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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the rigid sealing element and the sound passage must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 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 3-13 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 3, the phrase "preferably wherein" in the 5th line of the claim renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 4-13 depend on claim 3 and are therefore rejected. For the purposes of examination, it will be understood as “wherein” with the removal of the term “preferably”.
Claim 4 recites “a valve needle” in the 3rd line of the claim. Wherein claim 4 depends on claim 3, and wherein claim 3 recites “a valve needle” in the 4th line of claim 3. It is unclear if this is a second valve needle or the valve needle recited in claim 3. For the purposes of examination, it will be understood as the valve needle of claim 3 and not a second valve needle.
Claim 6 recites “a valve spring” in the 2nd line of the claim. It is unclear if this is a second valve spring, wherein claim 6 depends on claim 3, and claim 3 recites “a valve spring”. For the purposes of examination, it will be understood as “the valve spring”.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: a sound passage occurring and decoupling the combustion chamber to the injector.
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, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamada et al (DE 10 2014 224 341 A1 hereinafter “Hamada”).
In regards to claim 1:
Hamada teaches an injector (1) for injecting gas, comprising: a fuel feed line for introducing a gaseous fuel which is under high pressure, an actively switchable active valve (2) which is configured to be in a closing state or a releasing state in order to selectively permit or interrupt a flow connection from the fuel feed line to an area downstream of the active valve, and a passive valve (7), which is arranged downstream of the active valve and can be passively switched into a closing state or releasing state by different pressure ratios prevailing upstream and downstream (Opening due to pressure can be seen in Figure 1), and at least one sealing surface of the active valve is sealed by an elastic sealing element (5).
In regards to claim 14:
Hamada teaches during an injection, a sound passage occurs at one point in the injector, wherein fuel injectors are known to produce sound as all matter when moving will produce a sound wave, and wherein the injection rate is independent of the combustion chamber back pressure, wherein the injection of fuel is dependent on an operator that determines when the fuel is to be actuated (Paragraph [0033] recites the opening of the valve is dependent on an actuator being actuated), the sound passage occurring at a valve needle counterpart (8), wherein during operation the passage of sound will occur throughout the fuel injector and propagate through the injector, and wherein throttling surfaces will exist limiting the flow of the gaseous fuel, wherein all surfaces will have friction that interacts with the gaseous fuel limiting the flow of a gaseous fuel.
In regards to claim 15:
Hamada teaches an internal combustion engine with direct gas injection comprising an injector according to claim 1 (Paragraph [0001] recites the injection of the gaseous fuel directly into a combustion chamber of an engine).
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.
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 2 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada in view of Chabon et al Chabon et al (US 5,372,313 hereinafter “Chabon”).
In regards to claim 2:
Hamada does not teach in a closed state of the passive valve, a sealing surface of the passive valve is sealed by a rigid sealing element.
Chabon teaches a sealing surface of a valve having a rigid sealing element (62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the sealing surface of the passive valve of Hamada to have a rigid sealing element as taught by Chabon in order to seal the passive valve when the passive valve is closed.
In regards to claim 18:
Hamada as modified teaches the rigid sealing element includes a metal-to-metal seal (Col 10, Lines 35-37 of Chabon).
Claims 3-5, 7, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada in view of Schmieder et al (US 2015/0377185 hereinafter “Schmieder”).
In regards to claim 3:
Hamada does not teach the active valve comprises an armature which is movable in the longitudinal direction of the injector, which armature is movable out of its rest position depending on a magnetizable coil so as to urge a valve needle out of its closed position, wherein the injector further comprises a valve spring for urging the valve needle into its closed position.
Schmieder teaches an active valve comprising an armature (12) which is movable in the longitudinal direction of an injector (1), the armature is movable out of its rest position depending on a magnetizable coil (11) so as to urge a valve needle (2) out of its closed position, the injector further comprises a valve spring (13) for urging the valve needle into its closed position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the active valve of Hamada to have an armature and coil actuator as taught by Schmieder in order to control the valve electronically and using the force of the spring to have the valve in a naturally closed position.
In regards to claim 4:
Hamada as modified teaches a valve needle counterpart (8 of Hamada) which is rigidly arranged in the injector and which serves for selectively placing the valve needle, wherein in a mounted state of the valve needle at least one elastic sealing element (5) which seals the at least one opening is arranged in the intermediate space between the valve needle counterpart and the valve needle (Shown in Figure 1 of Hamada).
In regards to claim 5:
Hamada as modified teaches the valve needle counterpart (8 of Hamada) is arranged upstream of the valve needle (Shown in Figure 1 of Hamada).
In regards to claim 7:
Hamada as modified teaches the passive valve is arranged downstream of the valve needle and is urged into its closing position via a passive valve spring element (9 of Hamada) in the direction of the valve needle.
In regards to claim 12:
Hamada as modified teaches the valve needle counterpart (8) is arranged stationary in the injector, wherein the gaseous fuel is guided through the entire injector in such a way that the flow always extends inside or outside of pressure springs (9).
In regards to claim 13:
Hamada teaches the valve needle counterpart (8) comprises at least one elastic sealing element (5) on the side facing the valve needle in order to seal off, in a compressed state, at least one opening of the valve needle counterpart for passing the gaseous fuel from the at least one opening of the valve needle for passing the gaseous fuel (Shown in Figure 1 of Hamada).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada and Schmieder as applied to claim 4 above and further in view of Kremer et al (US 11,873,784 hereinafter “Kremer”)
In regards to claim 6:
Hamada as modified teaches the valve spring urging the valve needle into its closed position but does not teach the valve spring arranged on the side of the valve needle facing away from the valve needle counterpart and is located downstream of the valve needle.
Kremer teaches a valve spring (29) arranged downstream of a valve needle (26) and facing away from a valve needle counterpart (22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the configuration of Hamada to have a valve spring downstream of the valve needle as taught by Kremer in order to apply an upward closing spring force on the valve needle. It is known in the art to use springs on either side of a valve in order to apply a force to the valve in a desired direction.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada and Schmieder as applied to claim 3 above and further in view of Jaegle et al (US 9,702,325 hereinafter “Jaegle”).
In regards to claim 8:
Hamada does not teach when the active valve is actuated leading to a movement of the valve needle into the open position, the opening movement of the valve needle exerts a mechanical force effect on the passive valve for transferring it into the open position
Jaegle teaches an active valve (4) when actuated exerting a mechanical force on a passive valve (3) into an open position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the injector of Hamada for the active valve to exert a mechanical force to the passive valve as taught by Jaegle in order to allow the injector to employ different injection strategies (Col 3, Lines 54-65).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada and Schmieder as applied to claim 3 above and further in view of Yew (US 6,439,214).
In regards to claim 9:
Hamada does not teach in a closed position of the active valve as well as the passive valve, a gap is formed between the side of the valve needle facing the passive valve and the side of the passive valve facing the valve needle, wherein this gap is dimensioned such that it is closed when the active valve is actuated, which leads to a movement of the valve needle into the open position, so that after this gap is closed by the continuation of the opening movement of the valve needle, a mechanical force is exerted on the passive valve to transfer it into the open position.
Yew teaches in a closed position of an active valve (82) as well as a passive valve (110), a gap is formed between the side of the valve needle facing the passive valve and the side of the passive valve facing the valve needle (Shown in Figure 3 between the head of 82 and the head of fastener 120), wherein this gap is dimensioned such that it is closed when the active valve is actuated (Figure 4 shows the gap is closed), which leads to a movement of the valve needle into the open position, so that after this gap is closed by the continuation of the opening movement of the valve needle, a mechanical force is exerted on the passive valve to transfer it into the open position (Col 6, Lines 10-34 of Yew).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the valve of Hamada to have a gap between the passive valve and the active valve as taught by Yew in order to add a mechanical force for the operation of the valve.
In regards to claim 10:
Hamada as modified teaches an elastic intermediate piece (120) is arranged in the gap.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada and Schmieder as applied to claim 3 above and further in view Manubolu et al (US 2010/0006679 hereinafter “Manubolu”).
In regards to claim 11:
Hamada does not teach in a closed position of the active valve, the armature urging the valve needle out of its closed position is spaced apart from the valve needle.
Manubolu teaches in a closed position of an active valve, an armature (40) urging valve needle (61) out of its closed position is spaced apart from the valve needle (Paragraph [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have the armature of Hamada to be spaced apart from the valve needle as taught by Manubolu in order to make operation of the valve predictable (Paragraph [0030] of Manubolu).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada in view of Yew.
In regards to claim 16:
Hamada teaches the injector is a hydrogen direct injector, but does not teach the actively switchable active valve is an active solenoid valve.
Yew teaches an active valve that is a solenoid valve (36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have the active valve of Hamada be a solenoid valve as taught by X in order to operate the valve electronically.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada in view of Jurgens (US 2015/0203669).
In regards to claim 17:
Hamada does not teach the elastic sealing element includes a metal-elastomer seal.
Jurgens teaches a metal-elastomer seal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the elastic sealing element of Hamada to include a metal-elastomer seal as taught by Jurgens in order to provide a seal that permits a high vacuum tightness, producing a low leakage rate (Abstract of Jurgens).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada in view of Battiston et al (US 10,006,429 hereinafter “Battiston”).
In regards to claim 19:
Hamada does not teach a component of the armature element of the active valve includes a rod-like armature part that extends through an opening of the valve needle counterpart contacting the valve need arranged on the downstream side of the valve needle counterpart during an opening movement of the active valve and to urge it into a releasing position.
Battiston teaches an armature element of the active valve includes a rod-like armature part (72) that extends through an opening of a valve needle counterpart (182), contacting a valve (70) arranged on the downstream side of the valve needle counterpart (182) during an opening movement of the active valve and to urge it into a releasing position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the armature of Hamada to have a rod like element as taught by Battiston in order to provide an alternative way of transferring motion of the armature to the valve. Wherein the armature is known in the art to provide a force, using a rod attached to the armature will extend the location of contact to transfer motion of the armature to a valve at a location spaced away from the armature.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada in view of Ogawa (US 4,669,668).
In regards to claim 20:
Hamada does not teach the mechanical force effect on the passive valve is exerted by means of a rod-like element arranged on the valve needle between the valve needle and a passive valve insert.
Ogawa teaches a mechanical force effect on a passive valve is exerted by means of a rod-like element (29) arranged on a valve needle between the valve needle and a passive valve insert (13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have a mechanical force on the passive valve of Hamada by a rod-like element as taught by Ogawa in order to transfer mechanical motion to the passive valve into an open position when actuated (Col 3, Line 63 – Col 4, Line 43 describes using a rod as an alternative to actuate a second valve).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES JAY KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-7610. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (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 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.
/JAMES J KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/HUNG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747