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 (82, 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, except in a transition region between the sleeve base and sleeve jacket.
Duru discloses an improved device that includes a bead-like thickening applied about the wall of the adjusting element (66), in order to provide for a securing of spring (Paragraph 27) Duru does not disclose thickening of the transition region between the jacket and base .
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, except in a wedge-shaped transition region (Perry, 82) between the sleeve and jacket (Duru, Paragraph 27, the bead-like thickening is located beneath the transition region and 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 5/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Perry in view of Duru discloses the amended structure, as explained above. Examiner recommends highlighting the criticality of the claimed structure, in order to overcome the current rejection. Are the “high forces” beyond that of the typical flanging tool? What makes this range beyond the scope of the knowledge of one having ordinary skill in the art. As an aside, Examiner recommends defining the planar shape of the jacket and base with the transition region forming an interior thickness protruding from the interior planar wall, in order to overcome the current rejection.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights