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 response filed on July 10th 2026 is acknowledged. One page of amended drawings and three pages of amended claims were received on 7/10/2026. The drawings and specification have been amended such that they are no longer objected to. Claims 1, 3, 10, and 13 have been amended. Claims 2 and 9 have been cancelled. The claims have been amended such that they are no longer objected to. The claims have been amended to overcome previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 in the non-final rejection mailed 4/22/2026, however Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-12 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 103 as noted below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention Group I 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 Claims 13-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-12 are 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, Claim 1 recites the broad recitation “performing at least one metal forming operation on the workpiece to change a radial dimension of at least a portion of the workpiece” in Lines 7-8, and Claim 1 also recites “the at least one metal forming operation comprises a cold forming operation, and the method further comprising consecutively performing a plurality of the cold forming operations by which at least one portion of the workpiece is formed stepwise.” in Lines 12-14 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Therefore the claim requires at least one cold forming operation and then subsequently requires two or more cold forming operations. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purpose of examination, Claim 1 will be interpreted as requiring multiple cold forming operations, and each instance of “the at least one metal forming operation” in the claims will be interpreted as “the plurality of cold forming operations”.
Claims 3-8, and 10-12 depend from Claim 1, therefore Claims 3-8, and 10-12 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite since Claim 1 is indefinite.
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, 3-6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103as being unpatentable over US Patent 5,992,018 A to Reiter (“Reiter”) in view of NPL Document “How does multi stage cold forming work?” (located at link < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CT3230Vszw> as listed in the PTO-892 reference form provided by the Examiner. See Timestamps 0:11 to 0:38 in the video related to the NPL document) to Arnold Umformtechnik GmbH & Co. KG (“Arnold”).
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), wherein the 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 a 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), the at least one metal forming operation comprises a cold forming operation (See Col. 2 Lines 20-25).
As to Claim 1, in reference to the method of Reiter as applied to Claim 1 above, Reiter does not specifically disclose the method further comprising consecutively performing a plurality of the cold 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 cold forming operations are not specifically disclosed).
However, Arnold discloses a metal forming operation that comprises axially compressing a portion of a workpiece, whereby the portion radially expands, wherein expanding the portion is used for creating a perch, wherein the metal forming operation comprises consecutively performing a plurality of cold forming operations by which at least one portion of a workpiece is formed stepwise (See Annotated Fig. A and See Timestamps 0:11 to 0:38 in the video showing a workpiece being formed by up to six cold forming operations).
It is noted that while Arnold is not specifically in the same field of endeavor of fuel injection, Arnold addresses problems that are reasonably pertinent to applicant’s claimed invention, specifically efficiently producing a metal piece of high quality (See Arnold Timestamps 0:11 to 0:38 in the video, and See Paragraphs 0004 and 0014 of Applicant’s Specification”).
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 comprising consecutively performing a plurality of the cold forming operations by which at least one portion of the workpiece is formed stepwise, since doing so would utilize a known stepwise cold forming technique taught by Arnold to yield the predictable result of precisely producing a pintle at optimal cost (See Arnold Timestamps 0:11 to 0:38 in the video).
As to Claim 3, in reference to the method of Reiter in view of Arnold as applied to Claim 1 above, Reiter and Arnold further discloses wherein the workpiece is provided with a constant initial radial dimension along its length (See Reiter Col. 2 Lines 8-11 disclosing a rod-shaped product with an initial radial dimension and See the workpiece in Annotated Fig. A of Arnold).
As to Claim 4, in reference to the method of Reiter in view of Arnold 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 in view of Arnold 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 in view of Arnold 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).
As to Claim 10, in reference to the method of Reiter in view of Arnold as applied to Claim 1 above, Arnold 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 each forming operation (See Annotated Fig. A. A first tool is used for a first forming process and a second tool is used for a second forming process).
PNG
media_image1.png
1008
796
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
709
844
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 7-8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiter in view of in view of Arnold and US PGPUB 2015/0122918 A1 to Aurich et al. (“Aurich”).
As to Claim 7, in reference to the method of Reiter in view of Arnold 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 in view of Arnold 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, 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 Arnold and 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).
Regarding Claim 11, in reference to the method of Reiter in view of Arnold 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).
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 Arnold 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, 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 Arnold and 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 Arnold 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 July 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights