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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on . The disposition of claims is as follows:
Pending:
Rejected:
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered. The Examiner proceeds below with a response.
Regarding Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § :
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive
Applicant presents the following arguments:
Claims 1-3, 7-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/0243691 (Schroeder). Applicant respectfully, but soundly, disagrees. Each of independent claims 1 and 11 includes the subject matter of the plurality of transfer holes having orientations including at least one of a tangential component or an axially advancing component, relative to the longitudinal axis. Claim 17 includes the subject matter of admitting the first fuel to the combined-fuel outlet passage via transfer holes extending at orientations having a radial component and at least one of a tangential component or an axially advancing component relative to a longitudinal axis of the fuel injector. In the instant case, the holes that communicate the first fuel are not on radii of a circle centered on a longitudinal axis of the fuel injector. Moreover, as discussed and illustrated in Applicant's disclosure, the transfer holes can provide improved performance in at least some instances, and are distinctly different from anything taught or suggested by Schroeder.
In that reference, the alleged passages 118 do appear to be on radii of a circle centered on the longitudinal axis of the injector, and that is not Applicant claims. At paragraph [0020] of Schroeder, passages 118 are described as "radially extending" and located "axially between" opening hydraulic surfaces 120 and seating surface 112. Nowhere does Schroeder appear to teach or suggest passages 118 having any other orientation, nor recognize the potential practical applications thereof.
Moreover, Applicant definitively makes clear in its Specification paragraph [0024] what the subject terms mean: "A 'tangential component' means in a direction of a line tangent to a circle centered on longitudinal axis 52. An 'axially advancing component' means in a direction that advances along or parallel to longitudinal axis 52 away from a geometric center point of fuel injector 38. Applicant's claims therefore cannot be read on Schroeder consistent with its Specification. Applicant also takes the position that an explicit definition should not even be required to establish Schroeder's passages 118 do not have orientations with either of a6
tangential component or an axially advancing component, as the subject terms are clear on their face. Nevertheless, at least in view of Applicant's Specification definitions there should be no realistic disagreement the rejections are invalid. Under the MPEP and applicable case law, a proper 102 reference must teach or suggest exactly what is claimed. Schroeder fails in this regard, and thus all the outstanding 102 rejections should be withdrawn.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Consistent with Applicant’s argued claim construction (See supra), the term “axially advancing component”, the Examiner previously applied a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation consistent with the specification. Applicant and Examiner have interpreted “axially advancing component as follows: An 'axially advancing component' means in a direction that advances along or parallel to longitudinal axis 52 away from a geometric center point of fuel injector 38. (See at least Instant specification ¶¶).
In response to applicant's argument that the , the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
MPEP § 2125 provides that drawings may constitute prior art disclosure where they clearly depict the claimed structure. Additionally, drawings in a utility patent can anticipate the claimed invention. It does not matter that the depicted feature is unintended or unexplained in the specification. Accordingly, the Examiner’s reliance on Figure 3 is not based upon extracting precise proportions from an unscaled drawing, but upon the depicted structural relationship of transfer passage 118 in relation to the longitudinal axis that Figure 3 itself reasonable discloses to a person skilled in the art.
To clarify the application of the cited prior art set forth in the rejection and to facilitate consideration of Applicant’s arguments, Figure 3 from the Schroeder et al. reference is reproduced, infra, with Examiner Annotations identifying previously relied-upon features and relationships. The annotations are explanatory only and do not introduce a new basis or rationale for the rejection of record.
PNG
media_image1.png
776
791
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 of the Schroeder reference depicts transfer passages 118 extending between Surface A and Surface B, which are positioned at different locations along the longitudinal axis. As a result, the direction of each transfer passage 118 includes a nonzero component extending along the longitudinal axis. Stated differently, Surface A and Surface B of transfer passage 118 are axially displaced from one another, and passage 118 extends between these surfaces. As such, transfer passage 118 clearly include the claimed “axially advancing component” under Applicants stated construction (See at least Instant specification ¶¶). Therefore, the rejections of claims have been maintained.
If Applicant intends the phrase “axially advancing component” to require the structural orientation of the transfer hole depicted, for example, in Applicant’s Figure 4, Applicant may wish to amend the claim to more expressly define that relationship. For example, Applicant me consider reciting that a centerline of the transfer passage extends from a first end to a second end such that the second end is axially offset from the first end in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis, or similar language that expressly defines the intended axial orientation of the transfer passage. The language is provided only as an example of how the presently argued relationship could be more clearly recited in the claim and is not intended to require any particular amendment.
Regarding Claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. § :
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive
Regarding Claims , Applicant's arguments are based only upon dependencies from claims . Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive and the rejections have been maintained.
Regarding Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § :
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § for Claims have been withdrawn in response to the claim amendments.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being by (), hereinafter “”
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
A fuel injector comprising:
a nozzle () defining a longitudinal axis and having formed therein a plurality of nozzle outlets (48),
a first fuel passage (), a second fuel passage (), (¶¶) and
a combined-fuel outlet passage () fluidly connected to the first fuel passage () and to the second fuel passage () and extending to the plurality of nozzle outlets (); (¶¶)
a nozzle check () movable in the nozzle () between a closed position blocking the plurality of nozzle outlets (), and an open position; (¶¶) and
the first fuel passage () extending through the nozzle check () to a plurality of transfer holes () formed in the nozzle check () and fluidly connected to the combined-fuel outlet passage () (¶¶) and
the plurality of transfer holes (; Fig 3) having orientations including at least one of a tangential component or an axially advancing component, relative to the longitudinal axis () (¶¶).
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the plurality of transfer holes are compound angularly oriented and each defines an included angle with the longitudinal axis, and is oriented at a swirl angle relative to a line tangent to a circle centered on the longitudinal axis. (¶¶) ().
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the included angle opens in an axially outward direction. (¶¶) ().
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the nozzle check () includes a distal end having a tip with a conical seating surface thereon, and a proximal end. (¶¶) ()
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
8. The fuel injector of claim 7
wherein the proximal end has formed therein a plurality of fuel feed openings (), and
the first fuel passage () includes an outgoing passage segment extending through the nozzle check from the plurality of fuel feed openings () to the plurality of transfer holes (; Fig 3). (¶¶)
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
an injector housing forming a first fuel inlet () extending to the first fuel passage (), a second fuel inlet (), and a plunger cavity;
a plunger () movable in the plunger cavity () to pressurize a combined fuel charge of a first fuel admitted via the first fuel inlet () and a second fuel admitted via the second fuel inlet (); (¶¶) and
a spill valve () movable between an open position fluidly connecting the plunger cavity () to the second fuel inlet (), and a closed position. (¶¶)
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein:
a fuel cavity () extends circumferentially around the nozzle check () and fluidly connects the second fuel passage () to the combined-fuel outlet passage (¶¶ and
the plurality of transfer holes (; Fig 3). open to the combined-fuel outlet passage () at a location that is fluidly between the fuel cavity and the plurality of nozzle outlets () (¶¶)
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
A dual fuel system comprising:
a first fuel supply () of a first fuel; (¶¶)
a second fuel supply () of a second fuel; (¶¶)
a fuel injector defining a longitudinal axis (), (¶¶) and
having formed therein a first fuel inlet () fluidly connecting the first fuel supply to a first fuel passage (), (¶¶)
a second fuel inlet () fluidly connecting the second fuel supply to a second fuel passage (), (¶¶) and
a combined-fuel outlet passage () extending to a plurality of nozzle outlets () (¶¶)
a nozzle check () movable in the injector housing between a closed position blocking the plurality of nozzle outlets (), and an open position; (¶¶) and
the nozzle check () having a plurality of transfer holes () formed therein fluidly connecting the first fuel passage () to the combined-fuel outlet passage (), (¶¶) and
having orientations including at least one of a tangential component or an axially advancing component relative to the longitudinal axis () (¶¶).
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the fuel injector defines a longitudinal axis, and
each of the plurality of transfer holes defines an included angle with the longitudinal axis opening in an axially outward direction. (¶¶) ().
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein each of the plurality of transfer holes defines a swirl angle relative to a line tangent to a circle center on the longitudinal axis. (¶¶) ().
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the fuel injector further includes a cam-actuated plunger () movable in the plunger cavity () to pressurize a combined fuel charge of the first fuel and the second fuel, (¶¶) and a spill valve () movable between an open position fluidly connecting the plunger cavity () to the second fuel inlet (), and a closed position. (¶¶)
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the nozzle check () includes a distal end having a tip with a conical seating surface thereon, and a proximal end having formed therein a plurality of fuel feed openings (), (¶¶) () and
the first fuel passage () includes an outgoing passage segment extending through the nozzle check from the plurality of fuel feed openings () to the plurality of transfer holes (; Fig 3). (¶¶)
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
A method of operating a fuel system comprising:
feeding a first fuel to a fuel injector; (¶¶)
displacing some of a second fuel from a combined-fuel outlet passage () in the fuel injector with the first fuel so as to form a combined fuel charge in the combined-fuel outlet passage (); (¶¶0020, -0026: “the present disclosure exploits the opportunity between fuel injections, to admit pilot fuel into pilot fuel passage 68 and primary fuel passage 66 to displace some primary fuel from end region 122 and form the segmented fuel charge of leading pilot fuel and trailing primary fuel”)
admitting the first fuel to the combined-fuel outlet passage () via transfer holes () extending at orientations having a radial component and at least one of a tangential component or an axially advancing component relative to a longitudinal axis of the fuel injector; (¶¶) and
injecting the combined-fuel charge into a cylinder in an engine for combustion. (¶¶0025-0026)
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
further comprising limiting mixing of the first fuel and the second fuel via swirling flow of the first fuel in the combined-fuel outlet passage. (¶¶) ().
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the transfer holes () are formed in a nozzle check () of the fuel injector and fluidly connect a fuel passage () extending through the nozzle check () to the combined-fuel outlet passage () (¶¶)
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the first fuel includes a compression-ignition fuel, and the combined fuel charge includes the first fuel as a leading fuel and the second fuel as a trailing fuel. (¶¶0015, 0020, -0026, 0028)
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 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.
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over as applied above.
Regarding Claim ,
fail to explicitly disclose:
wherein the included angle is from about 45⁰ to about 75⁰.
In Applicant’s specification, Applicant does not note that included angle is from about 45⁰ to about 75⁰ is critical or even has any particular advantage or purpose over other transfer hole configurations.
For example, the Instant PgPub states:
“Transfer holes 176 and transfer holes 177 may have orientations each including at least one of an axially advancing component or a tangential component consistent with other embodiments discussed herein. Also consistent with other embodiments discussed herein, transfer holes 176 and 177 may define included angles with a longitudinal axis 152 from approximately 45° to approximately 75°.”
(See at least: Instant PgPub ¶¶)
It is noted that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been a prima facie obvious matter of design choice for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify as claimed because applicant does not note that the claimed configuration is critical, solves any stated problem or even has any particular advantage or purpose over alternative configurations.
Regarding Claim ,
fail to explicitly disclose:
wherein a number of the plurality of transfer holes is from 3 to 7.
It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is achieved from such duplication. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B)) (citing In re Harza, 274 F.3d 699 (CCPA 1960).
In Applicant’s specification, Applicant does not note that utilizing a number of the plurality of transfer holes from 3 to 7 is critical or even has any particular advantage or purpose over other numbers.
A limitation may be found to be an obvious matter of design choice if, e.g., it does not result in a difference in function or give unexpected results; it solves no stated problem; or it does not modify the operation of the claimed device. The Examiner is unable to discern anything in the Specification suggesting that utilizing a number of the plurality of transfer holes from 3 to 7 results in a difference in function, solves any stated problem, or modifies the operation of the device.
Applicant has not disclosed that in the does anything more than produce predictable results (e.g. provide ). The mere duplication of the in the is not considered to have patentable significance.
Since Applicant has failed to provide persuasive evidence on the record that a number of the plurality of transfer holes from 3 to 7 in the is significant in any way, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified to a number of the plurality of transfer holes from 3 to 7, in order to predictably provide since such a duplication would produce nothing more than predictable results within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B)) (citing In re Harza, 274 F.3d 699 (CCPA 1960) (“It is well settled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified to include to predictably provide .
Therefore, it would have been a prima facie obvious matter of design choice for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify as claimed because applicant does not note that the claimed configuration is critical, solves any stated problem or even has any particular advantage or purpose over alternative configurations.
Regarding Claim ,
fail to explicitly disclose:
wherein the plurality of transfer holes are arranged in a lower row and an upper row.
It has been held that the rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. See at least: MPEP § 2144(I).
In Applicant’s specification, Applicant does not note that arranging the plurality of transfer holes in a lower row and an upper row is critical or even has any particular advantage or purpose over other transfer hole configurations.
For example, the Instant PgPub states:
“Nozzle check 142 includes two rows of transfer holes, including a first or lower row 176 and a second or upper row 177. In the illustrated embodiment, nozzle check 142 includes four lower transfer holes 176 and four upper transfer holes 177 for a total of eight transfer holes, although other hole numbers including a total number of holes ranging from three to seven or potentially more might be used. Embodiments are also contemplated having unequal numbers of transfer holes between the upper row and the lower row in any combination.”
(See at least: Instant PgPub ¶¶)
The Examiner further notes that it has been held that rearranging components involves only routine skill in the art where the rearrangement would not have modified the operation of the device. See at least: MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C). Where the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement, the particular arrangement is deemed to have a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Therefore, it would have been a prima facie obvious matter of design choice for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify as claimed because applicant does not note that the claimed configuration is critical, solves any stated problem or even has any particular advantage or purpose over alternative configurations.
Regarding Claim ,
fail to explicitly disclose:
wherein and a total number of the plurality of transfer holes is greater than 4.
It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is achieved from such duplication. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B)) (citing In re Harza, 274 F.3d 699 (CCPA 1960).
In Applicant’s specification, Applicant does not note that utilizing a number of the plurality of transfer holes greater than 4 is critical or even has any particular advantage or purpose over other numbers.
A limitation may be found to be an obvious matter of design choice if, e.g., it does not result in a difference in function or give unexpected results; it solves no stated problem; or it does not modify the operation of the claimed device. The Examiner is unable to discern anything in the Specification suggesting that utilizing a number of the plurality of transfer holes from 3 to 7 results in a difference in function, solves any stated problem, or modifies the operation of the device.
Applicant has not disclosed that in the does anything more than produce predictable results (e.g. provide ). The mere duplication of the in the is not considered to have patentable significance.
Since Applicant has failed to provide persuasive evidence on the record that a number of the plurality of transfer holes from 3 to 7 in the is significant in any way, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified to a number of the plurality of transfer holes greater than 4, in order to predictably provide since such a duplication would produce nothing more than predictable results within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B)) (citing In re Harza, 274 F.3d 699 (CCPA 1960) (“It is well settled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified to include to predictably provide .
Therefore, it would have been a prima facie obvious matter of design choice for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify as claimed because applicant does not note that the claimed configuration is critical, solves any stated problem or even has any particular advantage or purpose over alternative configurations.
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(III)-(IV)
No special definitions are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given the plain meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (See MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01).
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring them to the attention of the Examiner and the prosecution history in the next response.
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
References Cited
R1: ()
Examiner Interviews
Regular Examiner Interview Requests:
Pursuant to USPTO Guidance, one Examiner interview per round of prosecution is available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call Examiner Reinbold directly at 313-446-6607 (preferred) or 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, Logan Kraft, can be reached on 571-270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Additional Examiner Interview Requests:
If Applicant needs more than one Examiner interview during a single round of prosecution, applicant may request approval for additional examiner interview(s) from Examiner Reinbold’s Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE), Logan Kraft, who can be reached at 571-270-5065.
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entirety of identified prior art references as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is noted that any citations to specific pages, paragraph numbers, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references presented and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2123. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 SCOTT A REINBOLD whose telephone number is (313)446-6607. The examiner can normally be reached on MON - FRI: 8AM - 5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft, can be reached on (571)270-5065. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SCOTT A REINBOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights