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 § 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto et al (US 2021/0396191 hereinafter “Miyamoto”) in view of Oprea et al (US 2001/0050069 hereinafter “Oprea”).
In regards to claim 1:
Howey teaches a fuel injector (100) for providing fuel to a combustion chamber, the fuel injector comprising: an injector body defining a fuel passage therein, the fuel passage extending from a fuel inlet (112) to a fuel outlet (115) of the injector body; and a valve assembly at least partially located in the fuel passage, the valve assembly including at least one valve that is selectively opened and closed to control fuel flow through the fuel passage to the combustion chamber, wherein the at least one valve (101) includes: a valve seat (102) in the fuel passage; a plunger (101) that contacts the valve seat (102) to close the at least one valve, wherein the plunger is displaced from the valve seat to open the at least one valve; and a first plunger control mechanism (110) and a second plunger control mechanism (116) that each resist displacement of the plunger away from the valve seat (Paragraph [0035] recites the first spring member 110 and the second spring member 116 bias the valve body in a valve closing direction), the first and second plunger control mechanisms being configured to increase resistance to displacement of the plunger from the valve seat during opening of the at least one valve based on a distance of the plunger from the valve seat (Hooke’s law states that the force applied to elongate or compress an elastic body is directly proportional to the displacement or deformation of the body, provided the elastic limit of the material is not exceeded – www.google.com search query: “hooke’s law for springs”).
Miyamoto does not teach the fuel to be gaseous.
Oprea teaches a fuel that is gaseous (Paragraph [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the fuel of Miyamoto to be a gaseous fuel as taught by Oprea in order to provide a known alternative fuel for combustion. It is known in the art that gaseous fuels often have cleaner emissions, such as hydrogen has a byproduct of water vapor.
In regards to claim 2:
Miyamoto teaches the plunger includes an end face that contacts the valve seat with the at least one valve in the closed position (Shown below in annotated Figure 1 of Miyamoto); and only the first plunger control mechanism (110) biases the plunger into contact with the valve seat, wherein the first plunger control mechanism (110) biases the plunger into contact with the valve seat while second plunger control mechanism (116) biases an intermediate member (114), wherein only the intermediate member (114) and the first plunger control mechanism (110) biases the plunger.
PNG
media_image1.png
655
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of Miyamoto
In regards to claim 3:
Miyamoto teaches a gap is formed between the second plunger control mechanism and the plunger with the at least one valve in the closed position (gap is formed above transmission surface 118 and shown in Figure 1 of Miyamoto).
In regards to claim 4:
Miyamoto teaches the first plunger control mechanism is always coupled to the plunger to bias the plunger toward the closed position against the valve seat and to resist displacement of the plunger from the valve seat during opening of the at least one valve (Paragraph [0035]).
In regards to claim 5:
Miyamoto teaches the second plunger control mechanism (116) includes: a second plunger (114) spaced from the plunger (101) with the at least one valve in the closed position; and a biasing element (117) that resists displacement of the second plunger when the plunger is displaced from the valve seat a sufficient distance to close the gap to contact the second plunger during opening of the at least one valve (Paragraph [0035] recites the biasing element (117) acting against the second plunger control mechanism (116)).
In regards to claim 6:
Miyamoto teaches an actuator (106) that is actuatable to axially displace the plunger (101) to open the at least one valve, wherein: the plunger (101) includes a first end and an opposite second end, the plunger including at least one flange adjacent the first end and an elongated stem extending to the second end; the elongated stem of the plunger is engaged to the actuator; and the first plunger control mechanism (101) is engaged between the actuator and the injector body.
In regards to claim 7:
Miyamoto teaches the second plunger control mechanism (116) includes: a second plunger (114) axially spaced from the second end of the plunger (101) when the plunger is in contact with the valve seat, wherein the second end of the plunger (101) contacts the second plunger (114) after displacement of the first end of the plunger away from the valve seat; and a biasing element (117) that resists displacement of the second plunger (114) by the plunger (101) as the plunger moves away from the valve seat (Paragraph [0035]).
In regards to claim 8:
Miyamoto teaches the second plunger control mechanism (116) includes: a plate (114) positioned in the fuel passage, wherein the plate (114) is axially spaced from the at least one flange of the plunger (101) when the plunger (101) is in contact with the valve seat, wherein the at least one flange of the plunger contacts the plate after displacement of the first end of the plunger away from the valve seat; and a biasing element (117) between the plate and the injector body, wherein the biasing element (117) resists displacement of the plate by the plunger as the plunger moves against the plate and away from the valve seat (Paragraph [0035]).
In regards to claim 9:
Miyamoto teaches the second plunger control mechanism (116) is spaced from the at least one flange of the plunger (101) when the plunger (101) is in contact with the valve seat; the first plunger control mechanism (110) resists displacement of the plunger in response to actuation of the actuator (106) to displace the first end of the plunger (101) away from the valve seat (102); and the flange contacts the second plunger control mechanism (116) after displacement of the first end of the plunger from the valve seat.
In regards to claim 10:
Miyamoto teaches the actuator (106) includes an armature (108); the stem of the plunger is engaged to the armature through the actuator (106); and the first plunger control mechanism (110) includes a biasing element (117) engaged to the armature through the actuator (106) to bias the plunger into contact with the valve seat.
In regards to claim 11:
Miyamoto teaches the second plunger control mechanism (116) is located in the fuel passage and is engaged to the injector body (Shown in Figure 1).
In regards to claim 12:
Miyamoto teaches the second plunger control mechanism (116) includes a coil spring.
Claims 13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto in view of Oprea and Filippi et al (US 2016/0252064 hereinafter “Filippi”).
In regards to claim 13:
Miyamoto teaches a valve assembly for a fuel injector to selectively provide fuel flow, the valve assembly comprising: a valve seat (102) including an opening to allow fuel flow through the valve seat (102); a plunger (101) that is movable to engage the valve seat (102) to prevent fuel flow through opening, and the plunger (101) is movable to disengage the valve seat (102) to permit fuel flow through the valve seat (102); a first plunger control mechanism (110) engaged to the plunger (101), the first plunger control mechanism (110) configured to resist displacement of the plunger (101) away from the valve seat (102) during opening of the valve assembly, the first plunger control mechanism further being configured to bias the plunger against the valve seat; and a second plunger control mechanism (116).
Miyamoto does not teach the fuel to be gaseous and the second plunger control mechanism configured to not resist movement of the plunger from engagement with the valve seat, the second plunger control mechanism resisting the plunger after the plunger is displaced away from the valve seat to work with the first plunger control mechanism to resist displacement of the plunger away from the valve seat during opening of the at least one valve.
Oprea teaches a fuel that is gaseous (Paragraph [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the fuel of Miyamoto to be a gaseous fuel as taught by Oprea in order to provide a known alternative fuel for combustion. It is known in the art that gaseous fuels often have cleaner emissions, such as hydrogen has a byproduct of water vapor.
Filippi teaches a second plunger control mechanism (135) configured to not resist movement of a plunger from engagement with the valve seat, the second plunger control mechanism (135) resisting the plunger after the plunger is displaced away from the valve seat to work with the first plunger control mechanism to resist displacement of the plunger away from the valve seat during opening of the at least one valve (Paragraphs [0009] – [0012] recites the second needle to be unstressed while the valve is closed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the second plunger control mechanism of Miyamoto to not resist movement of the plunger from engagement until after the plunger is displaced from the valve seat as taught by Filippi in order to allow sufficient opening of the valve under both standard operating conditions and reduced fuel pressure (Paragraph [0013] of Filippi).
In regards to claim 15:
Miyamoto teaches the first plunger control mechanism is a spring that is always engaged to the plunger.
In regards to claim 16:
Miyamoto teaches the second plunger control mechanism includes a coil spring that is spaced from the plunger when the plunger is engaged to the valve seat and that engages the plunger only after the plunger is displaced away from the valve seat (Paragraphs [0009] – [0012] of Filippi recites the second needle to be unstressed while the valve is closed).
In regards to claim 17:
Mitamoto teaches the plunger includes a stem and a plunger body, the plunger body located at a distal end of the stem; the first plunger control mechanism is engaged to the stem; and second plunger control mechanism engages the plunger body to resist displacement of the plunger only after the plunger is displaced away from the valve seat (Paragraphs [0009] – [0012] of Filippi recites the second needle to be unstressed while the valve is closed).
In regards to claim 18:
Miyamoto teaches a shim (114) that supports the second plunger control mechanism in a spaced relationship from the plunger while the plunger is engaged to the valve seat.
In regards to claim 19:
Miyamoto teaches the second plunger control mechanism includes a second plunger (114) that is spaced from the plunger when the plunger is engaged to the valve seat; and a biasing element (117) engaged to the second plunger (the engaging force acting through the movable iron core 106), the biasing element resisting displacement of the second plunger and the plunger in response to the plunger being displaced from the valve seat into contact with the second plunger.
In regards to claim 20:
Miyamoto teaches the second plunger control mechanism includes a plate (114) that is spaced from the plunger while the plunger is engaged to the valve seat; and a biasing element (117) engaged to the plate, the biasing element resisting displacement of the plate and the plunger in response to the plunger being displaced from the valve seat into contact with the plate.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto, Oprea and Filippi and further in view of Kobayashi et al (US 2018/0142657 hereinafter “Kobayashi”).
In regards to claim 14:
Miyamoto teaches the plunger extending between a first end and an opposite second end, and the second end includes an end face.
Kobayashi teaches an opening of a valve seat (29) is formed by an annular passage between first (60) and second (81A) annular projections of the valve seat (29); and a plunger (45) extends between a first end and an opposite second end, and the second end includes an end face, the end face having an annular seal that sealingly engages the first and second annular projections to close the opening when the plunger is engaged to the valve seat (Shown in Figure 3 of Kobayashi).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application been to modify the valve seat of Miyamoto to have a first and second annular projection as taught by Kobayashi in order to induce cavitation of the fuel which in turn promotes atomization of the fuel (Paragraph [0080] of Kobayashi).
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