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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/7/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 11-14, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furst et al (US 7,802,559 hereinafter “Furst”) in view of Mehrin (US 11,352,993), Marc et al (US 9,970,401 hereinafter “Marc”) and Delio et al (US 4,463,637 hereinafter “Delio”).
In regards to claim 11:
Furst teaches a component for an injection system for a mixture-compressing, spark ignition internal combustion engine (Last 4 lines of Abstract), which is used for metering a highly pressurized fluid, and at least one connecting piece (6) configured to connect an injector (1), the injector(1), during assembly being insertable along a mounting axis (Shown below in annotated Figure 1) into an accommodating space (Shown below in annotated Figure 1), of the connecting piece (6), and a recess (16) being formed at an outer side of the connecting piece (6), in which, in the mounted state, an orienting element (15) of the injector engages for restricting a rotational degree of freedom of the injector (1) about the mounting axis, the at least one lateral surface of the recess of the connecting piece, at which, in the mounted state, a contact between the orienting element (15) of the injector (1) and the connecting piece is made possible for restricting the rotational degree of freedom in a selected direction of rotation about the mounting axis, is at least approximately configured with a uniformly implemented predefined lateral height (Shown below in annotated Figure 1).
Furst does not teach the component comprising a base body, the base body and the connecting piece being formed by a one-stage or multi-stage forging operation, wherein the connecting piece is post-processed after the forging and the uniformly implemented predefined lateral height extending along an entirety of the at least one lateral surface of the recess, and is silent to the functional language of the post-processing of the connecting piece after the forging is based on a tolerance analysis such that variations in the forging operation of the connecting piece are compensated to achieve the predefined lateral height wherein it is to be noted that this does not recite structural limitations.
Mehring teaches a base body (6) and connecting pieces (8) that are formed from a one-stage or multi-stage forging operation, wherein the connecting piece is post-processed after forging (Col 1, Lines 51-58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a base body in order to deliver fuel to a plurality of connecting pieces and forging the base body and connecting piece in order to use a known method of manufacturing (Col 1, Lines 28-31) fuel distributors and a base body is to deliver fuel to a plurality of connecting pieces.
Marc teaches a recess (32) having a predefined lateral height extending along an entirety of the at least one lateral surface of the recess (Shown in Figures 2 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have a predefined lateral height extending along an entirety of the at least one lateral surface of the recess in order to provide a known design for recesses that can receive a member to restrict a lateral movement.
Delio teaches post-processing after a forging is based on a tolerance analysis to compensate for variations in a forging process (Col 2, Lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have a tolerance analysis performed on the component of Furst as taught by Delio in order to adjust the tolerances to the desired tolerances. It is known in the art that variations can occur during a forging process, and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to machine a product to the desired tolerances.
PNG
media_image1.png
1314
823
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1269
797
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 12:
Furst teaches the component is a fluid distributor (Col 3, Lines 6-19).
In regards to claim 13:
Furst teaches a further lateral surface of the recess of the connecting piece, which faces the lateral surface (Shown in annotated Figure 2 below) of the recess (16) and at which, in the mounted state, the contact between the orienting element (15) of the injector and the connecting piece (6) is made possible for restricting the rotational degree of freedom counter to the selected direction of rotation, is at least approximately configured with the predefined lateral height.
PNG
media_image3.png
1280
783
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 14:
Furst teaches the recess transitions at an edge into the outer side of the connecting piece, the edge is configured as a processed edge (wherein Mehring teaches the machining of the forged common rail in Col 1, Lines 51-57), and the processing of the edge is carried out in such a way that the lateral surface and/or the further lateral surface (Shown in annotated Figure 2 above), is at least approximately configured with the predefined lateral height.
In regards to claim 18:
Furst teaches the connecting piece is post-processed after the forging (wherein Mehring teaches the machining of the forged common rail in Col 1, Lines 51-57) in such a way that the recess and the edge are formed together.
In regards to claim 19:
Furst teaches at least one further connecting piece (wherein Mehring teaches a plurality of connecting pieces and can be seen in Figure 1 of Mehring) used for connecting a further injector, the further injector during assembly being insertable along a further mounting axis into an accommodating space of the further connecting piece, at least the base body, the connecting piece, and the further connecting piece being formed by the one-stage or multi-stage forging operation, and a recess being formed at an outer side of the further connecting piece, in which, in the mounted state, an orienting element of the further injector engages for restricting a rotational degree of freedom of the further injector about the further mounting axis, and the further connecting piece is post-processed after the forging in such a way that at least one lateral surface of the recess of the further connecting piece, at which, in the mounted state, a contact between the orienting element of the further injector and the further connecting piece is made possible for restricting the rotational degree of freedom in a selected direction of rotation about the further mounting axis, is at least approximately configured with a uniformly implemented predefined lateral height (wherein these parts are all labeled in the rejection for claim 11 above), wherein this is a duplication of parts and is not inventive (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)), wherein the fuel injector assembly of Furst connected to a second connecting piece would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, wherein engines with multiple cylinders, each having the need of fuel to be injected in a combustion chamber is known in the art.
In regards to claim 20:
Furst teaches an injection system for a mixture-compressing, spark ignition internal combustion engine (Last 4 lines of Abstract), which is used for injecting a fluid which is fuel, the fuel including a mixture including fuel (Title of the Invention of Furst), the injection system comprising a component used for metering the fluid, the component including at least one connecting piece (6), and is configured to connect an injector (1), the injector (1), during assembly being insertable along a mounting axis (Shown in annotated Figure 1 above in the rejection for claim 11) into an accommodating space (Shown in annotated Figure 1 above in the rejection for claim 11) of the connecting piece (6), and a recess (16) being formed at an outer side of the connecting piece (6), in which, in the mounted state, an orienting element (15) of the injector (1) engages for restricting a rotational degree of freedom of the injector about the mounting axis, in such a way that at least one lateral surface of the recess of the connecting piece, at which, in the mounted state, a contact between the orienting element (15) of the injector (1) and the connecting piece is made possible for restricting the rotational degree of freedom in a selected direction of rotation about the mounting axis, is at least approximately configured with a uniformly implemented predefined lateral height.
Furst does not teach the component comprising a base body, the base body and the connecting piece being formed by a one-stage or multi-stage forging operation, wherein the connecting piece is post-processed after the forging and the uniformly implemented predefined lateral height extending along an entirety of the at least one lateral surface of the recess and is silent to the functional language of the post-processing of the connecting piece after the forging is based on a tolerance analysis such that variations in the forging operation of the connecting piece are compensated to achieve the predefined lateral height wherein it is to be noted that this does not recite structural limitations.
Mehring teaches a base body (6) and connecting pieces (8) that are formed from a one-stage or multi-stage forging operation, wherein the connecting piece is post-processed after forging (Col 1, Lines 51-58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a base body in order to deliver fuel to a plurality of connecting pieces and forging the base body and connecting piece in order to use a known method of manufacturing (Col 1, Lines 28-31) fuel distributors and a base body is to deliver fuel to a plurality of connecting pieces.
Marc teaches a recess (32) having a predefined lateral height extending along an entirety of the at least one lateral surface of the recess (Shown in Figures 2 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have a predefined lateral height extending along an entirety of the at least one lateral surface of the recess in order to provide a known design for recesses that can receive a member to restrict a lateral movement.
Delio teaches post-processing after a forging is based on a tolerance analysis to compensate for variations in a forging process (Col 2, Lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have a tolerance analysis performed on the component of Furst as taught by Delio in order to adjust the tolerances to the desired tolerances. It is known in the art that variations can occur during a forging process, and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to machine a product to the desired tolerances.
In regards to claim 21:
Furst teaches a method for manufacturing a component for an injection system for a mixture-compressing, spark ignition internal combustion engine (Last 4 lines of Abstract), which is used for metering a highly pressurized fluid, the component including at least one connecting piece (6), the one connecting piece is configured to connect an injector (1), the injector, during assembly being insertable along a mounting axis (Shown above in annotated Figure 1 in the rejection for claim 11) into an accommodating space (Shown above in annotated Figure 1 in the rejection for claim 11) of the connecting piece (6), and a recess (16) being formed at an outer side of the connecting piece (6), in which, in the mounted state, an orienting element (15) of the injector (1) engages for restricting a rotational degree of freedom of the injector about the mounting axis, the method comprising the at least one lateral surface of the recess of the connecting piece, at which, in the mounted state, a contact between the orienting element of the injector and the connecting piece is made possible for restricting the rotational degree of freedom in a selected direction of rotation about the mounting axis, is at least approximately configured with a uniformly implemented predefined lateral height.
Furst does not teach the component comprising a base body, the base body and the connecting piece being formed by a one-stage or multi-stage forging operation, wherein the connecting piece is post-processed after the forging and the uniformly implemented predefined lateral height extending along an entirety of the at least one lateral surface of the recess and the post-processing of the connecting piece after the forging is based on a tolerance analysis such that variations in the forging operation of the connecting piece are compensated to achieve the predefined lateral height wherein it is to be noted that this does not recite structural limitations..
Mehring teaches a base body (6) and connecting pieces (8) that are formed from a one-stage or multi-stage forging operation, wherein the connecting piece is post-processed after forging (Col 1, Lines 51-58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a base body in order to deliver fuel to a plurality of connecting pieces and forging the base body and connecting piece in order to use a known method of manufacturing (Col 1, Lines 28-31) fuel distributors and a base body is to deliver fuel to a plurality of connecting pieces.
Marc teaches a recess (32) having a predefined lateral height extending along an entirety of the at least one lateral surface of the recess (Shown in Figures 2 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have a predefined lateral height extending along an entirety of the at least one lateral surface of the recess in order to provide a known design for recesses that can receive a member to restrict a lateral movement.
Delio teaches post-processing after a forging is based on a tolerance analysis to compensate for variations in a forging process (Col 2, Lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have a tolerance analysis performed on the component of Furst as taught by Delio in order to adjust the tolerances to the desired tolerances. It is known in the art that variations can occur during a forging process, and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to machine a product to the desired tolerances.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furst, Mehrin and Marc as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Bugos (US 2003/0183200).
In regards to claim 15:
Furst does not teach the processed edge is an at least partially beveled and/or at least partially rounded edge.
Bugos teaches an edge that is partially beveled (Shown in annotated Figure 2 below) in order to apply a lateral inward force and fasten with said edge.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a beveled edge in order to apply an inward force to aid in the fastening of the component.
PNG
media_image4.png
1220
860
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 17 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art does not teach nor render obvious the injection system of independent claim 16 with emphasis on the processed edge configured with an at least partially varying edge geometry, including an at least partially varying edge height along an edge profile.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1 of Remarks, filed 12/8/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 11-14 and 18-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art. For independent apparatus claims 1 and 20, it is to be noted that Applicant has amended the claims to recite functional language that does not add structure to the limitations. However, prior art has been added to teach the existence of analyzing tolerances, that variations occur from forging, and machining a product to bring the product back to desired tolerances.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES JAY KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-7610. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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.
/JAMES J KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3747 /HUNG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747