DETAILED ACTION
Final
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 .
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Claims 11-20 are pending. Claims 11, 12, 17, 20 are currently amended. The remarks regarding the drawing objections are not found persuasive, and the objections are maintained. The amendments to the claims have overcome the claim objections and the rejections under 35 USC 112 second paragraph. The amendments along with the remarks are not found persuasive for the reasons discussed in the rejection. It is noted that the remarks do not explicitly point out how Nehl does not include the argued missing limitations, and the office has further indicated the limitations are present in Nehl, and in the alternative, has provided an alternative obviousness rejection to address any varying breadth of the claim language that applicant may be arguing in a narrowly tailored fashion. This action must be made Final.
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claims 11-20 recite “A/The method for controlling…” where it is noted there is no flow chart or process diagram indicating the claimed steps (merely current phase charts);
Claim 12 recites “a control frequency analysis of a current signal and/or voltage signal…to detect direction of movement of the armature”, where it is noted there is no figure that discloses such a series of claimed steps or analysis;
Claim 17 recites “a sensor current being used to detect the direction of movement…” where it is noted there is no figure that discloses the claimed steps;
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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nehl (US 2015/0267660) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nehl.
Nehl discloses in claim 11: A method for controlling an electromagnetically controllable gas valve (fuel injector 10 figure 1-1 see ph 0019-0020), the method comprising the following steps: opening a seal seat (at 16) by supplying an electric current to a solenoid coil (24), wherein a magnetic force generated by the solenoid coil acts on an armature (21) so that a valve member (20) interacting with the seal seat is lifted out of the seal seat by the armature (to the open position); and closing the seal seat by terminating a current supply to the solenoid coil so that the valve member is returned into the seal seat by a spring force of a closing spring (26 and ph 0019-0020), the return of the valve member into the seal seat causing the armature to disengage (i.e. bounce, per ph 0040-0042, and see figure 5) from the valve member and perform a free stroke (i.e. where the armature slides relative to the pintle before engaging the stop, id); wherein a braking current (250/260) is applied to the solenoid coil in one or more braking current phases when the armature moves toward a stop (250/260 are breaking current phases) during the closing of the seat (bounce control current, with residual flux reduction ph 0040 where the same current reduction applied in figure 4 for a single phase is applied in the dual phase, and as discussed in figure 4 ph 0039, the controller 80 may select a frequency when it monitors the coil current for flux reset event to yield the desired values of the current exponential decays all prior to the fuel injection event, where it is noted that feedback sensors provide the feedback to the controller 80 for current phase/frequency determination, this happens within milliseconds providing near instantaneous feedback adjustment, see ph 0025 and ph 0018 respectively), and during movement in the direction opposite movement (81/82 figure 1-1) of the armature, the current supply to the solenoid coil is interrupted and/or (use of and/or indicating alternative grouping language under MPEP 2131) a current level is varied (250/260 current directions, as discussed.)
If it could be persuasively argued at some future unforeseen date that Nehl does not explicitly disclose: varying the current level based on residual feedback of induced current into the coil from residual armature movement; but considering that Nehl teaches: using sensors to read the residual flux and current from the armature movement (ph 0025), providing a flux reset event that reverses current to negate the effects of residual flux and therefor residual current (i.e. based on the bounce of the armature, ph 0035, 0036, 0037-0042), one of ordinary skill in the fuel injection art would consider the above so as to vary the current level based on residual feedback of induced current into the coil from residual armature movement for the purpose of reducing bounce of the armature during closing as taught by Nehl; and accordingly,
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide as suggested and/or taught by Nehl, varying the current level based on residual feedback of induced current into the coil from residual armature movement, as discussed above, and all for the purpose of reducing bounce of the armature during closing as taught by Nehl.
Nehl discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 12: The method according to claim 11, wherein a control frequency analysis of a current signal and/or voltage signal of the solenoid coil is carried out, the analysis being configured to detect changes in inductance caused by the movement of the armature (i.e. the residual feedback of the armature bounce in the coil’s current, where it is noted that the inductance is a mere measure of ratio of the induced voltage and rate of change of the current that is necessary for the residual feedback determination), in order to detect the direction of movement of the armature (ph 0037 for current/flux feedback to determine current flow profile and flux mitigation as applied to figure 5 bounce control via the controller 80.)
Nehl discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 13: The method according to claim 11, wherein the braking current is only applied when the armature moves in a direction of a stop (down 81) and/or reversal point (up 82) remote from the seal seat, so that a braking current phase is followed by a current supply pause (i.e. the bounce control, phases of 250 and 260 are each paused between their next phase.)
Nehl discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 14: The method according to claim 13, wherein the current supply pause is followed by a new braking current phase when the armature has reached a stop and/or reversal point close to the seal seat (as shown and discussed, where each phase is a lower amplitude and thus reducing the magnetic flux trend....)
Nehl discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 15: The method according to claim 13, wherein braking current phases and current supply pauses alternate (via phase alternation), a current level in each further braking current phase being selected to be at most equal to (i.e. or in this case lesser than…) a current level of a preceding braking current phase (the claimed phrase considered a range from 0 to the current level of the preceding braking current phase.)
Nehl discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 16: The method according to claim 11, wherein the current level of the braking current is reduced when the armature has reached a stop (the downward stop in direction of 81) and/or reversal point (upward stop on pintel in direction of 82 and per ph 0019) remote from the seal seat.
Nehl discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 17: The method according to claim 16, wherein the sensor current includes the braking current maintained at a low level (the current must be below the levels that would actuate the injector as discussed above, ph 0037-0042), (i.e. for the dampening/flux/bounce control as discussed) and changes in the sensor current (via 42 figure 1-1) are used to detect the direction of movement of the armature (per ph 0025, where the control module can modify the activation signal and control the current direction.)
Nehl discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 18: The method according to claim 11, wherein, during a first braking current phase, the current level is continuously increased until a first target level is reached (first open stop of 220 figure 5); when the first target level is reached (per ph 0030 as applied to figure 5), a freewheeling phase is initiated (switches 370/372-1,2 use flyback diodes that allow for freewheeling of the current during switching to hold the current open position), in which a new target level (at 250) for the braking current is defined which is at most identical to the first target level (range from 0 to the target level, 212/250/260); and the freewheeling phase is terminated when the armature reverses its direction of movement (i.e. at stops for allowing for switching of the current for the pause), an extinction voltage being applied to terminate the freewheeling phase (in the controller.)
Nehl discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 19: The method according to claim 18, wherein a closing time of the gas valve is detected by evaluating a current curve (from 202) and/or voltage curve during the freewheeling phase.
Nehl discloses in claim 20: A control device configured to control a gas valve (see controller 60 and fuel injector 10 figure 1-1 see ph 0019-0020), the control device configured to: open a seal seat (at 16) by supplying an electric current to a solenoid coil (24 and see figure 1-3), wherein a magnetic force generated by the solenoid coil acts on an armature (21) so that a valve member (20) interacting with the seal seat is lifted out of the seal seat by the armature (to the open position); and close the seal seat by terminating a current supply to the solenoid coil so that the valve member is returned into the seal seat by a spring force of a closing spring (26 and ph 0019-0020), the return of the valve member into the seal seat causing the armature to disengage (i.e. bounce, per ph 0040-0042, and see figure 5) from the valve member and perform a free stroke (i.e. where the armature slides relative to the pintle before engaging the stop, id); wherein a braking current (250/260 figure 5) is applied to the solenoid coil in one or more braking current phases when the armature moves toward a stop (250/260 are breaking current phases) during the closing of the seal seat (to control armature bounce with residual flux reduction ph 0040 where the same current reduction applied in figure 4 for a single phase is applied in the dual phase, and as discussed in figure 4 ph 0039, the controller 80 may select a frequency when it monitors the coil current for flux reset event to yield the desired values of the current exponential decays all prior to the fuel injection event, where it is noted that feedback sensors provide the feedback to the controller 80 for current phase/frequency determination, this happens within milliseconds providing near instantaneous feedback adjustment, see ph 0025 and ph 0018 respectively) , and during movement in the opposite of movement (81/82 figure 1-1) of the armature, the current supply to the solenoid coil is interrupted and/or (use of and/or indicating alternative grouping language under MPEP 2131) a current level is varied (250/260 current directions, as discussed.)
If it could be persuasively argued at some future unforeseen date that Nehl does not explicitly disclose: varying the current level based on residual feedback of induced current into the coil from residual armature movement; but considering that Nehl teaches: using sensors to read the residual flux and current from the armature movement (ph 0025), providing a flux reset event that reverses current to negate the effects of residual flux and therefor residual current (i.e. based on the bounce of the armature, ph 0035, 0036, 0037-0042), one of ordinary skill in the fuel injection art would consider the above so as to vary the current level based on residual feedback of induced current into the coil from residual armature movement for the purpose of reducing bounce of the armature during closing as taught by Nehl; and accordingly,
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide as suggested and/or taught by Nehl, varying the current level based on residual feedback of induced current into the coil from residual armature movement, as discussed above, and all for the purpose of reducing bounce of the armature during closing as taught by Nehl.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W JELLETT, whose telephone number is 571-270-7497. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Ken Rinehart can be reached at (571)-272-4881, or Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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.
/Matthew W Jellett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753