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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: para. 13 of instant US PGPub recites “fuel feel block.” Examiner believes “feel” should be “feed.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 13 recites “fuel feel block.” Examiner believes “feel” should be “feed.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2,7,12,13,18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In Re 2, claim 2 recites “standalone.” Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “standalone” in claim 2 has an unknown meaning. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "generally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In Re, 12-13, The terms "high pressure" and “low pressure” in claims 12-13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms "high pressure" and “low pressure” are 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 metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined and are therefore indefinite.
In Re 12, the phrase “relatively low pressure” does not recite what the low pressure is relative to. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined and are therefore indefinite.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "an oxygen sensor." An oxygen sensor suffers from double inclusion with claim 1 recitation of “an oxygen sensor.” The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined and are therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examining the limitation will be taken as “the oxygen sensor.”
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-11,13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Laws US 2017/0074226.
In Re 1-20 Laws teaches:
1. An electronic carburetor injection system (100, fig. 1) for an internal combustion engine (title, abstract), comprising:
a fuel injector (36) that delivers liquid fuel in the form of a spray discharge (inherent);
a plate (31) that supports the fuel injector between a carburetor (32) and an intake manifold (33) (paras. 45-50);
an oxygen sensor (“oxygen sensor” para. 64) disposed within an exhaust system (para. 64) of the engine; and
an engine control unit (para. 50 “computer”) configured to operate the fuel injector according to signals received from at least the oxygen sensor (para. 64, figs. 12,16).
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the electronic carburetor injection system is a standalone (see 35 USC 112b rejection above, taken as Laws system 100) fuel injection system that supplements a fuel/air mixture delivered to the engine by way of the carburetor (abstract, figs. 12-16).
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the electronic carburetor injection system delivers a measured portion of additional fuel to the engine whenever a fuel/air mixture delivered by the carburetor is found to be lacking sufficient fuel to support a desired combustion of the fuel/air mixture within the engine (fig 12 steps 54-57, figs. 13-15 steps 61,62,65,66,69,70).
4. The system of claim 1, wherein coupling the electronic carburetor injection system with the carburetor operates to maintain a fuel/air mixture within a proper range across a multiplicity of driving conditions and changing environmental conditions (para. 66 “following factors”).
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the electronic carburetor injection system may be configured to assist with cold starting the engine by operating for a temporary, predetermined time period following starting the engine (para. 66 “ability to start the engine, performance of the vehicle in cold weather” where Laws operates for a temporary predetermined time period per figs. 12-16).
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the electronic carburetor injection system may be programmed (para. 65 “programmable”) by an end-user to operate whenever a fuel/air mixture delivered by the carburetor is found to be leaner than a specific value (figs. 10-16).
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the plate is a generally solid member having a uniform thickness that is suitable for being fastened between the carburetor and the intake manifold (figs. 1-4,7-9).
8. The system of claim 1, wherein the plate is comprised of a rigid material that is capable of (claim limitation "capable of" interpreted as an intended result, where the limitations following "capable of" are not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.04: "However, the court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003))."") withstanding being fastened between the carburetor and the intake manifold, as well as tolerating (claim limitation "tolerating" interpreted as an intended result, where the limitations following "tolerating" are not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.04: "However, the court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003))."") engine operating temperatures and contact with liquid fuel (inherent to use and operation of an internal combustion engine).
9. The system of claim 1, wherein the plate includes a central opening that allows a fuel/air mixture delivered by the carburetor to pass through the plate and enter the intake manifold (see fig 1).
10. The system of claim 9, wherein the plate is configured to support the fuel injector in a location that facilitates operating the fuel injector without interfering with normal operation of the carburetor (fig 1, paras. 8-14,46,49).
11. The system of claim 9, wherein the opening includes an injector port that allows the spray discharge to enter the intake manifold (fig 1, paras. 8-14,46,49).
13. The system of claim 12, wherein the fuel pressure regulator and the fuel pump cooperate (para 49) to maintain high-pressure fuel delivery to the fuel injector by way of a fuel inlet port disposed on a fuel feel block coupled with the plate (see 35 USC 112b rejection above, construed as items 30 and 58 see figs 3-4).
14. The system of claim 1, wherein the oxygen sensor is a wide-band 02 sensor (“oxygen sensor” paras. 51-52,64 wide band construed as ability to measure oxygen in exhaust manifold to control engine) that is suitable (claim limitation "suitable" interpreted as an intended result, where the limitations following "suitable" are not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.04: "However, the court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003))."") for being placed into contact with exhaust gases exiting the internal combustion engine during operation (paras. 51-52,64).
15. The system of claim 1, wherein a sensor cable facilitates sensor data indicating the oxygen content of the exhaust gases being received by the engine control unit (paras. 15-16,50, step 46-47 fig. 11).
16. The system of claim 1, wherein an actuator cable facilitates operation of the fuel injector by way of signals sent by the engine control unit (paras. 15-16,50, step 46-47 fig. 11).
17. The system of claim 1, wherein the engine control unit is configured to control the operation of the fuel injector in cooperation with a fuel/air mixture delivered by the carburetor (figs. 10-16).
18. The system of claim 17, wherein the fuel/air mixture is determined by way of an oxygen sensor in contact with exhaust gases exiting the internal combustion engine during operation (figs. 10-16 fig 12 steps 54-57, figs. 13-15 steps 61,62,65,66,69,70).
19. The system of claim 1, wherein the engine control unit includes a fixed programming that is based upon a particular application of the internal combustion engine (paras. 65-66).
20. The system of claim 1, wherein the engine control unit is configured to be programmable by an end-user (paras. 65-66).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laws US 2017/0074226 in view of Gruden et al US 4,258,681.
In RE 12, Laws teaches a fuel circuit may be implemented whereby a fuel pump (para 49 “fuel pump”) cooperates with a fuel pressure regulator (para 49 “fuel regulator”) to deliver high-pressure fuel to the fuel injector (pumps raise pressure),
Laws does not teach unused fuel is directed back to a fuel tank at a relatively low pressure.
However, Gruden teaches unused fuel is directed back to a fuel tank at a relatively low pressure (19 fig 1 col 2 ll. 25-35). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Gruden’s return line to Laws fuel circuit to return excess fuel to the fuel tank.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL C STAUBACH whose telephone number is (571)272-3748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/CARL C STAUBACH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747