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.
Preliminary Amendments
This office action is responsive to the (preliminary) amendment filed on 01/16/2025. As directed by the amendment: no claim(s) has/have been amended, claim(s) 1-10 has/have been cancelled, and new claim(s) 11-20 has/have been added. Thus, claims 11-20 are presently pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11, line 2, the comma after the semicolon should be deleted;
Claim 11, line 10, the term “a central axis” should be corrected to “the central axis”; and
Claim 11, line 15, the term “the transition” should be corrected to either “a transition” or “another transition”.
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) 11-13 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over QUEST (DE 102018206784 A1).
Re claims 11-12, QUEST ‘784 discloses a prechamber spark plug 1, comprising:
a housing 2, 2a, 2b (see sole Figure);
a central electrode 4;
a ground electrode 5, wherein the central electrode 4 and the ground electrode 5 are arranged in a prechamber 81;
an isolator 31; and
a cap 80 that closes the prechamber 81 in a direction of a combustion chamber (implicit as it is disclosed to be used in an ICE; See also “USE”);
wherein the isolator 31 has a lateral wall region 70 (See annotated Figure below for better illustration) that extends substantially coaxially to a central axis (X-X) of the prechamber spark plug 1, an end region 71 that lies substantially perpendicular to the central axis (X-X) and from which the central electrode 4 protrudes, and a connection region 72 that connects the lateral wall region 70 to the end region 71;
wherein a first point K (again, see annotated Figure below) is defined at a transition between the lateral wall region70 and the connection region 72;
wherein a second point M is defined at the transition between the connection region 72 and the end region 71;
wherein a third point I is defined at a free end 30a of the central electrode 4 that is a point farthest from an end region 40a of the ground electrode 40;
wherein a fourth point P is defined at a free end 40a of the ground electrode 5 that is a point farthest from the free end 30a of the central electrode 4;
wherein a first straight line KI passes through the first point K and the third point I;
wherein a second straight line KP passes through the first point K and the fourth point P;
wherein an angle bisector W passes between the first straight line KI and the second straight line KP,
wherein a third straight line KM passes through the first point K and the second point M on the isolator 31; and
wherein an angle “A” is provided between the angle bisector W and the third straight line KM.
The patent application to QUEST ‘784 appears to teach the angle “A” in the claimed range; however, QUEST ‘784 is silent regarding the angle “A” provided between the angle bisector W and the third straight line KM is in a range of +20°<A<-20° or +15°<A<-15°. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to provide the claimed angles “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 Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Quest would not operate differently with the claimed angles. Further, it is well established in the art to adjust the geometry of spark plugs to achieve different spark patterns and efficiencies.
Re claim 13, QUEST ‘784 discloses a distance Q between the third point I and the fourth point P. QUEST ‘784 appears to teach the distance Q in the claimed range; however, it is silent to the distance Q in a range of 1 mm to 3 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to provide the claimed distance Q range “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 Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Quest would not operate differently with the claimed distance Q range. Further, it is well established in the art to adjust the geometry of spark plugs to achieve different spark patterns and efficiencies.
Re claim 16, QUEST ‘784 discloses wherein the connection region 72 on the isolator 31 between the first point K and the second point M is straight in section (see 72 in the sole FIGURE) and/or is convex in section and/or is concave in section and/or is freely selectable in section (again, FIGURE also reads on this limitation).
Re claim 17, QUEST ‘784 discloses wherein a flow guide element (FGE; see annotated Figure below for illustration) is arranged on an inner wall (IW) of the housing 2.
Re claim 18, QUEST ‘784 discloses wherein the flow guide element (FGE) is a region protruding radially inward from the inner wall (IW) of the housing 2.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over QUEST ‘784 in view of NIESSNER (DE 102017107679 A1).
Re claim 14, QUEST ‘784 is silent with respect to wherein a plurality of ground electrodes 5 are arranged on the housing, each having the fourth point P.
However, the patent application to NIESSNER ‘679 teaches that it is conventional in the art of pre-chamber spark plugs (see fig. 2) to provide a plurality of ground electrodes 20 (fig. 2) that are arranged on the housing 4. NIESSNER ‘679 explicitly teaches in “ADVANTAGE”: “The plug improves a lean-burn operation and enables a reliable large-volume ignition in the combustion chamber by ignition torches or flame jets that shoot out from the openings in the cap even when an exhaust recirculation rate is relatively high in petrol-powered spark-ignition engines.”.
In view of this, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pre-chamber spark plug of QUEST ‘784, wherein a plurality of ground electrodes 5 are arranged on the housing, each having the fourth point P, as clearly suggested and taught by NIESSNER ‘679, in order to provide a plug that improves a lean-burn operation and enables a reliable large-volume ignition in the combustion chamber by ignition torches or flame jets that shoot out from the openings in the cap even when an exhaust recirculation rate is relatively high in petrol-powered spark-ignition engines (see ADVANTAGE).
Re claim 15, NIESSNER ‘679 discloses wherein: (i) the ground electrode 20 has a noble metal pin on which the free end is defined and/or (ii) the central electrode 10 has a noble metal pin on which the free end is defined (see fig. 2-4. “Each of the ground electrodes 20, 20' is in two parts from a carrier component 23 and a reinforcing member 24 formed and extends transversely to the center line 5, in particular perpendicular thereto. The reinforcement component 24 consists of a noble metal alloy, in particular platinum and / or iridium alloy.”).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over QUEST ‘784 in view of Sotiropoulou (US 20160053670 A1).
Re claims 19-20, QUEST ‘784 discloses the invention as essentially claimed including wherein a plane E (see annotated Figure below) runs perpendicular to the central axis (X-X) of the prechamber spark plug 1 and passes through the second point M on the isolator 31.
However, QUEST ‘784 is completely silent to wherein the flow guide element is arranged on a plane E or between the ground electrode and the plane E, and wherein the flow guide element includes a recess in the inner wall of the housing.
The patent application to Sotiropoulou ‘670 teaches a pre-chamber spark plug wherein a flow guide element 120 (see annotated fig. 10 below) is arranged on a plane E or between the ground electrode 1010 and the plane E, and wherein the flow guide element 120 includes a recess (see fig. 10) in the inner wall of the housing 110.
Furthermore, Sotiropoulou ‘670 explicitly discloses: “The prechamber 100, the plurality of holes 320 and the prechamber volume 120 can be configured to achieve a rotational flow field 210 (FIG. 2) of the fuel-air in-filling streams 930 inside of the prechamber volume 120 which may include the radial and axial flow characteristics as further described herein. In certain embodiments as shown in FIGS. 9 and 10, higher fuel concentrations 940 may be achieved at the periphery 240 of the pre-combustion chamber volume 120 and towards the holes 320 than the fuel concentrations 950 found elsewhere in pre-combustion chamber volume 120.”.
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 pre-chamber spark plug of QUEST ‘784, such that wherein the flow guide element is arranged on a plane E or between the ground electrode and the plane E, and wherein the flow guide element includes a recess in the inner wall of the housing, as clearly suggested and taught by Sotiropoulou ‘670, in order to allow for higher fuel concentrations at the periphery of the pre-chamber volume / flow guide element 120 to achieve particular combustion performance characteristics (see par. 0063 & 0068).
PNG
media_image1.png
868
976
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1454
1080
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The various cited prior arts all teach very similar pre-chamber spark plugs with the ground and central electrodes constructions as claimed.
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