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 .
Status of Claims
Currently claims 1-3 are pending.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The term “small” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “small” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation “a small pitch part small in pitch” has been rendered indefinite by use of the term small, it is unclear what dimension defines “small” in terms of pitch. For the purposes of examination, the small pitch part small in pitch will be a size that is smaller than the large pitch part large in pitch.
The term “large” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation “a large pitch part large in pitch” has been rendered indefinite by use of the term small, it is unclear what dimension defines “large” in terms of pitch. For the purposes of examination, the large pitch part large in pitch will be a size that is larger than the small pitch part small in pitch.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (JP-2010190178A) in view of Vezzani (U.S. 2016/0069313).
With respect to claim 1, Yamada discloses an electromagnetic fuel injection valve (figure 2) comprising:
a valve housing (housing indicated at 22) formed with a fuel injection hole (19) and a valve seat (beneath 10);
a valve body (27) lifted from a valve closing position (where the valve is down, paragraph 0034) contacting with the valve seat to a valve opening position (when valve 10 is up and away from the seat, paragraph 0035) in accordance with excitation of a coil to enable injection of fuel from the fuel injection hole (paragraphs 0034-0035); and
a return spring (28) which returns the valve body to the valve closing position,
the electromagnetic fuel injection valve allowing a lift of the valve body to the valve opening position to be achieved by settling an overshoot and an overshoot return which occur upon the lift (paragraph 0049),
wherein the return spring is an unequal pitch coil spring (see figure 3a) having a small pitch part small in pitch (39) and a large pitch part large in pitch (38), and
and the large pitch part acts in a case where the lift amount of the valve body is equal to or greater than a second lift amount which is equal to or less than 1/2 of the valve opening lift amount (as the first lift amount is enough to compress 39, which would decompress prior to that of 38 compressing, paragraph 0051-0052, as each of the spring parts have different). But fails to disclose “wherein the small pitch part exhibits a totally compressed state when a lift amount of the valve body is equal to or greater than a first lift amount smaller than a valve opening lift amount corresponding to the valve opening position.” Yamada discloses that the small pitch part compresses when the valve body is equal or greater than the lift force (being the force required to lift against the spring), paragraphs 0041-0042, but fails to disclose that there is total compression on the spring.
Vezzani, figures 4 and 5 along with paragraphs 0024-0026, discloses the spring having a small and large pitch section as well as the spring being compressed at which the smaller sections are understood compressed first, where the varied pitch which allows the compression to occur allows for decreasing lateral load while increasing axial load (paragraph 0033).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of the compression state of the small pitch part of Vezzani into that of Yamada, doing so would allow for the decreasing lateral load and increasing axial load of Vezzani (and understood in Yamada) to occur. It is understood that Yamada is probably having total compression of the small pitch part, as the spring constant increases along the spring in a nonlinear manner, meaning as the spring compresses the deflection amount increases which causes the valve elements to lift slower. Essentially that the small pitch part compresses completely as disclosed by Vezzani prior to the large pitch part, whose spring constant grows nonlinear as the spring itself compresses due to the increases pitch (as increasing pitch increases the spring constant).
With respect to claim 2, Yamada discloses a spring constant of the large pitch art is more than a spring constant of the small pitch part (paragraphs 0041-0041 and 0051-0052, as spring constant is determined based on, Yamada fails to disclose a spring constant of the large pitch part is 7 times or more than a spring constant of the small pitch part. Vezzani, paragraph 0027-0029 discloses 1.2 turns for the pitch at the small side and 7.5 for the large side, showing a difference in spring constant between the two of 6.25). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a spring constant of 7 times or more for the large pitch part compared to the small pitch part, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II-A). Applicant discloses the same criticality for their spring constant as Yamada discloses, paragraph 0049 the suppression of the overshoot. By changing the spring constant to a desired number (such as 7 or more greater) of the large pitch part versus the small pitch part in Yamada, the system is able to achieve the desired overshoot and the desired reduction of the inertial injection rate gradient by slowing the valve opening operation of the injection valve (paragraph 0007).
With respect to claim 3, Yamada discloses the large pitch part is located on an upstream side of the return spring (as shown in figure 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A GREENLUND whose telephone number is (571)272-0397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, Arthur Hall can be reached at 571-270-1814. 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.
/JOSEPH A GREENLUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
