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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 5-9 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.
With regards to claim 5, the recitation in lines 6-7, “wherein the first fuel injection orifices arranged along a second circular contour”, renders the claim indefinite. In particular, in the last paragraph of page 7 of the specification, which also includes the drawings, only specifies that “wherein the third fuel injection orifices arranged along a second circular contour”, and fails to teach otherwise. As such, the Examiner will interpret the limitation to read as follows: “wherein the third fuel injection orifices arranged along a second circular contour”. Appropriate correction is required.
With regards to claim 10, the recitation “cylinders which are equipped to ignite with help of a second fuel, a first fuel for combusting the first fuel in the cylinders” renders the claim indefinite since the limitation is not grammatically correct. It’s unclear to the Examiner as to what exactly is being recited here. However, for the purpose of compact prosecution, and based on the instant disclosure/specification, it appears the claim is attempting to recite an intended use that the cylinders are combusting with a combustible first fuel with the help of a second ignition fuel. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAFARI (WO 2019145593 A1) in view of WEBER (FI 20185784 A1).
Re claim 1, CAFARI ‘593 discloses a fuel injector 1 (fig. 1-2) of an internal combustion engine (not shown, but see pg. 6, line 24 thru col. 7, line 4), configured to supply fuel to a combustion chamber (not shown) of a cylinder (not shown) of the internal combustion engine, comprising:
a first needle guide (see first fuel gallery 31; fig. 2);
first fuel injection orifices (e.g., nozzle holes 3a of first nozzle 3; see fig. 2 & 8-11 and pg. 10, lines 21-28);
a first nozzle needle (e.g., first injector needle 7; see fig. 2, and pg. 8, lines 1-13) that is moveably guided in the first needle guide (see 31), and interacts with the first fuel injection orifices 3a such that the first nozzle needle 7, depending on its position, either opens or blocks a fuel flow through the first fuel injection orifices 3a;
a second needle guide (see second fuel gallery 32; see fig. 2);
second fuel injection orifices (e.g., nozzle holes 4a of second nozzle 4; fig. 2 & 8-11 and pg. 10, lines 6-20);
third fuel injection orifices (Note, CAFARI explicitly discloses in lines 17-20 of pg. 10 that the alpha angle (fig. 5) for each of the nozzle holes 4a of the second nozzle 4 does not need to be the same. Thus, based on this explicit disclosure, the Examiner is interpreting that those second fuel injection orifices that are at different angles than the ones shown in Fig. 5 to read on the claimed “third fuel injection orifices”);
a second nozzle needle 8 (fig. 2) that is moveably guided in the second needle guide (see second fuel gallery 32),
wherein the first fuel injection orifices 3a; (fig. 2 & 8-11) are configured to inject the first fuel in a first spray cone 37 (fig. 9; pg. 11, lines 3-20) with a first cone angle (e.g., also angle alpha. Note, as disclosed on pg. 10, lines 17-28, the first nozzle 3 is similar to the second nozzle 4) into a combustion space,
wherein the second fuel injection orifices (e.g., at least the ones, 4a, shown in fig. 5) are configured to inject the second fuel in a second spray cone (e.g., fuel jets 36; see fig. 8; pg. 12, lines 5-12) with a second cone angle (angle alpha) into the combustion space, and
wherein the third fuel injection orifices (See disclosure above with respect to the interpretation for these claimed “third fuel injection orifices”) are configured to inject the second fuel in a third spray cone with a third cone angle into the combustion space.
Note that in claim 1, the limitations “of a first, relatively less ignitable fuel” and “of a second, relatively ignitable fuel” are intended use recitations. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCCPA 1963).
However, the patent application to CAFARI ‘593 fails to teach wherein the second nozzle needle 8 which interacts with the second fuel injection orifices and the third fuel injection orifices such that the second nozzle needle, depending on its position, either: blocks a fuel flow of a second, relatively ignitable fuel both through the second fuel injection orifices and also through the third fuel injection orifices, opens the fuel flow of a second, relatively ignitable fuel through the second fuel injection orifices and blocks the fuel flow of a second, relatively ignitable fuel through the third fuel injection orifices, or opens the fuel flow of a second, relatively ignitable fuel both through the second fuel injection orifices and also through the third fuel injection orifices.
However, the patent application to WEBER ‘784 teaches a very similar fuel injection nozzle for a dual fuel injection system and a dual fuel engine comprising:
a nozzle needle 27 (fig. 2-4; see second par. of pg. 8) that is movably guided in a needle guide 24 which interacts with second fuel injection orifices 25 and third fuel injection orifices 26 such that the nozzle needle 27, depending on its position, either:
blocks (fig. 2; pg. 7; last paragraph) a fuel flow both through the second fuel injection orifices 25 and also through the third fuel injection orifices 26,
opens (fig. 3) the fuel flow through the second fuel injection orifices 25 and blocks the fuel flow through the third fuel injection orifices 26, or
opens (fig. 4) the fuel flow both through the second fuel injection orifices 25 and also through the third fuel injection orifices 26.
In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the fuel injector of CAFARI ‘593, such that wherein the second nozzle needle that is movably guided in the second needle guide which interacts with the second fuel injection orifices and the third fuel injection orifices such that the second nozzle needle, depending on its position, either: blocks a fuel flow of a second, relatively ignitable fuel both through the second fuel injection orifices and also through the third fuel injection orifices, opens the fuel flow of a second, relatively ignitable fuel through the second fuel injection orifices and blocks the fuel flow of a second, relatively ignitable fuel through the third fuel injection orifices, or opens the fuel flow of a second, relatively ignitable fuel both through the second fuel injection orifices and also through the third fuel injection orifices, as clearly suggested and taught by WEBER ‘784, in order to allow for the introduction of small quantities of the ignition fluid into the respective cylinder of the dual fuel engine with high precision (see pg. 5, first paragraph).
Re claim 2, CAFARI ‘593, as modified by WEBER ‘784 teaches the invention as essentially claimed. Specifically, WEBER ‘784 teaches wherein the second cone angle (e.g., see orifices 25 in fig. 4) is smaller than the third cone angle (e.g., see orifices 26).
Re claim 3, modified CAFARI ‘593 teaches the invention as essentially claimed including wherein the first cone angle (see jets 37 of at least the nozzle holes 3a facing exhaust valve side 26; see fig. 9) is smaller than the second cone angle (see jets 36 of at least the nozzle holes 4a facing exhaust valve side 26; see fig. 8). See specifically pg. 13, line 30 thru pg. 14, line 15. Note, CAFARI explicitly discloses that “the difference in the angles alpha of the injection directions of the intake side 25 and exhaust valve side 26 can be for example in the range of 2-10 degrees” for the second nozzle 4.
Re claim 4, modified CAFARI ‘593 teaches the invention as essentially claimed including wherein the first cone angle (see jets 37 of at least the nozzle holes 3a facing intake valve side 25; see fig. 9) is greater than the second cone angle (see jets 36 of at least the nozzle holes 4a facing the intake valve side 25; see fig. 8) and smaller than the third cone angle (not shown, but implicit; see disclosure above in claim 1).
With regards to claim(s) 10, the claim(s) is/are commensurate in scope with claim(s) 1, and is/are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above. Additionally, the limitations “which are equipped to ignite with help of a second fuel, a first fuel for combusting the first fuel in the cylinders” are also consider intended use recitations. Again, see the disclosure above for claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior arts of record fails to teach or render obvious the combination set forth in claim 5 and especially does not show “wherein a distance between a centre point of the pitch circle contour and a centre point of the first and second circular contour is greater than a sum of a radius of the pitch circle contour and of the radius of the first circular contour and greater than a sum of the radius of the pitch circle contour and of a radius of the second circular contour” in combination with the other claim limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior arts cited all teach a very similar fuel injector system for dual fueled engines.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5424. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7am-pm (CT).
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
HUNG Q. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/HUNG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747