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 19/277,054 application filed July 22, 2025. Claims 1-6 are pending and have been fully considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because included in the response and drawings dated September 25, 2025 are duplicate Figures 10A and 10B (duplicates labeled “10a” and 10b”). 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: referring to paragraph [0022], line 1 in part states “FIGS. 1 through 10C”, however there is no Figure 10C provided in the originally filed disclosure.
Furthermore, paragraph [0026] is objected to because the entire paragraph is awkwardly worded and unclear as to the meaning of each of the listed criteria.
Additionally, paragraph [0027] provides, in part, the “connecting rod 516 is connected to the cam 524 such that the orbit of the cam 520 is larger than the orbit of the cam 524, as illustrated by dotted line 525 for the cam orbit and dotted line 521 for the crankshaft orbit included in FIG. 15”. For consistency, Examiner suggests amending this to read the --connecting rod 516 is connected to the cam 524 such that the orbit of the cam [[520]] 524 is larger than the orbit of the crankshaft 520 as illustrated by dotted line 525 for the cam orbit and dotted line 521 for the crankshaft orbit included in FIG. 15--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 of the claim recites “a piston having;”. Examiner suggests amending this to read --a piston [[having]];. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1, 2, 4, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gonzalez (U.S. Patent No. 5,927,236).
Regarding Claims 1 and 4, Gonzalez discloses a piston system for an internal combustion engine (10), wherein the piston system includes a piston (22) having a top surface (inherent feature of any known piston, see also Figure 1), a connecting rod (24) connecting the piston (22) to a crankshaft (16). Further, Gonzalez discloses that piston system includes a cam (44) on crankshaft (16), wherein connecting rod (24) is attached to cam (44) (see Figure 3) thereby providing an offset such that an orbit of the cam during a stroke cycle is larger than an orbit of the crankshaft and wherein the offset is configured so that the crankshaft is always past a top of the orbit of the crankshaft when the top surface of the piston reaches top dead center during each stroke cycle (see Figures 5-8, the junction between the offset member and the connecting rod is illustrated at (52) while the junction between the offset member and the crankshaft is illustrated at (54)). Moreover, Gonzalez discloses that the cam (44) provides an offset such that through a stroke cycle an orbit of the cam is larger than an orbit of the crankshaft and wherein the offset is configured so that the crankshaft is always past a top of the orbit of the crankshaft when the piston reaches top dead center during each stroke cycle (see Figures 5-8, the junction between the offset member and the connecting rod is illustrated at (52) while the junction between the offset member and the crankshaft is illustrated at (54)).
Additionally, concerning the limitation in the preamble the piston system is to implemented in a compression engine (interpreted herein by Examiner as a compression ignition engine), it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Therefore, any statement of intended use have been carefully considered but are deemed not to impose any patentably distinguishing structure over that disclosed by Gonzalez which is capable of being used in the intended manner.
Regarding Claims 2 and 4, the claim limitation reciting that the “the offset is formed via a crankshaft overlay” is considered a product-by-process claim limitation. In accordance with MPEP § 2113, a method of forming a device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e., a cam with an offset disposed in a crankshaft, does not depend on its method of production, i.e., forming the overlay as an overlay. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Therefore, since all of the structural limitations of Claims 2 and 4 as applied respectively to independent Claims 1 and 3 are disclosed in Gonzalez as noted above, Claims 2 and 4 are similarly rejected under the same rationale.
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(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonzalez in view of Smith (WO 2013/048252 A1).
Interpretation note: Examiner is interpreting the use of “about” in Claims 3 and 6 consistent with guidance given in the Specification (see paragraph [0028]).
Regarding Claims 3 and 6, Gonzalez discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but is silent concerning the positioning of the crankshaft while the piston is at a top dead center (“TDC”) position.
However, Smith discloses an internal combustion engine that includes a piston configured to move within a piston cylinder throughout a stroke cycle, a rotatable crankshaft comprising a crankshaft cam surface, and a connecting rod assembly having a piston connecting rod pivotally connected at one end to the piston, and a crankshaft timing rod pivotally connected at one end to the piston connecting rod at a conrod joint and at another end to the crankshaft (see pages 4-5). Smith discloses that preferably, the predetermined angle and rotation of the crankshaft may be 10-15° where the piston is held at its TDC position, and more preferably, the predetermined angle and rotation of the crankshaft may be 12° where the piston is held at its TDC position (see Figure 9 and associated description thereof, pages 14-15). See MPEP § 2144.05(I), in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the piston system of Gonzalez by specifying an angle and rotation of the crankshaft may be 10-15° where the piston is held at its TDC position as described in Smith in order to allow peak pressure to occur while a more efficient lever length is established on the crankshaft to produce more torque (see Smith, page 29).
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 piston systems.
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