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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 are currently pending in the application.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers filed on 07/09/2025 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 8, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 1 last line “0.8 to 0.4” should read --0.4 to 0.8--.
At claim 2 last line “0.9 - 0.6” should read --0.6 - 0.9--.
At claim 3 last line “0.9 - 0.6” should read --0.6 - 0.9--.
At claim 8 lines 3-4 “said combustion chamber” should read --a combustion chamber--.
At claim 11 lines 4 and 6 “said reciprocal axis (A)” should read --said reciprocal axis--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the plane perpendicular to said piston bowl center axis…at a position along said piston bowl center axis being located at half the piston bowl depth” in lines 26-28. It is unclear whether this perpendicular plane is the same perpendicular plane introduced at lines 11-12. For examination purposes the limitation “the perpendicular plane” in line 26 has been considered as --a perpendicular plane--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “said plane perpendicular to said piston bowl center axis” in lines 30-31. It is unclear whether this perpendicular plane is the same as or different than the perpendicular planes introduced at lines 11-12 and/or 26-28. For examination purposes the limitation “said perpendicular plane” in line 30 has been considered as --a perpendicular plane--.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a smallest distance along said reciprocal axis (A) between said piston crown and said cylinder head is at least 2 mm” in lines 6-7. It is unclear whether Applicant means along the reciprocal axis (A), i.e. along the centerline of the cylinder, or in the direction of the reciprocal axis (as indicated by 102 in Fig. 8). For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as -- a smallest distance in the direction of said reciprocal axis (A) between said piston crown and said cylinder head is at least 2 mm--.
Claims 2-18 are rejected for depending upon indefinite base claims.
Claim Analysis - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 at step 2A prong 1 because the claims do not recite any judicial exceptions.
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 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.
Claims 1, 6, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by KANZAKI (US 2019/0376442).
Regarding claim 1, KANZAKI discloses a piston (10) for an internal combustion engine (1) comprising a cylinder (2), said piston being adapted to move reciprocally in said cylinder of said internal combustion engine along a reciprocal axis (central axis, 0043 line 1, Fig. 1), whereby a combustion chamber is at least partially delimited by said cylinder and said piston (Fig. 1),
said piston comprising a piston crown (10a) adapted to face said combustion chamber (Fig. 7), said piston crown comprising a piston bowl surface (surface of cavity 12), recessed in said piston and circumferentially extending around a piston bowl center axis adapted to extend in a direction parallel to the reciprocal axis (Figs. 5-6), said piston also extending in a radial direction being perpendicular to the extension of said piston bowl center axis (Figs. 5-6),
said piston bowl surface defining a piston bowl (12) that, following the circumference of said piston bowl surface around said piston bowl center axis in a plane perpendicular to said piston bowl center axis (Figs. 5-6), comprises a set of circumferentially spaced apart dividing protrusions (64a, 0059 lines 5-8, Figs. 5-8) and a set of circumferentially spaced apart colliding protrusions (66, Figs. 5-6) wherein each two dividing protrusions in said set of circumferentially spaced apart dividing protrusions is separated by at least one colliding protrusion of said set of circumferentially spaced apart colliding protrusions (Fig. 5, 0062 lines 1-5), each dividing protrusion in said set of circumferentially spaced apart dividing protrusions being adapted to receive fuel from a fuel injector (34) of said internal combustion engine (Fig. 6),
said piston crown further comprising a piston rim portion (62, Fig. 5, 0056 lines 7-9), wherein said piston rim portion encloses said piston bowl surface (Fig. 5, 0056 lines 7-9) wherein a piston bowl opening is formed in an intersection between said piston rim portion and said piston bowl surface (inherent, Figs. 5-6),
said piston bowl surface having a piston bowl depth being a maximum distance from said piston rim portion to a portion of said piston bowl surface in a direction parallel to said piston bowl center axis (Fig. A below),
said piston bowl having a piston bowl reference radius being a radius of a reference circle having the same area as an area, in the plane perpendicular to said piston bowl center axis, radially outwardly enclosed by said piston bowl surface at a position along said piston bowl center axis being located at half the piston bowl depth into said piston bowl (inherent; recognizing that the value of the reference radius falls within the interval defined by the minimum and maximum radii of the half-depth bowl circumference, Fig. A),
said piston crown having a piston crown radius, being a largest distance from said piston bowl center axis to a portion of said piston crown in said plane perpendicular to said piston bowl center axis (Fig. A),
a ratio between said piston bowl reference radius and said piston crown radius being in the range of 0.4 to 0.8 (recognizing that the claimed ratio is bounded by the ratios of the minimum and maximum bowl reference radii and the piston crown radius, by the Examiner’s measurements on Fig. 8 of the prior art, the prior art ratio falls within the range of 0.72 - 0.76 which is within the range claimed).
[AltContent: textbox (Theor. max. of half-depth ref. radius (dark gray arrow))][AltContent: textbox (Theor. min. of half-depth ref. radius (light gray arrow)
Also, dividing protrusion portion radial distance)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Crown radius)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Depth)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
338
567
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A Annotations of KANZAKI Fig. 8.
Regarding claim 6, KANZAKI discloses the piston of claim 1.
KANZAKI further discloses wherein a ratio between said piston bowl depth and said piston bowl reference radius is at least 0.2 (recognizing that the claimed ratio is bounded by the ratios of the piston bowl depth to the minimum and maximum bowl reference radii, by the Examiner’s measurements on Fig. 8 of the prior art, the prior art ratio falls within the range of 0.45-0.49 which is within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 18, KANZAKI discloses a vehicle (implied, 0002 line 2) comprising the piston of 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 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.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANZAKI (US 2019/0376442) in view of NAKAKITA (US 6,161,518).
Regarding claim 7, KANZAKI discloses the piston of claim 1.
KANZAKI further discloses the set of circumferentially spaced apart dividing protrusions containing a number of dividing protrusions being equal to the number of fuel injector openings in a fuel injector in an engine (0058 lines 6-12, 0076 lines 1-5).
KANZAKI further discloses the inventive piston may be applied to engines equipped with fuel injectors having a different number of nozzle holes then the ten described (0076 lines 1-5) to provide an improvement in fuel spray-air mixing performance (0008 lines 6-7) to reduce NOx and soot generation (implied, 0006 lines 3-5).
NAKAKITA discloses an engine comprising a fuel injector with six nozzle holes (col. 10 lines 32-35).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the piston of KANZAKI to have six dividing protrusions to match the six nozzle holes of the engine of NAKAKITA to provide an improvement in fuel spray-air mixing performance in the engine of NAKAKITA to reduce NOx and soot generation. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality in the selection of 1-6 dividing protrusions in the practice of Applicant’s invention (n.b. “may contain one to six”, p. 10 ll. 32-33 of Applicant’s disclosure).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SVENSSON (US 10,774,782) in view of KANZAKI (US 2019/0376442).
Regarding claim 8, SVENSSON discloses an internal combustion engine (101) for gaseous fuel (col. 3 lines 19-20), said internal combustion engine comprising a cylinder (102) and a piston (112), said internal combustion engine further comprising a fuel injector (114) adapted to inject gaseous fuel into a combustion chamber (Fig. 1).
SVENSSON is not relied upon to teach the piston according to claim 1.
KANZAKI discloses the piston (10) according to claim 1, wherein each dividing protrusion (64a) of said set of circumferentially spaced apart dividing protrusions (Fig. 6) is adapted to receive fuel from a fuel injector (34) adapted to inject fuel (F) into a combustion chamber (Fig. 6) such that an individual fuel jet is directed towards each dividing protrusion (64a) of said set of circumferentially spaced apart dividing protrusions (Fig. 6) to provide an improvement in fuel spray-air mixing performance (0008 lines 6-7) to reduce NOx and soot generation (implied, 0006 lines 3-5).
KANZAKI further discloses the invention may be applied to engines equipped with fuel injectors having a different number of nozzle holes (0076 lines 1-5).
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 piston taught by KANZAKI for that in SVENSSON to improve fuel spray-air mixing performance to reduce NOx and soot generation.
Regarding claim 9, SVENSSON as modified teaches the internal combustion engine of claim 8.
SVENSSON further discloses wherein said fuel injector (34) injects gas (col. 3 lines 19-20) into said combustion chamber such that each individual gas jet forms an angle being equal to or greater than 65 ° with said piston bowl center axis (55-75 °, col. 4 lines 18-21).
Regarding claim 10, SVENSSON as modified teaches the internal combustion engine of claim 8.
SVENSSON further discloses wherein said fuel injector (34) contains a set of fuel injector openings (col. 4 line 15), said set of fuel injector openings containing 6 fuel injector openings (Fig. 2, col. 5 lines 1-10), each fuel injector opening in said set of fuel injector openings being adapted to inject an individual gas jet into said combustion chamber (col. 4 lines 15-18).
KANZAKI is relied upon to teach the piston (10) comprising said set of circumferentially spaced apart dividing protrusions (64a, 0059 lines 5-8, Figs. 5-8).
KANZAKI further teaches the set of circumferentially space apart dividing protrusions containing a number of dividing protrusions being equal to the number of fuel injector openings in said set of fuel injector openings (0058 lines 6-12, 0076 lines 1-5).
KANZAKI further teaches the invention may be applied to engines equipped with fuel injectors having a different number of nozzle holes (0076 lines 1-5).
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 piston taught by KANZAKI for that in SVENSSON to improve fuel spray-air mixing performance to reduce NOx and soot generation.
SVENSSON as modified teaches wherein said set of circumferentially spaced apart dividing protrusions contains 1 - 6 dividing protrusions.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SVENSSON (US 10,774,782) in view of KANZAKI (US 2019/0376442) and ISHIDA (JP H10-73023).
Regarding claim 11, SVENSSON as modified teaches the internal combustion engine of claim 8.
SVENSSON further discloses the engine further comprises a cylinder head (108) with a cylinder head surface (108) facing said piston crown (Fig. 1) and at least partially delimiting said combustion chamber (Fig. 1), said piston being adapted to move reciprocally in said cylinder of said internal combustion engine along said reciprocal axis (A) between a top dead center and a bottom dead center (Fig. 1).
SVENSSON is silent regarding the smallest distance in the direction of the reciprocal axis between the piston crown and the cylinder head when the piston is at TDC (i.e., the top clearance of the engine).
ISHIDA teaches an internal combustion engine (Fig. 1) being such that when a piston (22) is at top dead center (0010 line 7), a smallest distance (d, Fig. 1, 0010 lines 6-7) along a reciprocal axis between said piston crown (22a) and said cylinder head is at least 2 mm (2-5 mm, 0010 lines 6-7) to prevent the valves from coming into contact with the piston crown (0011 lines 1-3).
Absent guidance from SVENSSON on the top clearance of the engine, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the top clearance of SVENSSON in the range of 2-5 mm as taught by ISHIDA, to prevent the valves from coming into contact with the piston crown.
Claims 8 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MCTAGGART-COWAN (US 10,167,786) in view of KANZAKI (US 2019/0376442).
Regarding claim 8, MCTAGGART-COWAN teaches an internal combustion engine (100) for gaseous fuel (title), said internal combustion engine comprising a cylinder (143) and a piston (144), said internal combustion engine further comprising a fuel injector (141) adapted to inject gaseous fuel into a combustion chamber (Fig. 1).
MCTAGGART-COWAN is not relied upon to teach the piston according to claim 1.
KANZAKI discloses the piston (10) according to claim 1 and a fuel injector (34) adapted to inject fuel (F) into a combustion chamber (Fig. 6) such that an individual gas jet is directed towards each dividing protrusion (64a) of said set of circumferentially spaced apart dividing protrusions (Fig. 6) to provide an improvement in fuel spray-air mixing performance (0008 lines 6-7) to reduce NOx generation (implied, 0006 lines 3-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the piston and fuel injector of MCTAGGART-COWAN as taught by KANZAKI to improve fuel spray-air mixing performance to reduce NOx generation.
Regarding claim 13, MCTAGGART-COWAN as modified teaches the internal combustion engine of claim 8.
The limitation “wherein said fuel injector is adapted to discharge gaseous fuel at a discharge pressure being within the range of 150-500 bar” is considered as functional language. To establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness of a functional limitation, the prior art structure must inherently possess the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. See MPEP §2114 subsection I. In the instant case, the fuel injector is capable of injecting the gaseous fuel in the claimed pressure range because the fuel injector can inject the gaseous fuel at pressures up to 540 bar (abstract lines 7-9).
Regarding claim 14, MCTAGGART-COWAN as modified teaches the internal combustion engine of claim 8.
The limitation “wherein said fuel injector is adapted to discharge gaseous fuel at a discharge pressure being within the range of 200-300 bar when the internal combustion engine is operating at medium load” is considered as functional language. To establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness of a functional limitation, the prior art structure must inherently possess the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. See MPEP §2114 subsection I. In the instant case, the fuel injector is capable of injecting the gaseous fuel in the claimed pressure range because the fuel injector can inject the gaseous fuel at pressures up to 540 bar (abstract lines 7-9).
Regarding claim 15, MCTAGGART-COWAN as modified teaches the internal combustion engine of claim 8.
The limitation “wherein said fuel injector is adapted to discharge gaseous fuel at a discharge pressure being within the range of 300-400 bar when the internal combustion engine is operating at high load” is considered as functional language. To establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness of a functional limitation, the prior art structure must inherently possess the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. See MPEP §2114 subsection I. In the instant case, the fuel injector is capable of injecting the gaseous fuel in the claimed pressure range because the fuel injector can inject the gaseous fuel at pressures up to 540 bar (abstract lines 7-9).
Regarding claim 16, MCTAGGART-COWAN as modified teaches the internal combustion engine of claim 8.
MCTAGGART-COWAN further discloses wherein said fuel injector is adapted to inject hydrogen fuel into said combustion chamber (hydrogen, col. 1 lines 26-28).
Regarding claim 17, MCTAGGART-COWAN further discloses a vehicle comprising an internal combustion engine.
MCTAGGART as modified teaches the vehicle comprising the internal combustion engine according to claim 8.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MCTAGGART-COWAN (US 10,167,786) in view of KANZAKI (US 2019/0376442) and EISMARK (US 2023/0193848).
Regarding claim 12, MCTAGGART-COWAN as modified teaches the internal combustion engine of claim 8.
MCTAGGART-COWAN is silent regarding the mean fuel injector exit velocity.
EISMARK teaches a fuel injector adapted to discharge gaseous fuel at a mean fuel injector exit velocity being equal to or exceeding 800 m/s (0015 lines 1-3) to appropriately inject gaseous fuel (0015 lines 5-6) to provide appropriate combustion of gaseous fuel (0005 lines 2-3).
Absent guidance from MCTAGGART-COWAN regarding the mean fuel injector exit velocity, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the fuel injector of MCTAGGART-COWAN as taught by EISMARK to appropriately inject gaseous fuel to provide appropriate combustion of the gaseous fuel.
The limitation “said fuel injector is adapted to discharge gaseous fuel at a mean fuel injector exit velocity being equal to or exceeding 800 m/s” is considered as functional language. To establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness of a functional limitation, the prior art structure must inherently possess the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. See MPEP §2114 subsection I. In the instant case, the prior art structure is disclosed as capable of injecting gaseous fuel at a mean fuel injector exit velocity equal to or exceeding 800 m/s.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
KANZAKI (US 2019/0376442) is the closest prior art of record.
Regarding claim 2, it cannot be determined from the available information if the ratio of the colliding protrusion portion radial distance (the radial distance from the center to the tip of colliding protrusion 66 in Kanzaki) and the piston bowl reference radius (recognized as falling within the minimum and maximum radii of the half-depth bowl perimeter, see rejection of claim 1 and Fig. A above) in KANZAKI falls within the claimed range. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill would recognize every combustion chamber surface as critical in the development of fluid mechanic and combustion processes through the engine cycle and therefore the claimed range cannot be said to be an obvious design choice.
The prior art fails to teach or render obvious the limitation “a ratio between said colliding protrusion portion radial distance and said piston bowl reference radius being in the range of 0.6 - 0.9” in the manner defined in claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, KANZAKI discloses the piston of claim 1.
KANZAKI further discloses wherein at least one of said dividing protrusion (64a) in said set of circumferentially spaced apart dividing protrusions (Fig. 5), at a position along said piston bowl center axis being located at half the piston bowl depth into said piston bowl (Fig. A above), has a dividing protrusion portion being the portion of the dividing protrusion located closest to said piston bowl center axis in said radial direction (Fig. A; as best understood by the Examiner it appears that Figs. 7-8 are reversed from the sections depicted in Fig. 6; furthermore, it appears that wall segment 64 labeled in Fig. 8 would be more specifically labeled side surface 64a, which is a subpart of wall segment 64, 0058 line 12 - 0060 line 5), said dividing protrusion portion being located at a dividing protrusion portion radial distance (equivalent to the theoretical minimum of half-depth reference radius, Fig. A) from said piston bowl center axis.
It cannot be determined from the available information if the ratio of the dividing protrusion portion radial distance (the radial distance from the center to the tip of dividing protrusion 64a in Kanzaki) and the piston bowl reference radius (recognized as falling within the minimum and maximum radii of the half-depth bowl perimeter, see rejection of claim 1 and Fig. A above) in KANAZKI falls within the claimed range. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill would recognize every combustion chamber surface as critical in the development of fluid mechanic and combustion processes through the engine cycle and therefore the claimed range cannot be said to be an obvious design choice.
The prior art fails to teach or render obvious the limitation “a ratio between said colliding protrusion portion radial distance and said piston bowl reference radius being in the range of 0.6 - 0.9” in the manner defined in claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, it cannot be determined from the available information if the ratio of the piston bowl reference radius (recognized as falling within the minimum and maximum radii of the half-depth bowl perimeter, see rejection of claim 1 and Fig. A above) and said piston bowl maximum radius in KANZAKI falls within the claimed range (n.b. the half-depth maximum radius discussed above is equivalent to the piston bowl maximum radius in the claim). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill would recognize every combustion chamber surface as critical in the development of fluid mechanic and combustion processes through the engine cycle and therefore the claimed range cannot be said to be an obvious design choice.
The prior art fails to teach or render obvious the limitation “a ratio between said piston bowl reference radius and said piston bowl maximum radius being less than 0.8” in the manner defined in claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, it cannot be determined if the ratio of the piston bowl circumference and the piston bowl reference circumference of KANZAKI falls within the claimed range because the piston bowl circumference (i.e., perimeter) cannot be computed from the available information. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill would recognize every combustion chamber surface as critical in the development of fluid mechanic and combustion processes through the engine cycle and therefore the claimed range cannot be said to be an obvious design choice.
The prior art fails to teach or render obvious the limitation “a ratio between said piston bowl circumference and said piston bowl reference circumference being greater than 1.1” in the manner defined in claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
BECK (US 6,598,584) teaches a gas-fueled compression-ignition engine (col. 4 lines 14-15 and 65-66) wherein the fuel is injected at a velocity in a range of about 200 to 250 m/s (col. 10 lines 8-10).
EISMARK (US 8,499,735) discloses a piston bowl with dividing protrusions (50) and colliding protrusions (40)(Fig. 3b).
KLINGBEIL (US 11,598,271) teaches an internal combustion engine for gaseous fuel (hydrogen, i.a. col. 7 lines 46-47), said internal combustion engine comprising a cylinder (col. 6 lines 32-33) and a piston (402), said internal combustion engine further comprising a fuel injector (412) adapted to inject gaseous fuel (hydrogen, col. 1 line 24) into said combustion chamber (col. 7 lines 21-22, 46-47, and 49-50) to provide a fuel with a higher gravimetric energy density than any other known fuel (col. 1 lines 24-25),
wherein the hydrogen may be injected at pressures ranging from 10-700 bar (col. 7 lines 49-52).
MATSUOKA (US 11,680,514) teaches a liquid injection nozzle for diesel engines whose liquid spraying speed reaches about 1000 m/s (col. 8 lines 61-66) such that atomization of the liquid sprayed from the injection hole is promoted (col. 2 lines 21-23, col. 6 lines 39-40).
ISHIDA (JP H01-134730) discloses a piston bowl with dividing protrusions and colliding protrusions (Fig. 1) but does not disclose the piston crown radius.
TANNO (JP 2012-246816) discloses a piston bowl with dividing protrusions and colliding protrusions (Fig. 4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK L. GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-7555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 PM.
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.
/MARK L. GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights