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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 puts forth that the elongated body includes the hard wear resistant layer on the hardened layer. The specification puts forth the hard wear resistant layer being formed on the diffusion layer. As such, the limitation is a new matter recitation.
The remaining claims are rejected due to dependency from claim 4.
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 4-7 and 18 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.
Claim 4 puts forth that the elongated body includes the hard wear resistant layer on the hardened layer. The specification puts forth the hard wear resistant layer being formed on the diffusion layer. It is unclear whether Applicant is putting forth an additional hard layer, or if the hard wear resistant layer is the hardened layer.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the hardened layer" in claim 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 5-7 are rejected due to dependency from claim 4. An art rejection will not be provided for claims 4-7, due to the lack of clarity of claim 4.
The term “about” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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. What are the bounds of the term “about?” 1%? .1%?.
Claim 18 puts forth the limitations, “compressing hardened material around an inlet.” It is unclear whether the hardened material is the hard-wear resistant layer, or an additional hardened material.
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) 1-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guenter (WO2019206895).
Regarding claim 1, Guenter discloses a nozzle for a fuel injector, the nozzle comprising:
an elongated body (2, 4) extending along a longitudinal axis (14) from a first end of the elongated body (top end) to an opposite second end of the elongated body (second end including the valve seat), the elongated body including:
a longitudinally extending fuel passage extending from the first end of the elongated body to the second end of the elongated body (Figure 1, the open interior of the body 2, 4 is the fuel passage); and
at least one spray hole (8) at the second end of the elongated body (Figure 10), the at least one spray hole being defined by a hard wear resistant layer (626) on the elongated body that extends along the spray hole (Figure 10).
Regarding claim 2, Guenter discloses the nozzle of claim 1, wherein the hard wear resistant layer extends from the fuel passage through the elongated body at the second end of the elongated body (Figure 6, the fuel passage extends from the portion of the fuel passage defines at the end of the body, through the body to the hole).
Regarding claim 3, Guenter discloses the nozzle of claim 1, wherein the at least one spray hole (8) includes a plurality of spray holes (Figure 10), and each of the plurality of spray holes is defined by the hard wear resistant layer on the elongated body (Figure 10).
Regarding claim 8, Guenter discloses the nozzle of claim 1, wherein the at least one spray hole extends from an inlet at the fuel passage to an outlet on an outer surface of the elongated body (Figure 10), and the hard wear resistant layer extends from the inlet to the outlet of the at least one spray hole (Figure 10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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) 13-14, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Edwards (WO2021154360) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Edwards in view of Werger (US 20150083829).
Regarding claim 13, Edwards discloses a method for producing a fuel injection nozzle, the method comprising: a) hardening a nozzle body (Paragraph 4, nitriding); b) forming at least one spray hole through the hardened nozzle body (Figure 1 depicts the hole being formed); and c) re-hardening the hardened nozzle body after forming the at least one spray hole (Paragraph 4, nitriding a second time) to form a hard wear resistant layer of material through the hardened nozzle body along the at least one spray hole (The limitation is interpreted as a recitation of intended use, and therefore afforded limited patentable weight; Figure 1 depicts the layer 18 going through the body and spray hole).
Should it be found that the disclosure does not disclose forming a spray hole before hardening, Werger discloses a method that includes forming a spray hole before hardening (Paragraph 23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Edwards with the disclosures of Werger, forming the spray hole(s) before the second nitriding operation in order to provide for hardening of the spray hole surface (Paragraph 23; Examiner interprets the limitations broadly, to not put forth the hole forming step as the second step; The limitation “hardened” is a relative term; In the broadest sense, the nozzle body is already “hardened;” As such, the limitation can be read under BRI to encompass a method wherein the hole forming step is first; Examiner recommends amending limitations to put forth the forming of the spray hole after hardening of the nozzle body, in order to overcome the rejection).
Regarding claim 14, Edwards alone or in combination with Werger discloses the method of claim 13, further comprising: machining the nozzle body along the spray hole (Paragraph 4, machining the metallic member) to remove porous material from the hard wear resistant layer (The limitation is interpreted as a recitation of intended use, and therefore afforded limited patentable weight).
Regarding claim 16, Edwards alone or in combination with Werger discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the hard wear resistant layer is less than 15 microns after removing the porous material (Paragraph 15).
Regarding claim 19, Edwards alone or in combination with Werger discloses the method of claim 13, wherein hardening the nozzle body in steps a) and c) includes subjecting the nozzle body to a diffusive heat process to form the hard wear resistant layer, and wherein the diffusive heat process is a gas nitriding process (Paragraph 4).
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.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenter.
Regarding claim 9, Guenter discloses the nozzle of claim 8, but fails to disclose wherein the hard wear resistant layer extends outwardly from the outlet of the at least one spray hole along the outer surface of the elongated body.
Guenter discloses a configuration wherein the layer is welded, pressed, staked or interference fit to the nozzle body (Paragraph 86). Figure 19 discloses an embodiment wherein a clip (1329) is included integral with the orifice layer portion (Figure 19), as an alternative to the aforementioned means of security.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guenter with the disclosures of Figure 19 providing the layer to have a clip (1329), as the configurations were known alternatives before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the modification would have yielded predictable results, including security of the layer, in a system where the securing structure is not a critical element.
Modified Guenter discloses a nozzle wherein the hard wear resistant layer extends outwardly from the inlet of the at least one spray hole along an inner surface of the elongated body (Guenter figures 10 and 19).
Claim(s) 1 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenter in view of Edwards.
Regarding claim 1, Guenter discloses a nozzle for a fuel injector, the nozzle comprising:
an elongated body (2, 4) extending along a longitudinal axis (14) from a first end of the elongated body (top end) to an opposite second end of the elongated body (second end including the valve seat), the elongated body including:
a longitudinally extending fuel passage extending from the first end of the elongated body to the second end of the elongated body (Figure 1, the open interior of the body 2, 4 is the fuel passage).
Edwards discloses an improved spray exit that includes at least one spray hole (the opening at the center of the impact zone) at the second end of a spray body (Figure 1), the at least one spray hole being defined by a hard wear resistant layer (16) on the elongated body that extends along the spray hole (Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Guenter with the disclosures of Edwards, providing the spray exit to include the at least one spray hole at the second end of the elongated body (Guenter, 2, 4) (Edwards, figure 1), the at least one spray hole being defined by a hard wear resistant layer (Edwards, 16) on the elongated body that extends along the spray hole (Edwards, Figure 1), in order to provide for improved protection against wear and deformation of the valve seat, as disclosed by Edwards (Paragraph 11).
Regarding claim 10, Guenter in view of Edwards discloses the nozzle of claim 1, wherein the hard wear resistant layer includes iron nitrides, and wherein the iron nitrides include gamma prime (Fe4N) and epsilon (Fe2-3N) iron nitrides (Edwards, Paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 11, Guenter in view of Edwards discloses the nozzle of claim 1, wherein the hard wear resistant layer is less than 15 microns (Edwards, Paragraph 15).
Regarding claim 12, Guenter in view of Edwards discloses the nozzle of claim 1, wherein the hard wear resistant layer lacks surface porosity (Edwards, Paragraph 4, the layer is smooth, which means porosity is lacking).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards alone or in combination with Werger, in view of Moore (US 2014/0175193).
Regarding claim 15, Edwards alone or in combination with Werger discloses the method of claim 14, but fails to disclose wherein machining the nozzle body includes abrasive flow machining the porous material from the hard wear resistant layer.
Moore discloses a method wherein the machining method is abrasive flow machining (Paragraph 26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Edwards alone or in combination with Werger with the disclosures of Moore, providing the machining method to be abrasive flow machining, in order to decrease cavitation and increase flow through the orifice (Moore, Paragraph 26).
Edwards in view of Moore further discloses a method wherein the machining includes abrasive flow machining (Moore, paragraph 26) the porous material from the hard wear resistant layer (Paragraph 4, smoothness increases porosity, which implies the removal of porous material)
Claim(s) 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards alone or in combination with Werger in view Haxell (US 5351398).
Regarding claim 17, Edwards alone or in combination with Werger discloses the method of claim 13, but fails to disclose wherein forming the least one spray hole includes electrical discharge machining the at least one spray hole through a hardened layer of the nozzle body.
Haxell discloses a method wherein the machining method is EDM (Column 3, lines 39-41).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Edwards with the disclosures of Haxell, providing the machining method to be EDM, as the method steps were known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the modification would have yielded predictable results, including machining of the nozzle in a system where the machining method is not a critical element.
Regarding claim 18, Edwards alone or in combination with Werger in view of Haxell discloses the method of claim 17, wherein electrical discharge machining the least one spray hole includes compressing hardened material around an inlet of the at least one spray hole (Edwards, controlled pressure is applied during polishing).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards alone or in combination with Werger in view of Guenter and Kent (US 3,773,265).
Regarding claim 20, Edwards alone or in combination with Werger discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the at least one spray hole formed in step b) extends from the fuel passage through the nozzle body (Figure 1), but fails to disclose extension to an exterior surface of the hardened body.
Guenter discloses a structure wherein a nozzle body extends to an exterior of a fuel passage, in order to provide for security of the nozzle passage to the body (See claim 9), but fails to disclose the nozzle body is rough-turned before step a) to form a fuel passage in the nozzle body.
Kent discloses a method wherein a nozzle body is rough-turned to form a fuel passage (Column 3, lines 34-35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guenter with the disclosures of Kent, providing the nozzle body to be formed by rough turning, as the method steps were known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the modification would have yielded predictable results, including forming of the body in a system where the forming method is not a critical element.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1505. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9am-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, Arthur O. Hall can be reached at (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 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.
CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/CHRISTOPHER R DANDRIDGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752