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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 17 March 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3 and 5-21 are pending in the application. Claim 4 has been canceled, and Claims 19-21 have been added. Applicant's amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 17 October 2025; however, upon further consideration new rejections are set forth as explained below.
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, 10, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rogak et al. (US 2010/0199948).
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 17, Rogak teaches a fuel delivery system for a combustion engine (par. 2), the fuel delivery system comprising,
a fuel injector (fig. 3) comprising: a nozzle body (10); an injection orifice (14) formed through the nozzle body (fig. 1); and a valve (20) disposed in a bore of the nozzle body (fig. 3), wherein the valve is moveable between a closed position, in which fuel in the bore is prevented from flowing through the injection orifice, and an open position, in which fuel in the bore is permitted to flow through the injection orifice (par. 27), the valve being tubular (fig. 3) such that fuel flows along an inner surface of the valve when the valve is in the open position (fig. 3 – the surface defining 140), wherein the inner surface extends the full length of the valve (par. 48; fig. 3 – valve 20 extends from the upper end down to the seating surface, at 34, which is considered the full length since this is the length over which needle 20 is configured to control flow both through chamber 22 and passage 140; the small thickness of material remaining past 39 is considered to be the wall of the valve), and
a pressurized fuel source (62) in fluidic communication with the bore of the nozzle body (fig. 3), the pressurized fuel source comprising a fuel having an energy density less than the energy density of diesel fuel, wherein the fuel is dimethyl ether (par. 104).
Regarding claim 9, Rogak teaches the fuel injector described regarding claim 1, and further wherein a gap is defined between the bore and an outer surface of the tubular valve (fig. 3), the valve further comprising a guide section (fig. 3 – interpreted to be the portion of 20 defining lower chamber 22) along an injection end of the valve (fig. 3), wherein the gap is locally smaller at the guide section of the valve (fig. 3 – the gap is smaller at the guide section than below it at the seating surface 34).
Regarding claim 10, Rogak teaches the fuel injector described regarding claim 9, and further wherein the bore has the same cross-sectional shape as the guide section such that the gap is uniform about the guide section (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15, Rogak teaches the fuel delivery system for a combustion engine described regarding claim 14, and further wherein the fuel has an energy density less than 30 MJ/L (par. 47, 48 – “natural gas” is known to have an energy density less than 30MJ/L).
Regarding claim 16, Rogak teaches the fuel delivery system for a combustion engine described regarding claim 14, and further wherein the fuel is a synthetic fuel having a chemical structure devoid of covalent carbon-carbon bonds (par. 15 – “syngas”).
Regarding claim 18, Rogak teaches the fuel delivery system for a combustion engine described regarding claim 14, and further wherein the pressurized fuel source operates at a fuel pressure less than 1000 bar. Regarding this limitation, it is noted that 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.II.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-13, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cooke (US 2005/0173564).
Regarding claim 1, Cooke teaches a fuel injector (par. 1; fig. 1), comprising: a nozzle body (14); an injection orifice (21) formed through the nozzle body (fig. 2); and a valve (10) disposed in a bore of the nozzle body (fig. 2), wherein the valve is moveable between a closed position, in which fuel in the bore is prevented from flowing through the injection orifice (par. 3), and an open position, in which fuel in the bore is permitted to flow through the injection orifice (par. 3), the valve being tubular (figs. 1-2) such that fuel flows along an inner surface (64) of the valve when the valve is in the open position (par. 51, 58), wherein the inner surface extends the full length of the valve (par. 51; fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Cooke teaches the fuel injector described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the valve comprises a tubular wall that provides the inner surface (fig. 2 – surface defining 64) of the valve and an outer surface of the valve (fig. 3 – outer surface of 10), a gap being defined between the bore of the nozzle body and the outer surface of the valve (fig. 2), the fuel injector further comprising an aperture (72) formed through the tubular wall such that the gap is in fluidic communication with an internal volume of the valve (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Cooke teaches the fuel injector described regarding claim 2, and further wherein the aperture is formed through the tubular wall at one end of the valve (fig. 2 – bottom end), the fuel injector further comprising another aperture (62) formed through the tubular wall at an opposite end of the valve (fig. 2 – upper end).
Regarding claim 6, Cooke teaches the fuel injector described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the valve rests along a valve seat (16) of the nozzle body when the valve is in the closed position, the valve seat comprising separate first and second seating bands on axially opposite sides of the injection orifice (fig. 2 – the valve rests in the seat 16 axially above and below 21).
Regarding claim 7, Cooke teaches the fuel injector described regarding claim 1, and further wherein fuel flows to the injection orifice from axially opposite sides of the injection orifice when the valve is in the open position (fig. 2 – fuel can flow to the orifice 21 from both above and below).
Regarding claim 8, Cooke teaches the fuel injector described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the fuel injector has a valve-covering-orifice (VCO) construction and comprises a sac (fig. 2 - the space at the bottom opening of 64 and the tip 11) formed in the nozzle body (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Cooke teaches the fuel injector described regarding claim 1, and further wherein a gap is defined between the bore and an outer surface of the tubular valve (fig. 2), the valve further comprising a guide section (210) along an injection end of the valve (fig. 2 – it is disposed nearer to the injection end than to the ), wherein the gap is locally smaller at the guide section of the valve (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Cooke teaches the fuel injector described regarding claim 9, and further wherein the valve comprises a tubular wall that provides the inner surface of the valve and the outer surface of the valve (fig. 2), the fuel injector further comprising an aperture (72) formed through the tubular wall, the aperture being located axially between the guide section and the injection orifice (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Cooke teaches the fuel injector described regarding claim 11, and further comprising another aperture (62) formed through the tubular wall at an axially opposite side of the guide section (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Cooke teaches the fuel injector described regarding claim 9, and further wherein an inner diameter of the valve is locally larger at the guide section (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19, Cooke teaches the fuel injector described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the open position is a fully open position in which liquid fuel in the bore is permitted to flow through the injection orifice (par. 17).
Regarding claim 20, Cooke teaches the fuel injector described regarding claim 1, and further wherein fuel injector is configured to receive fuel from a single fuel source (fig. 1 – via inlet 26).
Regarding claim 21, Cooke teaches the fuel injector described regarding claim 8, and further wherein the sac is pressurized with liquid fuel when the valve is in the closed position (par. 54; fig. 1 – pressurized fuel is present in the sac when the valve is closed).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogak in view of Hou (US 2021/0148314).
Rogak teaches the fuel injector described regarding claim 1, but not further comprising a plug disposed in an end of the valve opposite an injection end of the valve, wherein an internal volume of the valve is in fluidic communication with a control volume outside the valve via an opening formed through the plug.
Hou teaches a fuel injector (par. 30; fig. 1), comprising: a nozzle body (6); an injection orifice (601) formed through the nozzle body (fig. 2); and a valve (“I”) disposed in a bore of the nozzle body (fig. 1), wherein the valve is moveable between a closed position, in which fuel in the bore is prevented from flowing through the injection orifice (fig. 1), and an open position, in which fuel in the bore is permitted to flow through the injection orifice (par. 34 – “opening position”), the valve being tubular (fig. 3) such that fuel flows along an inner surface of the valve when the valve is in the open position, and further comprising a plug (4) disposed in an end of the valve opposite an injection end (102) of the valve (fig. 3), wherein an internal volume (351) of the valve is in fluidic communication with a control volume (602) outside the valve via an opening (502) formed through the plug (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fuel injector of Rogak to further comprise a plug disposed in an end of the valve opposite an injection end of the valve, wherein an internal volume of the valve is in fluidic communication with a control volume outside the valve via an opening formed through the plug, as taught by Hou, since it was known that such an arrangement was known to prevent any backflow through the tubular valve (Hou, par. 34).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Hou have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Hou as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments regarding Rogak have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Rogak does not teach “wherein the inner surface extends the full length of the valve”. In response, it is noted that the claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). And, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. MPEP 2111.01(I). In this instance, the inner surface of the valve of Rogak is considered to extend the full length of the valve because it extends to the valve seat of the nozzle body, as explained in the rejection above. Further, the valve must have a wall having a thickness in order to define the inner surface of the tubular valve; therefore, it is reasonable to interpret that an inner surface would extend the full length even when a relatively small thickness of material remains at an end since this material comprises the wall of the valve defining the inner surface.
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 CODY J LIEUWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5, Friday varies.
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.
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights