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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the unlabeled boxes shown in Fig. 6 of the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels [e.g., see: MPEP 608.02(b)].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “injection member” in claims 1-15, “ignition element” in claims 1-8 and 10-15, and “control unit” in claims 1-15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0231077 to Matsumoto et al. (hereinafter: “Matsumoto”).
With respect to claim 1, Matsumoto teaches an ignition system (apparent from at least Figs. 1-4) configured for use on a vehicle (as discussed by at least ¶ 0032), the vehicle comprising a power unit (e.g., 1) including one or more combustion chamber (6), the ignition system comprising: an injection member (e.g., 15) configured to deliver fuel to an ignition zone within the combustion chamber (as depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 2 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0042-0045); an ignition element (e.g., 16) configured to ignite fuel within the ignition zone (as depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 2 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0042-0045); and a control unit (e.g., 100) configured to operate the injection member and the ignition element in a first ignition phase [e.g., during a first combustion cycle, such as when the first combustion cycle corresponds to Fig. 6(a) (or a definable portion thereof), or such as when the first combustion cycle corresponds to Fig. 6(d) (or a definable portion thereof), or such as when the first combustion cycle corresponds to Fig. 18(b) (or a definable portion thereof)] including ignition of a first delivery of fuel provided to the combustion chamber by the injection member and a second ignition phase [e.g., during a second combustion cycle, such as when the second combustion cycle corresponds to Fig. 6(d) (or a definable portion thereof), or such as when the second combustion cycle corresponds to Fig. 18(a) (or a definable portion thereof)] including ignition of a second delivery of fuel provided to the combustion chamber by the injection member (as depicted by at least Figs. 4-6 & 18 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0057-0061).
With respect to claim 2, Matsumoto teaches the ignition system of claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to operate the injection member to deliver a first amount of fuel in the first delivery of the first ignition phase and to deliver a second amount of fuel in the second delivery of the second ignition phase (apparent from at least Figs. 6 & 18 and as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1).
With respect to claim 3, Matsumoto teaches the ignition system of claim 2, wherein the second amount of fuel delivered in the second delivery of the second ignition phase is greater than the first amount of fuel delivered in the first delivery of the first ignition phase (apparent from at least Fig. 6 and as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 1 and 2).
With respect to claim 4, Matsumoto teaches the ignition system of claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to operate the injection member and the ignition element in the first ignition phase at a first time and the second ignition phase at a second time (apparent from at least Figs. 6 & 18 and as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1).
With respect to claim 5, Matsumoto teaches the ignition system of claim 4, wherein the first time of the first ignition phase corresponds to an intake stroke of the combustion chamber [apparent from at least Fig. 18(b) in view of at least ¶ 0184-0185 and as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1].
With respect to claim 6, Matsumoto teaches the ignition system of claim 4, wherein the first time of the first ignition phase corresponds to a compression stroke of the combustion chamber [apparent from at least Fig. 18(b) in view of at least ¶ 0184-0185 and as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1].
With respect to claim 7, Matsumoto teaches the ignition system of claim 4, wherein the second time of the second ignition phase corresponds to a power stroke (e.g., “expansion stroke”) of the combustion chamber [apparent from at least Fig. 6(a) in view of at least ¶ 0072-0073 and as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1].
With respect to claim 8, Matsumoto teaches the ignition system of claim 1, wherein the injection member and the ignition element are configured to form the ignition zone within an area corresponding to 50% or less of a diameter of the combustion chamber (apparent from at least Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 9, Matsumoto teaches the ignition system of claim 1, wherein the ignition element extends to a tip including an ignition surface configured to be in contact with fuel (e.g., via “air-fuel mixture”) delivered to the combustion chamber [claim scope is not limited by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, and a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (e.g., see: MPEP 2114_II), and “wherein the ignition element extends to a tip including an ignition surface configured to be in contact with fuel delivered to the combustion chamber” only further defines structure of the “ignition element” by indicating that the “ignition element” extends to a location (i.e., “a tip including an ignition surface configured to be in contact with fuel delivered to the combustion chamber”) via recitation of “extends to,” such that “a tip including an ignition surface configured to be in contact with fuel delivered to the combustion chamber” only sets forth the manner in which the claimed “ignition system” is intended to be employed, and such that “a tip including an ignition surface configured to be in contact with fuel delivered to the combustion chamber” does not necessarily further limit the claimed “ignition system” (or an element thereof) to a particular structure; even so, apparent from at least Fig. 2 in view of at least ¶ 0001, 0011, 0034, 0042 & 0045].
With respect to claim 11, Matsumoto teaches the ignition system of claim 1, wherein the injection member extends to a head defining a plurality of outlets configured to direct fuel to the combustion chamber [claim scope is not limited by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, and a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (e.g., see: MPEP 2114_II), and “wherein the injection member extends to a head defining a plurality of outlets configured to direct fuel to the combustion chamber” only further defines structure of the “injection member” by indicating that the “injection member” extends to a location (i.e., “a head defining a plurality of outlets configured to direct fuel to the combustion chamber”) via recitation of “extends to,” such that “a head defining a plurality of outlets configured to direct fuel to the combustion chamber” only sets forth the manner in which the claimed “ignition system” is intended to be employed, and such that “a head defining a plurality of outlets configured to direct fuel to the combustion chamber” does not necessarily further limit the claimed “ignition system” (or an element thereof) to a particular structure; even so, apparent from at least Fig. 2 in view of at least ¶ 0044].
With respect to claim 12, Matsumoto teaches the ignition system of claim 11, wherein one or more outlet of the plurality of outlets includes a conical geometry [“wherein one or more outlet of the plurality of outlets includes a conical geometry” only further defines “a head defining a plurality of outlets configured to direct fuel to the combustion chamber” of “wherein the injection member extends to a head defining a plurality of outlets configured to direct fuel to the combustion chamber” in claim 11, such that “wherein one or more outlet of the plurality of outlets includes a conical geometry” only sets forth the manner in which the claimed “ignition system” is intended to be employed, and such that “wherein one or more outlet of the plurality of outlets includes a conical geometry” does not necessarily further limit the claimed “ignition system” (or an element thereof) to a particular structure (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2114_II, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 11)].
With respect to claim 13, Matsumoto teaches the ignition system of claim 1, comprising an intake port (e.g., 9 or 9A or 9B) configured to provide air to the combustion chamber (apparent from at least Figs. 1-3 in view of at least ¶ 0038-0039) and one or more of the intake port and the combustion chamber is configured to swirl an air-fuel mixture within the combustion chamber (apparent from at least Fig. 3 in view of at least ¶ 0038-0039; because the intake port is configured to swirl an air-fuel mixture within the combustion chamber and the combustion chamber is configured to swirl an air-fuel mixture within the combustion chamber are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives).
With respect to claim 14, Matsumoto teaches a vehicle comprising: a power unit including one or more combustion chamber; and the ignition system of claim 1 (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claim 1).
With respect to claim 15, Matsumoto teaches a method for ignition of fuel for a vehicle, the vehicle comprising a power unit including one or more combustion chamber, the method comprising: providing the ignition system of claim 1; and operating the injection member and the ignition element in the first ignition phase including the first delivery of fuel to the combustion chamber and the second ignition phase including the second delivery of fuel to the combustion chamber (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claim 1).
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0123251 to Ochi et al. (hereinafter: “Ochi”).
With respect to claim 1, Ochi teaches an ignition system (apparent from at least Fig. 1) configured for use on a vehicle (as discussed by at least ¶ 0042), the vehicle comprising a power unit (e.g., 1) including one or more combustion chamber (apparent from at least Fig. 1 in view of at least ¶ 0002 & 0007; via 2), the ignition system comprising: an injection member (e.g., 21) configured to deliver fuel to an ignition zone within the combustion chamber (as depicted by at least Figs. 1, 3 & 4 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0046-0048 & 0058-0060); an ignition element (e.g., 22) configured to ignite fuel within the ignition zone (as depicted by at least Figs. 1, 3 & 4 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0046-0048, 0063-0064 & 0066-0069); and a control unit (e.g., 100) configured to operate the injection member and the ignition element in a first ignition phase (e.g., a first combustion cycle, or a first intake stroke, or a first compression stroke) including ignition of a first delivery of fuel provided to the combustion chamber by the injection member and a second ignition phase (e.g., the first combustion cycle, or the first intake stroke, or the first compression stroke, or a second combustion cycle, or a second intake stroke, or a second compression stroke) including ignition of a second delivery of fuel provided to the combustion chamber by the injection member (as depicted by at least Figs. 1, 3 & 4 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0046-0048, 0058-0060, 0063-0064 & 0066-0069).
With respect to claim 2, Ochi teaches the ignition system of claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to operate the injection member to deliver a first amount of fuel in the first delivery of the first ignition phase and to deliver a second amount of fuel in the second delivery of the second ignition phase (apparent from at least Figs. 3 & 4).
With respect to claim 3, Ochi teaches the ignition system of claim 2, wherein the second amount of fuel delivered in the second delivery of the second ignition phase is greater than the first amount of fuel delivered in the first delivery of the first ignition phase (apparent from at least Figs. 3 & 4).
With respect to claim 4, Ochi teaches the ignition system of claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to operate the injection member and the ignition element in the first ignition phase at a first time and the second ignition phase at a second time (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claim 1).
With respect to claim 5, Ochi teaches the ignition system of claim 4, wherein the first time of the first ignition phase corresponds to an intake stroke of the combustion chamber (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claims 1 and 4).
With respect to claim 6, Ochi teaches the ignition system of claim 4, wherein the first time of the first ignition phase corresponds to a compression stroke of the combustion chamber (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claims 1 and 4).
With respect to claim 8, Ochi teaches the ignition system of claim 1, wherein the injection member and the ignition element are configured to form the ignition zone within an area corresponding to 50% or less of a diameter of the combustion chamber (apparent from at least Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 9, Ochi teaches the ignition system of claim 1, wherein the ignition element extends to a tip including an ignition surface configured to be in contact with fuel delivered to the combustion chamber [claim scope is not limited by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, and a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (e.g., see: MPEP 2114_II), and “wherein the ignition element extends to a tip including an ignition surface configured to be in contact with fuel delivered to the combustion chamber” only further defines structure of the “ignition element” by indicating that the “ignition element” extends to a location (i.e., “a tip including an ignition surface configured to be in contact with fuel delivered to the combustion chamber”) via recitation of “extends to,” such that “a tip including an ignition surface configured to be in contact with fuel delivered to the combustion chamber” only sets forth the manner in which the claimed “ignition system” is intended to be employed, and such that “a tip including an ignition surface configured to be in contact with fuel delivered to the combustion chamber” does not necessarily further limit the claimed “ignition system” (or an element thereof) to a particular structure; even so, apparent from at least Fig. 1].
With respect to claim 11, Ochi teaches the ignition system of claim 1, wherein the injection member extends to a head defining a plurality of outlets configured to direct fuel to the combustion chamber [claim scope is not limited by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, and a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (e.g., see: MPEP 2114_II), and “wherein the injection member extends to a head defining a plurality of outlets configured to direct fuel to the combustion chamber” only further defines structure of the “injection member” by indicating that the “injection member” extends to a location (i.e., “a head defining a plurality of outlets configured to direct fuel to the combustion chamber”) via recitation of “extends to,” such that “a head defining a plurality of outlets configured to direct fuel to the combustion chamber” only sets forth the manner in which the claimed “ignition system” is intended to be employed, and such that “a head defining a plurality of outlets configured to direct fuel to the combustion chamber” does not necessarily further limit the claimed “ignition system” (or an element thereof) to a particular structure; even so, apparent from at least Fig. 1].
With respect to claim 12, Ochi teaches the ignition system of claim 11, wherein one or more outlet of the plurality of outlets includes a conical geometry [“wherein one or more outlet of the plurality of outlets includes a conical geometry” only further defines “a head defining a plurality of outlets configured to direct fuel to the combustion chamber” of “wherein the injection member extends to a head defining a plurality of outlets configured to direct fuel to the combustion chamber” in claim 11, such that “wherein one or more outlet of the plurality of outlets includes a conical geometry” only sets forth the manner in which the claimed “ignition system” is intended to be employed, and such that “wherein one or more outlet of the plurality of outlets includes a conical geometry” does not necessarily further limit the claimed “ignition system” (or an element thereof) to a particular structure (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2114_II, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 11)].
With respect to claim 14, Ochi teaches a vehicle comprising: a power unit including one or more combustion chamber; and the ignition system of claim 1 (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claim 1).
With respect to claim 15, Ochi teaches a method for ignition of fuel for a vehicle, the vehicle comprising a power unit including one or more combustion chamber, the method comprising: providing the ignition system of claim 1; and operating the injection member and the ignition element in the first ignition phase including the first delivery of fuel to the combustion chamber and the second ignition phase including the second delivery of fuel to the combustion chamber (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claim 1).
Claims 1-9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0090552 to Yoneya et al. (hereinafter: “Yoneya”).
With respect to claim 1, Yoneya teaches an ignition system (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2) configured for use on a vehicle (as discussed by at least ¶ 0022), the vehicle comprising a power unit (apparent from at least Fig. 1 in view of at least ¶ 0041; e.g., “internal combustion engine”) including one or more combustion chamber (1), the ignition system comprising: an injection member (e.g., 10a) configured to deliver fuel to an ignition zone (e.g., 10c) within the combustion chamber (as depicted by at least Figs. 1, 2, 3d & 4 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0042-0043, 0047-0048, 0050-0051 & 0053); an ignition element (e.g., 10b) configured to ignite fuel within the ignition zone (as depicted by at least Figs. 1, 2, 3d & 4 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0042-0043, 0047-0048, 0050-0051 & 0053); and a control unit (e.g., 11) configured to operate the injection member and the ignition element in a first ignition phase (e.g., a first combustion cycle, or a first intake stroke, or a first compression stroke, or the first intake stroke and the first compression stroke together, or a first expansion stroke, or the first compression stroke and the first expansion stroke together, or the first intake stroke, the first compression stroke, and the first expansion stroke together) including ignition of a first delivery of fuel provided to the combustion chamber by the injection member and a second ignition phase (e.g., the first combustion cycle, or the first intake stroke, or the first compression stroke, or the first intake stroke and the first compression stroke together, or the first expansion stroke, or the first compression stroke and the second expansion stroke together, or the first intake stroke, the first compression stroke, and the first expansion stroke together, or a second combustion cycle, or a second intake stroke, or a second compression stroke, or the second intake stroke and the second compression stroke together, or a second expansion stroke, or the second compression stroke and the second expansion stroke together, or the second intake stroke, the second compression stroke, and the second expansion stroke together) including ignition of a second delivery of fuel provided to the combustion chamber by the injection member (as depicted by at least Figs. 1, 3d & 4 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0044-0045, 0047-0048, 0050-0051 & 0053).
With respect to claim 2, Yoneya teaches the ignition system of claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to operate the injection member to deliver a first amount of fuel in the first delivery of the first ignition phase and to deliver a second amount of fuel in the second delivery of the second ignition phase (apparent from at least Figs. 3d-4 and as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1).
With respect to claim 3, Yoneya teaches the ignition system of claim 2, wherein the second amount of fuel delivered in the second delivery of the second ignition phase is greater than the first amount of fuel delivered in the first delivery of the first ignition phase (apparent from at least Figs. 3d-4 and as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1; e.g., when the “first delivery phase” corresponds to the first intake stroke or the first compression stroke, and the “second delivery phase” corresponds to the second combustion cycle, or the second intake stroke and the second compression stroke together, or the second compression stroke and the second expansion stroke together, or the second intake stroke, the second compression stroke, and the second expansion stroke together).
With respect to claim 4, Yoneya teaches the ignition system of claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to operate the injection member and the ignition element in the first ignition phase at a first time and the second ignition phase at a second time (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claim 1).
With respect to claim 5, Yoneya teaches the ignition system of claim 4, wherein the first time of the first ignition phase corresponds to an intake stroke of the combustion chamber (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claims 1 and 4).
With respect to claim 6, Yoneya teaches the ignition system of claim 4, wherein the first time of the first ignition phase corresponds to a compression stroke of the combustion chamber (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claims 1 and 4).
With respect to claim 7, Yoneya teaches the ignition system of claim 4, wherein the second time of the second ignition phase corresponds to a power stroke of the combustion chamber (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claims 1 and 4).
With respect to claim 8, Yoneya teaches the ignition system of claim 1, wherein the injection member and the ignition element are configured to form the ignition zone within an area corresponding to 50% or less of a diameter of the combustion chamber (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2 in view of at least ¶ 0010-0011 & 0042).
With respect to claim 9, Yoneya teaches the ignition system of claim 1, wherein the ignition element extends to a tip including an ignition surface configured to be in contact with fuel delivered to the combustion chamber [claim scope is not limited by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, and a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (e.g., see: MPEP 2114_II), and “wherein the ignition element extends to a tip including an ignition surface configured to be in contact with fuel delivered to the combustion chamber” only further defines structure of the “ignition element” by indicating that the “ignition element” extends to a location (i.e., “a tip including an ignition surface configured to be in contact with fuel delivered to the combustion chamber”) via recitation of “extends to,” such that “a tip including an ignition surface configured to be in contact with fuel delivered to the combustion chamber” only sets forth the manner in which the claimed “ignition system” is intended to be employed, and such that “a tip including an ignition surface configured to be in contact with fuel delivered to the combustion chamber” does not necessarily further limit the claimed “ignition system” (or an element thereof) to a particular structure; even so, apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2 in view of at least ¶ 0017-0018, 0026 & 0047].
With respect to claim 11, Yoneya teaches the ignition system of claim 1, wherein the injection member extends to a head (e.g., 10d) defining a plurality of outlets (e.g., 10e) configured to direct fuel to the combustion chamber [claim scope is not limited by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, and a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (e.g., see: MPEP 2114_II), and “wherein the injection member extends to a head defining a plurality of outlets configured to direct fuel to the combustion chamber” only further defines structure of the “injection member” by indicating that the “injection member” extends to a location (i.e., “a head defining a plurality of outlets configured to direct fuel to the combustion chamber”) via recitation of “extends to,” such that “a head defining a plurality of outlets configured to direct fuel to the combustion chamber” only sets forth the manner in which the claimed “ignition system” is intended to be employed, and such that “a head defining a plurality of outlets configured to direct fuel to the combustion chamber” does not necessarily further limit the claimed “ignition system” (or an element thereof) to a particular structure; even so, apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2 in view of at least ¶ 0047].
With respect to claim 12, Yoneya teaches the ignition system of claim 11, wherein one or more outlet of the plurality of outlets includes a conical geometry [“wherein one or more outlet of the plurality of outlets includes a conical geometry” only further defines “a head defining a plurality of outlets configured to direct fuel to the combustion chamber” of “wherein the injection member extends to a head defining a plurality of outlets configured to direct fuel to the combustion chamber” in claim 11, such that “wherein one or more outlet of the plurality of outlets includes a conical geometry” only sets forth the manner in which the claimed “ignition system” is intended to be employed, and such that “wherein one or more outlet of the plurality of outlets includes a conical geometry” does not necessarily further limit the claimed “ignition system” (or an element thereof) to a particular structure (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2114_II, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 11); even so, as discussed by at least ¶ 0047].
With respect to claim 14, Yoneya teaches a vehicle comprising: a power unit including one or more combustion chamber; and the ignition system of claim 1 (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claim 1).
With respect to claim 15, Yoneya teaches a method for ignition of fuel for a vehicle, the vehicle comprising a power unit including one or more combustion chamber, the method comprising: providing the ignition system of claim 1; and operating the injection member and the ignition element in the first ignition phase including the first delivery of fuel to the combustion chamber and the second ignition phase including the second delivery of fuel to the combustion chamber (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claim 1).
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.
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto in view of EP 1557918 A1 to Niessner et al. (hereinafter: “Niessner”).
With respect to claim 10, Matsumoto teaches the ignition system of claim 9; however, Matsumoto appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the ignition element includes a coating applied to the ignition surface of the tip of the ignition element, the coating including a catalyst configured to facilitate ignition of fuel delivered to the combustion chamber.
Niessner teaches an analogous ignition system (apparent from at least Fig. 1) having an ignition element (apparent from at least Fig. 1; e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 together; e.g., “spark plug”) including a coating (3.2) applied to an ignition surface (e.g., at 3.1) of a tip (e.g., at 3.1) of the ignition element, the coating including a catalyst configured to facilitate ignition of fuel delivered to a combustion chamber (apparent from at least Fig. 1; the catalytic coating 3.2 promotes oxidation of soot particles at the “spark plug,” thereby preventing shunting to facilitate ignition at a combustion chamber side of the “spark plug”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the ignition system of Matsumoto with the teachings of Niessner such that the ignition element includes a coating applied to the ignition surface of the tip of the ignition element, the coating including a catalyst configured to facilitate ignition of fuel delivered to the combustion chamber to beneficially promote oxidation of soot particles at the ignition element, thereby preventing shunting to facilitate ignition at the combustion chamber.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochi in view of EP 1557918 A1 to Niessner et al. (hereinafter: “Niessner”).
With respect to claim 10, Ochi teaches the ignition system of claim 9; however, Ochi appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the ignition element includes a coating applied to the ignition surface of the tip of the ignition element, the coating including a catalyst configured to facilitate ignition of fuel delivered to the combustion chamber.
Niessner teaches an analogous ignition system (apparent from at least Fig. 1) having an ignition element (apparent from at least Fig. 1; e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 together; e.g., “spark plug”) including a coating (3.2) applied to an ignition surface (e.g., at 3.1) of a tip (e.g., at 3.1) of the ignition element, the coating including a catalyst configured to facilitate ignition of fuel delivered to a combustion chamber (apparent from at least Fig. 1; the catalytic coating 3.2 promotes oxidation of soot particles at the “spark plug,” thereby preventing shunting to facilitate ignition at a combustion chamber side of the “spark plug”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the ignition system of Ochi with the teachings of Niessner such that the ignition element includes a coating applied to the ignition surface of the tip of the ignition element, the coating including a catalyst configured to facilitate ignition of fuel delivered to the combustion chamber to beneficially promote oxidation of soot particles at the ignition element, thereby preventing shunting to facilitate ignition at the combustion chamber.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoneya in view of EP 1557918 A1 to Niessner et al. (hereinafter: “Niessner”).
With respect to claim 10, Yoneya teaches the ignition system of claim 9; however, Yoneya appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the ignition element includes a coating applied to the ignition surface of the tip of the ignition element, the coating including a catalyst configured to facilitate ignition of fuel delivered to the combustion chamber.
Niessner teaches an analogous ignition system (apparent from at least Fig. 1) having an ignition element (apparent from at least Fig. 1; e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 together; e.g., “spark plug”) including a coating (3.2) applied to an ignition surface (e.g., at 3.1) of a tip (e.g., at 3.1) of the ignition element, the coating including a catalyst configured to facilitate ignition of fuel delivered to a combustion chamber (apparent from at least Fig. 1; the catalytic coating 3.2 promotes oxidation of soot particles at the “spark plug,” thereby preventing shunting to facilitate ignition at a combustion chamber side of the “spark plug”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the ignition system of Yoneya with the teachings of Niessner such that the ignition element includes a coating applied to the ignition surface of the tip of the ignition element, the coating including a catalyst configured to facilitate ignition of fuel delivered to the combustion chamber to beneficially promote oxidation of soot particles at the ignition element, thereby preventing shunting to facilitate ignition at the combustion chamber.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0277237 to Imai (hereinafter: “Imai”), in the alternative to the rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsumoto.
With respect to claim 12, as discussed in detail above in the rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), Matsumoto teaches each and every limitation of the “ignition system” of claim 12 so as to anticipate the claim under a broadest reasonable interpretation. However, in such a case where Applicant is able to persuasively argue that recitation of “wherein one or more outlet of the plurality of outlets includes a conical geometry” necessarily further limits the claimed “ignition system” and/or in such a case where “wherein one or more outlet of the plurality of outlets includes a conical geometry” is differently interpreted as necessarily further limiting the claimed “ignition system” under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it is further noted that Matsumoto does not appear to teach that one or more outlet of the plurality of outlets includes a conical geometry, and it is further noted that Imai teaches an analogous injection member having one or more outlet of a plurality of outlets including a conical geometry in the alternative to another geometry, such as a cylindrical geometry, to beneficially enhance a discharging property of the one or more outlet of the plurality of outlets, such as to increase a penetration force (apparent from at least Figs. 2 & 21 in view of at least ¶ 0143).
Therefore, even if “wherein one or more outlet of the plurality of outlets includes a conical geometry” is differently interpreted as necessarily further limiting the claimed “ignition system” under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the ignition system of Matsumoto with the teachings of Imai, if even necessary, such that one or more outlet of the plurality of outlets includes a conical geometry to beneficially enhance a discharging property of the one or more outlet of the plurality of outlets, such as to increase a penetration force.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochi in view of Imai, in the alternative to the rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ochi.
With respect to claim 12, as discussed in detail above in the rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), Ochi teaches each and every limitation of the “ignition system” of claim 12 so as to anticipate the claim under a broadest reasonable interpretation. However, in such a case where Applicant is able to persuasively argue that recitation of “wherein one or more outlet of the plurality of outlets includes a conical geometry” necessarily further limits the claimed “ignition system” and/or in such a case where “wherein one or more outlet of the plurality of outlets includes a conical geometry” is differently interpreted as necessarily further limiting the claimed “ignition system” under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it is further noted that Ochi does not appear to teach that one or more outlet of the plurality of outlets includes a conical geometry, and it is further noted that Imai teaches an analogous injection member having one or more outlet of a plurality of outlets including a conical geometry in the alternative to another geometry, such as a cylindrical geometry, to beneficially enhance a discharging property of the one or more outlet of the plurality of outlets, such as to increase a penetration force (apparent from at least Figs. 2 & 21 in view of at least ¶ 0143).
Therefore, even if “wherein one or more outlet of the plurality of outlets includes a conical geometry” is differently interpreted as necessarily further limiting the claimed “ignition system” under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the ignition system of Ochi with the teachings of Imai, if even necessary, such that one or more outlet of the plurality of outlets includes a conical geometry to beneficially enhance a discharging property of the one or more outlet of the plurality of outlets, such as to increase a penetration force.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN ZALESKAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 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.
/JOHN M ZALESKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights