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 .
Examiners Note:
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are adopted to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2149.02 VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e. as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. WL Gore & Associates, inc. v. Garlock, inc., 721 F.2d 1540,220 USPQ303 (Fed, Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 489 US 851 (1984). See also MPEP 2123.
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 (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 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) 13-16,18,20,22,23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Baur et al US 2021/0148297.
In Re 13-16,18,20,22,23 Baur teaches:
13. (New) A method for operating a gas (para 2 gaseous fuel injector) injector of an internal combustion engine to avoid (intended use) closing bounces (para 3 describes bouncing phenomena) during a closing process (abstract) of an armature (fig 1 30) of a magnetic actuator (22) the method comprising the following steps:
ending energization of the magnetic actuator at a switching time t0 (fig 2b end of item 5) to initiate the closing process of the gas injector; and
determining a switching time t3 (9a), after a period of time Z (time between 5 and 9a) has elapsed after the switching time t0, at which a voltage U (figs 2a-2b y axis voltage) of the magnetic actuator is set to zero (x axis is horizontally time and vertically zero voltage)(at least all figs and paras).
14. (New) The method according to claim 13, wherein after the energization of the magnetic actuator has ended, a starting time L is determined at a switching time t2 (6a beginning 9b) of the armature, and the switching time t3 at which the voltage U is set to zero is determined as a time only after the starting time L.
15. (New) The method according to claim 13, wherein the switching time t3 (9a) at which the voltage U is set to zero always occurs after a switching time t1 (see fig 2b), at which a current I of the magnetic actuator has reached a value of zero during the closing process (fig 3b show current I zero at about 2 ms).
16. (New) The method according to claim 13, wherein the switching time t3 at which the voltage U is set to zero always occurs before the switching time t1 (fig 3b shows I zero at about 4.2 ms), at which a current I of the magnetic actuator has reached the value zero.
18. (New) The method according to claim 17, wherein the starting time L is determined based on a current I of the magnetic armature and the voltage U of the magnetic actuator (para 25).
20. (New) The method according to claim 13, wherein after the switching time t3, at which the voltage U is set to zero, a braking current G (“braking pulse” abstract) is applied to reduce a closing speed of the armature (para 27).
22. (New) A control unit (“closed loop control” paras 45-46, fig 6, hysteresis control throughout specification, “processor”) configured to operate a gas injector of an internal combustion engine to avoid closing bounces during a closing process of an armature of a magnetic actuator (abstract), the control unit configured to: end energization of the magnetic actuator at a switching time tO to initiate the closing process of the gas injector; and determine a switching time t3, after a period of time Z has elapsed after the switching time to, at which a voltage U of the magnetic actuator is set to zero (see in re 1 above over Baur).
23. (New) A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium (construed as processor per para 45, wherein a processor or a computer inherently contains non-transitory storage medium with associated computer program control) on which is stored a computer program having program code for operating a gas injector of an internal combustion engine to avoid closing bounces during a closing process of an armature of a magnetic actuator, the program code, when executed by a computer, causing the computer to perform the following steps: ending energization of the magnetic actuator at a switching time tO to initiate the closing process of the gas injector; and determining a switching time t3, after a period of time Z has elapsed after the switching time to, at which a voltage U of the magnetic actuator is set to zero (see in re 1 above over Baur).
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) 17,19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baur et al US 2021/0148297 in view of Klaus et al WO 2010/079027 (see IDS and machine translation).
In Re 17, Baur teaches the switching time t3 is determined according to the starting time L of the armature (optional) and/or (optional) a closing speed of the armature.
Baur does not teach however Klaus teaches an actual closing time t4 (“determined closing time, pgs 5-6 claims 1,2,6) at which a closing element of the gas injector rests against a sealing seat. Klaus further teaches braking pulse is controlled based on closing time for advantageous metering accuracy improvement pg 5. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Klaus’s closing time determination to Baur’s injector control to advantageously improve metering accuracy.
In Re 19, Baur does not teach however Klaus teaches the closing time t4 of the closing element of the gas injector is determined based on a local maximum of a current I of the magnetic armature (pg 5 third from last paragraph). Klaus further teaches braking pulse is controlled based on closing time for advantageous metering accuracy improvement pg 5. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Klaus’s closing time determination to Baur’s injector control to advantageously improve metering accuracy.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baur et al US 2021/0148297 in view of Rosel DE 102014202106 (see IDS and machine translation).
In Re 21, Baur does not teach however Rosel teaches wherein a duration of the braking current G is determined according to the closing speed of the armature (middle pg 7). Rosel further teaches speed control yield precise operation over a wide range of operating parameters, pg 4. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Rosel’s closing speed to Baur’s injector control to yield precise operation over a wide range of operating parameters.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: teaching fuel injector closing control.
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. Interview Agendas can be faxed to examiner at (571)273-3748.
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
Prosecution Insights