DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, applicant recites: “the first cylindrical section (23') has a length between 20 mm and 40 mm and a diameter almost equal to the diameter of the nozzle (24).”
The error tolerance of the diameter difference is not known and so the term “almost equal” can be interpreted over a large range of values. The applicant has not provided further description in regards to the term “almost equal”. It is unclear if the measurement provided varies within a whole number or a fraction of a number.
Regarding claim 10, applicant recites: “wherein the cylinder head (100) is provided with a first groove (102) and a second groove (103) configured to deflect the hydrogen spray (21).” It is unclear how the cylinder head can comprise both grooves since the applicant has not provided the two grooves withing the same cylinder head, but rather proposed two different embodiments interchangeably used. Specifications, page 3 state:
“- figure 5 is a detail on a further enlarged scale of the cylinder head (with parts removed for clarity) of figure 1 which illustrates a characteristic of the injector "lay-out",
- figure 6 is a detail on a further enlarged scale of the cylinder head (with parts removed for clarity) of figure 1 which illustrates a further characteristic of the "layout" of the injector.” Hence, the engine is intended to have only one of the grooves.
For examination purposes, only one groove will be considered.
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)(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(s) 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Browne et al. (US 2023/0095893 A1), hereafter Browne.
Regarding claim 1, Browne discloses an internal combustion engine (10) with hydrogen direct injection (Fig. 14, [0058]) equipped with: a cylinder head (214) equipped with at least one injector (22) configured to inject a spray of hydrogen, at least one piston (21) the engine being characterized by the fact that: a combustion chamber (16) of the piston (10) has a non-symmetrical geometry [0038] with a first portion, proximal to the injector less deep than a second portion, distal to the injector (Fig. 9 depicts piston depression as claimed), the non-symmetrical geometry having the function of capturing most of the hydrogen spray and avoiding direct impact of the hydrogen spray on the walls of the combustion chamber, as well as favoring the best mixing towards the center of the combustion chamber [0048], and a connection channel (240) between the injector (22) and the combustion chamber (16) is provided with a converging section (shown in Fig. 14) configured to reduce an opening angle of the hydrogen spray (Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 3, Browne discloses the engine according to claim 1, wherein: the distance along a central axis of the combustion chamber between a first end of the combustion chamber, proximal to the injector, and the center is greater than the distance along the central axis of the combustion chamber between a second end of the combustion chamber, distal to the injector, and the center; and the first portion of the combustion chamber has a bottom wall whose radius is greater than the radius of the bottom wall of the second portion (as best seen in Fig. 9, the piston is asymmetric and the two radii can be proven to have different measurements, with the radii closer to the Injector is less than the radii away from the injector).
Regarding claim 4, Browne discloses the engine according to claim 3, in which the central axis of the combustion chamber is rotated around the axis of the piston as a function of the swirl ratio, by an angle whose values are between 15° and 45°, [0079].
Regarding claim 5, Browne discloses the engine according to claim 1, in which an angle of inclination of the injector, with respect to a horizontal surface of the cylinder head, is not less than 20°, [0079].
Regarding claim 7, Browne discloses the engine according to claim 1, in which the connecting channel is provided with a first cylindrical section, proximal to the nozzle of the injector, and with a second cylindrical section, distal to the nozzle and in communication with the combustion chamber, separated by the converging section (shown in Fig. 14).
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 2, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Browne et al. (US 2023/0095893 A1).
Regarding claims 2, 8 and 9, Browne is silent to having a spark plug projecting from the cylinder head horizontal surface by 0 – 2mm; or, wherein the first cylindrical section has a length between 20 mm and 40 mm; and/or wherein the second cylindrical section has a length comprised between 5 mm and 15 mm and a diameter comprised between 5 mm and 8 mm. However, it would have been obvious a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed dimensions, 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Browne et al. (US 2023/0095893 A1), in view of Yang et al. (CN 109268170 A), hereafter Yang.
Regarding claim 6, Browne is silent to having the angle of inclination of the injector at between 40° and 60°, in the case of direct injection at low pressure. Yang teaches an angle of inclination for a low pressure injection to be in the range of 40° and 50°, [0022]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inclination angle that is depended on the injection fuel pressure as taught by Yang in order to achieve a desired combustion.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Browne et al. (US 2023/0095893 A1), in view of Schaub et al. (US 4,966,103 A), hereafter Schaub.
Regarding claim 6, Browne does not disclose an engine wherein the cylinder head is provided with a groove configured to deflect the hydrogen spray. Schaub discloses an engine wherein adjacent to the injector bore, the cylinder head is provided with a groove (121, Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide cutouts in the engine of Browne as taught by Schaub in order to achieve desired combustion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TEUTA B HOLBROOK whose telephone number is (571)270-3276. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-4:30pm 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, LINDSAY LOW can be reached at 571-272-1196. 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.
/TEUTA HOLBROOK/
Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/GEORGE C JIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights