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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the ejector assembly of claim 15 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 and 10 is 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the piston area" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the needle seat area" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the stroke seat area" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4 and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeuchi et al. (2004/0040340).
Regarding claim 1, Takeuchi et al. teaches an ejector comprising a primary inlet (33); a secondary inlet (34); and an outlet (15); a nozzle (outlet of 13) for jetting fluid supplied at the primary inlet into a mixing portion (24) for sucking fluid supplied at the secondary inlet into the mixing portion (fig 2); a needle (9) and a needle seat (13), wherein the needle seat is arranged downstream of the primary inlet and upstream of the nozzle (fig 2); and an actuating mechanism (31, 32, 10) for moving the needle between an opened position, in which the needle is lifted from the needle seat for allowing fluid flow past the needle seat (fig 2), and a closed position, in which the needle abuts the needle seat and blocks fluid flow past the needle seat (when 9 is lowered to 13), wherein the actuating mechanism comprises: a cylinder (31, 32) with a piston (the top of needle 9) connected to the needle, wherein a first cylinder chamber (31) is maximized when the needle is in its opened position and a second cylinder chamber (32) is maximized when the needle is in its closed position, wherein the first cylinder chamber is in fluid communication with the primary inlet via a chamber inlet (fig 2), and wherein the second cylinder chamber is in fluid communication with the first cylinder chamber (fig 2), and a drain passage (26) with a pilot valve (23a), wherein the second cylinder chamber is in fluid communication with the secondary inlet and/or the outlet via the drain passage when the pilot valve is in an open state (fig 2), wherein the fluid communication of the second cylinder chamber with the first cylinder chamber is provided by an equalization passage (22, 35), wherein a flow cross-section of the equalization passage is larger than a flow cross-section of the drain passage. (the examiner notes that when the pilot valve is closed, the drain passage has a cross-section flow of zero, which is less than that of the equalization passage).
Regarding claim 3, wherein a needle seat area, which is a cross-section area of the needle seat where the needle engages the needle seat in the closed position, is in the range from 1.005 to 1.4 times a flow cross-section of the nozzle. (The examiner notes that from looking at fig 2, the flow cross-section of the nozzle varies from smaller than the needle seat area to greater than 2 times a needle seat area. There is a specific portion of the nozzle where a needle seat area is in the range from 1.005 to 1.4 times the flow cross-section of the nozzle.)
Regarding claim 4, wherein the pilot valve is a solenoid valve (23 electromagnetic valve is a solenoid valve).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the equalization passage is formed in the piston (fig 2)
Regarding claim 9, the examiner notes that there is an open state of the pilot valve where the flow cross-section of the equalization passage is in the range from 1.2 to 2.5 times the flow cross-section of the drain passage. Fig 2 shows that the pilot valve can open to an area where the flow cross-section of the equalization passage is in the range from 1.2 to 2.5 times the flow cross-section open pilot valve. It is noted that the “open sate” in the claim does not have to be the valve in the completely open state, it just must be in the not closed state.
Regarding claim 10, wherein a nozzle inlet is formed directly upstream of the nozzle (fig 2), wherein the nozzle inlet tapers toward the nozzle (fig 2), wherein the needle seat is located in the nozzle inlet (fig 2). The examiner notes that a length (W) of the nozzle inlet can be chosen that corresponds to at least 1.8 times the stroke (S) of the needle between the closed position and the opened position. It is noted that in figure 2, the length of the nozzle inlet appears to be more than 2 times the stroke since fig 2 is shown in the open position.
Regarding claim 11, wherein the ejector comprises a resilient member (10) acting against minimizing the second cylinder chamber by the piston (fig 2).
Regarding claim 12, the examiner notes that the ejector of Takeuchi et al is fully capable of having an opening time of the needle be at least 0.5 s and/or a closing time of the needle be at least 1s, by what control system is used to control the valve 23 and the pressure of the incoming fluid.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 6, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi et al. (2004/0040340).
Regarding claim 2, Takeuchi et al. shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a piston area, which is a cross-section area of the piston, is at least 1000 times the flow cross-section of the equalization passage.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Takeuchi et al. to so that a cross-section area of the piston is at least 1000 times the flow cross-section of the equalization passage, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 77 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In this case, the device of Takeuchi et al. would not operate differently with the cross-section area of the piston being at least 1000 times the flow cross-section of the equalization passage, since the ejector of Takeuchi et al and the claimed ejector are identical in every other way and slightly changing the proportions of the piston area with respect to the flow cross-section of the equalization passage will not sustainably effect the function of Takeuchi et al Additionally, it appears that applicant places no criticality in the claimed ratio.
Regarding claim 5, Takeuchi et al. shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1, but fails to disclose the piston area corresponds to at least 20 times the needle seat area.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Takeuchi et al. so the piston area corresponds to at least 20 times the needle seat area, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 77 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In this case, the device of Takeuchi et al. would not operate differently with the piston area corresponding to at least 20 times the needle seat area, since the ejector of Takeuchi et al and the claimed ejector are identical in every other way and slightly changing the proportions of the piston area with respect to the needle seat area will not sustainably effect the function of Takeuchi et al Additionally, it appears that applicant places no criticality in the claimed ratio.
Regarding claim 13, Takeuchi et al. shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the flow cross-section of the nozzle is at least 50 mm2.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Takeuchi et al. so the flow cross-section of the nozzle is at least 50 mm2, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 77 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In this case, the device of Takeuchi et al. would not operate differently with the flow cross-section of the nozzle is at least 50 mm2 since the ejector of Takeuchi et al and the claimed ejector are identical in every other way and slightly changing the cross-section of the nozzle will not sustainably effect the function of Takeuchi et al Additionally, it appears that applicant places no criticality in the claimed dimension.
Regarding claim 6, Takeuchi et al. shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1, but fails to disclose a stroke (S) of the needle between the closed position and the opened position corresponds to at least 2*(Anoz/pi)0.5, where Anoz is the flow cross- section of the nozzle.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Takeuchi et al.so that a stroke (S) of the needle between the closed position and the opened position corresponds to at least 2*(Anoz/pi)0.5, where Anoz is the flow cross- section of the nozzle., since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 77 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In this case, the device of Takeuchi et al. would not operate differently with a stroke (S) of the needle between the closed position and the opened position corresponds to at least 2*(Anoz/pi)0.5, where Anoz is the flow cross- section of the nozzle, since the ejector of Takeuchi et al and the claimed ejector are identical in every other way and slightly changing the cross-section of the nozzle, or the stroke length will not sustainably effect the function of Takeuchi et al Additionally, it appears that applicant places no criticality in the claimed dimension.
Claim(s) 7is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi et al. (2004/0040340) in view of Oshitani et al. (2005/0155374)
Regarding claim 7, Takeuchi et al. shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1 but fails to disclose wherein the ejector includes a check valve for preventing fluid flow from the outlet to the secondary inlet.
However, Oshitani et al. teaches an ejector that includes a check valve (52) for preventing backflow.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to includes a check valve in order to prevent fluid flow from the outlet back to the secondary inlet.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi et al. (2004/0040340) in view of Birkelund (10/253,788)
Regarding claim 15, Takeuchi et al. shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1 but fails to disclose an ejector assembly comprising at least two ejectors according to claim 1.
However, Birkelund teaches an ejector assembly with multiple ejectors (fig 1)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to use at least two ejectors of Takeuchi et al, in an assembly such as that of Birkelund, in order to mix twice as much fluid at the same time.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 14 is allowable due to the limitation “wherein the cylinder is formed by a cylinder insert and a top cover, wherein an elastic member biases the cylinder insert in abutment against the top cove.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON J BOECKMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-2708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm.
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.
/JASON J BOECKMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 8/25/2026
Prosecution Insights