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 § 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 1-11 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.
The term “near” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification does not give a value as to what “near” means.
The term “a far position” and “a close position” in claim 2 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. These terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification does not give a value as to what “far” or “close” means.
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(s) 1-2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yuji (JP 2022011330 A), hereinafter “Yuji”.
Regarding claim 1, Yuji discloses a blow-by gas treatment device treating a blow-by gas that is generated in an engine (abstract), the device comprising: a mixing joint having a main pipe (32b) into which a new intake (fresh intake air) is introduced and a sub pipe (35, 9, and 4) that introduces a gas, obtained by separating the blow-by gas into an oil and the gas, into the main pipe (shown in figure 2); and a heating device (10 and 6) that is provided in the sub pipe of the mixing joint (shown in figure 2), wherein the heating device has a heat storage portion (6) that is provided near a connection position connecting with the main pipe (32b) in the sub pipe (35) and an electric heater (10) that is provided in the heat storage portion (6, shown in figure 2). Examiner reads claim on BRI and this claim is rejected under 112 as stated above.
Regarding claim 2, Yuji discloses the blow-by gas treatment device according to Claim 1, wherein the sub pipe (35, 9, and 4) has a gradual increase part (part of 9 increases in thickness) that gradually increases in thickness thereof from a far position toward a close position relative to the connection position (the far and near portion of the claim is rejected above), and the heat storage portion (6) includes at least a part of the gradual increase part. Examiner reads claim on BRI and this claim is rejected under 112 as stated above. Examiner notes that between 35, 9, and 4, there are portions that experience a gradual increase in thickness. The claim does not state that it has to be a gradual continuous increase.
Regarding claim 11, Yuji discloses an engine comprising a blow-by gas treatment device treating a blow-by gas that is generated in the engine, wherein the blow-by gas treatment device includes a mixing joint having a main pipe into which a new intake is introduced and a sub pipe that introduces a gas, obtained by separating the blow-by gas into an oil and the gas, into the main pipe, and a heating device that is provided in the sub pipe of the mixing joint, and wherein the heating device has a heat storage portion that is provided near a connection position connecting with the main pipe in the sub pipe and an electric heater that is provided in the heat storage portion. Refer to rejection of claim 1 for further details since the limitations are similar.
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) 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuji.
Regarding claim 3, Yuji discloses the claimed invention except for the first part being in contact with an outer surface of the subpipe instead of an inner surface and the second part extending up to an outer surface of the main pipe instead of the inner surface. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of when the invention was made to have the first part of the heat storage portion to be in contact with an outer surface of the subpipe and the second part extend up to an outer surface of the main pipe instead of the inner surfaces, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 4, Yuji discloses the blow-by gas treatment device according to claim 3, wherein the second part is in contact with at least half of a circumference of the outer surface of the main pipe in an extension direction of the main pipe. As explained in the rejection of claim 3 above, the mere reversal of the second part contacting the outer surface of the main pipe instead of the inner surface of the main pipe would be obvious. This would allow for 100 percent of the outer surface of the main pipe to be contacted and covered and not just half.
Regarding claim 5, Yuji discloses the blow-by gas treatment device according to Claim 3, wherein the first part has a flat first surface, and the electric heater (10) is installed on the first surface (shown in figure 2 that heater 10 is on a flat surface of 6).
Regarding claim 6, Yuji discloses the claimed invention but is silent to disclose the first part and the second part being integrally provided with the mixing joint. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of when the invention was made to have the first art and second part be integrally provided with the mixing joint, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993).
Regarding claim 7, Yuji discloses the blow-by gas treatment device according to The blow-by gas treatment device according to wherein the heat storage portion (6) is in contact with at least half of a circumference of the outer surface of the sub pipe (35) in an extension direction of the sub pipe. As explained in the rejection of claim 3 above, the mere reversal of the heat storage portion contacting the outer surface of the main pipe instead of the inner surface of the main pipe would be obvious. This would allow for 100 percent of the outer surface of the sub pipe to be contacted and covered and not just half.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuji in view of Isoshima et al. (U.S. Publication 2019/0003357), hereinafter “Isoshima”.
Regarding claim 8, Yuji discloses the same invention substantially as claimed except for a cooling water provided as a heating means for the sub pipe. However, Isoshima teaches the use of a heating unit (t2) directing engine cooling heated water to the connection of the blowby gas pipe (20) and the intake manifold (14, shown in figure 4, paragraph 24) for the purpose of providing an effective heating means without the use of additional power. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yuji by incorporating a heating device that uses heated engine coolant routed to the blowby gas pipe as taught by Isoshima for the purpose of providing an effective heating means without the use of additional power. Examiner notes that the coolant is already heated by the engine and routing the heated coolant to heat the blowby gas would allow for a more efficient heating means.
Regarding claim 9, Yuji and Isoshima disclose the claimed invention but is silent to disclose the cooling water flow path being disposed at a position where a wind that is generated by a fan of the engine is avoided. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of when the invention was made to provide the heating cooling water flowpath of the blowby gas device be in a position away from the wind of an engine cooling fan, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuji in view of Nelson et al. (U.S. Patent 6,062,206), hereinafter “Nelson”.
Regarding claim 10, Yuji discloses the same invention substantially as claimed except for the heater being a PTC heater. However, Nelson teaches the use of a PTC heater (52) to heat up the blow-by gas (column 4, lines 34-57) for the purpose of preventing overheating and to provide uniform heating. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yuji by incorporating a PTC heater as taught by Nelson for the purpose of preventing overheating and to provide uniform heating.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED O HASAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0990. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 11AM-7PM.
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 (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.
/SYED O HASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747 8/21/2026
Prosecution Insights