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.
Claim 9 is 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 9 recites the limitation "the split" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 13, 15-16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and/or 102a2 as being anticipated by JP 7399490 B2, which discloses (e.g., see FIG 15):
A fluid transfer assembly comprising:
a fluid line comprising a hydrogen-based fluid stream (382, which leads from hydrogen tank 381 to injector 310); and
a Venturi lubricant injector (340; see also FIG 4) fluidly connected to the fluid line and adapted to inject lubricant into the hydrogen-based fluid stream within the fluid line (“The ejector 340 utilizes the flow of hydrogen gas to suck in the water injected from the water injector 320 and the lubricating oil injected from the lubricating oil injector 330, and combine hydrogen gas, water, and lubricating oil. It is mixed. The basic configuration of the ejector 340 is substantially the same as the basic configuration of the ejector 70 of Embodiment 1 (see FIG. 4). “).
2. The fluid transfer assembly of claim 1, wherein the hydrogen-based fluid stream has a composition of at least 90 vol. % hydrogen (this claim is given limited patentable weight because, as explained at MPEP 2115, including the material worked upon by a structure in a claim does not limit or make the apparatus claim patentable).
3. The fluid transfer assembly of claim 1, wherein the lubricant is an oil-based lubricant (this claim is given limited patentable weight because, as explained at MPEP 2115, including the material worked upon by a structure in a claim does not limit or make the apparatus claim patentable).
4. The fluid transfer assembly of claim 1, wherein the Venturi lubricant injector is fluidly connected to a lubricant reservoir (394).
5. The fluid transfer assembly of claim 1, wherein the fluid line comprises a split having a first fluid line section and a second fluid line section (the fluid line is split into a portion upstream of valve 384 and a portion downstream of valve 384).
6. The fluid transfer assembly of claim 5, wherein the fluid line further comprises a joint re-joining the first fluid line section and the second fluid line section (the valve 384 joins the two sections).
7. The fluid transfer assembly of claim 1, further comprising at least one valve (383, 384) operatively connected to the fluid line.
9. The fluid transfer assembly of claim 7, wherein the at least one valve is located at the split (valve 384 is located at the split).
13. The fluid transfer assembly of claim 1, wherein the Venturi lubricant injector comprises a first cross-section and a second cross-section, wherein the second cross-section has a smaller diameter than the first cross-section (see the small- and large-sized cross sections of the venturi, FIG 4).
15. The fluid transfer assembly of claim 1, wherein the Venturi lubricant injector maintains an internal pressure of at least 50 psi (“he hydrogen gas injection pressure of the hydrogen gas injection injector 30 is, for example, 0.5 to 1.0 MPa”).
16. A method of modifying fluid comprising: providing a fluid line (382); flowing hydrogen-based fluid through the fluid line (from hydrogen tank 381 to injector 310); providing a Venturi lubricant injector (340; FIG 4) comprising a lubricant (from lubricant oil storage tank 394) and fluidly connected to the fluid line (e.g., see FIG 5); and injecting the lubricant from the Venturi lubricant injector into the hydrogen-based fluid stream within the fluid line (“The ejector 340 utilizes the flow of hydrogen gas to suck in the water injected from the water injector 320 and the lubricating oil injected from the lubricating oil injector 330, and combine hydrogen gas, water, and lubricating oil. It is mixed. The basic configuration of the ejector 340 is substantially the same as the basic configuration of the ejector 70 of Embodiment 1 (see FIG. 4). “).
19. A vehicular propulsion system comprising the lubricant system of claim 1 (“For example, the present invention may be applied not only to vehicles such as automobiles, but also to aircraft, ships, and other fuel injection devices for hydrogen internal combustion engines.”).
20. The vehicular propulsion system of claim 19, further comprising a hydrogen fuel system (e.g., see the entirety of FIG 15).
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) 7, 8, 12, 14, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 7399490 B2.
Regarding claim 8, JP 7399490 B2 does not disclose wherein the at least one valve (as mapped above in claim 7) comprises a gate valve, a check valve, or a butterfly valve. However gate valves and butterfly valves were well-known in the art before the effective filing date (official notice), and it would have been obvious to embody the at least one valve as a gate valve or butterfly valve in order to control flow as required generically of the JP 7399490 B2 reference.
Regarding claim 12, JP 7399490 B2 does not disclose the material of the fluid line as claimed, however JP 7399490 B2 does disclose a similar hydrogen-handling component 43 to be made of a hydrogen stable material comprising a metal. To prevent failure of the fluid line from handling hydrogen, it would have been obvious to form it of a hydrogen-resistant metal, as similarly taught regarding component 43.
Regarding claim 14, JP 7399490 B2 does not disclose a check valve along the lubricant line as claimed. However it was notoriously well-known in the art to provide a check valve along a lubricant line (i.e., downstream of the reservoir) (official notice), and it would have been obvious to prevent backflow in the lubricant line of JP 7399490 B2 by using a check valve therein as claimed. (Note that for purposes of claim 14, this obvious check valve is read as the valve of claim 7.)
Regarding claims 17 and 18, JP 7399490 B2 does not disclose the claimed flowrates, however it was well-known in the art before the effective filing date to use such flow rates (official notice) and it would have been obvious to use the claimed flowrates in order to provide a demande fuel flow rate with a commensurate amount of lubricant.
Claim(s) 5-7 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 7399490 B2 in view of Choi (US 2015/0337773).
Regarding claims 5-7 and 9-11 (as an alternative to the anticipation analyses of claims 5 and 6), Choi teaches that it was known in the art before the effective filing date to create a bypass along a similar fluid line (110) using a split having a first fluid line section (from 300 through 23 and to 400) and a second fluid line section (from 300 to 220, 210 and 400) (claim 5), a joint (400) re-joining the first fluid line section and the second fluid line section (claim 6), and at least one valve (300) operatively connected to the fluid line and located at the split (claims 7 and 9), a solenoid (310) located at the split and adapted to selectively move hydrogen-based fluid stream into one of the first fluid line section or the second fluid line section through selective actuation of the valve (see para. 0036; note that the actuator is capable of moving hydrogen as claimed) (claims 10 and 11), wherein the solenoid allows control of the valve by a user or by an automated system (the solenoid itself is capable of allowing such control, as it is actuated by an electric current that must be provided by a user or an automated system). To similarly create a bypass along the flow line of JP 7399490, it would have been obvious to use a split, valve and solenoid actuator at the split, and a joint as taught by Choi.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. GB 2622016 discloses a similar dosing device comprising two check valves for injecting lubricant into a hydrogen fuel stream.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM M MCCALISTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1869. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 7am to 6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CRAIG SCHNEIDER, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3607, or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/WILLIAM M MCCALISTER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
6/12/26
Prosecution Insights