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 § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-14, and 16-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Borissov (US 2005/0082393).
Regarding claim 1, Moser discloses a fuel gas injection arrangement for directly injecting a gaseous fuel into a combustion chamber of an internal combustion engine (Abstract and Fig. 6-7, a gas injector for an engine), the fuel gas injection arrangement extending in an axial direction and comprising;
a nozzle cap 102 having a body part with an inner circumferential side 106 at least partly defining an inner volume 114, an inlet 112 for receiving gaseous fuel and at least one outlet 116 arranged at an axial end portion of the nozzle cap (Fig. 1A, shown);
an inlet valve arrangement 120 at least partly accommodated in the body part, the inlet valve arrangement being movable between a closed position in which a portion of the inlet valve arrangement is arranged in abutment with a valve seat of the nozzle cap to prevent fuel gas from entering the inlet, and an open position in which the fuel gas is allowed to flow between the inlet and the at least one outlet (Fig. 1A, the valve 120 allows or disallows gaseous fuel flow through the valve);
wherein said nozzle cap further comprises a flow-guiding portion disposed on the inner circumferential side and said inlet valve arrangement comprises a corresponding protruding flow-guiding portion protruding radially towards the inner circumferential side (Fig. 1A, the nozzle has an inner circumferential side 106 which guides flow and at its end has a rounded bump which can be considered a protrusion as well as the valve portion 120 having an edge 122 which is a protruding portion and interacts with the concave portion 106 for flow directing);
said nozzle cap flow-guiding portion and said valve protruding flow-guiding portion being configured to cooperate to redirect gaseous fuel received from the inlet towards the at least one outlet such that gaseous fuel jets exiting the at least one outlet converge towards a geometrical intersection-axial center region, said geometrical intersection-axial center region being located downstream and axially distanced from said at least one outlet (Fig. 1A and ¶ [0033], the nozzle guide being a “converging portion” which would cause flow to intersect at a place downstream from the nozzle).
Regarding claim 2, Moser discloses the fuel gas injection arrangement according to claim 1, wherein a location of the intersection-axial center region in the axial direction is defined by a distance L, as measured from a cross-sectional plane radially through the at least one outlet, and a converging angle Y, being defined as the angle between the cross-sectional plane and a gaseous fuel jet exiting the at least one outlet (Fig. 1A, shown outlet would have an intersection a distance L from the nozzle).
Regarding claim 5, Moser discloses the fuel gas injection arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the nozzle cap flow-guiding portion comprises a circumferential concave portion extending a substantial part in an axial direction (Fig. 1A, shown).
Regarding claim 6, Moser discloses the fuel gas injection arrangement according to claim 1, wherein at least a part of the nozzle cap flow-guiding portion extends in the axial direction to the at least one outlet (Fig. 1A, shown).
Regarding claim 7, Moser discloses the fuel gas injection arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the axial end portion of the nozzle cap comprises an edge defining the at least one outlet (Fig. 1A, the end of the cap has an edge).
Regarding claim 8, Moser discloses the fuel gas injection arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the at least one outlet is a single-orifice extending circumferentially around an end portion of the valve arrangement, whereby at least one or more gaseous fuel jets exiting the single-orifice converge at an intersection-point along an axial center line extending through the geometrical intersection-axial center region (Fig. 1A, the nozzle only has one opening and its intersection point would be along a line outside the nozzle).
Regarding claim 9, Moser discloses the fuel gas injection arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the at least one outlet region comprises a plurality of outlet regions circumferentially arranged around an axial center line (Fig. 1A, the nozzle can have a plurality of regions that are connected).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Moser discloses the fuel gas injection arrangement according to claim 9, wherein said outlet regions of said plurality of outlet regions are uniformly or non-uniformly distributed around the axial center line (Fig. 1A, the regions can be uniformly distributed or non-uniform depending on what regions you wish to define).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Moser discloses the fuel gas injection arrangement according to claim 9, wherein said outlet regions of said plurality of outlet regions are of the same or different geometrical size (Fig. 1A, the regions can be whatever size a user wishes to define)
Regarding claim 14, Moser discloses the fuel gas injection arrangement according to claim 9, wherein at least some of the gaseous fuel jets exiting from said plurality of outlet regions converge at a common intersection-point along an axial center line extending through the geometrical intersection-axial center region (Fig. 1A, the nozzle being circumferentially converging means all regions intersect).
Regarding claim 16, Moser discloses the fuel gas injection arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the protruding flow-guiding portion is disposed on an envelope surface of the valve arrangement (Fig. 1A, shown).
Regarding claim 17, Moser discloses the fuel gas injection arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the protruding flow-guiding portion is a convex outer portion extending a substantial part in an axial direction (Fig. 1A, shown portion 122 includes a convex portion).
Regarding claim 18, Moser discloses the fuel gas injection arrangement according to claim 1, wherein parts of said nozzle cap flow-guiding portion and said protruding flow-guiding portion are arranged radially opposite each other (Fig. 1A, shown).
Regarding claim 19, Moser discloses the fuel gas injection arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the inlet valve arrangement comprises a valve portion and an axially extending head portion having an upper end arranged at the valve portion, and a lower end facing away from the valve portion, wherein the valve portion comprises a surface arranged in abutment with the valve seat when the inlet valve arrangement assumes the closed position (Fig. 1A, the valve 120 has a seated portion an axial extending portion away from it).
Regarding claim 20, Moser discloses the fuel gas injection arrangement according to claim 19, wherein the valve portion and the head portion are integrally formed with each other (Fig. 1A, shown).
Regarding claim 21, Moser discloses the fuel gas injection arrangement according to claim 19, wherein the protruding flow-guiding portion forms part of the head portion (Fig. 1A, shown).
Regarding claim 24, Moser discloses the fuel gas injection arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the nozzle cap is an outer part of the fuel gas injection arrangement, said nozzle cap being configured to attach to an injector body of the fuel gas injection arrangement (Fig. 1A, shown).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 3-4, 15, and 25-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moser.
Regarding claim 3, 4, and 15 Moser discloses the fuel gas injection arrangement according to claim 2, but fails to disclose: wherein the angle Y is about between 5 degrees and 60 degrees; wherein the distance L essentially corresponds to the mean diameter of an outlet region defined by the at least one outlet; wherein at least some of the gaseous fuel jets exiting from said plurality of outlet regions individually converges towards said geometrical intersection-axial center region and at different axial distances from said at least one outlet.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to alter the shape of the nozzle outlet since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In this case, the nozzle already fulfills the basic conditions of the claim designs, but fails to specify exact angles and shapes of the jet, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention would have found it obvious through routine experimentation to determine the exact angle, distance, and shape of the converging jets.
Regarding claims 25 and 29-30, Moser discloses the fuel gas injection arrangement according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the fuel gas injection arrangement is a vehicle having a hydrogen fuel gas injection arrangement.
The usage of gaseous fuel injectors in hydrogen powered vehicles is sufficiently old and well-known in the art for examiner to take official notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to make use of Moser’s injector in a hydrogen powered vehicle because the injector allows for more efficient combustion (¶ [0006]) and improve fuel mixing (¶ [0016]).
Regarding claim 26-28, Moser discloses the fuel gas injection arrangement according to claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising a control unit configured to control the operation of the fuel gas injection arrangement; wherein the fuel gas injection arrangement is controllable by the control unit to inject fuel into a combustion chamber with a low injection pressure of between 15 to 60 bar; and wherein the control unit is configured to control the fuel gas injection arrangement in response to a control signal containing data being indicative of a hydrogen system pressure, a number of injections per engine cycle, a timing for start of each injection, a duration of each injection, a separation time between injections.
The usage of controllers to modify fuel injector systems to allow for modified injection pressures, durations, timing, and injection count are sufficiently old and well-known in the art to include a fuel injection control unit to modify the injection parameters according to the desired engine characters because it would allow for a more efficient and effectively fueled engine. It’s further noted that would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the specific timing and pressure parameters of the prior art to be that of the claimed invention since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moser in view of Moser et al (US 2017/0321636), hereinafter “636.”
Regarding claims 22-23, Moser discloses the fuel gas injection arrangement according to claim 19, but fails to disclose wherein the head portion comprises a taper shaped surface between the protruding flow-guiding portion and the lower end and wherein a diameter of the head portion decreases along the taper shaped surface in a direction from the protruding flow-guiding portion to the lower end.
636 discloses a gas injector for directly injecting gaseous fuel (Abstract) which contains a valve portion 2 which has a tapering flow-guiding portion 20 at its lower end having a decreasing tapered shape (Fig. 6, shown portion 20 having a tapered area). This valve allows for more effective sealing (¶ [0012]) and wherein the shape allows for more effective and varied shaping of injection gas jets, such as hydrogen (¶ [0002]), while allowing for simple and cost-effective manufacturing of desired jet shapes (¶ [0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the valve device of Moser with the tapering valve of 636 because it would have allowed for a simple cost-effective valve device with varying tapered shapes in order to more effectively guide and shape gaseous fuel jets.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN A LATHERS whose telephone number is (571)272-1050. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10a-6p.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at 5712721196. 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.
/KEVIN A LATHERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747