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 Objections
Claims 5, 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding to Claim 5, “The air-vapor engine (1) according to claim 1…” has been amended to recite ad “The air-vapor engine (1) according to claim 4…” based on the claimed language.
Regarding to Claim 16 “The air-vapor Air-vapor engine…” has bee amended to recite as “The air-vapor engine…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding to Claim 10, the claim is depended to Claim 1, and since Claim 1 has taught piston chamber (37), the examiner considered the claimed language of Claim 10 fails to teach any further limitations. Therefore, Claim 10 is rejected.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Loeffler (US2009/0100832 A1).
Regarding to Claim 1, Loeffler teaches an air-vapor engine (1) comprising a cylinder (3) and a piston (5), wherein a stroke movement between a top dead center and a bottom dead center can be executed by the piston (5) within the cylinder (3) (Fig. 1),
characterized in that the
air-vapor engine (1) exhibits an injection nozzle (7) and a prechamber (9) and/or piston chamber (37) (Fig. 1, Part 19, Paragraph 38 would reflect Part 19 as an injection nozzle, Part 13, based on the claimed language, the reference is not required to teach all the limitations), wherein the prechamber (9) and/or piston chamber (37) are present between the injection nozzle (7) and the cylinder (3) in a flow connection and a fuel fluid can be introduced from the injection nozzle (7) into the prechamber (9) and/or piston chamber (37) (Fig. 1, Paragraphs 36-42 and the arrow would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation)
and the fuel fluid can be converted into a vapor in the prechamber (9) and/or piston chamber (37) and compressed air can be received from the cylinder (3) into the prechamber (9), such that an air-vapor mixture is formed within the prechamber (9) and the air-vapor mixture can be introduced into the cylinder (3), such that the stroke movement of the piston (5) can be performed within the cylinder (3) (Paragraph 38-40)
and the cylinder (3) is connected to a condenser (11) (Fig. 1, Part 23) in a flow connection and the cylinder (3) and the condenser (11) are connected to the injection nozzle (7) and the prechamber (9) in a circuit via a high-pressure pump (13) (Fig. 1, Part 25) and a high-pressure tank (15) (Fig. 1, it would be known there is a tank), wherein the air-vapor mixture or the vapor of the air-vapor mixture can be introduced from the cylinder (3) into the condenser (11) and is present in the condenser (11) as condensate and the condensate can be introduced into the injection nozzle (7) via the high-pressure pump (13) and the high-pressure tank (15) (Paragraph 42 would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding to Claim 6, Loeffler teaches the air-vapor engine (1),
characterized in that
the fuel fluid is selected from a group comprising water and/or carbon dioxide and/or other suitable fluids (Paragraph 48, based on the claimed language, the reference is not required to teach all the limitations).
Regarding to Claim 7, Loeffler teaches the air-vapor engine (1),
characterized in that
the prechamber (9) is functionally connected to a heating element (Fig. 1, Part 27).
Regarding to Claim 6, Loeffler teaches the air-vapor engine (1),
characterized in that
the high-pressure tank (15) is functionally connected to a heating element (Fig. 1, Part 27).
Regarding to Claim 10, based on the examiner best understanding, Loeffler teaches the air-vapor engine (1),
characterized in that
the air-vapor engine (1) exhibits a piston chamber (37) (Fig. 1, the examiner considered at least a portion of cylinder Part 5 can be considered as a piston chamber under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loeffler (US2009/0100832 A1) in view of Andersson (US2022/0154671 A1).
Regarding to Claim 2, Loeffler fails to explicitly disclose, but Andersson teaches an air vapor engine,
characterized in that
the condenser (11), the high-pressure pump (13), the high-pressure tank (15) and/or the injection nozzle (7) are data-connected to a control unit (17) [Andersson teaches an engine system comprises a control unit to control the injection valve to achieve a desired air-fuel ratio during the operation (Andersson, Paragraph 40).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Loeffler to incorporate the teachings of Andersson to add a control unit to control certain elements in order to achieve a desired air-fuel ratio during the operation (Andersson, Paragraph 40).
Regarding to Claim 16, Loeffler in view of Andersson teaches the modified air-vapor engine
characterized in that
the control unit is data-connected to further components, the further components are selected from a group consisting of: a laser (31), an inlet and outlet valve (19) and/or a drive (29) for the prechamber piston (27) [Andersson teaches an engine system comprises a control unit to control the inlet and outlet valves to achieve a desired air-fuel ratio during the operation (Andersson, Paragraph 40).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Loeffler to incorporate the teachings of Andersson to add a control unit to control certain elements in order to achieve a desired air-fuel ratio during the operation (Andersson, Paragraph 40).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loeffler (US2009/0100832 A1) in view of Wathieu (US2012/0067325 A1).
Regarding to Claim 3, Loeffler fails to explicitly disclose, but Wathieu teaches an air-vapor engine
characterized in that
the air-vapor engine (1) exhibits a pressure sensor (33) and/or a temperature sensor (35), wherein the pressure sensor (33) and/or the temperature sensor (35) are preferably data-connected to a control unit (17) [Wathieu teaches an engine comprises a temperature sensor and a pressure sensor. Wathieu further teaches the sensors are connected to a control unit to drive the injectors and the valves (Wathieu, Paragraph 50).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Loeffler to incorporate the teachings of Wathieu to add certain sensors to connect with a control unit in order to drive the injectors and the valves (Wathieu, Paragraph 50).
Claims 4, 5, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loeffler (US2009/0100832 A1) in view of Agama (US6694944 B2).
Regarding to Claim 3, Loeffler fails to explicitly disclose, but Agama teaches an air-vapor engine
characterized in that
a prechamber piston (27) is present within the prechamber (9), wherein the prechamber piston (27) is connected to the piston (5) in the cylinder (3), such that a stroke movement can be performed by the prechamber piston (27) within the prechamber (9), as a result of which a higher pressure and a higher temperature can be generated in the prechamber (9) [Agama teaches a piston assembly comprises a prechamber (Agama, Fig. 1, Part 38), and the prechamber comprises a piston (Agama, Fig. 1, Part 44) to mix air and fuel sufficiently to cause self-ignition (Agama, Col. 2, Lines 23-30).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Loeffler to incorporate the teachings of Agama to add a prechamber mechanism at a piston assembly in order to mix air and fuel sufficiently to cause self-ignition (Agama, Col. 2, Lines 23-30).
Regarding to Claim 5, Loeffler in view of Agama teaches the modified air-vapor engine
characterized in that
the prechamber piston (27) exhibits a drive (29) (Agama, Fig. 3, Part 62, Col. 3, Lines 44-56).
Regarding to Claim 17, Loeffler in view of Agama teaches the modified air-vapor engine
characterized in that
the drive (29) is operated mechanically or electromagnetically (Agama, Fig. 3, Part 62, Col. 3, Lines 44-56).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loeffler (US2009/0100832 A1) in view of Woerner (US2012/0060791).
Regarding to Claim 9, Loeffler teaches the air-vapor engine (1),
characterized in that
the air-vapor engine (1) exhibits a laser (31), wherein it is possible to irradiate the prechamber (9) using the laser (31) [Woerner teaches a prechamber would comprises a laser to heat the prechamber sufficiently (Woerner, Paragraph 36).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Loeffler to incorporate the teachings of Woerner add a laser to the prechamber in order to heat the prechamber sufficiently (Woerner, Paragraph 36).
Claims 11, 12, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loeffler (US2009/0100832 A1).
Regarding to Claim 11, Loeffler teaches the air-vapor engine
characterized in that
the fuel fluid can be introduced into the prechamber (9) from the injection nozzle (7) at a pressure of between 2000 bar-3000 bar (Paragraph 39).
Regarding to Claim 12, Loeffler teaches the air-vapor engine
characterized in that
the compressed air from the cylinder (3) into the prechamber (9) exhibits a temperature between 500° C.-1000° C (Paragraphs 22-25).
Regarding to Claim 19, Loeffler teaches the air-vapor engine
characterized in that
the compressed air from the cylinder (3) into the prechamber (9) exhibits a temperature between 600° C.-900° C. and/or a pressure between 20 bar-80 bar (Paragraphs 25-22, 39).
Regarding to the limitations of the pressure range and the temperature range, after reviewing the claimed language, the Specification and drawings, the examiner considered the limitations are merely an embodiment without any specific purpose. Therefore, the examiner considered the limitations are mere an optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)) and one with ordinary skill in the art would not consider the limitations are patentable. Loeffler teaches a temperature range and a pressure of the air-vapor engine, when applying the teachings, one with ordinary skill in the art would understand and find the suitable temperature range and pressure range to increase the efficiency of the system (Paragraph 16).
Regarding to Claim 19, Loeffler teaches the air-vapor engine
characterized in that
after introduction of the fuel fluid into the prechamber (9) a pressure within the prechamber (9) increases and a temperature within the prechamber (9) decreases (Paragraphs 39, 45, 46).
Claims 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loeffler (US2009/0100832 A1) in view of Huang (US2009/0178642 A1).
Regarding to Claim 13, Loeffler fails to explicitly disclose, but Huang teaches an air-vapor engine
characterized in that
the air-vapor engine (1) can be operated using a four-stroke mechanism or a two-stroke mechanism [Huang teaches an air-vapor engine is applied to a two-stroke engine (Huang, Abstract) to increase the fuel efficiency of the engine (Huang, Paragraph 8).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Loeffler to incorporate the teachings of Huang to apply the air-vapor engine to a two-stroke engine in order to increase the fuel efficiency of the engine (Huang, Paragraph 8).
Regarding to Claim 14, Loeffler fails to explicitly disclose, but Huang teaches an air-vapor engine for converting energy into mechanical energy, preferably into kinetic energy within a means of locomotion [Loeffler teaches the operation of the air-vapor engine (Loeffler, Paragraphs 38-42). Huang teaches an air-vapor engine is applied to a locomotion (Huang, Paragraph 5) to increase the fuel efficiency of the engine (Huang, Paragraph 8).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Loeffler to incorporate the teachings of Huang to apply the air-vapor engine to a vehicle in order to increase the fuel efficiency of the engine (Huang, Paragraph 8).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loeffler (US2009/0100832 A1) in view of Prieur (US2022/0349591 A1).
Regarding to Claim 15, Loeffler fails to explicitly, Prieur teaches use of the air-vapor engine for operation of an air conditioning compressor [Prieur teaches an air-vapor engine is used for an air conditioning compressor (Prieur, Paragraph 13) to maintain efficiency (Prieur, Paragraph 10).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Loeffler to incorporate the teachings of Prieur to apply the air-vapor engine to an air conditioning compressor in order to maintain efficiency (Prieur, Paragraph 10).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loeffler (US2009/0100832 A1) and Woerner (US2012/0060791) as applied to Claim 9 above, and further in view of Agama (US6694944 B2).
Regarding to Claim 3, Loeffler and Woerner fail to explicitly disclose, but Agama teaches an air-vapor engine
characterized in that
a prechamber piston (27) is present within the prechamber (9), wherein the prechamber piston (27) is connected to the piston (5) in the cylinder (3), such that a stroke movement can be performed by the prechamber piston (27) within the prechamber (9), as a result of which a higher pressure and a higher temperature can be generated in the prechamber (9) [Agama teaches a piston assembly comprises a prechamber (Agama, Fig. 1, Part 38), and the prechamber comprises a piston (Agama, Fig. 1, Part 44) to mix air and fuel sufficiently to cause self-ignition (Agama, Col. 2, Lines 23-30).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Loeffler and Woerner to incorporate the teachings of Agama to add a prechamber mechanism at a piston assembly in order to mix air and fuel sufficiently to cause self-ignition (Agama, Col. 2, Lines 23-30).
Examiner’s Note
The examiner would highly recommend the Applicant to considered to amended the claimed language of all the claims, especially remove all the element reference number.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YI-KAI WANG whose telephone number is (313)446-6613. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible.
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.
/YI-KAI WANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
