DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground(s) of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the arguments
[e.g., in view of applicant’s amendments, an updated search was performed that revealed new relevant prior art that is now considered to be the closest prior art with respect to the claimed invention(s)];
[e.g., US 5020500 A (Kelly) teaches or fairly renders obvious the claimed subject matter pertaining to a fuel injector and/or nozzle arrangement with respect to the multiple profiles of the nozzle check, the conical tip with a flat nib that is disposed axially outward of the plurality of spray orifices, the differential angle opening from the seating line in a direction of the sac, etc.].
Note that in view of applicant’s amendments, the previously indicated claim objections and rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn. See detailed rejection below.
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.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 17, the fourth from last line of the claim recites “the plurality of spray orifices”. There is no clear antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and as such, it is not exactly clear as to what/which limitation(s) is/are being referenced. Note that the aforementioned clarity issue can be overcome by amending the limitation to instead read “a plurality of spray orifices”.
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 1-2, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5020500 A (Kelly).
PNG
media_image1.png
540
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
ANNOTATED FIGURE 2 (KELLY)
Regarding claim 1, Kelly (Figure 2) teaches a fuel injector [e.g., the entirety of Fig. 2] comprising:
a fuel injector housing (12) including a nozzle (20) having a plurality of spray orifices (22) formed therein and an inner nozzle surface forming a check seat (19) and a sac (see annotated Fig. 2 above);
a nozzle check (16) movable in the nozzle between a closed position in contact with the check seat (see Fig. 2), and an open position (see Fig. 2 in conjunction with claim 1) [e.g., “an elongated nozzle needle valve in the valve bore having upper and lower guides which cooperate with the upper and lower valve guides for axial movement of the needle valve within the valve bore between a lower closed position in engagement with the valve seat and an upper fully open position with a predetermined lift”];
the nozzle check defining a check axis [e.g., an imaginary vertical line bisecting the illustration per Fig. 2] and including a tip having a flat nib and an outer tip surface having a first profiled section extending between the flat nib and a second profiled section and defining a seating line between the first profiled section and the second profiled section (see annotated Fig. 2 above); and
the plurality of spray orifices open to the sac at locations axially outward of the flat nib (see annotated Fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 2, Kelly (Figure 2) teaches wherein a differential angle opening in a direction of the sac is defined between the check seat and the first profiled section (see annotated Fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 8, Kelly (Figure 2) teaches (at least implicitly) wherein the tip defines a seat width dimension [e.g., defined by the width of the seating line indicated via the annotated Fig. 2 above], and a seat-flat dimension [e.g., defined by the vertical distance from the flat nib to the seating line indicated via the annotated Fig. 2 above] is less than the seat width dimension (see annotated Fig. 2 above); [e.g., compare to the corresponding seat width dimension 68 and seat-flat dimension 70 per applicant’s Fig. 2]; [e.g., one of ordinary skill can reasonably infer the relative dimensions of the corresponding seat width dimension and the seat-flat dimension with respect to one another via the annotated Fig. 2 above, such that the seat-flat dimension is clearly at least slightly less than the seat width dimension].
Regarding claim 11, Kelly (Figure 2) teaches a nozzle assembly (12) for a fuel injector [e.g., the entirety of Fig. 2] comprising:
a nozzle including a terminal end bulb (20), and including a nozzle inner surface forming a check seat (19) and a sac (see annotated Fig. 2 above), and having a plurality of spray orifices (22) formed therein and extending from the sac to an outer nozzle surface (see annotated Fig. 2 above);
a nozzle check (16) movable between a closed position in contact with the check seat (see Fig. 2), and an open position (see Fig. 2 in conjunction with claim 1) [e.g., “an elongated nozzle needle valve in the valve bore having upper and lower guides which cooperate with the upper and lower valve guides for axial movement of the needle valve within the valve bore between a lower closed position in engagement with the valve seat and an upper fully open position with a predetermined lift”]; and
the nozzle check defining a check axis [e.g., an imaginary vertical line bisecting the illustration per Fig. 2], and including a tip tapered down from an outer check shaft surface to a flat nib and defining a seating line located axially between the flat nib and the outer check shaft surface (see annotated Fig. 2 above);
the tip further defining a seat width dimension [e.g., defined by the width of the seating line indicated via the annotated Fig. 2 above] at the seating line, and a seat-flat dimension [e.g., defined by the vertical distance from the flat nib to the seating line indicated via the annotated Fig. 2 above] less than the seat width dimension (see annotated Fig. 2 above); [e.g., compare to the corresponding seat width dimension 68 and seat-flat dimension 70 per applicant’s Fig. 2]; [e.g., one of ordinary skill can reasonably infer the relative dimensions of the corresponding seat width dimension and the seat-flat dimension with respect to one another via the annotated Fig. 2 above, such that the seat-flat dimension is clearly at least slightly less than the seat width dimension]; and
the plurality of spray orifices open to the sac at locations axially outward of the flat nib (see annotated Fig. 2 above).
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 3-7, 9, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 5020500 A (Kelly).
Regarding claim 3, Kelly teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Kelly fails to expressly teach wherein the differential angle is less than 1 degree.
However, to the extent that the differential angle per Kelly is incredibly similar to that of the claimed invention due to the substantive features of the respective invention(s) being the same (or substantially similar), there would be no unexpected result(s)/effect(s) yielded via accordingly optimizing said differential angle to achieve the desired/required fuel flow characteristics for a particular application, and similarly, there would be no exercise of inventive skill required to accordingly optimize said differential angle as optimizing said angle merely involves routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05; Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions; II. Routine Optimization; A. Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation) [e.g., the specificity of the claimed angle(s) at best relate(s) to the normal desire of one of ordinary skill in the art to find the optimal angle(s), and/or a minor optimization of the angle(s) per Kelly, especially in consideration that the relative proportions of the structure(s) forming the angle(s) per the claimed invention(s) and the invention(s) per Kelly are substantially similar].
Regarding claim 4, Kelly teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Kelly (Figure 2) further teaches wherein the first profile includes a conical section (see annotated Fig. 2 above in conjunction with column 2, lines 4-7). Kelly fails to teach wherein the second profiled section includes a radiused (or curved) section.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and/or merely involve routine skill in the art to have the edge/corner portion(s) indicated at the second profiled section [e.g., as indicated per the annotated Fig. 2 above] be at least slightly rounded/curved (or radiused) as a modification (or an alternative) [e.g., such that the second profiled section includes a radiused (or curved) section at the edge/corner portion(s)], so as to prevent a sudden change in the direction of fuel flowing along the second profiled section and reduce turbulence, fuel flow separation, and/or pressure loss(es) in the fuel injector, and thereby promote a more consistent fuel spray, which in turn improves combustion efficiency, and/or minimize wear on the nozzle check and/or check seat caused by high pressure/velocity impact(s)/flow force(s) (implicit in view of well-known and/or basic engineering logic/principles concerning the provision of utilizing rounded (or radiused) corners in lieu of sharp or relatively sharp corners in mechanical and/or fuel injector applications) (also reference Pertinent Prior Art Section below).
Additionally (or alternatively), having the edge/corner portion(s) indicated at the second profiled section [e.g., as indicated per the annotated Fig. 2 above] be at least slightly rounded/curved (or radiused) would have been an obvious design choice/consideration or predictable variation that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have made, leading to predictable results (also reference Pertinent Prior Art Section below) [e.g., for the sake of argument that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and/or merely involve routine skill in the art to have wherein the second profiled section includes a radiused (or curved) section, the analogous prior art references US 7360722 B2 (Stockner) and US 5203308 A (Liskow) both teach the aforementioned claim feature, and to the extent that the results and/or advantageous effect(s) to be yielded via implementing the aforementioned claim feature would have clearly been highly predictable].
Regarding claim 5, Kelly teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Kelly (Figure 2) further teaches (at least implicitly) wherein the tip forms an angular corner at an intersection of the flat nib and the conical section and extending circumferentially around the check axis (see annotated Fig. 2 above) [e.g., Fig. 2 is a sectional view that is with respect to an annular or circumferentially extending conical section].
Regarding claims 6-7, Kelly teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Kelly fails to teach wherein the radiused section defines a first radius, and the angular corner defines a second radius smaller than the first radius, and wherein the second radius is smaller than the first radius by a factor of about 100 or greater [e.g., since Kelly fails to teach wherein the second profiled section includes a radiused (or curved) section].
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and/or merely involve routine skill in the art to have the edge/corner portion(s) indicated at the second profiled section [e.g., as indicated per the annotated Fig. 2 above] be at least slightly rounded/curved (or radiused) as a modification (or an alternative) [e.g., such that the second profiled section includes a radiused (or curved) section at the edge/corner portion(s), and such that the angular corner defines a second radius smaller than the first radius], so as to prevent a sudden change in the direction of fuel flowing along the second profiled section and reduce turbulence, fuel flow separation, and/or pressure loss(es) in the fuel injector, and thereby promote a more consistent fuel spray, which in turn improves combustion efficiency, and/or minimize wear on the nozzle check and/or check seat caused by high pressure/velocity impact(s)/flow force(s) (implicit in view of well-known and/or basic engineering logic/principles concerning the provision of utilizing rounded (or radiused) corners in lieu of sharp or relatively sharp corners in mechanical and/or fuel injector applications).
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art can accordingly determine (or optimize) the degree and/or extent of the at least slightly rounded/curved (or radiused) section based on certain factors concerning the particular application (cost considerations, fuel injection pressure(s) of the specific engine, desired/required combustion efficiency, etc.), such that determining a particular factor that the second radius is smaller than the first radius would not involve the exercise of inventive skill (also reference Pertinent Prior Art Section below).
Additionally (or alternatively), having the edge/corner portion(s) indicated at the second profiled section [e.g., as indicated per the annotated Fig. 2 above] be at least slightly rounded/curved (or radiused) would have been an obvious design choice/consideration or predictable variation that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have made, leading to predictable results (also reference Pertinent Prior Art Section below) [e.g., for the sake of argument that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and/or merely involve routine skill in the art to have wherein the second profiled section includes a radiused (or curved) section, the analogous prior art references US 7360722 B2 (Stockner) and US 5203308 A (Liskow) both teach the aforementioned claim feature, and to the extent that the results and/or advantageous effect(s) to be yielded via implementing the aforementioned claim feature would have clearly been highly predictable].
Regarding claims 9 and 12-13, Kelly teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Kelly fails to teach wherein the seat width dimension is from about two times to about four times the seat-flat dimension, and wherein a ratio of the seat width dimension to the seat-flat dimension is about 3:1.
However, to the extent that the relative proportions of the seat width and seat-flat dimensions per Kelly are incredibly similar to that of the claimed invention due to the substantive features of the respective invention(s) being the same (or substantially similar) [e.g., with respect to the conical tip of the nozzle check defining a flat nib and being provided with respect to a differential angle between the seating line and the flat nib that opens toward the sac], there would be no unexpected result(s)/effect(s) yielded via accordingly optimizing said relative proportions to achieve the desired/required fuel flow characteristics for a particular application, and similarly, there would be no exercise of inventive skill required to accordingly optimize said relative proportions optimizing said relative proportions merely involves routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05; Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions; II. Routine Optimization; A. Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation) [e.g., the specificity of the claimed proportion(s) at best relate(s) to the normal desire of one of ordinary skill in the art to find the optimal proportions(s), and/or a minor optimization of the proportion(s) per Kelly, especially in consideration that the relative proportions of the structure(s) forming the fuel injector components per the claimed invention(s) and the invention(s) per Kelly are substantially similar].
Regarding claim 14, Kelly teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Kelly (Figure 2) further teaches wherein the tip includes an outer tip surface having a conical section extending to the flat nib (see annotated Fig. 2 above in conjunction with column 2, lines 4-7). Kelly fails to teach wherein the tip includes a radiused (or curved) section extending to the outer check shaft surface, and the seating line is defined between the conical section and the radiused section.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and/or merely involve routine skill in the art to have the edge/corner portion(s) indicated at the second profiled section [e.g., as indicated per the annotated Fig. 2 above] be at least slightly rounded/curved (or radiused) as a modification (or an alternative) [e.g., such that the second profiled section includes a radiused (or curved) section at the edge/corner portion(s), and such that the tip includes a radiused (or curved) section extending to the outer check shaft surface, and the seating line is defined between the conical section and the radiused section], so as to prevent a sudden change in the direction of fuel flowing along the second profiled section and reduce turbulence, fuel flow separation, and/or pressure loss(es) in the fuel injector, and thereby promote a more consistent fuel spray, which in turn improves combustion efficiency, and/or minimize wear on the nozzle check and/or check seat caused by high pressure/velocity impact(s)/flow force(s) (implicit in view of well-known and/or basic engineering logic/principles concerning the provision of utilizing rounded (or radiused) corners in lieu of sharp or relatively sharp corners in mechanical and/or fuel injector applications) (also reference Pertinent Prior Art Section below).
Additionally (or alternatively), having the edge/corner portion(s) indicated at the second profiled section [e.g., as indicated per the annotated Fig. 2 above] be at least slightly rounded/curved (or radiused) would have been an obvious design choice/consideration or predictable variation that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have made, leading to predictable results (also reference Pertinent Prior Art Section below) [e.g., for the sake of argument that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and/or merely involve routine skill in the art to have wherein the second profiled section includes a radiused (or curved) section, the analogous prior art references US 7360722 B2 (Stockner) and US 5203308 A (Liskow) both teach the aforementioned claim feature, and to the extent that the results and/or advantageous effect(s) to be yielded via implementing the aforementioned claim feature would have clearly been highly predictable].
Regarding claim 15, Kelly teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Kelly (Figure 2) further teaches (at least implicitly) wherein the tip forms an angular corner at an intersection of the flat nib and the conical section and extending circumferentially around the check axis (see annotated Fig. 2 above) [e.g., Fig. 2 is a sectional view that is with respect to an annular or circumferentially extending conical section]. Kelly fails to teach wherein the radiused section defines a first radius, and the angular corner defines a second radius smaller than the first radius [e.g., since Kelly fails to teach wherein the second profiled section includes a radiused (or curved) section].
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and/or merely involve routine skill in the art to have the edge/corner portion(s) indicated at the second profiled section [e.g., as indicated per the annotated Fig. 2 above] be at least slightly rounded/curved (or radiused) as a modification (or an alternative) [e.g., such that the second profiled section includes a radiused (or curved) section at the edge/corner portion(s), and such that the angular corner defines a second radius smaller than the first radius], so as to prevent a sudden change in the direction of fuel flowing along the second profiled section and reduce turbulence, fuel flow separation, and/or pressure loss(es) in the fuel injector, and thereby promote a more consistent fuel spray, which in turn improves combustion efficiency, and/or minimize wear on the nozzle check and/or check seat caused by high pressure/velocity impact(s)/flow force(s) (implicit in view of well-known and/or basic engineering logic/principles concerning the provision of utilizing rounded (or radiused) corners in lieu of sharp or relatively sharp corners in mechanical and/or fuel injector applications) (also reference Pertinent Prior Art Section below).
Additionally (or alternatively), having the edge/corner portion(s) indicated at the second profiled section [e.g., as indicated per the annotated Fig. 2 above] be at least slightly rounded/curved (or radiused) would have been an obvious design choice/consideration or predictable variation that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have made, leading to predictable results (also reference Pertinent Prior Art Section below) [e.g., for the sake of argument that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and/or merely involve routine skill in the art to have wherein the second profiled section includes a radiused (or curved) section, the analogous prior art references US 7360722 B2 (Stockner) and US 5203308 A (Liskow) both teach the aforementioned claim feature, and to the extent that the results and/or advantageous effect(s) to be yielded via implementing the aforementioned claim feature would have clearly been highly predictable].
Regarding claim 16, Kelly teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Kelly (Figure 2) further teaches wherein a differential angle opening in a direction of the sac is defined between the check seat and the conical section (see annotated Fig. 2 above). Kelly fails to teach wherein the differential angle is equal to about 1 degree or less.
However, to the extent that the differential angle per Kelly is incredibly similar to that of the claimed invention due to the substantive features of the respective invention(s) being the same (or substantially similar), there would be no unexpected result(s)/effect(s) yielded via accordingly optimizing said differential angle to achieve the desired/required fuel flow characteristics for a particular application, and similarly, there would be no exercise of inventive skill required to accordingly optimize said differential angle as optimizing said angle merely involves routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05; Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions; II. Routine Optimization; A. Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation) [e.g., the specificity of the claimed angle(s) at best relate(s) to the normal desire of one of ordinary skill in the art to find the optimal angle(s), and/or a minor optimization of the angle(s) per Kelly, especially in consideration that the relative proportions of the structure(s) forming the angle(s) per the claimed invention(s) and the invention(s) per Kelly are substantially similar].
Regarding claim 17, Kelly (Figures 1-2) teaches a method of operating a fuel injector [e.g., the entirety of Fig. 2], the method comprising:
actuating a nozzle check (16) in the fuel injector, and the nozzle check defining a check axis [e.g., an imaginary vertical line bisecting the illustration per Fig. 2] (see annotated Fig. 2 above);
lifting (or hydraulically opening) the nozzle check, based on pressure pulses of fuel, from a closed position in contact with a check seat (19) at a seating line (see annotated Fig. 2 above in conjunction with claim 1) [e.g., “an elongated nozzle needle valve in the valve bore having upper and lower guides which cooperate with the upper and lower valve guides for axial movement of the needle valve within the valve bore between a lower closed position in engagement with the valve seat and an upper fully open position with a predetermined lift”]; [e.g., “the upper fuel chamber being connected to receive periodic high pressure pulses of fuel for opening the needle valve against the bias of the closure spring means and for supplying fuel for fuel injection through the spray hole means”];
fluidly connecting a fuel passage (36) to a sac in the fuel injector through a volume defined between an outer tip surface of the nozzle check and the check seat together defining a differential angle opening from the seating line in a direction of the sac (see annotated Fig. 2 above in conjunction with claim 1);
advancing fuel from the fuel passage past a flat nib of the nozzle check positioned at a distance axially outward from the seating line effective to bias (or capable of biasing) higher-velocity flows, in a flow of the fuel including both the higher-velocity flows and lower velocity flows, away from an inner nozzle surface forming the sac (implicit) (see annotated Fig. 2 above in conjunction with claim 1) [e.g., the recitation of “high pressure pulses of fuel” implies a variation in fuel pressure over time, specifically alternating between periods of high pressure and periods of relatively lower pressure]; [e.g., high pressure corresponding to a relatively high velocity flow, and lower pressure (between pulses) corresponding to a relatively low velocity flow]; [e.g., when high pressure fuel is being pulsed, the fuel exiting the nozzle will comprise a range of velocities, not just a single high velocity];
spraying the fuel out of a plurality of orifices (22) of the fuel injector (see annotated Fig. 2 above in conjunction with claim 1); and
limiting cavitation erosion of at least one of the nozzle check or a nozzle (20) of the fuel injector forming the inner nozzle surface based on biasing of the higher-velocity flows away from the inner nozzle surface (implicit) (see annotated Fig. 2 above in conjunction with claim 1 and column 6, lines 2-4) [e.g., “Cavitation erosion at or adjacent the valve seat 19 is thereby eliminated or reduced”]; [e.g., based on the comparable relative dimensions of the corresponding first profiled section, the flat nib, the sac, and the plurality of spray orifices, one of ordinary skill in the art may reasonably presume that the higher-velocity (or higher-pressure) flows per Fig. 2 of Kelly and/or caused by the high pressure pulses of fuel per Kelly are (or would be) biased away from the inner nozzle surface as claimed, similar to the higher-velocity flows 102 illustrated per applicant’s Fig. 6-7].
Kelly fails to expressly teach lifting the nozzle check based on (or further based on) reducing a closing hydraulic pressure on the nozzle check.
However, the aforementioned limitation(s) of reducing a closing hydraulic pressure on the nozzle check and such that the nozzle check is lifted based on the reducing of the closing hydraulic pressure relates to an incredibly well-known and/or conventional technique for accordingly actuating a nozzle check (or needle) in a fuel injector of a modern internal combustion engine, and to the extent that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and/or merely involve routine skill in the art to accordingly utilize the aforementioned technique as the particular means for opening and closing (or actuating) the nozzle check per Kelly as an alternative [e.g., selecting from various well-known configurations when deciding how to accordingly open and close (or actuate) the nozzle check for a particular engine application]; [e.g., instead of using the traditional system per Kelly of which relies on high-pressure pulses of fuel to mechanically overcome a spring force to lift the nozzle check, routinely opting for a well-known modern system where the fuel injector(s) is/are provided (or further provided) with a control chamber/hydraulic circuit above the nozzle check and such that an electronic (solenoid or piezoelectric) control valve is used to enable more precise control over the injection timing, duration, etc. via controlling hydraulic pressure in said control chamber/hydraulic circuit to lift/open and close the nozzle check], so as to achieve one or more of the readily foreseeable technical effects including improved precision control, flexibility, and/or accuracy via electronically controlling the lifting/opening and closing of the nozzle check (compared to a purely mechanical spring system), faster response time(s) since less overall force will be required to initiate movement(s) of the nozzle check, and/or improved fuel atomization and combustion efficiency via the electronic control enabling more consistent/balanced fuel pressure(s), which translates to one or more of increased engine power, improved fuel economy, and/or lower exhaust emissions (implicit in view of basic and/or well-known engineering logic/principles pertaining to the utilization of modern fuel injection system configurations over traditional fuel injection system configurations such as that of Kelly).
Furthermore, there would be no exercise of inventive skill involved in routinely opting for a particular well-known means for actuating the nozzle check in a fuel injector of an internal combustion engine, and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would routinely opt for and/or select from various well-known configurations/techniques when designing the fuel injector and/or internal combustion engine system, without exercising inventive skill (also reference Pertinent Prior Art Section below).
Regarding claim 18, Kelly teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Kelly (Figure 2) further teaches wherein the nozzle check defines a seat width dimension [e.g., defined by the width of the seating line indicated via the annotated Fig. 2 above] at the seating line, and a seat-flat dimension [e.g., defined by the vertical distance from the flat nib to the seating line indicated via the annotated Fig. 2 above] less than the seat width dimension (see annotated Fig. 2 above); [e.g., compare to the corresponding seat width dimension 68 and seat-flat dimension 70 per applicant’s Fig. 2]; [e.g., one of ordinary skill can reasonably infer the relative dimensions of the corresponding seat width dimension and the seat-flat dimension with respect to one another via the annotated Fig. 2 above, such that the seat-flat dimension is clearly at least slightly less than the seat width dimension]. Kelly fails to teach wherein a ratio of the seat width dimension to the seat-flat dimension is from about two to about four.
However, to the extent that the relative proportions of the seat width and seat-flat dimensions per Kelly are incredibly similar to that of the claimed invention due to the substantive features of the respective invention(s) being the same (or substantially similar) [e.g., with respect to the conical tip of the nozzle check defining a flat nib and being provided with respect to a differential angle between the seating line and the flat nib that opens toward the sac], there would be no unexpected result(s)/effect(s) yielded via accordingly optimizing said relative proportions to achieve the desired/required fuel flow characteristics for a particular application, and similarly, there would be no exercise of inventive skill required to accordingly optimize said relative proportions optimizing said relative proportions merely involves routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05; Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions; II. Routine Optimization; A. Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation) [e.g., the specificity of the claimed proportion(s) at best relate(s) to the normal desire of one of ordinary skill in the art to find the optimal proportions(s), and/or a minor optimization of the proportion(s) per Kelly, especially in consideration that the relative proportions of the structure(s) forming the fuel injector components per the claimed invention(s) and the invention(s) per Kelly are substantially similar].
Regarding claim 19, Kelly teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Kelly fails to teach wherein the differential angle is about 1 degree or less.
However, to the extent that the differential angle per Kelly is incredibly similar to that of the claimed invention due to the substantive features of the respective invention(s) being the same (or substantially similar), there would be no unexpected result(s)/effect(s) yielded via accordingly optimizing said differential angle to achieve the desired/required fuel flow characteristics for a particular application, and similarly, there would be no exercise of inventive skill required to accordingly optimize said differential angle as optimizing said angle merely involves routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05; Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions; II. Routine Optimization; A. Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation) [e.g., the specificity of the claimed angle(s) at best relate(s) to the normal desire of one of ordinary skill in the art to find the optimal angle(s), and/or a minor optimization of the angle(s) per Kelly, especially in consideration that the relative proportions of the structure(s) forming the angle(s) per the claimed invention(s) and the invention(s) per Kelly are substantially similar].
Regarding claim 20, Kelly teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Kelly (Figure 2) further teaches (at least implicitly) wherein the advancing fuel from the fuel passage includes advancing the fuel past an angular corner of the nozzle check defined at an intersection of the flat nib and a conical surface of the nozzle check extending from the flat nib to the seating line (see annotated Fig. 2 above in conjunction with column 2, lines 4-7).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 5020500 A (Kelly) in view of US 20150020778 A1 (Upadhye).
Regarding claim 10, Kelly teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Kelly fails to teach wherein a number of the plurality of spray orifices is five, and each respective one of the plurality of spray orifices extends from a larger radiused inner opening to a smaller radiused outer opening, and defines a spray orifice diameter reduced in a direction of the smaller radiused outer opening. Note that Kelly does expressly teach wherein one or more spray holes 22 are provided [e.g., the language “one or more” reasonably encompassing five spray orifices], and wherein the number, diameter and exact location of the plurality of spray orifices (22) is selected accordingly for each application (see Fig. 2 in conjunction with column 2, lines 14-15).
However, notwithstanding that the provision of opting for a particular number of spray orifices in a fuel injector is merely a function of the particular application and/or a mere matter of routine design choice/consideration, and such that there would be no exercise of inventive skill required to accordingly opt for a particular number of spray orifices in a fuel injector [e.g., one of ordinary skill in the art routinely selects the particular quantity of spray orifices in fuel injectors of an internal combustion engine system depending on the specific application and/or the desired fuel flow, engine operating characteristics, emission requirements, etc.] (also reference Pertinent Prior Art Section below),
Upadhye (Figures 2-6) teaches an analogous fuel injector nozzle (see Fig. 2-6 in conjunction with title, abstract), and wherein the number of the corresponding spray orifices (30) may be five or more and/or set accordingly (see Fig. 3 in conjunction with paragraphs [0018], [0028]). Furthermore, Upadhye provides that the plurality of spray orifices may be configured to extend from a larger radiused inner opening to a smaller radiused outer opening, and define a spray orifice diameter reduced in a direction of the smaller radiused outer opening, if desired, and to the extent that it would merely involve routine skill in the art to accordingly opt for the aforementioned configuration for the plurality of spray orifices in a particular internal combustion engine system and/or based on the desired fuel flow, engine operating characteristics, emission requirements, etc. (see Fig. 3 in conjunction with paragraphs [0018], [0028]) [e.g., “In some embodiments, one or more of the orifices 30 may be tapered such that the orifice diameter D at the first end 34 is larger or smaller than the orifice diameter D at the second end 38”].
Additionally (or alternatively), in consideration that Kelly and Upadhye are both relevant to at least the same general field(s) of endeavor concerning engine fuel injection devices, fuel injection nozzle configurations, techniques for optimizing fuel flow via a plurality of spray orifices, etc., there would be no unexpected result(s)/effect(s) yielded via accordingly applying the aforementioned features per Upadhye to other comparable internal combustion engine and/or fuel injector applications, such as that of Kelly, to achieve the same readily foreseeable technical effect(s) disclosed and/or suggested by Upadhye, which include(s) one or more effects pertaining to (or associated with) achieving a desired extent of reduced risk of nozzle coking and cavitation, and/or spray variations in spray plume patterns, improved overall nozzle efficiency, and/or improved combustion and engine efficiency for a particular internal combustion engine and/or fuel injector application (see Fig. 3 in conjunction with paragraphs [0018], [0027]-[0028]), and similarly, one of ordinary skill in the art can readily select from various well-known configurations based on certain factors concerning the particular application (cost considerations, space considerations, emission requirements, desired fuel flow and/or engine operating characteristics, etc.), without exercising inventive skill.
Pertinent Prior Art / Examiner Comment
While not relied upon per the detailed rejection above, the examiner notes the following prior art references to further support the examiner’s assertion(s) and/or conclusion(s) that opting for a particular quantity of spray orifices is a mere matter of routine design choice/consideration and/or subject matter that would not involve the exercise of inventive skill, that the method step(s)/technique(s) pertaining to the limitation(s) “reducing a closing hydraulic pressure on the nozzle check and such that the nozzle check is lifted based on the reducing of the closing hydraulic pressure” is/are with respect to an incredibly well-known and/or conventional technique for accordingly actuating a nozzle check (or needle) in a fuel injector of a modern internal combustion engine, and that it would have merely involved routine skill in the art and/or a matter of routine design choice/consideration to accordingly opt for a rounded/curved (or radiused) section at the corresponding portion of the second profiled section in view of well-known and/or basic engineering logic:
US 20180298860 A1 (Loscrudato) (see at least fuel injector 100, nozzle 105, and spray orifices 201-206 per Fig. 1-2 in conjunction with paragraph [0004]) [e.g., “The quantity, orientation and size of the orifices is specific to each engine application”];
US 6354271 B1 (Satapathy) (see at least fuel injector 10 and nozzle 81 per Fig. 1 in conjunction with column 3, lines 42-46) [e.g., “This method also includes the step of opening a nozzle outlet of the fuel injector, accomplished in part by relieving hydraulic pressure on a closing hydraulic surface of a needle valve member”];
US 7360722 B2 (Stockner) (see at least Fig. 1-3 in conjunction with column 3, lines 12-15 and column 5, line 65 through column 6, line 27) [e.g., note at least the radiused section(s) indicated via R1, R2, R3 per Fig. 2, of which correspond(s) to the second profiled section of the nozzle check];
[e.g., “as fluid flows downstream from the first body portion 22 of the nozzle body 14 toward the injection orifices 30 past the generally convex region R3, the fluid may approach and flow through a gradually widening channel defined by the wall of the nozzle body 14 and the recessed region 46 of the check member 18 so that the velocity of the fluid is reduced prior to the fluid entering the orifices 30. More specifically, the velocity of the fluid may be reduced as it flows past and fluidly communicates with the generally convex regions R1, R2 of the check member 18 and the recessed region 46 of the check member 18 prior to entering the orifices 30. With a configuration as disclosed herein, pressurized fluid transmitted through the injector is estimated to experience a decrease in fluid separation phenomena proximate or within the orifices 30, thereby decreasing fluid cavitation effects within the tip 26 to ultimately decrease potential damage to the injector and increase the life of the injector. Moreover, increased injection spray uniformity, for example via improved check lift characteristics, is also estimated to result”];
[e.g., “The geometrical and structural elements (e.g., one or more of the generally convex regions) described herein are further estimated to facilitate one or more desirable characteristics for fuel injectors, such as providing smooth velocity transition regions and/or uniform pressure distributions within the fuel injector when the injector is in a flow passing state, beneficial management of stresses and pressures generated within the check member 18 during operation of the check member (e.g., resulting from repeated engagement with the nozzle body 14), and improved manufacturability”]; and
US 5203308 A (Liskow) (see Fig. 1) [e.g., as indicated per the annotated Fig. 1 on page 4 of the previous non-final Office action, the corresponding second profiled section of the nozzle check per Liskow is also rounded/curved (or radiused), and to the extent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have easily conceived of having said second section be radiused as discussed per the detailed rejection above in view of basic engineering logic/principles concerning the provision of utilizing rounded (or radiused) corners in lieu of sharp or relatively sharp corners in mechanical and/or fuel injector applications, and without the exercise of inventive skill];
[e.g., further noting that the relative dimensions of the respective first and second profiles of the nozzle check per Liskow are the same as (or substantially similar to) that of the claimed inventions, with the only notable deficiency of Liskow being with respect to the axially outward placement of the spray orifices with respect to the corresponding flat nib (said axially outward placement also constituting non-inventive subject matter in view the analogous teachings/context per Fig. 2 of Kelly)].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY D TAYLOR JR whose telephone number is (469)295-9192. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9a-5p (central time).
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.
/ANTHONY DONALD TAYLOR JR./Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights