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 § 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisfelder et al (US 2013/0004339 hereinafter “Eisfelder”) in view of Bennis (US 1,363,708)
In regards to claim 1:
Eisfelder teaches an air compressor (1) comprising: a cylinder block including a crankcase (10) and a cylinder portion (2) of a plurality of cylinders (Paragraph [0062] recites “the compressed air compressor 1, which may be designed as a single-cylinder or multicylinder compressed air compressor”); a cylinder head that covers the cylinder block; a crankshaft (103) that is supported in the crankcase; pistons (3) that are configured to reciprocate in the cylinder portion (2) by the crankshaft (103) to suck air and compress and discharge the sucked air (via inlet valve 16 and outlet valve 17).
Eisfelder does not teach a first rib that is provided on an outer wall of the cylinder block, that extends in a direction along a direction in which the pistons reciprocate, that protrudes in a direction orthogonal to the direction in which the pistons reciprocate, wherein a height of the first rib with respect to the outer wall of the cylinder block is larger than a width of the first rib on the outer wall of the cylinder block.
Bennis teaches a first rib (15) that is provided on an outer wall of a cylinder block, that extends in a direction along a direction in which the pistons reciprocate, that protrudes in a direction orthogonal to the direction in which the pistons reciprocate, wherein a height of the first rib with respect to the outer wall of the cylinder block is larger than a width of the first rib on the outer wall of the cylinder block (Shown in Figure 1 of Bennis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application for the outer wall of the cylinder block of Eisfelder to have a rib as taught by Bennis in order to aid in the cooling of the cylinder block (Page 1, Lines 41-45). Ribs are known in the art to add strength and add surface area to aid in cooling, and being configured to suppress vibration is functional language.
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisfelder and Bennis and further in view of Hoban et al (US 10,001,120 hereinafter “Hoban”).
In regards to claim 3:
Eisfelder does not teach second rib that is provided on an outer wall of the crankcase that extends along a central axis of the crankshaft, that protrudes in a radial direction from a central axis of the crankshaft and that is configured to suppress vibration of the crankcase.
Hoban teaches a rib that is provided on an outer wall of the crankcase, that protrudes in a radial direction from a central axis of the crankshaft and that is configured to suppress vibration of the crankcase.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application for the outer wall of the cylinder block of Eisfelder to have a rib as taught by Hoban in order to provide structural support for the cylinder block. Ribs are known in the art to add strength and add surface area to aid in cooling.
PNG
media_image1.png
1298
1003
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of Hoban
In regards to claim 4:
Eisfelder as modified does not specify a height of the second rib with respect to the outer wall of the crankcase is larger than a width of the second rib on the outer wall of the crankcase. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) the court upheld that the changing of relative dimensions is not inventive, and in the instant case Bennis teaches that ribs can have a height greater than a width, wherein this will increase the overall surface area of the rib and aid in the cooling of the rib, and subsequently cooling of the engine.
In regards to claim 5:
Eisfelder does not teach a third rib that is provided on an outer wall of the crankcase, and that is continuous with the first rib.
Hoban teaches a third rib that is provided on an outer wall of the crankcase, and that is continuous with the first rib (Shown above in annotated Figure 1 of Hoban).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have the engine of Eisfelder to have a third rib as taught by Hoban in order to aid in supporting the engine structure.
In regards to claim 6:
Eisfelder as modified does not specify a height of the third rib with respect to the outer wall of the crankcase is larger than a width of the second rib on the outer wall of the crankcase. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) the court upheld that the changing of relative dimensions is not inventive, and in the instant case Bennis teaches that ribs can have a height greater than a width, wherein this will increase the overall surface area of the rib and aid in the cooling of the rib, and subsequently cooling of the engine.
In regards to claim 7:
Eisfelder does not teach a second rib that is provided on an outer wall of the crankcase, that extends along a central axis of the crankshaft, that protrudes in a radial direction from a central axis of the crankshaft and that is configured to suppress vibration of the crankcase, a third rib that is provided on the outer wall of the crankcase, and that is continuous with the first rib, and a fourth rib that is provided on the outer wall of the crankcase, and that intersects with the second rib and the third rib.
Hoban teaches a second rib that is provided on an outer wall of the crankcase, that extends along a central axis of the crankshaft, that protrudes in a radial direction from a central axis of the crankshaft and that is configured to suppress vibration of the crankcase, a third rib that is provided on the outer wall of the crankcase, and that is continuous with the first rib, and a fourth rib that is provided on the outer wall of the crankcase, and that intersects with the second rib and the third rib (Shown above in annotated Figure 1 of Hoban).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application for the outer wall of the cylinder block of Eisfelder to have a second, third and fourth rib as taught by Hoban in order to provide structural support for the cylinder block. Ribs are known in the art to add strength and add surface area to aid in cooling.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisfelder and Hoban as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pruitt, III et al (US 2023/0332536 hereinafter “Pruitt”).
In regards to claim 8:
Eisfelder teaches an internal combustion engine assembly comprising: the air compressor according to claim 1; and an internal combustion engine (101), but does not teach a block-shaped bracket that fixes an outer peripheral surface of the crankcase of the air compressor to the internal combustion engine.
Pruitt teaches a block shaped bracket (5) that fixes an outer peripheral surface of the crankcase of an air compressor (3) to an internal combustion engine.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have a bracket fixing the air compressor of Eisfelder to the engine as taught by Pruitt in order to affix the air compressor to the engine in a proper position (Paragraph [0020] of Pruitt).
In regards to claim 9:
Eisfelder teaches a vehicle (100) comprising: the internal combustion engine assembly according to claim 8.
In regards to claim 10:
Eisfelder as modified teaches the bracket is fixed to a fixing portion of the outer peripheral surface of the crankcase of the air compressor (Pruitt shows flange portions on the outer peripheral surface of the crankcase in their second Figure), and the fixing portion is located on or near a virtual plane passing through central axes of the pistons, wherein being near is a relative term, and wherein there is an infinite number of virtual planes that pass through the central axes of the pistons, which in turn would produce virtual planes that intersect and be near the fixing portion of the bracket.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-4 of Remarks, filed 8/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9 under 35 USC 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. New art has been added to address the height of the rib relative to the width of the rib in the currently amended claims.
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
