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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on March 29, 2024 is hereby acknowledged and has been placed of record. Please find attached a signed copy of the IDS.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Reference number “22” (see line 6 on page 5 of the specification) is not found in the drawings.
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. 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“rotational locking feature” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, on line 8, “an” should be replaced with --a--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 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.
Regarding claim 1, on lines 14-15, the recitation, “wherein the nozzle cap comprises a slot that extends from a first end to a second end” is unclear. What defines the recited “first end” and “second end”?
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Etcheverry et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0363591.
As to claim 1, Etcheverry (see Figs. 1A-3B) shows a fuel injector (112) suitable for gaseous fuels, comprising: an injection nozzle having a tip region (see Figs. 3A-3B) that is shaped to define a valve seat (on 118) that extends about a central outlet opening (lowermost end of 113); and an outward opening injection needle (120) slidably received in the injection nozzle, wherein the injection nozzle further includes a nozzle cap (250) that is received over the tip region of the injection nozzle, wherein the tip region and the nozzle cap are configured to define a thermal barrier layer between them to reduce thermal transfer (function follows the structure shown in Figs. 3A-3B), wherein the nozzle cap and the tip region of the injection nozzle are configured so that the nozzle cap is releasably clipped onto the tip region (see paragraph [0024], lines 8-12), wherein the nozzle cap is configured to be compressible in a radial direction so as to reduce its outer diameter (function follows the structure shown in Figs. 3A-3B); and wherein the nozzle cap comprises a slot (either of 256) that extends from a first end to a second end.
As to claim 2, Etcheverry shows the fuel injector of Claim 1, and wherein the nozzle cap
As to claim 3, Etcheverry shows the fuel injector of Claim 2, and wherein a radially outer surface of the nozzle cap (for example, at region 252, as denoted in Figs. 1B, 2A and 2C) has substantially the same cross section profile as an adjacent part of the tip region.
As to claim 5, Etcheverry shows the fuel injector of Claim 1, and wherein the slot is linear (256 reasonably extend linearly).
As to claim 6, Etcheverry shows the fuel injector of Claim 1, and wherein the nozzle cap defines an internal circumferential lip (for example, the ledge of 250 upon which a portion of the lower end of 118 abuts, as shown in at least Figs. 3A and 3B) that abuts a leading edge of the tip region of the injection nozzle.
As to claim 7, Etcheverry shows the fuel injector of Claim 1, and wherein the nozzle cap
As to claim 8, Etcheverry shows the fuel injector of Claim 7, and wherein the hood portion defines at least one outlet opening (any one or more of 256, not applied to the “slot” of claim 1, and/or at 254).
As to claim 9, Etcheverry shows the fuel injector of Claim 8, and wherein the at least one outlet opening is offset from an injector centre axis (met, when any one or more of 256 is applied to the “at least one outlet opening”, as discussed above with respect to claim 8).
As to claim 10, Etcheverry shows the fuel injector of Claim 1, and wherein the nozzle cap
As to claim 11, Etcheverry shows an injector arrangement including a fuel injector as claimed in Claim 1, with the nozzle of the fuel injector being at least partly received in a bore defined in a wall (of 105) at least partly bounding a combustion chamber (114), wherein the injection nozzle and the nozzle cap are received in the bore such that the nozzle cap is in direct thermal contact with the bore to promote thermal transfer between the nozzle cap and the wall (see again, Figs. 1A-3B).
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.
Claims 1-5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hohl et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0306891, in view of Reiter, USPN 6,921,033.
As to claim 1, Hohl (see Figs. 2-4) shows a fuel injector (1) suitable for gaseous fuels, comprising: an injection nozzle having a tip region (see Fig. 2) that is shaped to define a valve seat (4 or 5) that extends about a central outlet opening (3); and an outward opening injection needle (2) slidably received in the injection nozzle, wherein the injection nozzle further includes a nozzle cap (12) that is received over the tip region of the injection nozzle, wherein the tip region and the nozzle cap are configured to define a thermal barrier layer between them to reduce thermal transfer (see paragraphs [0032] and [0033]), wherein the nozzle cap is configured to be compressible in a radial direction so as to reduce its outer diameter (see paragraph [0033]); and wherein the nozzle cap comprises a slot (axial “slits” described in paragraph [0035], and shown in Figs. 3 and 4) that extends from a first end to a second end. However, Hohl is silent as to the manner by which the nozzle cap is connected to the tip region, and thus it is unclear whether or not the nozzle cap of Hohl is configured so as to be releasably clipped onto the tip region.
Reiter (see Figs. 1-4) shows a fuel injector (1) which is received in a bore (37) defined in a wall (36) at least partly bounding a combustion chamber, with the fuel injector including a ring-shaped element (34) that is received over a corresponding tip region (see Figs. 2-3) of a corresponding injection nozzle (2), wherein the ring-shaped element is configured to be compressible in a radial direction (see column 3, lines 14-44), and wherein the ring-shaped element is releasably clipped onto the tip region (see column 3, lines 31-44), which facilitates simple installation of the ring-shaped element, as it is thus easy to slide it on the injection nozzle and lock it in a corresponding recess (40), without the use of specialized tools (see column 3, lines 40-44). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fuel injector shown by Hohl, whereby the ring-shaped nozzle cap element includes a provision allowing it to be releasably clipped onto the tip region, as taught by Reiter, thus facilitating simple installation of the ring-shaped nozzle cap onto the injection nozzle, as it is would thus be easy to slide it on the injection nozzle and lock it in the corresponding recess of Hohl (as shown in Fig. 2 of Hohl), without the use of specialized tools.
As to claim 2, modified Hohl shows the fuel injector of Claim 1, and wherein the nozzle cap (12) is received over a reduced-diameter portion of the tip region of the injection nozzle (see Fig. 2).
As to claim 3, modified Hohl shows the fuel injector of Claim 2, and wherein a radially outer surface of the nozzle cap has substantially the same cross section profile as an adjacent part (for example, at the lower end of 14) of the tip region (see Fig. 2).
As to claim 4, modified Hohl shows the fuel injector of Claim 1, and wherein the thermal barrier layer is defined by a radial clearance (see Fig. 2) between an outer surface of the tip region (at the outer surface portion of 6, where nozzle cap 12 of Hohl is located) of the nozzle and an inner surface of the nozzle cap.
As to claim 5, modified Hohl shows the fuel injector of Claim 1, and wherein the slot is linear (see Figs. 2-4).
As to claim 11, modified Hohl shows an injector arrangement including a fuel injector as claimed in Claim 1, with the nozzle of the fuel injector being at least partly received in a bore (at 10) defined in a wall (of 11) at least partly bounding a combustion chamber (9), wherein the injection nozzle and the nozzle cap are received in the bore such that the nozzle cap is in direct thermal contact with the bore to promote thermal transfer between the nozzle cap and the wall (see again, Fig. 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent to Steinruck et al., US Patent Application Publications to Raab et al. and Eismark et al., and Foreign Patent Publications to Lee et al., Berndorfer et al., Knorpp et al. and Wessner et al., are cited as of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARREN W GORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30.
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 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.
/DARREN W GORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752