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 19/009,664 application filed January 29, 2025. Claims 1-4 are pending and have been fully considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) dated January 29, 2025 is noted. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the drawings have a line and shading quality that is too dark to distinguish between different features and too dark to be reproduced. See 37 CFR 1.84
The drawings contain deficient line quality. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. See 37 CFR 1.84.
Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “two support covers” (see Claim 1), “combustion cylinder heads” (see Claim 3) and “combustion chamber” (see Claim 3), “synchronized valves” (see Claim 3) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph [018] begins that the “pistons (4) are slid into the ring (3) which has 4 sides using only two; the two pistons are integrated sliding to the blocks”. This is grammatically unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4 are objected to because of the following informalities: Examiner suggests beginning each claim with the appropriate article, i.e., “a”, “an”, “the”.
Claim 1 recites “the staple” in line 3. Examiner suggests amending this to read --a clamp-- for consistency with the Specification.
To avoid antecedent basis issues, each element of the claims should be introduced with “a/an”, and each subsequent recitation should be presented with “the” or “said”.
Within Claim 1:
“the polygonal ring” should read --a polygonal ring--;
“the tabs” should be amended to read --tabs--;
“the staple” should read --a clamp-- (see above suggestion);
“the center” should read --a center--;
“the linear movement” should read --a linear movement--; and
“the shaft” should read --a shaft-- (lines 5-6).
Within Claim 3:
“the combustion chamber” should read --a combustion chamber--; and
“the combustion chamber” should read --a combustion chamber.
Within Claim 4:
“the blocks” should read --blocks--;
“the four-sided polygonal ring” should read --a four-sided polygonal ring--;
“the shaft” should read --a shaft--; and
“the eccentric” should read --an eccentric--.
Appropriate correction is required. Examiner seeks Applicant’s assistance in correcting any other instances of which Applicant becomes aware.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Claim 1 recites “the said shaft (1) is through, crosses both sides, for coupling to one or more external equipment in one or both ends, being closed by two support covers in front and behind the block (5) for the shaft, block this that is main structure of support.”. This renders the claim indefinite as “said shaft is through” is grammatically unclear. Further, “crosses both sides” is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claim, as it is unclear to which element “the both sides” is referring. Similarly, “one or both ends” is unclear as to which element “both ends” is referring. Moreover, “being closed by two support covers” is unclear as to which element is being closed. Further, “block this that is main structure of support” is grammatically unclear and renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 2 is indefinite since it presents the alternative variation that the polygonal ring may be cylindrical. Therefore, Claim 2 is indefinite since it fails to set forth a claim that “clearly and precisely inform[s] persons skilled in the art of the boundaries of protected subject matter” (see MPEP § 2173).
Furthermore, where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Concerning Claim 2, it is unclear how a polygonal-shaped ring can be cylindrical, as the two terms are contradictory to each other.
Additionally, “having a proportional space for allocation of components” is indefinite as the “components” have not been defined and the space could be any infinite number of volumes, shapes, sizes, etc. Again, this renders Claim 2 indefinite since this limitation fails to set forth a claim that “clearly and precisely inform[s] persons skilled in the art of the boundaries of protected subject matter” (see MPEP § 2173).
Claim 3 recites “includes synchronized valves”. This is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claim, as it is unclear which element that precedes this recitation includes the claimed valves.
Similarly, Claim 4 recites “inserted in the ring” (lines 6-7). This is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claim, as it is unclear which element that precedes this recitation is inserted into the ring.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aquino et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,503,038, herein “Aquino”).
Regarding Claim 4, to the extent that Claim 4 is understood in light of the Section 112 rejection set forth herein, Aquino discloses a free piston engine arrangement (see Title and Figures 12 and 13) formed by an arrangement of one or two pistons ((74), giving the claim the broadest reasonable interpretation as provided in MPEP § 2111, compressor (70) includes one or two pistons, among others) which are integrated to the blocks ((66), (68)) and are fixed, welded or integrated into a coupling structure (housing (80), see Figures 12 and 13) configured to internally receive a four-sided polygonal ring ((22), (24)), in which the pistons (74) slide only through two opposite sides of the ring (see Figures 12 and 13), being positioned orthogonally to a shaft (12) joined to an eccentric (14), and inserted in the ring ((22), (24), see Figures 1 and 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
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 free piston 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