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 claim(s) is as follows:
Pending:
Rejected:
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is hereby made of receipt of the Information Disclosure Statement(s) filed by the Applicant listed below:
April 30, 2024
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of in the reply filed on is acknowledged. This is found persuasive. Therefore, the restriction requirement has been vacated. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim ,
Claim 4 contains the limitation, “wherein the included angle is from about 45°to about 75°.” The specification states that the term “about” is to be understood to mean generally or approximately as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the fuel systems art, including within measurement error or conventional rounding as would be routinely applied. However, this is insufficient as the range of specific activity covered by the approximation “about” by a person having ordinary skill in the art is not able to be ascertained and is therefore indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(III)(a).
Regarding Dependent Claim ,
The claim ultimately depends from a claim that includes indefinite subject matter and is rejected for depending therefrom.
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.
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