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 .
Response to Amendment
The response filed on March 4, 2025 is acknowledged.
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 1-15 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 “each” in line 4 of claim 1 implies that there is more than one spiral liquid passages. However, line 3 recites “at least one spiral liquid passage,” which requires only one spiral liquid passage. Same rejection applies to all pending claims. Clarification is respectfully required.
In claim 15, line 2, the recitation “a liquid circuit” appears to be a double inclusion of the “liquid circuit” recited in line 1 of claim 1.
In claim 15, line 7, the recitation “a spray axis” appears to be a double inclusion of the “spray axis” recited in line 4 of claim 1. Alternatively, the “spray axis” recited in line 7 of claim 15 appear to be a different “spray axis” than the one recited in line 4 of claim 1. Clarification is respectfully requested. While there appears to be basis for these terms in the original specification nonetheless the meaning of every terms, especially terms now used to patentably define over the prior art, used in any of the claims should be apparent from the descriptive portion of the specification with clear disclosure as to its import. The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing or the use of same terms to refer a variety of different things should not be permitted.
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi (US 2015/0014444).
With respect to claim 1, Kobayashi discloses a method (Figs. 1-14) of assembling a liquid circuit (33, 34, 32a1, 32b1 and 32c1) comprising: abutting a liquid swirler (30. Fig. 2) with at least one groove (32. first spiral groove 32a, the third spiral groove 32c, and the second spiral groove 32b) defined therein and facing radially inwardly (along axis AX) against a nozzle body (20) so the at least one groove forms at least one spiral liquid passage (defined by 32. first spiral groove 32a, the third spiral groove 32c, and the second spiral groove 32b) that spirals radially inward relative to a spray axis (central axis AX), each of the at least one spiral liquid passage (partially) laying in a plane (at “W1” in Fig. 1(A)) normal to the spray axis (See Fig. 1(A) with additional annotations below).
With respect to claim 2, Kobayashi discloses wherein the nozzle includes a heat shield (exterior surfaces of 20 is capable of shielding heat) mounted to a downstream face thereof (See Fig. 1(A) with additional annotations below).
With respect to claim 7, Kobayashi discloses each spiral liquid passage defines a respective outlet orifice of the liquid outlet (32a2, 32a2 and 32a2. Fig. 1(B)).
With respect to claim 8, Kobayashi discloses wherein the outlet orifice defines an orifice axis that has a tangential component (openings of 32a2, 32a2 and 32a2) relative to the spray axis and lies in the plane normal to the spray axis (32a2, 32a2 and 32a2 exit at the same plane shown in Fig. 1(B)).
With respect to claim 13, Kobayashi discloses wherein the nozzle body includes inner (34 in Fig. 2) and outer manifold ring segments (See Fig. 1(A) with additional annotations below), wherein at least one of the ring segments includes a liquid manifold passage in fluid communication with the liquid inlet of the liquid circuit.
With respect to claim 15, Kobayashi discloses wherein the at least one liquid passage comprises a plurality of spiral liquid passages (defined by 32. first spiral groove 32a, the third spiral groove 32c, and the second spiral groove 32b) that define a liquid circuit extending from a liquid inlet (upstream of 20) to a liquid outlet (at 22), wherein the plurality of spiral liquid passages spiral inwardly (along axis AX) relative to a spray axis (central axis AX), wherein the plurality of spiral liquid passages all lie in a plane (at “W1” in Fig. 1(A)) normal to the spray axis (See Fig. 1(A) with additional annotations below), wherein each of the spiral liquid passages extends circumferentially more than 270 degrees around the spray axis (See Fig. 1(B) with additional annotations below), and wherein each of the spiral liquid passages has an outlet orifice (near 31) defining a spray (spiraling) axis (near 31) that is nearly tangential to a circumferential direction of the spray axis.
PNG
media_image1.png
385
587
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
498
846
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
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.
Claims 3-6 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Hernandez et al. (US 2012/0186083. Hernandez hereafter).
With respect to claims 3 and 4, Kobayashi discloses a method and the need for mixing the fuel with air to form a mixture in preparation for the engine combustion (Paragraphs [0005], [0031] and [0052]) via an air intake valve (Paragraph [0058]).
Kobayashi fails to specifically disclose wherein the nozzle includes an inner air circuit passing inboard of a liquid outlet and an outer air circuit passing outboard of the liquid outlet (claim 3) and wherein the inner air circuit extends radially inward from an inlet thereof and turns in an axial direction to an outlet thereof radially inboard of the liquid outlet (claim 4).
However, Hernandez teaches a method of injecting fuel mixed with air with a nozzle (Fig. 1) comprising: a nozzle body (body of 3) defining a liquid circuit (Fig. 2A) extending from a liquid inlet (342. Fig. 2A) to a liquid outlet (310), wherein the liquid circuit includes at least one spiral liquid passage (Col. 6, lines 4-5) spiraling radially inward relative to a spray axis (I-I), wherein each of the at least one spiral liquid passages lies in a plane (paper plane of Fig. 2A) normal to the spray axis, wherein a radial cross-section (cross-section shown in Fig. 2A) through the nozzle body, relative to the spray axis, cuts through the spiral liquid passages. Hernandez further discloses wherein the nozzle body includes an inner air circuit passing (via 31) inboard of the liquid outlet and an outer air circuit passing outboard of the liquid outlet (see Fig. 1 with additional annotations below) and wherein the inner air circuit extends radially inward from an inlet thereof and turns in an axial direction to an outlet thereof radially inboard of the liquid outlet (see Fig.1 with additional annotations below. The inner air circuit flows in the same configuration as the Applicant’s inner air circuit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the inner and outer air circuits, as taught by Hernandez, to Kobayashi’s air intake passage, in order to improve the swirling/mixing of air with the fuel thus producing a better fuel and air mixture for combustion (Paragraphs [0051] and [0052] and Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 5, Kobayashi’s method modified by Hernandez’s inner and outer air circuits, Hernandez further teaches mounting a radial air swirler (311) to the nozzle body, wherein radial air slots defined in the radial air swirler define an inlet of the inner air circuit (Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 6, Kobayashi’s method modified by Hernandez’s inner and outer air circuits, Hernandez further teaches wherein the inner air circuit and liquid circuit are in a co-swirling configuration (Figs. 2A and 3 of Hernandez).
With respect to claims 9, Kobayashi discloses a method and the need for mixing the fuel with air to form a mixture in preparation for the engine combustion (Paragraphs [0005], [0031] and [0052]) via an air intake valve (Paragraph [0058]).
Kobayashi fails to specifically disclose wherein the nozzle body includes an outer air circuit passing outboard of a liquid outlet.
However, Hernandez teaches a method of injecting fuel mixed with air with a nozzle (Fig. 1) comprising: a nozzle body (body of 3) defining a liquid circuit (Fig. 2A) extending from a liquid inlet (342. Fig. 2A) to a liquid outlet (310), wherein the liquid circuit includes at least one spiral liquid passage (Col. 6, lines 4-5) spiraling radially inward relative to a spray axis (I-I), wherein each of the at least one spiral liquid passages lies in a plane (paper plane of Fig. 2A) normal to the spray axis, wherein a radial cross-section (cross-section shown in Fig. 2A) through the nozzle body, relative to the spray axis, cuts through the spiral liquid passages. Hernandez further discloses wherein the nozzle body includes an inner air circuit passing (via 31) inboard of the liquid outlet and an outer air circuit passing outboard of the liquid outlet (see Fig. 1 with additional annotations below) and wherein the inner air circuit extends radially inward from an inlet thereof and turns in an axial direction to an outlet thereof radially inboard of the liquid outlet (see Fig.1 with additional annotations below. The inner air circuit flows in the same configuration as the Applicant’s inner air circuit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the inner and outer air circuits, as taught by Hernandez, to Kobayashi’s air intake passage, in order to improve the swirling/mixing of air with the fuel thus producing a better fuel and air mixture for combustion (Paragraphs [0051] and [0052] and Fig. 1).
With respect to claims 10, Kobayashi’s method modified by Hernandez’s inner and outer air circuits, Hernandez further teaches wherein the outer air circuit extends radially inward from an inlet thereof and turns in an axial direction to an outlet thereof radially outboard of the liquid outlet (see Fig.1 with additional annotations below. The outer air circuit flows in the same configuration as the Applicant’s outer air circuit).
With respect to claims 11, Kobayashi’s method modified by Hernandez’s inner and outer air circuits, Kobayashi fails to disclose wherein the nozzle body includes a plurality of spacers extending from an annular face of the nozzle body in a parallel direction to the spray axis, and further comprising a heat shield mounted to the nozzle body, spaced apart from the nozzle body by the spacers, wherein the outer air circuit is defined between the nozzle body, spacers, and heat shield.
However, Hernandez further teaches wherein the nozzle body includes a plurality of spacers (depth or width of vanes of swirler 23) extending from an annular face (annular surface attached by vanes of swirler 23) of the nozzle body in a parallel (extending axially) direction to the spray axis, and further comprising a heat shield (20) mounted to the nozzle body, spaced apart from the nozzle body by the plurality of spacers, wherein the outer air circuit is defined between the nozzle body, plurality of spacers, and heat shield.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the spacers, annular face and heat shield (the cooling system), as taught by Hernandez, to Kobayashi’s method, in order to protect the injector from the combustion heat in the combustion chamber (Abstract, lines 1-10, paragraphs [0002], [0004]-[0017] and [0035] and Fig. 1).
With respect to claims 12, Kobayashi’s method modified by Hernandez’s inner and outer air circuits and the cooling system, Hernandez further teaches wherein the spacers define a non-tangential flow path for (capable of creating) non-swirling issue of air through the outer air circuit (when the air is flowing very slowly).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Pireyre et al. (WO 2015092206. Pireyre hereafter).
With respect to claim 13, Kobayashi the method as in claim 13 except for wherein at least one of the ring segments includes a bayonet feature configured to receive a corresponding bayonet feature of a combustor wall or combustor sliding support.
However, Pireyre teaches a method of injecting fuel mixed with air with a nozzle (Fig. 1) comprising: a nozzle (Figs. 1 and 2) comprising at least one ring segments (20 and 40) includes a bayonet feature (60, 64. Fig. 3) configured to receive a corresponding bayonet feature (54, 56) of a combustor wall or combustor sliding support (42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a bayonet connection, as taught by Pireyre, to the connection of the ring segment and the combustor wall or combustor sliding support, in order to provide a readily detachable connection (Figs. 3-4B).
PNG
media_image3.png
642
799
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues that Kobayashi fails to disclose a liquid swirler with at least one groove defined therein and facing radially inwardly against a nozzle body. The applicant’s argument has been considered but is moot due to the new interpretation of the Kobayashi reference. As elaborated above, Kobayashi discloses a liquid swirler (30. Fig. 2) with at least one groove (32. first spiral groove 32a, the third spiral groove 32c, and the second spiral groove 32b) defined therein and facing radially inwardly (along axis AX) against a nozzle body (20).
The applicant also argues that Kobayashi fails to disclose the newly recited limitations in claim 15. The applicant’s argument has been considered but is moot due to the new interpretation of the Kobayashi reference. See detailed rejection elaborated above including a newly added Fig. 1(B) with additional annotations above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
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, Arthur O. Hall can be reached on (571)270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 June 20, 2025
Prosecution Insights