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 .
Examiner Note
It is noted there is not a Power of Attorney paper filed in the instant application as of the date of this Office action.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention Group I (Claims 1-12) in the reply filed on 2/25/2026 in response to the requirement for restriction mailed 1/15/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out any errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 13-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character not mentioned in the description: “2.3” (See Fig. 1).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1 Line 1, “which pintle” should be revised to “wherein the pintle” to ensure proper grammar.
In Claim 1 Lines 7-8, “the radial dimension” should be revised to “a radial dimension” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 3 Lines 1-2, “a workpiece with a constant initial radial dimension along its length is provided” should be revised to “the workpiece is provided with a constant initial radial dimension along its length” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 10 Line 3, “in this forming operation” should be revised to “in each forming operation” to ensure proper grammar.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 5,992,018 A to Reiter (“Reiter”).
As to Claim 1, Reiter discloses a method (See Col. 2 Lines 20-55) for producing a pintle (#1) for a fuel injector (See Fig. 2), which pintle extends in an axial direction (#8) and has a pintle perch (#25) with a perch radius as a maximum radial dimension (See PR in Annotated Fig. 2) and a pintle shaft (#2) with a shaft radius as a maximum radial dimension smaller than the perch radius (See SR in Annotated Fig. 2), wherein the pintle perch radially projects from the pintle shaft (See Annotated Fig. 2), and wherein the method comprises:
providing a metal workpiece (See Col. 3 Lines 10-12 disclosing austenitic or ferritic chromium steel); and
performing at least one metal forming operation on the workpiece to change the radial dimension of at least a portion of the workpiece (See Col. 2 Lines 21-40 and See Col. 3 Lines 1-12);
wherein:
the at least one metal forming operation comprises axially compressing a portion of the workpiece, whereby the portion radially expands, wherein expanding the portion is used for creating the pintle perch (See Figs. 1-2 and See Col. 2 Lines 21-40 disclosing cold forming of the upper end of #2 via pressing into the desired shape).
As to Claim 2, in reference to the method of Reiter as applied to Claim 1 above, Reiter further discloses wherein the at least one metal forming operation comprises a cold forming operation (See Col. 2 Lines 20-25).
As to Claim 3, in reference to the method of Reiter as applied to Claim 1 above, Reiter further discloses wherein a workpiece with a constant initial radial dimension along its length is provided (See Col. 2 Lines 8-11 disclosing a rod-shaped product with an initial radial dimension).
As to Claim 4, in reference to the method of Reiter as applied to Claim 3 above, Reiter further discloses wherein the shaft radius is between 80% and 120% of the initial radial dimension of the workpiece (See Annotated Fig. 2 and Col. 2 Lines 25-30, the shaft radius SR is equal to the initial radial dimension IR of the workpiece).
As to Claim 5, in reference to the method of Reiter as applied to Claim 1 above, Reiter further discloses wherein the perch radius is between 1.2 to 3.5 times greater than the shaft radius (See Annotated Fig. 2 and Col. 2 Lines 25-30, the perch radius PR is greater than the shaft radius SR by a factor that is within the claimed range).
As to Claim 6, in reference to the method of Reiter as applied to Claim 5 above, Reiter further discloses wherein the perch radius is between 1.2 to 3.5 times greater than the initial radial dimension of the workpiece (See Annotated Fig. 2, the perch radius PR is greater than the shaft radius SR by a factor that is within the claimed range, and the shaft radius SR is equal to the initial radial dimension IR of the workpiece).
PNG
media_image1.png
1008
796
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiter in view of US PGPUB 2015/0122918 A1 to Aurich et al. (“Aurich”).
As to Claim 7, in reference to the method of Reiter as applied to Claim 1 above, Reiter does not specifically disclose the method further comprising performing a heat treatment after the at least one metal forming operation (See Col. 2 Line 26 disclosing that swaging is done without supply of heat, and see Col. 2 Line 51 disclosing hardening, but heat treatment is not disclosed).
However, Aurich discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fuel injection (See Paragraph 0002) a method (See Paragraphs 0047-0049) for producing a pintle (See #1 in Fig. 2) for a fuel injector (See #2 in Fig. 2), wherein the method comprises performing a heat treatment after a metal forming operation (See Paragraph 0049).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Reiter as applied to Claim 1 above such that the method further comprises performing the heat treatment of Aurich after the at least one metal forming operation of Reiter, since doing so would utilize a known technique to yield the predictable result of giving a surface of the pintle a predefined hardness that is necessary for fuel injection operating conditions (See Aurich Paragraph 0049).
As to Claim 8, in reference to the method of Reiter in view of Aurich as applied to Claim 7 above, Aurich further discloses wherein the heat treatment comprises quenching, tempering and/or stress relieving (See Aurich Paragraph 0049 disclosing annealing, which is a heat treatment process that relieves stress, and is thus equivalent to stress relieving).
As to Claim 9, in reference to the method of Reiter as applied to Claim 1 above, Reiter does not specifically disclose the method comprising consecutively performing a plurality of forming operations by which at least one portion of the workpiece is formed stepwise (See Annotated Fig. 2 and See Col. 2 Lines 20-45. Multiple parts of the workpiece are formed stepwise, but a plurality of forming operations are not specifically disclosed).
However, Aurich discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fuel injection (See Paragraph 0002) a method (See Paragraphs 0047-0049) for producing a pintle (See #1 in Fig. 2) for a fuel injector (See #2 in Fig. 2), wherein the method comprises consecutively performing a plurality of forming operations by which at least one portion of the workpiece is formed stepwise (See Paragraphs 0047-0048 disclosing #11 and #13 being formed with sperate tools, thus multiple forming operations are used to form stepwise portions of #1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Reiter as applied to Claim 1 above such that the method further comprises consecutively performing a plurality of forming operations by which at least one portion of the workpiece is formed stepwise as taught by Reiter, since doing so would utilize a known technique to yield the predictable result of being able to accommodate geometry differences when forming the pintle (See Aurich Paragraph 0048).
As to Claim 10, in reference to the method of Reiter in view of Aurich as applied to Claim 9 above, Aurich further discloses wherein for each forming operation, a dedicated forming tool is used that at least partially defines a shape to which the workpiece is adapted in this forming operation (See Aurich Paragraph 0048 disclosing separate tools for each formed portion).
Regarding Claim 11, in reference to the method of Reiter as applied to Claim 1 above, Reiter does not specifically disclose wherein at least one machining operation is performed after the at least one metal forming operation (See Col. 3 Lines 5-10 disclosing welding processes, but machining processes are not disclosed).
However, Aurich discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fuel injection (See Paragraph 0002) a method (See Paragraphs 0047-0049) for producing a pintle (See #1 in Fig. 2) for a fuel injector (See #2 in Fig. 2), wherein the method comprises at least one machining operation being performed after a metal forming operation (See Paragraph 0049 disclosing hard machining after heat treatment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Reiter as applied to Claim 1 above such that the at least one machining operation of Aurich is performed after the at least one metal forming operation of Reiter, since doing so would utilize a known technique to yield the predictable result of helping ensure dimensional accuracy and surface quality of the pintle (See Aurich Paragraph 0049).
Regarding Claim 12, in reference to the method of Reiter in view of Aurich as applied to Claim 7 above, Aurich further discloses wherein at least one machining operation is performed after the heat treatment (See Aurich Paragraph 0049 disclosing hard machining).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Reiter in view of Aurich as applied to Claim 7 above such that the machining operation of Aurich is performed after the heat treatment, since doing so would utilize a known technique to yield the predictable result of helping ensure dimensional accuracy and surface quality of the pintle (See Aurich Paragraph 0049).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited Form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM - 5:00PM MST.
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.
/KEVIN EDWARD SCHWARTZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3752 April 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights