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
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cecur et al. (U.S. Publication 2012/0186546), hereinafter “Cecur”.
Regarding claim 1, Cecur discloses the same invention substantially as claimed such as valve train assembly, comprising: a rocker arm (figure 1, 105) having a cam end in proximity to a cam (117) and a valve end opposite to the cam end and in proximity to one or more valves (101); an engine brake capsule (113 shown in figure 2) coupled to the cam end and comprising an actuation pin assembly (227), a check valve (127) assembly, and a plunger (figure 2, inner body 203 is a plunger), the engine brake capsule being configured to switch between a retracted position and an extended position (shown in figure 6 where latch pins 217 connect to the annular flange 515 of the inner body 203), but is silent to disclose a cylinder deactivation capsule coupled to the cam end and comprising an outer body, an inner body, and a latching mechanism, the cylinder deactivation capsule being configured to switch between a latched position and an unlatched position. However, Cecur embodiment 2 (shown in figure 8) teaches the use of cylinder deactivator (113’, paragraph 63) for the purpose of providing the additional functionality of deactivated the cylinder for greater fuel efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Cecur by incorporating the additional functionality of cylinder deactivation as taught by Cecur embodiment 2 for the purpose of providing greater fuel efficiency. Examiner notes that 113’ teaches valve deactivation (paragraph 63 and figure 8) due to unlatched position of latch members 217’ no lift of the cam 913 is transferred to the rocker arm and therefore, both functionalities of engine braking and CDA can be integrated into one capsule or two capsules according to Cecur.
Regarding claim 2, Cecur discloses the valve train assembly of Claim 1, wherein when the engine brake capsule (113) is configured to switch to the extended position and the cylinder deactivation capsule (113’) is configured to switch to the latched position, the rocker arm is allowed to be actuated based on a brake lift profile of the cam (paragraphs 44, 50, 63 mentions the different functions).
Regarding claim 3, Cecur discloses the valve train assembly of Claim 1, wherein when the engine brake capsule is configured to switch to the retracted position and the cylinder deactivation capsule is configured to switch to the latched position, the rocker arm is allowed to be actuated based on a main lift profile of the cam (117, paragraphs 44, 50, 63 mentions the different functions).
Regarding claim 4, Cecur discloses the valve train assembly of Claim 1, wherein when the cylinder deactivation capsule is configured to switch to the unlatched position, the rocker arm is unactuated despite rotation of the cam (117, paragraphs 44, 50, 63 mentions the different functions).
Regarding claim 5, Cecur discloses the valve train assembly of Claim 1, wherein the cylinder deactivation capsule (113’) is directly coupled to the engine brake capsule (113). Examiner notes that Cecur teaches both functionalities within the valve lifter and therefore would be considered to be directly connected.
Regarding claim 6, Cecur discloses the valve train assembly of Claim 1, wherein the cylinder deactivation capsule is coupled to the engine brake capsule via a push rod (111). Examiner notes that the claim does not recite “directly coupled” and therefore the push rod can be considered as coupling the CDA and the engine braking capsule since every component within the engine is coupled to each other.
Regarding claim 7, Cecur discloses the valve train assembly of Claim 1, wherein the cylinder deactivation capsule is coupled to the engine brake capsule, and wherein the engine brake capsule is coupled to the cam end of the rocker arm via a push rod (shown in figure 8 combines both functions and therefore push rod can be interpreted as being positioned between either capsule and the rocker arm).
Regarding claim 8, Cecur discloses the valve train assembly of Claim 1, wherein the cylinder deactivation capsule is coupled to the engine brake capsule, and wherein the cylinder deactivation capsule is coupled to the cam end of the rocker arm via a push rod (shown in figure 8 combines both functions and therefore push rod can be interpreted as being positioned between either capsule and the rocker arm).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Cecur discloses the claimed invention except for the engine brake capsule and/ or the CDA capsule being partially embedded in the cam end of the rocker arm. 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 engine brake capsule and/or the CDA capsule be partially integrated into the rocker arm, 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 claims 11 and 12, Cecur discloses the claimed invention except for the check valve assembly being a ball valve with the spring biasing the ball upward to close an opening. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide a ball and spring valve form the oil control valve, since applicant has not disclosed that such an arrangement solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a solenoid valve.
Regarding claim 13, Cecur discloses the valve train assembly of Claim 1, wherein in the retracted position of the engine brake capsule, the plunger is configured to be retractable relative to the cam end to absorb a brake lift profile of the cam (paragraphs 44, 50, 63 mentions the different functions).
Regarding claim 14, Cecur discloses the valve train assembly of Claim 1, wherein in the extended position of the engine brake capsule, the plunger is configured to remain extended relative to the cam end to transmit motion applied by a brake lift profile of the cam (paragraphs 44, 50, 63 mentions the different functions).
Regarding claim 15, Cecur discloses the valve train assembly of Claim 1, wherein an upper end of the plunger is configured with a shim (shown in figure 2 and paragraph 42; stop plate 229 can be interpreted as a shim).
Regarding claim 16, Cecur discloses the valve train assembly of Claim 1, wherein the latching mechanism comprises one or more latch pins (217) and a spring (221).
Regarding claim 17, Cecur discloses the valve train assembly of Claim 1, wherein in the unlatched position of the cylinder deactivation capsule, the cylinder deactivation capsule is configured to absorb motion applied by the cam (paragraphs 44, 50, 63 mentions the different functions).
Regarding claim 18, Cecur discloses the valve train assembly of Claim 1, wherein in the latched position of the cylinder deactivation capsule, the cylinder deactivation capsule is configured to allow motion applied by the cam to be transferred to the plunger of the engine brake capsule (paragraphs 44, 50, 63 mentions the different functions).
Regarding claim 19, Cecur discloses the valve train assembly of Claim 1, further comprising a carrier assembly to support the rocker arm. Examiner notes that although not pictured, something has to support the rocker arm which would be regarded as the carrier and therefore would be obvious.
Regarding claim 20, Cecur discloses the same invention substantially as claimed but is silent to disclose a plurality of carriers for supporting the rocker arm, a base plat, and a fluid inlet. However, the examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art to provide multiple carriers to support the multiple rocker arms within an engine due to multiple valves and to provide a base plate with an oil inlet to provide lubrication to the valvetrain for the purpose of providing appropriate engine operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of when the invention was made to modify Cecur by incorporating a plurality of carriers, a base plate, and a fluid inlet for the purpose of providing appropriate engine operation.
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 8/6/2026
Prosecution Insights