DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 6 and 10, each claim attempts to describe a distribution block flow arrangement including a plurality of members, a plurality of bores, and a bypass port, which respectively allow one or more of liquid fuel and fluid to travel between multiple members of the plurality of members and/or a member and another member without traveling through each of (or a contiguous) member. The claims are rendered indefinite such that the claimed invention(s) is/are not clear
[e.g., the claims provide for both “liquid fuel” and “fluid”, and as such, it is not exactly clear as to whether one or multiple distinct fluids are being established in the claims]; [e.g., is the fluid that is allowed to travel via the bypass port not in reference to the liquid fuel?];
[e.g., the structural configuration defining the flow of liquid fuel and/or fluid is not exactly clear, since neither the plurality of members nor the plurality of bores is defined in such a way that makes it clear as to what the liquid fuel and/or fluid is flowing “between”]; [e.g., applicant’s Fig. 12G is the only figure that appears to indicate flow going “between” the respective members, via the bypass port 269, and as such, it is not exactly clear as to how the plurality of bores are also allowing liquid fuel to travel between the respective members, and as to what necessarily distinguishes the bypass port from the plurality of bores]; [e.g., the extent or degree via which the term “between” is used throughout the claims is unclear, especially in consideration that a particular number of members and/or bores has not been clearly defined];
[e.g., the respective phrases “another member” and “another noncontiguous member” are unclear, such that it is not exactly clear as to what “another” is with respect to]; [e.g., per claims 1 and 6, is the phrase “another member” intended to reference a member of the plurality of members, or a member that is distinct from the plurality of members?]; [e.g., there is also no previously established noncontiguous member in claim 10, which causes uncertainty in terms of making it clear as to why the noncontiguous member is being regarded as “another”];
[e.g., the various members and bypass port are not clearly defined in terms of making it clear as to how the bypass port allows a certain flow between various members while also causing the flow to not travel through one or more members, since the members, bores, and/or flowpaths therebetween are not clearly defined].
Each claim recites “maintains delivery of liquid fuel from said distribution block to said fuel system”. The claims are rendered indefinite such that it is not exactly clear as to how a block comprising various members, bores, and a bypass port necessarily performs or facilitates the function of maintaining delivery of liquid fuel from said distribution block to said fuel system [e.g., it is not exactly clear as to whether the claims are attempting to describe a pressure maintaining or pressure increasing functionality, and/or it is not exactly clear as to how a block comprising various members, bores, and a bypass port necessarily or inherently ensures the delivery of liquid fuel]; [e.g., it is not exactly clear as to what feature(s) is/are actually maintaining delivery of liquid fuel, and/or as to what maintaining delivery of liquid fuel necessarily entails].
Regarding claims 1 and 6 only, each claim attempts to describe a plurality of members that are “separated” from one another. The claims are rendered indefinite such that the degree and/or extent that the term “separated” is applicable is not clear [e.g., as can be best understood in view of applicant’s Fig. 12A-12B, 12G, the respective members (e.g., 168, 169 per Fig. 12A) appear to be next to one another, not separated from one another].
Regarding claim 10 only, the claim recites “a contiguous member” twice. The claim is rendered indefinite such that it is not exactly clear as to how many distinct contiguous members are being established in the claims.
The claim recites “one of said and a contiguous member”. The claim is rendered indefinite such that the wording of the claim is unclear [e.g., one of said what?].
Regarding claims 2, 7 and 11, the claims provide for “a test bore”. The claims are rendered indefinite such that it is not exactly clear as to whether the aforementioned test bore should be regarded as being distinct from (or in reference to) the previously established plurality of bores [e.g., is the test bore considered to be a bore of the plurality of bores, or a bore that is distinct from the plurality of bores?].
The claims recite “a system pressure”. The claims are rendered indefinite such that it is not exactly clear as to whether the aforementioned system pressure is intended to describe a pressure of the previously established “fuel system”, or if the aforementioned system pressure is intended to describe a pressure of a component/system that is distinct from the previously established “fuel system” [e.g., is the system pressure with respect to the pressure at the distribution block, the pressure of the previously established fuel system, etc.?].
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites “said solenoid”. There is no clear antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and as such, it is not exactly clear as to what limitation(s) is/are being referenced [e.g., should claim 13 depend from claim 12 instead of claim 11, or should the aforementioned limitation instead recite “a solenoid”?].
The claim further recites “one of said members”. The claim is rendered indefinite such that it is not exactly clear as to whether the aforementioned members include one or both of the previously established contiguous members and noncontiguous member.
Claims 3-5, 8-9, 12 and 14-15 are rejected due to dependency from one or more indefinite claims.
Note that notwithstanding the substantial outstanding 112(b)/clarity issues currently in the claims, the examiner has still applied what appears to be the closest prior art of record to the claimed invention(s).
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 1, 3, 6, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over WO 2011094704 A1 (Shipp).
Regarding claims 1, 6 and 10, Shipp (Figures 1-2) teaches a distribution block (10) for a liquid injected propane fuel system (see Fig. 1-2 in conjunction with paragraphs [002], [007]), said distribution block in communication with a fuel supply line (described but not illustrated, in communication via 35), said fuel supply line delivering liquid propane fuel to said distribution block (see Fig. 1-2 in conjunction with paragraphs [0013]-[0014]), said distribution block comprising:
at least one member (11, 12) (see Fig. 1-2 in conjunction with paragraphs [0012], [0041]);
a plurality of bores or bore channels (at least 31, 33, 34, 35) located in the at least one member (see Fig. 1-2), said bores or bore channels allowing liquid fuel to travel through at least a first portion of the at least one member (see Fig. 1-2 in conjunction with paragraph [0013]);
a bypass port (39) allowing fluid travel through at least a second portion of the at least one member (see Fig. 1-2 in conjunction with paragraph [0014]);
said distribution block provides for at least one of port injection or direct injection of fuel (see Fig. 1-2 in conjunction with paragraph [003]);
wherein said distribution block maintains delivery of liquid fuel from said distribution block to said fuel system (see Fig. 1-2 in conjunction with paragraphs [007], [0020], [0036]) [e.g., at least via the increased pressure generated via the fuel flush solenoid 20F]; [e.g., “Some of the advantages of the present invention include removing the fuel pressure from the rail ”]; [e.g., “the fuel flush 20F solenoid, when the solenoid is closed, there is an approximately 0.020" orifice in the flush valve that allows limited fuel flow back to the fuel tank. It is contemplated that this fuel flush valve orifice may be used to generate increased pressure in the fuel rail above the tank pressure by restricting the fuel pump flow to ensure that there is liquid propane available for the injectors”].
Shipp fails to expressly teach wherein the at least one member comprises a plurality of members separated from one another and in fluid communication with one another, wherein the plurality of bores are located between the plurality of members to allow liquid fuel to travel between the plurality of members, and wherein the bypass port allows travel between at least two members of the plurality of members without allowing travel through each member of the plurality of members [e.g., in other words, and notwithstanding the substantial clarity issues in the claims, the primary embodiment for the distribution block 10 per Fig. 1-2 of Shipp is provided as a single member that defines the various fuel passages therein, whereas applicant’s invention provides for at least two members that define the various fuel passages therein]; [e.g., compare Fig.1-2 of Shipp with at least applicant’s Fig. 12A-12B, 12G, of which illustrates a distribution block comprising first and second members (168 and 169)].
However, Shipp further suggests that other passages and functionality may be included in the distribution block if desired, and that alternatively, a single integrated element or component [e.g., including and/or encompassing the distribution block 10 and/or the portions thereof] may be divided into separate plural elements or components (see Fig. 1-2 in conjunction with paragraphs [0012], [0041]) [e.g., in view of the context per Shipp, the claimed invention(s) at best correspond(s) to an obvious and/or non-inventive extension of the teachings and/or context per Shipp, such that the claimed invention(s) merely entail(s) dividing the single integrated distribution block 10 and/or the portions thereof into a plurality of elements, and/or accordingly implementing additional passages and/or functionality as desired for a particular application].
As such, it would have been a mere matter of routine design consideration and/or merely involve routine skill in the art to have the at least one member of the distribution block per Shipp comprise a plurality of members and such that the liquid fuel is accordingly allowed to flow (or prevented from flowing) between the various members of the plurality of members as a modification (or an alternative) [e.g., accordingly enlarging and/or extending the at least one member per Shipp so as to facilitate additional passages and/or functions as desired], as suggested by Shipp, so as to adapt and/or optimize the distribution block per Shipp for a particular application in the same (or a substantially similar) manner and such that the same (or substantially similar) advantageous technical effect(s) is/are achieved (implicit in view of basic engineering logic/principles) (see Fig. 1-2 in conjunction with paragraphs [007], [0012], [0041]) [e.g., at best, the claimed invention relates to a non-inventive change to one or more of the size/proportion and/or shape of the distribution block per Fig. 1-2 of Shipp, and/or the routine practice of opting to make a known component comprise two pieces instead of a single piece (or vice versa), while achieving the same (or substantially similar) advantageous technical effect(s) discussed per at least paragraph [007] of Shipp]; [e.g., in view of at least the additional context per paragraphs [0012], [0041] of Shipp, there would be no exercise of inventive skill involved in opting to have the distribution block per Fig. 1-2 of Shipp alternatively comprise multiple portions to facilitate a desired number of additional passages and/or functions, especially in consideration that the substantive feature(s) of the respective distribution blocks is/are the same (or substantially similar) (e.g., such that each block defines various fuel flow bores/passages/channels and a bypass port, and is further configured with at least one solenoid to ensure that liquid propane is available to be delivered to the injectors of an engine system)]. Also see 112(b) rejection(s) above.
Regarding claim 6 only, Shipp (Figures 1-2) teaches (at least implicitly) wherein the distribution block comprises at least one solenoid (20) in sealable communication with the at least one member (see Fig. 1-2 in conjunction with paragraph [0012]) [e.g., also compare to the corresponding configuration of the solenoid 220 per applicant’s Fig. 12G, noting that at least the same extent of “sealable communication” is at least one of implied and/or readily inferable]. Also refer to the discussion above regarding claims 1, 6 and 10. Also see 112(b) rejection(s) above.
Regarding claim 10 only, note that the discussion above regarding claims 1, 6 and 10 is similarly applicable to the additional subject matter of claim 10, of which further describes the plurality of members as including contiguous and one or more noncontiguous members, and a bore channel [e.g., this subject matter is fairly rendered obvious for the same (or substantially similar) reason(s) discussed above regarding claims 1, 6 and 10]. Also refer to the discussion above regarding claims 1, 6 and 10. Also see 112(b) rejection(s) above.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Shipp (Figures 1-2) teaches wherein the distribution block comprises at least one solenoid (20) (see Fig. 1-2 in conjunction with paragraph [0012]).
Claims 2, 7, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over WO 2011094704 A1 (Shipp) in view of US 5187974 A (Mellits).
Regarding claims 2, 7 and 11, Shipp teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Shipp (Figures 1-2) further suggests that other passages and functionality may be included in the distribution block if desired, and that alternatively, a single integrated element or component [e.g., including and/or encompassing the distribution block 10 and/or the portions thereof] may be divided into separate plural elements or components (see Fig. 1-2 in conjunction with paragraphs [0012], [0041]).
Shipp fails to expressly teach wherein one of the other passages and functionality necessarily includes a test bore in communication with the at least one member, wherein said test bore provides for a field testing of a system pressure.
However, Mellits (Figures 1-2) [emphasis on Fig. 2] teaches an analogous engine fuel system (10), and wherein a fuel distribution component (30) is provided with a test bore (35) configured to provide for a field testing of a system pressure (implicit) (see Fig. 1-2 in conjunction with column 2, line 65 through column 3, line 37) [e.g., “Unit 30 includes a test port or fitting 35”].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and/or merely involve routine skill in the art to accordingly apply and/or implement a test bore into the fuel distribution block (or component) per Shipp as a modification (or an alternative) [e.g., as one of the optional additional ports/passages, to provide the additional function of pressure testing the fuel system or the components thereof for diagnostic purposes], as suggested by Mellits, in order to facilitate fuel system pressure diagnostics to identify proper operation or problems [e.g., leaks] in the fuel system or the components thereof (see Fig. 1-2 in conjunction with column 3, lines 18-37 and column 5, lines 45-66) [e.g., “One of the ways to diagnose fuel system 10 is to test the pressure at a selected point”].
Additionally (or alternatively), note that the aforementioned modification (or alternative) constitutes the application and/or combination of well-known analogous prior art elements/techniques in such a way as to yield highly predictable results [e.g., in consideration that Shipp and Mellits are both relevant to engine fuel systems, fuel distribution devices utilized in fuel injection systems, etc., there would be no unexpected result(s)/effect(s) yielded via accordingly applying the aforementioned technical feature per Mellits to the invention(s) per Shipp, so as to achieve the same readily foreseeable technical effect(s) discussed per Mellits, and similarly, one of ordinary skill in the art can readily select from various well-known configurations based on certain factors concerning the particular application (cost considerations, space considerations, testing and/or diagnostic accessibility considerations, etc.), without exercising inventive skill]. Also refer to the discussion above regarding claims 1, 6 and 10.
Regarding claim 13, Shipp in view of Mellits teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Shipp (Figures 1-2) further teaches (at least implicitly) wherein the distribution block comprises at least one solenoid (20) in sealable communication with the at least one member (see Fig. 1-2 in conjunction with paragraph [0012]) [e.g., also compare to the corresponding configuration of the solenoid 220 per applicant’s Fig. 12G, noting that at least the same extent of “sealable communication” is at least one of implied and/or readily inferable]. Also refer to the discussion above regarding claims 1, 6 and 10. Also see 112(b) rejection(s) above.
Claims 4-5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over WO 2011094704 A1 (Shipp) in view of US 20180298848 A1 (Ulrey).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Shipp teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Shipp fails to teach wherein the distribution block further comprises a temperature sensor.
However, Ulrey (Figure 2) teaches an analogous liquid propane injection system (see Fig. 2 in conjunction with abstract), and wherein a fuel distribution component (260) is provided with a temperature sensor (259) (see Fig. 2 in conjunction with paragraphs [0069]-[0070]).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and/or merely involve routine skill in the art to accordingly apply and/or implement a temperature sensor into the fuel distribution block per Shipp as a modification (or an alternative), as suggested by Shipp, in order to accordingly enable more precise control over and/or further optimize the injection(s) of liquid propane gas (LPG) to maintain a desired fuel system pressure [e.g., when the temperature sensor is configured with respect to the associated computer module/engine control module discussed per paragraph [0011] of Shipp], and thereby achieve one or more of reduced air-fuel ratio errors, reduced knock, and increased engine performance and robustness (see Fig. 2 in conjunction with paragraphs [0069]-[0070], [0125]).
Additionally (or alternatively), note that the aforementioned modification (or alternative) constitutes the application and/or combination of well-known analogous prior art elements/techniques in such a way as to yield highly predictable results [e.g., in consideration that Shipp and Ulrey are both relevant to engine fuel systems, fuel distribution devices utilized in fuel injection systems, etc., there would be no unexpected result(s)/effect(s) yielded via accordingly applying the aforementioned technical feature per Ulrey to the invention(s) per Shipp, so as to achieve the same readily foreseeable technical effect(s) discussed per Ulrey, and similarly, one of ordinary skill in the art can readily select from various well-known configurations based on certain factors concerning the particular application (cost considerations, space considerations, performance requirements, etc.), without exercising inventive skill]. Also refer to the discussion above regarding claims 1, 6 and 10.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Shipp (or Shipp in view of Ulrey) teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Shipp fails to teach wherein the distribution block further comprises a pressure sensor.
However, Ulrey (Figure 2) teaches an analogous liquid propane injection system (see Fig. 2 in conjunction with abstract), and wherein a fuel distribution component (260) is provided with a pressure sensor (258) (see Fig. 2 in conjunction with paragraphs [0069]-[0070]).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and/or merely involve routine skill in the art to accordingly apply and/or implement a pressure sensor into the fuel distribution block per Shipp as a modification (or an alternative), as suggested by Shipp, in order to accordingly enable more precise control over and/or further optimize the injection(s) of liquid propane gas (LPG) to maintain a desired fuel system pressure [e.g., when the pressure sensor is configured with respect to the associated computer module/engine control module discussed per paragraph [0011] of Shipp], and thereby achieve one or more of reduced air-fuel ratio errors, reduced knock, and increased engine performance and robustness (see Fig. 2 in conjunction with paragraphs [0069]-[0070], [0125]).
Additionally (or alternatively), note that the aforementioned modification (or alternative) constitutes the application and/or combination of well-known analogous prior art elements/techniques in such a way as to yield highly predictable results [e.g., in consideration that Shipp and Ulrey are both relevant to engine fuel systems, fuel distribution devices utilized in fuel injection systems, etc., there would be no unexpected result(s)/effect(s) yielded via accordingly applying the aforementioned technical feature per Ulrey to the invention(s) per Shipp, so as to achieve the same readily foreseeable technical effect(s) discussed per Ulrey, and similarly, one of ordinary skill in the art can readily select from various well-known configurations based on certain factors concerning the particular application (cost considerations, space considerations, performance requirements, etc.), without exercising inventive skill]. Also refer to the discussion above regarding claims 1, 6 and 10.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over WO 2011094704 A1 (Shipp) in view of US 5187974 A (Mellits) in further view of US 20180298848 A1 (Ulrey).
Regarding claim 8, Shipp in view of Mellits teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Shipp fails to teach wherein the distribution block further comprises a temperature sensor.
However, Ulrey (Figure 2) teaches an analogous liquid propane injection system (see Fig. 2 in conjunction with abstract), and wherein a fuel distribution component (260) is provided with a temperature sensor (259) (see Fig. 2 in conjunction with paragraphs [0069]-[0070]).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and/or merely involve routine skill in the art to accordingly apply and/or implement a temperature sensor into the fuel distribution block per Shipp as a modification (or an alternative), as suggested by Shipp, in order to accordingly enable more precise control over and/or further optimize the injection(s) of liquid propane gas (LPG) to maintain a desired fuel system pressure [e.g., when the temperature sensor is configured with respect to the associated computer module/engine control module discussed per paragraph [0011] of Shipp], and thereby achieve one or more of reduced air-fuel ratio errors, reduced knock, and increased engine performance and robustness (see Fig. 2 in conjunction with paragraphs [0069]-[0070], [0125]).
Additionally (or alternatively), note that the aforementioned modification (or alternative) constitutes the application and/or combination of well-known analogous prior art elements/techniques in such a way as to yield highly predictable results [e.g., in consideration that Shipp and Ulrey are both relevant to engine fuel systems, fuel distribution devices utilized in fuel injection systems, etc., there would be no unexpected result(s)/effect(s) yielded via accordingly applying the aforementioned technical feature per Ulrey to the invention(s) per Shipp, so as to achieve the same readily foreseeable technical effect(s) discussed per Ulrey, and similarly, one of ordinary skill in the art can readily select from various well-known configurations based on certain factors concerning the particular application (cost considerations, space considerations, performance requirements, etc.), without exercising inventive skill]. Also refer to the discussion above regarding claims 1, 6 and 10.
Regarding claim 9, Shipp in view of Mellits in view of Ulrey teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Shipp fails to teach wherein the distribution block further comprises a pressure sensor.
However, Ulrey (Figure 2) teaches an analogous liquid propane injection system (see Fig. 2 in conjunction with abstract), and wherein a fuel distribution component (260) is provided with a pressure sensor (258) (see Fig. 2 in conjunction with paragraphs [0069]-[0070]).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and/or merely involve routine skill in the art to accordingly apply and/or implement a pressure sensor into the fuel distribution block per Shipp as a modification (or an alternative), as suggested by Shipp, in order to accordingly enable more precise control over and/or further optimize the injection(s) of liquid propane gas (LPG) to maintain a desired fuel system pressure [e.g., when the pressure sensor is configured with respect to the associated computer module/engine control module discussed per paragraph [0011] of Shipp], and thereby achieve one or more of reduced air-fuel ratio errors, reduced knock, and increased engine performance and robustness (see Fig. 2 in conjunction with paragraphs [0069]-[0070], [0125]).
Additionally (or alternatively), note that the aforementioned modification (or alternative) constitutes the application and/or combination of well-known analogous prior art elements/techniques in such a way as to yield highly predictable results [e.g., in consideration that Shipp and Ulrey are both relevant to engine fuel systems, fuel distribution devices utilized in fuel injection systems, etc., there would be no unexpected result(s)/effect(s) yielded via accordingly applying the aforementioned technical feature per Ulrey to the invention(s) per Shipp, so as to achieve the same readily foreseeable technical effect(s) discussed per Ulrey, and similarly, one of ordinary skill in the art can readily select from various well-known configurations based on certain factors concerning the particular application (cost considerations, space considerations, performance requirements, etc.), without exercising inventive skill]. Also refer to the discussion above regarding claims 1, 6 and 10.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY D TAYLOR JR whose telephone number is (469)295-9192. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9a-5p (central time).
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.
/ANTHONY DONALD TAYLOR JR./Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747