the number of grooves.
Claim 24: A similar argument as above may be made with respect to a third CDA supply channel spaced apart from the first and second CDA supply channels in the longitudinal direction along the core body, i.e. it constitutes an obvious duplication and/or rearrangement of grooves to meet a desired fluid passage arrangement.
Claim 25: Custer and Quaas do not teach that the CDA supply channel comprises at least one longitudinal portion and at least one circumferential portion in fluid communication with the longitudinal portion about the core body, wherein a transition is formed between the at least one longitudinal portion and the at least one circumferential portion. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have shaped the channels in this way since it has been held that the configuration of a claimed product is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed product is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Please note that in the instant application, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the specific geometry of the channels. The examiner submits that machining grooves is a basic and well-established technology, and one of ordinary skill could have easily machined grooves about the core in any shape desired to direct fluid as needed.
Claim 26: Referring to Custer, the CDA supply channel (one of 140) is curved or bent in a circumferential direction (e.g. the base of the channels have a semi-circular curve along a circumferential direction thereof in Fig. 5).
Alternatively, it has been held that the configuration of a claimed product is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed product is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Please note that in the instant application, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the specific geometry of the channels.
Claim 27: One or both of the main oil supply channel and the brake oil supply channel (one(s) of 140) is curved or bent in a circumferential direction (e.g. the base of the channels have a semi-circular curve along a circumferential direction thereof in Fig. 5).
Alternatively, it has been held that the configuration of a claimed product is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed product is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Please note that in the instant application, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the specific geometry of the channels.
Claim 28: At least one of milling the main oil supply channel onto the core body and milling the brake oil supply channel onto the core body comprises longitudinal milling (e.g. milling along the longitudinal direction of the core shaft 100, see Fig. 6).
Claim 29: The brake oil supply channel does not necessarily comprise at least one longitudinal portion and at least one circumferential portion in fluid communication with the longitudinal portion about the core body. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have shaped the channels in this way since it has been held that the configuration of a claimed product is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed product is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Please note that in the instant application, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the specific geometry of the channels. The examiner submits that machining grooves is a basic and well-established technology, and one of ordinary skill could have easily machined grooves about the core in any shape desired to direct fluid as needed.
Claim 30: In the embodiment of Figs. 5-6, at least a portion of the brake oil supply channel (one of the channels 140) is not necessarily diametrically opposed to (i.e. 180 degrees around the shaft from) at least a portion of the CDA supply channel (another one of the channels 140). However, other embodiments show even numbers of channels which are diametrically opposed (Figs. 4C-4D, 4G). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have diametrically opposed the grooves since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), and that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) Please note that in the instant application, paragraphs 35 and 38, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the arrangement or orientation of the channels.
Claim 32: Custer is silent as to the materials of the core shaft and sleeve. However, Quaas further teaches that the core shaft and the sleeve are both formed of metal (e.g. paragraphs 33-34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used metals since they are relatively hard and durable compared to other materials, and are commonly used in automotive parts. Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Please note that in the instant application, e.g. paragraphs 8, 34, and 37, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the use of metals.
Claim 35: Custer does not provide at least one divider into the rocker shaft assembly to prevent oil leakage at a plug or a dowel. However, Quaas further teaches providing at least one divider (10) into the rocker shaft assembly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided at least one divider in order to have directed fluid flow as desired in the rocker shaft. Regarding “to prevent oil leakage at a plug or a dowel”, the claim as written does not appear to positively recite the plug or dowel, and the use of the divider “to prevent oil leakage at a plug or a dowel” refers to the intended use of the divider. The divider may be capable of this purpose if it blocked fluid from leaking from such a plug or dowel.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Custer et al. and Quaas as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Curten et al. (U.S. Patent 5,881,946).
Custer and Quaas teach a method substantially as claimed except for heat treating or coating the sleeve. However, Curten teaches heat treating a sleeve for a rocker arm (column 3, lines 42-45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have heat treated the sleeve in order to have ensured the proper hardness thereof.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the following (italicized) regarding the prior art rejection:
Thus, as shown in FIGS. 5-6 of Custer, Custer teaches an internal oil supply channel (e.g., the bore 110) similar to the prior art design of FIG. 7A of the pending application. Custer does not teach or suggest each and every feature of amended claim 11, including the above recitations. For example, Custer fails to teach "milling a main oil supply channel around an outer diameter of the core body in the form of a groove" since the bore 110 is the main oil supply channel of Custer.
However, as noted in the previous Office Action, the term “main oil supply channel” (among the other groove designations) is in name only, and could refer to any of the external grooves 140, analogously to the instant application, rather than the internal bore 110. The amendments essentially incorporate features from previously rejected dependent claims into claim 11, which rejections are otherwise unaddressed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P TRAVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3218. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-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, Sunil K. Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/Matthew P Travers/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights