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(s)
The Preliminary Amendment, filed on 6/10/2024, has been entered and acknowledged by the Examiner.
Cancellation of claim(s) 1-12 has been entered.
Claim(s) 13-24 are pending in the instant application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/10/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/16/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 6/10/2024. These drawings are considered acceptable by Examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 17, 20-21 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 17, 20-21 recites the limitation “and/or”, the phrase renders the claim indefinite since the claim terminology should be in the alternative only.
America Invents Act
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
1. Claim(s) 13-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sotiropoulou et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0102404 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Sotiropoulou et al., teaches a spark plug with a longitudinal axis, comprising: a housing (23, a shell, ¶ [0055]-¶ [0060]; see at least Fig. 4) with a longitudinal bore (bore of 23), as a result of which the housing (23) has a housing wall with an inner face; an insulator (17, a central insulator) which is arranged within the housing (23) and has a combustion chamber-side insulator tip (of 17) which is flush with a plane extending perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis; a center electrode (18, a central electrode) arranged at least partially within the insulator (17); and a ground electrode (21) which is arranged within the housing (23), wherein the ground electrode (21) and the center electrode (18) are arranged such that they together form a spark gap (22, an electrode gap), and the spark gap (22) is within the housing (23); wherein the housing (23) has, at its combustion chamber-side end, a first inside diameter (D1, first diameter at the very-most edge of flanged portion 28, highest horizontal plane edge of 28 in Fig. 4), and within the housing (23) in the plane, a second inside diameter (D2, mid-most diameter of space running along the horizontal plane of top-most edge of 17 where central electrode 18 becomes exposed), wherein the first inside diameter (D1) is greater than the second inside diameter (D2), so that a breathing space formed within the housing (23) tapers from its combustion chamber-side end to its combustion chamber-remote end.
Regarding Claim 14, Sotiropoulou et al., teaches the spark plug according to claim 13, wherein the second inside diameter (D2) corresponds to 35% to 80% of the first inside diameter (D1, as clearly depicted in Fig. 4, about 35%).
Regarding Claim 15, Sotiropoulou et al., teaches the spark plug according to claim 13, wherein the insulator tip (tip of 17) delimits the breathing space at least partially at its combustion chamber-remote end.
Regarding Claim 16, Sotiropoulou et al., teaches the spark plug according to claim 13, wherein the housing (23) wall of the housing (23) laterally delimits the breathing space, resulting in a tapered shape of the breathing space (as depicted via tapering edge of Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 17, Sotiropoulou et al., teaches the spark plug according to claim 16, wherein the shape of the breathing space results from straight surfaces of the inner face of the housing (23) wall, wherein a first transition from the inner face of the housing (23) wall to a combustion chamber-side end face of the housing (23), and/or a second transition from the inner face of the housing (23) wall to a surface of the housing (23) that delimits the breathing space at its combustion chamber-remote end, are rounded (via rounded surface of Fig. 4, as clearly depicted).
Regarding Claim 18, Sotiropoulou et al., teaches the spark plug according to claim 16, wherein the shape of the breathing space includes a plurality of partial surfaces of the inner face of the housing (23) wall that are lined up in parallel with the longitudinal axis, wherein a single partial surface is straight or curved and different partial surfaces have different radii of curvature, so that overall a curved shape of the breathing space arises (as clearly depicted in Figs. 1-4).
Regarding Claim 19, Sotiropoulou et al., teaches the spark plug according to claim 16, wherein the shape of the breathing space includes a conical section and a cylindrical section with a constant diameter (via the conical section that is constantly straight diametrically, Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 20, Sotiropoulou et al., teaches the spark plug according to claim 16, wherein the breathing space is rotationally symmetrical and/or mirror-symmetrical, wherein the longitudinal axis of the spark plug is an axis of symmetry for the breathing space (Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 21, Sotiropoulou et al., teaches the spark plug according to claim 16, wherein the shape of the breathing space is rotationally symmetrical and/or mirror-symmetrical, wherein an axis of symmetry of the breathing space is at a distance from the longitudinal axis of the spark plug (Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 22, Sotiropoulou et al., teaches the spark plug according to claim 16, wherein the shape of the breathing space is asymmetrical (due to the presence of the ground electrode, 21 only one side of the chamber exclusively, rendering breathing space asymmetrical).
Regarding Claim 23, Sotiropoulou et al., teaches the spark plug according to claim 13, wherein a cap (31, 32) is arranged at the combustion chamber-side end of the housing (23), so that the spark plug is a pre-chamber spark plug (29).
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 of this title, 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.
2. Claim(s) 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Sotiropoulou et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0102404 A1) in view of Noda et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0043479 A1).
Regarding Claim 24, Sotiropoulou et al., teaches the invention set forth above (see rejection in the corresponding claim(s) above). Sotiropoulou et al., is silent regarding the type of fuel for the spark plug.
In the same field of endeavor, Noda et al., teaches a spark plug (25, a spark plug, ¶ [0061]), wherein the spark plug is a hydrogen spark plug which is configured to be used in a hydrogen-powered engine and to ignite an ignitable hydrogen-containing fuel-air mixture (hydrogen gas in the fuel mixture, ¶ [0061]) in order to instill a common form of practical and readily available fuel source, thereby improving the marketability of the spark plug application over all.
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 fuel source, as disclosed by Noda et al., in the spark plug of Sotiropoulou et al., in order to instill a common form of practical and readily available fuel source, thereby improving the marketability of the spark plug application over all.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to using a hydrogen fuel source as a matter of choice. Applicant(s) has not disclosed that the materials is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected or significant result, or are otherwise critical and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another configuration (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Other Prior Art Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pat. No. 9,316,200 teaches a similar spark plug chamber to claimed invention.
Examiner's Note
The Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner H. Featherly whose telephone number is 571-272-8654. The examiner can normally be reached on M-. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Greece can be reached on 571-272-3711.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-272-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/H. Featherly/
Examiner Featherly
Art Unit 2875 Patent Examiner
/JAMES R GREECE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights