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 .
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 11-18, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakamoto et al. (JP 3669425 B2).
Re claim 11, Sakamoto et al. show a fuel injector (Fig. 2), comprising:
a body assembly (12/55/56/57) comprising a proximal end and a distal end comprising a nozzle (10a);
an electronically operated valve (321) situated within the body assembly, the electronically operated valve comprising a plurality of electrical wires (53) having a distal end connected inside the body assembly and a proximal end extending outside the body assembly to an electrical connector (58);
a passageway (551/552/561/562) configured to convey the plurality of electrical wires (53) from the electronically operated valve proximally through the body assembly to the proximal end of the body assembly; and
a seal (54/59) situated within the passageway and comprising a plurality of lumens extending from a seal proximal end to a seal distal end, each of the plurality of lumens receiving a wire (53) of the plurality of electrical wires,
wherein, along a plane perpendicular to a central axis of the passageway (551/552/561/562), the seal (54/59) includes a circular cross section (paragraph 0003), and
wherein the plurality of lumens extends through the circular cross section of the seal (54/59).
Re claim 12, Sakamoto et al. show the body assembly comprises a first injector plate (55) and a second plate (56) in stacked relation, and wherein the passageway (551/552/561/562) extends through the first plate (55) and the second plate (56) in a proximal-distal direction.
Re claim 13, Sakamoto et al. show the seal (54/59) is situated within (Fig. 1) both the first plate (55) and the second plate (56).
Re claim 14, Sakamoto et al. show the seal (54/59) comprises a plurality of individual members, and wherein one (54) of the plurality of individual members extends across an interface between the first plate (55) and the second plate (56).
Re claim 15, Sakamoto et al. show the first plate (55) comprises a first step (551) within the passageway, wherein the second plate (56) comprises a second step (561) within the passageway, and wherein the seal (54/59) abuts (Fig. 1) at least one of the first step (551) or the second step (561).
Re claim 16, Sakamoto et al. show the seal (54/59) comprises a plurality of individual members.
Re claim 17, Sakamoto et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the seal comprises three individual members. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the seal comprises three individual members, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Further, no criticality is apparent for the claimed limitation.
Re claim 18, Sakamoto et al. show one of the plurality of individual members of the seal comprises a taper (541).
Re claim 20, Sakamoto et al. show a fuel injector (Fig. 2), comprising:
a body assembly (12/55/56/57) comprising a proximal end (at 58) and a distal end (at 10) comprising a nozzle (10a), the proximal end (at 58) being spaced from the distal end (at 10) in a vertical direction;
an electronically operated valve (321) situated within the body assembly, the electronically operated valve comprising a plurality of electrical wires (53) having a distal end connected inside the body assembly and a proximal end extending outside the body assembly to an electrical connector (58);
a passageway (551/552/561/562) configured to convey the plurality of electrical wires (53) from the electronically operated valve proximally through the body assembly to the proximal end of the body assembly; and
a seal (54/59) situated within the passageway and distal a proximal end of the passageway, the seal comprising a plurality of vertically stacked members (54/59),
wherein each member of the plurality of vertically stacked members includes a respective plurality of lumens (inside 54/59), and
wherein the respective pluralities of lumens of the plurality of vertically stacked members form a plurality of continuous lumens (around 53) extending from a seal proximal end to a seal distal end, each continuous lumen of the plurality of continuous lumens receiving a wire (53) of the plurality of electrical wires (53).
Re claim 22, Sakamoto et al. show the body assembly includes a plate (see annotated figure) having a frustoconical opening and wherein the seal (54/59) includes a frustoconical section (541) configured to engage with the frustoconical opening of the plate (see annotated figure).
PNG
media_image1.png
478
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-8, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto et al. (JP 3669425 B2) in view of Schmieder et al. (DE 102012206240 A1).
Re claim 1, Sakamoto et al. show a fuel injector (Fig. 2), comprising:
a body assembly (12/55/56/57) having a proximal end and a distal end comprising a nozzle (10a);
an electronically operated valve (321) situated within the body assembly, the electronically operated valve comprising a plurality of electrical wires (53);
a passageway (551/552/561/562) configured to convey electrical wires (53) from the electronically operated valve proximally through the fuel injector and out the proximal end and external to the body assembly (12); and
a seal (54/59) situated within the passageway and distal a proximal end of the passageway, the seal (54/59) surrounding the plurality of electrical wires (53),
wherein the seal includes a frustoconical section (541; paragraph 0003).
Sakamoto et al. does not teach an elastomer material.
However, Schmieder et al. disclose a seal for surrounding electrical wires in a fuel injector where the seal is formed of an elastomer material (paragraph 0028).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the seal formed of an elastomer material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Further, no criticality is apparent for the claimed material.
Re claim 2, Sakamoto et al. show the body assembly comprises a first injector plate (55) and a second plate (56) in stacked relation, and wherein the passageway (551/552/561/562) extends through the first plate (55) and the second plate (56) in a proximal-distal direction.
Re claim 3, Sakamoto et al. show the seal (54/59) is situated within (Fig. 1) both the first plate (55) and the second plate (56).
Re claim 4, Sakamoto et al. show the first plate (55) comprises a first step (551) within the passageway, wherein the second plate (56) comprises a second step (561) within the passageway, and wherein the seal (54/59) abuts (Fig. 1) at least one of the first step (551) or the second step (561).
Re claim 5, Sakamoto et al. show the seal (54/59) abuts both the first step (551) and the second step (561).
Re claim 6, Sakamoto et al. show the seal (54/59) comprises a plurality of lumens extending completely through the seal proximal end to a seal distal end.
Re claim 7, Sakamoto et al. show the seal (54/59) comprises a plurality of individual members.
Re claim 8, Sakamoto et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the seal comprises three individual members. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the seal comprises three individual members, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Further, no criticality is apparent for the claimed limitation.
Re claim 19, Sakamoto et al. disclose all aspects of the claimed invention but do not teach an elastomer material.
However, Schmieder et al. disclose a seal for surrounding electrical wires in a fuel injector where the seal is formed of an elastomer material (paragraph 0028).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the seal formed of an elastomer material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Further, no criticality is apparent for the claimed material.
Re claim 21, Sakamoto et al. show the seal further includes two cylindrical sections (54/59) and wherein the frustoconical section (541) is disposed between the two cylindrical sections (the circumferential borders of 541 exist between the inner border of 54 and outer border of 59).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s remarks directed toward claim 1, in the interview dated March 17th, it was agreed the proposed amendment would overcome the rejection under 102, which it has, as demonstrated above, however as a frustoconical section exists at 541 in Sakamoto while Schmieder teaches an elastomer material, the claim is rendered obvious in view of this combination.
Regarding applicant’s remarks directed toward claim 11, the newly amended language requires the seal include a circular cross section in a plane extending perpendicular to a central axis of the passageway, to which the seal in Sakamoto does indeed include a circular cross section in a plane extending perpendicular to a central axis of the passageway. More specifically, each section of 54 will include a circular cross section in a plane extending perpendicular to the central axis of the passageway. Further, the newly amended claim recites wherein the plurality of lumens extends through the circular cross section of the seal, to which the passageways (or lumens) extending through elements 54 and 59 that make up the equated seal in Sakamoto do indeed extend through each circular cross section of the elements, 54.
Regarding applicant’s remarks directed toward claim 20, applicant states that elements 54 and 59 are concentric and not vertically stacked as now required by the claim, however two elements being concentric, which merely requires that two objects share the same center, does not exclude those elements from also being vertically stacked, which as Sakamoto explicitly demonstrates in figure 1, elements 54 and 59 are indeed vertically stacked, as in element 59 is on top of, or over, element 54.
In light of these remarks, all prior art rejections shall be maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3540. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8am-5pm.
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 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.
STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights