DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perry (US 2019/0376480) in view of Duru (EP2884091).
Regarding claim 1, Perry discloses a fuel injection valve for a fuel injection system of an internal combustion engine, configured to inject fuel directly into a combustion chamber of the internal combustion engine, comprising:
an actuator (20), using which a lifting movement of a valve needle (50) can be achieved, as a result of which an actuation of a valve closing body (Paragraph 10, the device is a solenoid actuated injector, which suggests the coil assembly provides lifting movement), which together with a valve seat surface (60) forms a sealing seat, is enabled (Paragraph 14);
an inlet side fuel supply (15); and
an adjustment element (58) configured to set a spring force of a return spring (Paragraph 13) is arranged in the inlet side fuel supply (Figure 1), the adjustment element is bounded outwardly by a sleeve (74), and the sleeve includes an axially aligned sleeve jacket (78) and a radially extending sleeve base (84), but fails to disclose wherein a wall thickness of the sleeve base is reinforced relative to a wall thickness of the sleeve jacket of the sleeve.
Duru discloses an improved device that may include a bead-like thickening applied about the wall of an adjusting element, in order to provide for a securing of spring (Paragraph 27).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Perry with the disclosures of Duru, providing a bead like thickening about the wall of the sleeve base, in order to provide for securing of the spring, as disclosed by Duru.
Perry in view of Duru, as modified, discloses wherein a wall thickness of the sleeve base (Perry, 84) is reinforced relative to a wall thickness of the sleeve jacket of the sleeve (Duru, Paragraph 27, the bead-like thickening provides reinforcement of the base wall relative to the wall of the jacket).
Perry in view of Duru is silent as to whether the sleeve base of the sleeve has a wall thickness that is between a factor of 1.5 to 3 greater than the wall thickness of the remaining sleeve in the sleeve jacket.
As modified, the sleeve base has a wall thickness that is greater, but is silent as to exactly how much thicker. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Perry in view of Duru to have a wall thickness that is between a factor 1.5 to 3 greater than the wall thickness of the remaining sleeve in the sleeve jacket since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Perry in view of Duru would not operate differently with the claimed diameter and since the base is designed to have an increased thickness relative to the remaining portions of the device, the device would function appropriately having the claimed thickness.
Regarding claim 3, Perry in view of Duru discloses the fuel injection valve according to claim 1, wherein the sleeve is a thin-walled (figure 1) deep-drawn component (The limitation is a product-by-process limitation. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The claimed structure is the same as or obvious from the prior art structure, and is therefore rejected even though the product may be made by a different process).
Regarding claim 4, Perry in view of Duru discloses the fuel injection valve according to claim 1, wherein a filter element (98) is inserted in the sleeve of the adjustment element (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 5, Perry in view of Duru discloses the fuel injection valve according to claim 4, wherein the filter element has a collar region (92) at an inlet end of the filter element (Figure 2), which corresponds to the sleeve, and is fitted in a region of the collar region (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 6, Perry in view of Duru discloses the fuel injection valve according to claim 5, wherein the collar region of the filter element includes a circumferential chamfer at the inlet of the filter element on an outer circumference (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, Perry in view of Duru discloses the fuel injection valve according to claim 6, wherein the chamfer of the collar region of the filter element has a beveled shape such that the sleeve can be placed against it with accurate form-fit to secure the filter element in the thin- walled sleeve (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, Perry in view of Duru discloses the fuel injection valve according to claim 4, wherein the filter element is attached and secured in the sleeve using flanging (The flange of the filter is attached and secured to the sleeved of the device).
Regarding claim 9, Perry in view of Duru discloses the fuel injection valve according to claim 1, wherein the sleeve, viewed over its axial length of the sleeve jacket, has a plurality of regions which have a different outer diameter (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1), when viewed in a downstream direction, first a folded sleeve flanging area, then an area with a largest diameter, which serves as a pressing area (The sleeve is pressed to the filter), and finally an axially subsequent downstream section as an area with a smaller diameter (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
836
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to Applicant’s position that the sleeve base wall thickness relative to the remaining sleeve in the sleeve jacket is a critical element, Examiner disagrees. Applicant discloses that “an exception to this may be the transition area between the sleeve base and the sleeve jacket” (Applicant’s specification, page 3, lines 9-11). The transition portion is a part of the “remaining sleeve in the sleeve jacket.” Based upon this disclosure, the device is designed to include a portion of the remaining portion of the sleeve that does not fall within the claimed range. While it may be true that the device may malfunction if certain portions of the sleeve do not fall within the same range, Applicant’s disclosure makes clear that the device will not malfunction if the remaining portion of the sleeve does not fall within the claimed range, as the disclosure accommodates a portion of the remaining sleeve in the sleeve jacket not falling within the claimed range. Therefore, the limitation “the sleeve base of the sleeve has a wall thickness that is between a factor 1.5 to 3 greater than the wall thickness of the remaining sleeve in the sleeve jacket” is not a critical element.
As to Applicant’s position that a configuration above the claimed range would impair manufacturability, increase cost and reduce spring adjustability, manufacturability and cost are not critical considerations. Further, while the spring adjustability may be altered, the device is still configured to operate as intended.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1505. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9am-7pm.
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, Arthur O. Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/CHRISTOPHER R DANDRIDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752