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
This action is responsive to the supplemental amendment dated 2/19/2026. The previous 112 rejections have been withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment. Claims 1-21 remain pending. Any new ground(s) of rejection below have been made due to applicant’s amendment. This action is Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 102 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-9, 11-13, and 15-21, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kabat et al. (U.S. 6,679,231).
Kabat discloses a valve assembly comprising: a valve housing (52) comprising a fluid inlet (82), a fluid outlet (80), a valve opening (84), and a valve seat (74) surrounding the valve opening, the valve opening being disposed between the fluid inlet and the fluid outlet (fig. 2), a ball valve element (76) disposed within the valve housing, a spring (86) arranged to urge the ball valve element onto the valve seat to close the valve opening, and a drive pin (108) having a first end (lower end) and a second end (upper end), the drive pin being aligned with the valve opening, the valve assembly being movable between a closed position, in which the ball valve element is held in the valve seat by the spring, closing the valve opening (fig. 2), and an open position, in which the first end of the drive pin extends through the valve opening to push the ball valve element away from the valve seat, opening the valve opening (col. 4, ll. 52-62), wherein the first end of the drive pin includes a hard surface treatment , the hard surface treatment comprising at least one of: a hard coating, a heat treatment, and a cold working process (drive pin has hard coating 146, see col. 5, ll. 61-65, and also see col. 5, ll. 46-47 describing the hardness as well as col. 6, ll. 16-17 and 24-25 describing the hard, wear resistant coating and high hardness).
Regarding claim 2, Kabat further discloses a spring seat (79), the ball valve element being disposed between the valve seat and the spring seat such that, when the valve is in the open position, the ball valve element is in contact with the spring seat (fig. 2 and col. 4, ll. 52-62).
Regarding claim 3, Kabat further discloses wherein the spring seat includes a hard surface treatment (142, col. 5, ll. 55-56).
Regarding claim 4, Kabat further discloses a pole piece (92), the drive pin extending through a bore in the pole piece (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Kabat further discloses wherein the hard surface treatment comprises a hard coating applied to the surface of the one or more components (col. 5, ll. 61-65).
Regarding claim 8, Kabat further discloses wherein the hard coating comprises at least one of silicon nitride, diamond-like carbon, a metal carbide or nitride (diamond-like carbon, which is a constituent of silicon doped amorphous hydrogenated carbon, see col. 5, ll. 40-42, which amorphous hydrogenated carbon being a type of hydrogenated diamond-like carbon and as the applicant uses the term the open-ended term “comprising”).
Regarding claim 9, Kabat further discloses wherein the hard surface treatment is the result of a physical process (the coating is a physical process, see col. 5, ll. 61-65 describing the coating, see also col. 6, ll. 51- col. 7, ll. 22 generally).
Regarding claim 11, Kabat further discloses an armature (106, 94) connected to the second end of the drive pin, and a coil (90) surrounding the armature such that energisation of the coil causes the drive pin to move, actuating the valve between the closed position to the open position (col. 4, ll. 52-62).
Regarding claim 12, Kabat further discloses a first guide bushing (114) fixedly secured to the inner surface of the valve housing, and being slidably engaged with at least a portion of the armature to guide the motion of the armature (both fixedly secured and slidably engaged in the same manner as the applicant’s device, see col. 4, ll. 21-25).
Regarding claim 13, Kabat further discloses wherein the armature is stepped and has a rear end portion of reduced diameter (118) which is surrounded and guided by the first guide bushing (fig. 2) and a front end portion of enlarged diameter (120) which is located between the first guide bushing and the pole piece (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, Kabat further discloses wherein the valve assembly is configured to control the flow of a relatively liquid free gas therethrough (Kabat is interpreted to meet this intended use limitation which has not been given patentable weight, but see also col. 1, ll. 6-10).
Regarding claim 16, Kabat further discloses wherein the valve assembly is configured to control the flow of hydrogen gas therethrough (Kabat is interpreted to meet this intended use limitation which has not been given patentable weight, but see also col. 1, ll. 6-10).
Regarding claim 17, Kabat further discloses wherein the valve assembly is configured to control the flow of ammonia gas therethrough (Kabat is interpreted to meet this intended use limitation).
Regarding claim 18, Kabat discloses a fluid injection system for injecting a fluid, the system comprising: a source of a fluid (26), and a valve assembly according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above), the source of a fluid being connected to the fluid inlet of the valve assembly (fig. 1 and col. 2, ll. 37-42).
Regarding claim 19, Kabat further discloses wherein the source of a fluid comprises a source of a relatively liquid free gas (Kabat is interpreted to meet this limitation as the material or article worked upon, in this case the contents of the fluid source, has not been given patentable weight, MPEP2115, but see also col. 1, ll. 6-10).
Regarding claim 20, Kabat further discloses wherein the source of a fluid comprises a hydrogen source (Kabat is interpreted to meet this limitation as the material or article worked upon, in this case the contents of the fluid source, has not been given patentable weight, MPEP2115, but see also col. 1, ll. 6-10).
Regarding claim 21, Kabat further discloses wherein the source of a fluid comprises an ammonia source (Kabat is interpreted to meet this limitation as the material or article worked upon, in this case the contents of the fluid source, has not been given patentable weight, MPEP2115, but see also col. 1, ll. 6-10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 103 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabat in view of Hornby (U.S. 7,377,040).
Kabat discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose the pole piece including a hard surface treatment.
Hornby teaches it was known in the art to include a hard surface treatment to a pole piece (col. 6, ll. 53-64).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kabat by having the pole piece have a hard surface treatment as taught by Hornby in order to reduce wear and reduce variations in the working air gap (see col. 6, ll. 53-64 of Hornby, as Kabat desires to have uniform air gap for uniform thrust, see col. 5, ll. 8-11).
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabat in view of Davies (U.S. 2009/0026292).
Kabat discloses the claimed invention and while Kabat discloses having multiple components have the hard surface treatment (such as the stop 78, drive pin 108, spring seat 79, base 81, see col. 5, ll. 35-65), Kabat does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein each of the spring, ball valve element, valve seat, first end of the drive pin, spring seat, and pole piece include a hard surface treatment.
Davies teaches that it was known to apply a coating to any components including similar valve components (para. 35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kabat by having each of the spring, ball valve element, valve seat, first end of the drive pin, spring seat, and pole piece include a hard surface treatment, as Kabat already discloses having a number of these components having a hard coating (see above) and Davies teaches it was known to have any number of these components with a hard coating. The motivation for doing so would be to increase wear rates for all the components (see para. 34-35 of Davies) and especially as it has been held that the duplication of essential working parts (the duplication being in this instance the hard coating) generally involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.04.
Regarding claim 8, in the event that applicant is not convinced that Kabat discloses the hard coating comprising diamond-like carbon as stated above, Davies teaches the use of various material for hard coatings, including silicon nitride, tungsten carbide (metal carbide), and amorphous diamond-like carbon (para. 39).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kabat by having the coating material be of a material such as diamond-like carbon, metal carbide, or silicon nitride as taught by Davies in order to provide an alternative material known to have good wear resistance and high hardness for similar fuel injector devices, if so desired by a user for a particular application of the fuel injector, such as for a petroleum based fuel, which provides a lubricating benefit as part of the fuel, and especially as it has been held that selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.07.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabat in view of Kylstrom (U.S. 9,964,089).
Kabat discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose the ball valve element formed of silicon nitride.
Kylstrom teaches it was known in the art to have a ball for a valve of a fuel injection system that is made of silicon nitride (col. 4, ll. 41-43).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kabat by having the ball be formed of silicon nitride as taught by Kylstrom in order to have the ball be made of a material that is hard and increases wear resistance and especially as it has been held that selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.07.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabat in view of Herbillon (WO 2018050731).
Kabat discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose the first guide bushing being comprised of polytetrafluoroethylene.
Herbillon teaches it was known in the art to have a bushing made out of various materials, including polytetrafluoroethylene (para. 37).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kabat by having the bushing made of polytetrafluoroethylene as taught by Herbillon in order to provide a relatively inexpensive material with high temperature resistance and low friction and especially as it has been held that selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7, the applicant argues that “hard surface treatment” refers to any process which increases the hardness of at least a portion of the surface of the component comparted to the hardness before the process as defined in the applicant’s specification and Kabat does not clearly disclose the coating increases the hardness of the component to which it is applied as compared to the hardness of the component before the lubricating process.
However, Kabat discloses that the drive pin has coating 146 as described in col. 5, ll. 61-65 which has a hardness of 12 to 16 Gpa as described in col. 5, ll. 46-47. Col. 6, ll. 16-17 describes this as a hard, wear resistant coating that has a high hardness as described in col. 6, ll. 16-17 and 24-25. Further, col. 5, ll. 66 – col. 6, ll. 5 describes the use of an interlayer material being used when the component is a relatively soft material. It naturally and logically flows that the described hard coating in Kabat would not be applied to a material that has a hardness that is equal to or greater than the hardness of the coating being applied. If this were the case, the coating in Kabat would not be described as a hard coating that is applied, it would be described as a soft coating. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the only reason a hard coating would be applied is that there is implicitly a softer material that is being coated; otherwise, there would be no reason to include a “hard coating” or the coating would not even be described as a “hard coating”. The coating is being described relative to what is being coated. In this case, the coating is a hard coating being applied over a relatively softer material. For at least these reasons, applicant’s arguments have not been found persuasive.
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 MICHAEL R REID whose telephone number is (313)446-4859. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-5pm est.
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 supervisors can be reached by phone. Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607, or Ken Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MICHAEL R REID/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753