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 Objections
Claims 1-2, and 6-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, line 15-17 should read in part “pin element[[;]] and/or an inner surface of the cam rider arrangement[[;]] comprises one or more”. Appropriate correction is required.
In claims 2 and 6-16, line 1 should read in part “[[A]] The roller tappet”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 6, 10, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brinks (US 2007/0277763).
In Reference to Claim 1
(See Brinks, Figures 1-7)
Brinks discloses:
A roller tappet assembly for a reciprocating pump, the roller tappet assembly comprising:
a tappet body (92);
a pin element (110) comprising:
first and second opposing end portions that engage respective formations (96,98) in the tappet body (92) to retain the pin element (110), and
a bearing portion (135), extending between the first and second end portions (A,B), for supporting a cam rider arrangement (34); and
said cam rider arrangement (34) supported on the bearing portion (135) of the pin element (110) so that, in use, the reciprocating pump is cyclically loaded and unloaded as an outer surface of the cam rider arrangement (34) interfaces with a rotating camshaft (See Brinks, Paragraph [0022]);
wherein the cam rider arrangement (34) is supported on the bearing portion (135), extending coaxially to the pin element (110), from a first end (154) to a second end (156);
wherein at least one of:
the bearing portion (135) of the pin element (110); and/or
an inner surface of the cam rider arrangement (34);
comprises one or more recessed formations (148,150,174,176) for supporting hydrodynamic lubrication between the cam rider arrangement (34) and the pin element (110) as the bearing portion (135) bends during a loading cycle (See Brinks, Paragraphs [0031] & [0042]); and
wherein the one or more recessed formations (148,150,174,176) comprise formations on the bearing portion (135) arranged in alignment with the first and/or second ends (154,156) of the cam rider arrangement (34) (See Brinks, Paragraph [0030] w/respect to alignment), the formations comprising:
one or more circumferential grooves defined in the bearing portion (135); or formations that extend axially and circumferentially to define a barrel-shaped bearing portion (135). (See Brinks, Paragraphs [0030]-[0031]).
The Examiner notes the use of the phrase "and/or" by the Applicant. For examination purposes, "and/or" is treated as "or" under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
In Reference to Claim 2
(See Brinks, Figures 1-7)
Brinks discloses:
wherein the one or more recessed formations (148,150,174,176) comprise formations (174,176) on the bearing portion (135), adjacent to the first and/or second end portions of the pin element (110). (See Brinks, Figure 6).
In Reference to Claim 6
(See Brinks, Figures 1-2 and 4-7 and Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner below)
Brinks discloses:
wherein the first and/or second end portions of the pin element (110) define respective shoulders (A,B) adjacent to the one or more recessed formations (148,150,174,176) on the bearing portion (135). (See Brinks, Figure 3 as annotated by Examiner below)
PNG
media_image1.png
798
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Reference to Claim 10
(See Brinks, Figures 1-7)
Brinks discloses:
wherein the one or more recessed formations (148,150,174,176) have a depth corresponding to a deflection of the bearing portion (135) during the loading cycle. (See Brink, Paragraph [0042]).
In Reference to Claim 14
(See Brinks, Figures 1-7)
Brinks discloses:
wherein the cam rider arrangement (34) comprises a cam rider element (34), for interfacing with the rotating camshaft, supported on the pin element (110). (See Brinks, Paragraph [0022]).
In Reference to Claim 15
(See Brinks, Figures 1-7)
Brinks discloses:
A reciprocating pump of a fuel delivery system comprising the roller tappet assembly of claim 1. (See Claim 1 rejection above and Brinks, Paragraph [0020]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brinks (US 2007/0277763) in view of Hauvespre et al. (US 2015/0369097).
In Reference to Claim 7
(See Brinks, Figures 1-7)
Brinks discloses:
wherein the cam rider arrangement (34) extends coaxially to the pin element (110), from a first end to a second end. (See Brinks, Figure 3).
Brinks discloses the claimed invention except:
wherein the one or more recessed formations comprise formations on the inner surface of the cam rider arrangement, at the first end and/or the second end of the cam rider arrangement.
Hauvespre et al. (Hauv) discloses a roller tappet assembly. (See Hauv, Abstract). Hauv discloses wherein the one or more recessed formations comprise formations on the inner surface of the cam rider arrangement, at the first end and/or the second end of the cam rider arrangement. (See Hauv, Figure 11 w/respect to 48a,48, Paragraph [0066]).
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the teaching of Hauvespre to modify the one or more recessed formations so as to be formed at the first and second axial ends of the inner surface of the cam rider arrangement within the tappet assembly of Brinks since it would serve to reduce friction between the pin and the roller as well as to prevent an over-heating of the mechanical system as taught by Hauvespre (See Hauv, Paragraph [0008]).
In Reference to Claim 8
The Brinks-Hauv combination discloses:
wherein the formations on the inner surface extend circumferentially to define a chamfer, a bevel, or a cut-away, at the first end and/or the second end of the cam rider arrangement. (See Hauv, Figure 11 w/respect to 48a,48, Paragraph [0066]).
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the teaching of Hauvespre to modify the one or more recessed formations so as to be formed at the first and second axial ends of the inner surface of the cam rider arrangement within the tappet assembly of Brinks since it would serve to reduce friction between the pin and the roller as well as to prevent an over-heating of the mechanical system as taught by Hauvespre (See Hauv, Paragraph [0008]).
In Reference to Claim 9
The Brinks-Hauv combination discloses:
wherein the one or more recessed formations extend axially and circumferentially to define a convex inner surface of the cam rider arrangement. (See Hauv, Figure 11 w/respect to 48a,48c Paragraph [0066]).
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the teaching of Hauvespre to modify the one or more recessed formations so as to be formed at the first and second axial ends of the inner surface of the cam rider arrangement within the tappet assembly of Brinks since it would serve to reduce friction between the pin and the roller as well as to prevent an over-heating of the mechanical system as taught by Hauvespre (See Hauv, Paragraph [0008]).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brinks (US 2007/0277763) in view of Hauvespre et al. (US 2015/0369097), further in view of Fusser et al. (GB 2391274).
In Reference to Claim 11
The Brinks-Hauv combination discloses the claimed invention except:
wherein the one or more recessed formations have a depth of more than, or equal to, 5 µm.
Fusser et al. (Fuss) discloses a roller tappet assembly. (See Fuss, Page 1). Fuss discloses one or more recessed formations have a depth of more than, or equal to, 5 µm. (See Fuss, Figure 16, Pages 11-12 w/respect to core region).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the teaching of Fusser to
dimension a depth of the one or more recessed formations to be at least 5 microns and
at most 10 microns within the tappet assembly of Brinks, as modified by Hauv,
since it would make it possible to store lubricant and to ensure build-up of micro-
hydrodynamics even in cases of high loads as taught by Fuss (See Fuss, Page 10; first
paragraph).
In Reference to Claim 12
The Brinks-Hauv combination discloses the claimed invention except:
wherein the one or more recessed formations have a depth of less than, or equal to, 10 µm.
Fusser et al. (Fuss) discloses a roller tappet assembly. (See Fuss, Page 1). Fuss discloses one or more recessed formations have a depth of less than, or equal to, 10 µm. (See Fuss, Figure 16, Pages 11-12 w/respect to core region).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the teaching of Fusser to
dimension a depth of the one or more recessed formations to be at least 5 microns and
at most 10 microns within the tappet assembly of Brinks, as modified by Hauv,
since it would make it possible to store lubricant and to ensure build-up of micro-
hydrodynamics even in cases of high loads as taught by Fuss (See Fuss, Page 10; first
paragraph).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brinks (US 2007/0277763) in view of Akkaya et al. (WO 2016/198188).
In Reference to Claim 13
Brinks discloses the claimed invention except:
Wherein the cam rider arrangement further includes a bush element supported on the pin element and a cam rider element rotatably supported on the bush element.
Akkaya et al. (Akk) discloses a roller tappet assembly. (See Akk, Abstract). Akk discloses the cam rider arrangement further includes a bush element supported on the pin element and a cam rider element rotatably supported on the bush element. (See Akk, Figure 2, 8 Paragraphs [0029]-[0031]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the teaching of Akkaya to
interpose a bush element between the cam rider element and the pin element within the
tappet assembly of Brinks since it would define a radial bearing gap between the roller and the bearing bush, the radial bearing gap configured to receive a lubricating medium
from a bore formed in the tappet body as taught by Akkaya. (See Akk, Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest “wherein the one or more recessed formations have a maximum depth corresponding to a maximum deflection of a mid-point of the bearing portion during the loading cycle.”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that Brinks does not disclose or fairly suggest “wherein the one or more recessed formations comprise formations on the bearing portion arranged in alignment with the first and/or second ends of the cam rider arrangement, the formations comprising: one or more circumferential grooves defined in the bearing portion; or formations that extend axially and circumferentially to define a barrel-shaped bearing portion.”, the Office respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that Brinks does not disclose or fairly suggest “wherein the one or more recessed formations comprise formations on the bearing portion arranged in alignment with the first and/or second ends of the cam rider arrangement, the formations comprising: one or more circumferential grooves defined in the bearing portion; or formations that extend axially and circumferentially to define a barrel-shaped bearing portion.” Specifically, Applicant argues that the formations (148) and (150) of Brinks are not defined on the bearing portion of the roller pin, nor are they in alignment with the first and/or second ends (154,156) of the cam roller (34). (See Brinks, Figure 3). However, Brink explicitly discloses the annular channels (148,150) are both on the bearing portion and in alignment with the first and/or second ends (154,156). (See Brinks, Figure 3, Paragraph [0030] w/respect to ‘alignment’). Further, Brinks shows overlap between the ends (154,156) of the cam roller (34) and the annular channels (148,150) of the bearing portion (135). (See Brink, Figure 3). Additionally, the Examiner notes the claim language includes alternative language of "and/or" and “or”. For examination purposes, "and/or" is treated as "or" under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. As such the formations of the claim recitations are merely required to comprise one or more formations on the bearing portion and/or the inner surface of the cam rider arrangement and said one or more formations may be either of one or more circumferential grooves defined in the bearing portion or formations that extend axially and circumferentially to define a barrel-shaped bearing portion. (emphasis added). Accordingly, the recited claim recitation merely requires that the bearing portion comprise at least one circumferential groove arranged in alignment with either the first and/or second end. As Brinks discloses at least annular (circumferential) grooves on the bearing portion of the pin element in alignment with the first and second ends of the cam rider arrangement, Brinks discloses each and every limitation as claimed. (See Claim 1 rejection above).
Applicant argues that dependent claims 2-15 overcome the rejection of record for at least the same reasons provided by Applicant with respect to the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, the rejections of dependent claims 2-15 are maintained for at least the reasons set forth above.
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 MATTHEW THOMAS LARGI whose telephone number is (571)270-3512. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 4:00 M-F.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469) 295-9278. 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.
/MATTHEW T LARGI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights