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The amendment to claim 3 traverses the 112 rejection of claim 3 and the rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/5/2026 regarding the 112 rejection of claim 2 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 2, Applicant alleges on page 5 that the limitation “wherein Y≥0.1X+0.48 is further satisfied” as recited in claim 2 does not broaden claim 1 when X=17.2 because claim 2 requires both Y≥2.6 and Y≥2.2, and the effective lower limit remains Y≥2.6, not Y≥2.2. However, claim 2 does not include this “effective lower limit.”
Claim 1 recites: “Y≤0.1X + 1.48, 17.2 ≤ X ≤ 28.2, and Y ≥ 2.6 are satisfied.” Thus, claim 1 is construed as: X may range from 17.2 to 28.2, and Y is greater than or equal to 2.6.
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites: “wherein Y≥0.1X+0.48 is further satisfied.” Thus, claim 2, in combination with claim 1, is construed as: Y≤0.1X + 1.48, 17.2 ≤ X ≤ 28.2, and Y ≥ 2.6 are satisfied, wherein Y≥0.1X+0.48 is further satisfied.
Claim 2 is understood to mean that X may range from 17.2 to 28.2, Y must be greater than or equal to 2.6, and Y≥0.1X+0.48 is further satisfied. Therefore, when X=17.2, claim 2 is construed to mean that Y≥0.1(17.2)+0.48, or Y is greater than or equal to 2.2, which is broader than claim 1. Claim 2 does not recite or impose an “effective lower limit” for the Y value when X is within a subset of lower values in the range of 17.2 ≤ X ≤ 28.2. Therefore, Applicant’s argument that claim 2 does not broaden claim 1 is not persuasive.
Applicant also argues that Figure 4(b) and paragraph [0051] explains the additional relationship of the “effective lower limit” for the Y value as regards to claim 2.
This argument is not persuasive because neither Figure 4(b) or paragraph [0051] are read into claim 2. Claim 2 is constructed based on the limitations that are explicitly recited in the claim, and the “effective lower limit” for the Y value, as allegedly described in Figure 4(b) and paragraph [0051], is not read into the claim.
For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 broadens a limitation of its parent claim 1. Claim 1 recites the limitation: 17.2≤X≤28.2, and Y≥2.6 are satisfied, while claim 2 recites: Y≥0.1X+0.48 is further satisfied. Under the construction of claims 1 and 2, when X=17.2, Y≥0.1(17.2)+0.48 or Y≥ 1.72 +0.48 or Y≥2.2 which is broader than the limitation Y≥2.6 as recited in claim 1. See the “Response to Arguments” section above.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Gozawa” (US 2020/038259) in view of “Shimada” (US 2021/0257816).
Regarding claim 1, Gozawa discloses 1. A spark plug comprising: an insulator having a tubular shape extending along an axial-line direction and a frontward facing surface formed on an outer circumference thereof (Fig. 1, [0019], [0023]; the spark plug 100 includes the insulator 10 having a tubular shape extending along an axial-line direction and the insulator step portion 15 is a frontward facing surface formed on an outer circumference of the insulator 10);
and a tubular metal shell provided on the outer circumference side of the insulator (Fig. 1, [0021]; the metal shell 50 is provided on the outer circumference side of the insulator 10),
the metal shell including a tubular trunk portion having a rearward facing surface which is formed on an inner circumference thereof and is in contact with the frontward facing surface directly or via another member, and an external thread formed on an outer circumference thereof (Fig. 1, [0021], [0023], [0027]-[0028]; the metal shell 50 includes the plug cover 80 which is a tubular trunk portion having a rearward facing surface which is formed on an inner circumference thereof and is in contact with the frontward facing surface insulator step portion 15 directly or via an annular packing 68 which is another member, and a screw portion 82 which is an external thread formed on an outer circumference thereof),
a flange portion including a seating surface and protruding outward with respect to the external thread (Fig. 1, [0028], the cover seal portion 84 is a portion formed in a flange shape at the root of the screw portion 82),
the seating surface facing the front side and being adjacent to a rear end of the trunk portion (Fig. 1, [0028], the annular gasket 88 formed by bending a plate is inserted and fitted at the seating surface facing the front side of the cover seal portion 84 and being adjacent to a rear end of the trunk portion),
and a crimping portion for pressing the insulator toward the front side (Fig. 1, [0022], the crimp portion 53 is for pressing the insulator toward the front side),
and a thickness obtained by subtracting an inner diameter of the trunk portion at a position of the seating surface from a pitch diameter of the external thread is represented as Y (mm), Y≥2.6 are satisfied (Fig. 1, [0028], the thickness of the plug cover 80 is not particularly limited, but may be, for example, about 1.5 mm to 3 mm, which reads on this limitation. Examiner’s note: the limitation “a thickness obtained by subtracting an inner diameter of the trunk portion at a position of the seating surface from a pitch diameter of the external thread” is a process limitation in a product claim and is treated in accordance with MPEP 2113. This process limitation is applied to a product structure that is the same as or equivalent to the product of Gozawa, therefore this limitation is anticipated by Gozawa.).
Gozawa does not disclose wherein, when an axial-line-direction distance between the rearward facing surface and the seating surface is represented as X (mm), Y≤0.1X+1.48, 17.2≤X≤28.2.
Shimada discloses wherein, when an axial-line-direction distance between the rearward facing surface and the seating surface is represented as X (mm), Y≤0.1X+1.48, 17.2≤X≤28.2 are satisfied (Figs. 3-4, [0021], [0032], [0040], [0057]; the distance “Z” which is an axial-line-direction distance between the rearward facing surface and the boundary between the first portion 13 and the second slope portion 19, i.e., a rear end 21 ranges from 23mm-34mm, see TABLE 2. Length A is a length of the second slope portion which ranges from 2mm-8mm, see TABLE 1. Therefore, the distance between the rearward facing surface and the seating surface is about Z-A or 15mm-32mm which reads on this limitation. This range reads on the Y≤0.1X+1.48 limitation since Gozawa’s thickness can be 3 mm.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Gozawa’s spark plug with Shimada’s dimensions in order to provide a spark plug that can reduce the stress in the insulator to reduce the potential for breakage, and to reduce the incidence of the occurrence of a crack, as suggested by Shimada at [0007]-[0008].
Regarding claim 2, Gozawa in view of Shimada discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Gozawa discloses 2. The spark plug according to claim 1, wherein Y≥0.1X+0.48 is further satisfied (Fig. 1, [0028], the thickness of the plug cover 80 is not particularly limited, but may be, for example, about 1.5 mm to 3 mm, which reads on this limitation since Shimada’s range of X is about 15mm-32mm).
Claim 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gozawa in view of Shimada and “Kobayashi” (US 2017/0033538).
Regarding claim 3, Gozawa in view of Shimada discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Gozawa discloses 3. The spark plug according to claim 1, wherein said another member interposed between the frontward facing surface and the rearward facing surface is an annular packing having a rear end surface in contact with the frontward facing surface (Fig. 1, [0023]; the annular packing 68 is another member interposed between the frontward facing surface and the rearward facing surface is an annular packing having a rear end surface in contact with the frontward facing surface).
Gozawa does not disclose in a part of the entire circumference with the axial line as the center, the ratio (%) of a length that the rear end surface and the frontward facing surface are in contact with each other to a length of the rear end surface on one side of the axial line is different from that on another side of the axial line, in a cross section including the axial line, and a difference between the ratios on both sides of the axial line is not more than 46%.
Kobayashi discloses in a part of the entire circumference with the axial line as the center, the ratio (%) of a length that the rear end surface and the frontward facing surface are in contact with each other to a length of the rear end surface on one side of the axial line is different from that on another side of the axial line, in a cross section including the axial line, and a difference between the ratios on both sides of the axial line is not more than 46% (Figs. 2-4, 8-13, [0007]; a sheet packing held between the step portion and the ledge, the length A being a length of contact between the sheet packing and the metallic shell in one of two half sections obtained by dividing, by the axial line, a cross section of the spark plug that passes through the axial line, the length B being a length of contact between the sheet packing and the metallic shell in the other one of the two half sections that is different from the one of the two half sections, a difference between the ratios on both sides of the axial line is not more than 46%, based on the different dimensions of A and B in Figs. 8-13.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Gozawa’s spark plug, as modified by Shimada, with Kobayashi’s packing dimensions in order to provide a spark plug that can reduce the stress in the insulator to improve the heat dissipation through a path from the insulator through the sheet packing to the metallic shell, as suggested by Kobayashi at [0007].
Regarding claim 4, Gozawa in view of Shimada and Kobayashi discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 3, above.
Gozawa does not disclose the limitations of claim 4.
Shimada discloses 4. The spark plug according to claim 3, wherein 23.9≤ X≤28.2 is further satisfied (Figs. 3-4, [0021], [0032], [0040], [0057]; Shimada’s range of X is about 15mm-32mm).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gozawa in view of Shimada and “Moriya” (US 2001/0004183).
Regarding claim 5, Gozawa in view of Shimada discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Gozawa does not disclose the limitations of claim 5.
Moriya discloses 5. The spark plug according to claim 1, wherein the external thread has a nominal diameter of 12 mm (Fig. 10B, [0004], [0069]; the spark plug of the kind of 12.00 mm in the nominal diameter M of the externally threaded portion is sized).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Gozawa’s spark plug, as modified by Shimada, with Moriya’s external thread diameter of 12 mm in order for the spark plug to be screwed into an internally threaded portion of a cylinder head, as suggested by Moriya at [0028].
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 STANLEY TSO whose telephone number is (571)270-0723. The examiner can normally be reached Tu-Thurs 6am-6pm, alt M 6am-2pm.
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, Tim Thompson can be reached at 571-272-2342. 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.
/STANLEY TSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights