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 .
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 1-13 are 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 1 recites the limitation "the radius of curvature" in ln. 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “a radius of curvature” to refer back to for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-13 are rejected by virtue of dependency under claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niwa et al. (US 20210123403 A1) in view of Schnobrich et al. (US 20210348585 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Niwa discloses a fuel injector nozzle (20, Fig. 1) configured to inject fuel into a combustion chamber (Ea, Fig. 2) of an internal combustion engine (E, Fig. 2),
the nozzle (20, Fig. 1) comprising:
a nozzle tip (30, Fig. 1) comprising an inner surface (internal surface of nozzle tip 30, 302, Fig. 1) configured to form a delimiting surface of a sac volume (305, Fig. 1) and an outer surface (301, Fig. 1) configured to adjoin the combustion chamber (Ea, Fig. 2),
a valve seat (304, Fig. 1) arranged to interact with a needle (40, Fig. 1) to open and close a fluid connection between the sac volume (305, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0061) and a fuel cavity (47, Fig. 1) of a fuel injector (1, Fig. 1) comprising the nozzle (20, Fig. 1), and
a number of fuel injection holes (31, Figs. 1, 3) each forming an inlet opening (311, Fig. 3) at the inner surface (internal surface of nozzle tip 30, 302, Figs. 1, 3) of the nozzle tip (30, shown in Fig. 3) and an outlet opening (312, Fig. 3) at the outer surface (301, Fig. 1) of the nozzle tip (30, Fig. 1).
However, Niwa does not disclose wherein at least one fuel injection hole of the number of fuel injection holes has a geometrical centre line being curved along at least a first portion of the at least one fuel injection hole, wherein the radius of curvature of the geometrical centre line increases as seen in a direction from the inlet opening towards the outlet opening, and wherein the radius of curvature increases continuously along the full first portion of the at least one fuel injection hole as seen in the direction from the inlet opening towards the outlet opening.
Schnobrich teaches wherein at least one fuel injection hole of the number of fuel injection holes (20, Figs. 1, 6A-14B) has a geometrical centre line (annotated in Fig. 8A) being curved along at least a first portion (40, Fig. 8A) of the at least one fuel injection hole (20, shown in Fig. 8A, Paragraphs 0080-0081),
wherein the radius of curvature of the geometrical centre line (annotated in Fig. 8A) increases as seen in a direction from the inlet opening (21, Fig. 8A) towards the outlet opening (32, shown in Fig. 8A, Paragraphs 0080-0081), and
wherein the radius of curvature increases continuously along the first portion (40, Fig. 8A) of the at least one fuel injection hole (20, Figs. 1, 6A-14B) as seen in the direction from the inlet opening (21, Fig. 8A) towards the outlet opening (32, shown in Fig. 8A, Paragraphs 0080-0081).
PNG
media_image1.png
451
427
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the teaching of the at least one fuel injection hole taught in Schnobrich to Niwa’s nozzle to yield the predictable result of having at least one fuel injection hole of the number of fuel injection holes has a geometrical centre line being curved along at least a first portion of the at least one fuel injection hole, the radius of curvature of the geometrical centre line increases as seen in a direction from the inlet opening towards the outlet opening, and the radius of curvature increases continuously along the full first portion of the at least one fuel injection hole as seen in the direction from the inlet opening towards the outlet opening. Doing so minimizes turbulence, increase uniformity and flow rate of the fluid reaching the transition region, and conserves the fluid’s potential energy until needed for the fluid shearing process (Schnobrich, Paragraphs 0081, 0120).
In regards to claim 2, Niwa, as modified by Schnobrich, discloses the nozzle according to claim 1. Niwa discloses the geometrical centre line (C3, Fig. 3) is continuously curved along the first portion (side portion of 31, Figs. 3-6) of the at least one fuel injection hole (31, Figs. 3-6, Paragraphs 0088, 0107).
With respect to claim 3, Niwa, as modified by Schnobrich, discloses the nozzle according to claim 1. Niwa discloses the first portion (side portion of 31, Figs. 3-6) of the at least one fuel injection hole (31, Figs. 3-6) comprises an inlet portion (side portion of 31 where inlet 311 is located, Figs. 3-5) of the at least one fuel injection hole (31, Figs. 3-6).
Regarding claim 4, Niwa, as modified by Schnobrich, discloses the nozzle according to claim 1. Niwa does not disclose the first portion has a length and the length of the first portion of the at least one fuel injection hole constitutes at least 30%, preferably at least 60%, of total length of the at least one fuel injection hole, measured from the inlet opening towards the outlet opening.
Schnobrich teaches the length of the first portion (36, Figs. 1, 6A-6B) of the at least one fuel injection hole (20, Figs. 1, 6A-6B) constitutes at least 30%, preferably at least 60%, of total length of the at least one fuel injection hole, measured from the inlet opening (inlet of 20, shown in Figs. 1, 6A-6B) towards the outlet opening (32, Figs. 1, 6A-6B, Paragraph 0120).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the first portion taught in Schnobrich to Niwa’s nozzle to have the motivation to reduce turbulence and increase uniformity and flow rate of the fluid reaching the transition region (Schnobrich, Paragraph 0120).
It also would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the length of the first portion of the at least one fuel injection hole constitutes at least 30%, preferably at least 60%, of total length of the at least one fuel injection hole, measured from the inlet opening towards the outlet opening. Relative dimensions is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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. In addition, since there is only a finite number of solutions to modify the length of the first portion to be at least 30%, preferably at least 60%, of total length of the at least one fuel injection hole, measured from the inlet opening towards the outlet opening, with a reasonable expectation of success, a person of ordinary skill would have a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Regarding claim 5, Niwa, as modified by Schnobrich, discloses the nozzle according to claim 1. Niwa does not disclose total length of the at least one fuel injection hole is at least 3 times greater, or is at least 4 times greater, than diameter of the outlet opening.
Schnobrich teaches total length of the at least one fuel injection hole is at least 3 times greater, or is at least 4 times greater, than diameter of the outlet opening (Paragraph 0112).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the total length of the at least one fuel injection hole taught in Schnobrich to Niwa’s nozzle to have the motivation to maintain the outer shape of exiting fluid stream (Schnobrich, Paragraphs 0112-0113).
It also would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have total length of the at least one fuel injection hole is at least 3 times greater, or is at least 4 times greater, than diameter of the outlet opening. Relative dimensions is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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. In addition, since there is only a finite number of solutions to modify the total length of the at least one fuel injection hole to be 3 times greater, or is at least 4 times greater than diameter of the outlet opening, with a reasonable expectation of success, a person of ordinary skill would have a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Regarding claim 6, Niwa, as modified by Schnobrich, discloses the nozzle according to claim 1. Niwa discloses the inlet opening (311, Figs. 3-6) is elliptical (Paragraph 0066).
Regarding claim 7, Niwa, as modified by Schnobrich, discloses the nozzle according to claim 1. Niwa discloses wherein the first portion (side portion of 31, Figs. 3-6) of the at least one fuel injection hole (31, Figs. 3-6) has an elliptical cross section (S1-S4, shown in Fig. 7) in a plane (shown in Figs. 5-7) perpendicular to a direction from the inlet opening (311, shown in Fig. 5) towards the outlet opening (312, shown in Fig. 5).
In regards to claim 11, Niwa discloses a fuel injector (1, Fig. 1) configured to inject fuel into a combustion chamber (Ea, Fig. 2) of an internal combustion engine (E, Fig. 2), wherein the fuel injector (1, Fig. 1) comprises:
an injector body (21, 22, Fig. 1) forming a fuel cavity (18, Fig. 1),
a needle (40, Fig. 1) arranged in the injector body (21, 22, Fig. 1), and
a fuel injector nozzle (20, Fig. 1) according to claim 1,
and wherein the needle (40, Fig. 1) is configured to interact with a valve seat (304, Fig. 1) of the nozzle (20, Fig. 1) to open and close a fluid connection between the fuel cavity (18, Fig. 1) and a sac volume (305, Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0060-0061).
Regarding claim 12, Niwa discloses an internal combustion engine (E, Fig. 2) comprising a fuel injector (1, Figs. 1-2) according to claim 11, wherein the fuel injector (1, Figs. 1-2) is configured to inject fuel into a combustion chamber (Ea, Fig. 2) of the internal combustion engine (E, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Niwa discloses a vehicle (not explicitly shown, but engine E is part of a vehicle, Paragraph 0052) comprising an internal combustion engine (E, Fig. 2) according to claim 12.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niwa et al. (US 20210123403 A1) in view of Schnobrich et al. (US 20210348585 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ginter et al. (US 10612508).
Regarding claim 8, Niwa, as modified by Schnobrich, discloses the nozzle according to claim 7. However, Niwa and Schnobrich do not teach wherein eccentricity of the elliptical cross section decreases as seen in a direction from the inlet opening towards the outlet opening.
Ginter teaches eccentricity of the elliptical cross section decreases as seen in a direction from the inlet opening (160, Figs. 2-5) towards the outlet opening (162, inlet port 160 includes a first oval shape 158 and outlet port 162 includes a second oval shape 168, and the cross sectional-area decreases between inlet port 160 and outlet port 162, and as extrinsically evidenced by NPL “Ellipses and Elliptical Orbits”, the more flat an ellipse is, the greater is its eccentricity, and the more round it is, its eccentricity is closer to zero, shown in Figs. 2-5, Col. 4, Ln. 65 to Col. 5, Ln. 1, Col. 5, Ln. 23-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the teaching of the inlet opening and the outlet opening taught in Ginter to Niwa’s nozzle, as modified by Schnobrich, to yield the predictable result of having eccentricity of the elliptical cross section decreases as seen in a direction from the inlet opening towards the outlet opening. Doing so facilitates injection of fuel into the combustion chamber (Ginter, Col. 2, Ln. 1-3).
Regarding claim 9, Niwa, as modified by Schnobrich, discloses the nozzle according to claim 1. However, Niwa and Schnobrich do not teach wherein the inlet opening of the at least one fuel injection hole has a greater effective cross-sectional area than the outlet opening of the at least one fuel injection hole.
Ginter teaches the inlet opening (160, Figs. 2-5) of the at least one fuel injection hole (152, Fig. 2) has a greater effective cross-sectional area than the outlet opening (162, Figs. 2-5) of the at least one fuel injection hole (152, shown in Figs. 2-5, Col. 5, Ln. 23-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the teaching of the inlet opening and the outlet opening taught in Ginter to Niwa’s nozzle, as modified by Schnobrich, to yield the predictable result of having the inlet opening of the at least one fuel injection hole has a greater effective cross-sectional area than the outlet opening of the at least one fuel injection hole. Doing so facilitates injection of fuel into the combustion chamber (Ginter, Col. 2, Ln. 1-3).
With respect to claim 10, Niwa, as modified by Schnobrich, discloses the nozzle according to claim 1. However, Niwa and Schnobrich do not teach effective cross-sectional area of the at least one fuel injection hole decreases continuously along the first portion of the at least one fuel injection hole.
Ginter teaches effective cross-sectional area (cross-sectional area of orifice 152, shown in Figs. 2-5) of the at least one fuel injection hole (152, Fig. 2) decreases continuously along the first portion (side portion of 152, shown in Figs. 2-5) of the at least one fuel injection hole (shown in Figs. 2-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the teaching of the inlet opening and the outlet opening taught in Ginter to Niwa’s nozzle, as modified by Schnobrich, to yield the predictable result of having the inlet opening of the at least one fuel injection hole has a greater effective cross-sectional area than the outlet opening of the at least one fuel injection hole. Doing so facilitates injection of fuel into the combustion chamber (Ginter, Col. 2, Ln. 1-3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna T Ho whose telephone number is (571)272-2587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, First Friday of Pay Period off.
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 O 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.
/ANNA THI HO/Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
