DETAILED ACTION
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11, 13-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. (US Pub No 2017/0009680).
In regard to claim 11, Suzuki discloses a fuel supply system (see the Abstract and Fig 1), comprising:
at least one fuel distribution device (delivery pipe 50, Fig 1) configured to supply an internal combustion engine with gaseous fuel (see Paragraph 0043: “The CNG stored in the first fuel tank 52 is supplied to the first delivery pipe 50 via the first fuel passage 51, and then is distributed to the four first fuel injection valves 5 from the first delivery pipe 50.”), the fuel distribution device including at least one injector connector (the interfaces between delivery pipe 50 and injectors 5) to which injectors for injecting the fuel into combustion chambers of the internal combustion engine can be connected (see each of injectors 5 attached to delivery pipe 50; also see Paragraphs 0042-0043), at least one connector to which a supply line for feeding gaseous fuel into the fuel distribution device can be connected (the interface between fuel passage 51 and delivery pipe 50, see Fig 1 and Paragraph 0043), and a distribution chamber (the interior cavity of delivery pipe 50) which is fluidically disposed between the injector connectors (the interfaces between delivery pipe 50 and injectors 5) and the connector (the interface between fuel passage 51 and delivery pipe 50);
a storage volume (the portion of fuel line 51 immediately upstream of shutoff valve 55); and
a shut-off valve device (shutoff valve 55, see Paragraph 0043) which is at least indirectly fluidically disposed between the storage volume (the portion of fuel line 51 and immediately upstream of shutoff valve 55) and the distribution chamber (the interior cavity of delivery pipe 50).
In regard to claim 13, Suzuki discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the fuel supply system includes exactly one shut-off valve device (shutoff valve 55, see Fig 1).
In regard to claim 14, Suzuki discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the storage volume (the portion of fuel line 51 immediately upstream of shutoff valve 55) at least functions as a reservoir for the gaseous fuel (as it stores fuel as it is sent from fuel tank 52 to the delivery pipe 50, and further would store fuel when valve 55 is shut), and the distribution chamber (the interior cavity of delivery pipe 50) includes a function of distributing fuel via the injector connectors to the injectors (see Paragraph 0043: “The CNG stored in the first fuel tank 52 is supplied to the first delivery pipe 50 via the first fuel passage 51, and then is distributed to the four first fuel injection valves 5 from the first delivery pipe 50.”).
In regard to claim 16, Suzuki discloses the system of claim 11, wherein: (i) the storage volume is integrated into the fuel distribution device, and/or
All elements in the system of Suzuki are considered to be “integrated together” when assembled as show in Fig 1.
In regard to claim 17, Suzuki discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the storage volume (the portion of fuel line 51 immediately upstream of shutoff valve 55) is disposed separately (being divided, at least, by valve 55 and regulator 56) from the fuel distribution device (delivery pipe 50, see Fig 1).
In regard to claim 18, Suzuki discloses the system of claim 17, wherein: (i) the shut-off valve device (55, Fig 1) is disposed between the storage volume (the portion of fuel line 51 immediately upstream of shutoff valve 55) and the fuel distribution device (delivery pipe 50 being downstream of valve 55, see Fig 1), and/or
In regard to claim 19, Suzuki discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the storage volume (the portion of fuel line 51 immediately upstream of shutoff valve 55) is integrated into a pressure control device (pressure regulator 56, see Fig 1 and Paragraph 0044).
All elements in the system of Suzuki are considered to be “integrated together” when assembled as show in Fig 1.
In regard to claim 20, Suzuki discloses the system of claim 11, further comprising a metering unit, which is integrated into a pressure control device.
See Paragraph 0044 (emphasis added): “A regulator 56 is arranged in the first fuel passage 51 downstream of the shutoff valve 55. The regulator 56 reduces the pressure of the CNG supplied from the first fuel tank 52 to a preset pressure (a set pressure). In other words, the regulator 56 is a valve gear that adjusts the passage cross-sectional area of the first fuel passage 51 such that a fuel pressure in the first fuel passage 51 downstream of the regulator 56, in other words, a fuel pressure applied to the first fuel injection valves 5 and the first delivery pipe 50 (hereinafter referred to as “a fuel injection pressure”) becomes equal to the set pressure. As the regulator 56, it is possible to employ, for example, a mechanical valve gear that is fabricated by combining a diaphragm and a spring with each other. Besides, a pressure sensor 57 is attached to the first fuel tank 52. The pressure sensor 57 outputs an electric signal associated with the pressure in the first fuel tank 52.”.
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US Pub No 2017/0009680) in view of Wong (US Pub No 2014/0373531).
In regard to claim 12,
Suzuki discloses the system of claim 11.
Suzuki does not positively disclose wherein the gaseous fuel is hydrogen.
Examiner notes that Suzuki utilizes compressed natural gas (CNG), see Paragraph 0043.
However, it is well known in the art to optionally use either CNG or hydrogen in such engines.
Wong discloses an internal combustion engine that utilizes a gaseous fuel (see the Abstract). Most importantly, Wong teaches that hydrogen can be used in place of CNG; see claim 12: “The internal combustion engine of claim 1, wherein the gaseous fuel includes is 100% compressed natural gas (CNG), 100% methane, 100% ethane, 100% propane, 100% butane, 100% hydrogen, 100% carbon monoxide or any combination of these gases.”.
In view of the teachings of Wong, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize hydrogen, in place of CNG, in the system of Suzuki. Such a combination is considered to be a simple and obvious substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2141 III).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US Pub No 2017/0009680) in view of Drow (US Pat No 2,657,006).
In regard to claim 15,
Suzuki discloses the system of claim 11.
Suzuki does not positively disclose wherein:
(i) the shut-off valve device includes an intake, via which an at least approximately radial inflow of gaseous fuel at least indirectly from the storage volume into a housing of the shut-off valve device is enabled, and/or
(ii) the shut-off valve device includes an outlet, via which an at least approximately radial outflow of gaseous fuel from the housing of the shut-off valve device at least indirectly into the distribution chamber is enabled.
Examiner notes that Suzuki simply does not discuss the interior of shutoff valve 55, and simply shows the valve schematically.
However, such valves are well known in the art.
Drow discloses a shutoff valve (see the Title) for use in a gas passage (see Col 1, lines 1-2).
Most importantly Drow discloses wherein the valve includes an intake (13, Fig 2) that allows gas to flow radially into the housing of the valve (considering valve plug 24 to represent the axial direction as “up and down” as seen in Fig 2), and wherein the valve includes an outlet (12) which allows gas to flow radially out of the housing of the valves.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the schematically represented gas shutoff valve of Suzuki with a well-known, existing gas shutoff valve, such as that taught by Drow (having a radially flowing inlet and outlet through a valve housing). Such a combination is a simple and obvious substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2141 III).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but appears it would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Coldren et al. (US Pub No 2014/0311444), especially Fig 1.
Munshi et al. (US Pub No 2025/0154913), especially Fig 1.
Both Coldren and Munshi discloses gases full systems with similarly arranged shutoff valves.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB M AMICK whose telephone number is (571)272-5790. The examiner can normally be reached Core Hours 10-6 M-F (First Fridays 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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571) 272-1196. 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.
/JACOB M AMICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
