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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-24 are cancelled. Claims 25-44 are new.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 26 recites the limitation "A modular fuel injector according to claim 25'' in line 1 of claim 26. However, it is suggested to amend to - The modular fuel injector according to claim 25-. Appropriate correction is required.
Similar objection applies to claims 27-44.
Claim 43 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 43 recites the limitation "pressurised'' in line 3 of claim 43. However, it is suggested to amend to - pressurized-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are as follows:
“The valve element” in lines 1-2 of claim 40. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “mechanism” coupled with functional language “configured to engage with said engaging surfaces” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“A retaining mechanism” in line 2 of claim 41. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “mechanism” coupled with functional language “configured to retain the modular injector in an engine” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“A retaining mechanism” in line 2 of claim 42. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “mechanism” coupled with functional language “configured to engage with said engaging surfaces” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
A review of the specification does not appear have corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding “a valve means” in line 6 of claim 1 (Para. 0008, 0055 of Applicants PGPub US 2025/0277478).
A review of the specification appears to have corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for the limitation “the valve element” in lines 1-2 of claim 40, because para. 0044 of the applicant’s PGPub (US 2025/0277478) states “the valve element is a ball valve element” (Para. 0044 of Applicants PGPub) and “the ball valve element 419 comprises a sphere (Para. 0076 of Applicants PGPub)” The examiner will interpret this limitation as “a sphere”, or equivalent thereof.
A review of the specification does not appear have corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding “a retaining mechanism” in line 2 of claim 41 (0051-0055, 0057 of Applicants PGPub US 2025/0277478. Para. 0054 states “the retaining mechanism may be a clamping mechanism,” but no further mention of the clamping mechanism was found in the applicants specification and no retaining mechanism or clamping mechanism was found in applicants drawings.).
A review of the specification does not appear have corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding “a retaining mechanism” in line 2 of claim 42 (0051-0055, 0057 of Applicants PGPub US 2025/0277478. Para. 0054 states “the retaining mechanism may be a clamping mechanism,” but no further mention of the clamping mechanism was found in the applicants specification and no retaining mechanism or clamping mechanism was found in applicants drawings.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 25-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 25, the applicant' s specification describes functional limitations of “a valve means” in line 6 of claim 25 but fails to describe any structure (Para. 0008, 0055 of Applicants PGPub US 2025/0277478), and merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness. See, e.g., Noah, 675 F.3d at 1317, 102 USPQ2d at 1419; Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384, 91 USPQ2d at 1491; Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. Additionally, “a valve means” is not shown in the drawings of the applicant' s specification and therefore does not comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 26-44 depend from claim 25, therefore claims 26-44 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
Regarding claim 41, the applicant' s specification describes functional limitations of “a retaining mechanism” in line 2 of claim 41 but fails to describe any structure (0051-0055, 0057 of Applicants PGPub US 2025/0277478. Para. 0054 states “the retaining mechanism may be a clamping mechanism,” but no further mention of the clamping mechanism was found in the applicants specification and no retaining mechanism or clamping mechanism was found in applicants drawings), and merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness. See, e.g., Noah, 675 F.3d at 1317, 102 USPQ2d at 1419; Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384, 91 USPQ2d at 1491; Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. Additionally, “a retaining mechanism” is not shown in the drawings of the applicant' s specification and therefore does not comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim 42 depends from claim 41, therefore claim 42 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
Regarding claim 42, the applicant' s specification describes functional limitations of “a retaining mechanism” in line 2 of claim 42 but fails to describe any structure (0051-0055, 0057 of Applicants PGPub US 2025/0277478. Para. 0054 states “the retaining mechanism may be a clamping mechanism,” but no further mention of the clamping mechanism was found in the applicants specification and no retaining mechanism or clamping mechanism was found in applicants drawings), and merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness. See, e.g., Noah, 675 F.3d at 1317, 102 USPQ2d at 1419; Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384, 91 USPQ2d at 1491; Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. Additionally, “a retaining mechanism” is not shown in the drawings of the applicant' s specification and therefore does not comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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 limitation “a valve means” in line 6 of claim 1 (Para. 0008, 0055 of Applicants PGPub US 2025/0277478) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function, because no structure for “a valve means” was found in the applicant’s specification or drawings (Para. 0008, 0055 of Applicants PGPub US 2025/0277478). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 26-44 depend from claim 25, therefore claims 26-44 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim limitation “a retaining mechanism” in line 2 of claim 41 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function because no structure for “a valve means” was found in the applicant’s specification or drawings (0051-0055, 0057 of Applicants PGPub US 2025/0277478. Para. 0054 states “the retaining mechanism may be a clamping mechanism,” but no further mention of the clamping mechanism was found in the applicants specification and no retaining mechanism or clamping mechanism was found in applicants drawings). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 42 depend from claim 41, therefore claim 41 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim limitation “a retaining mechanism” in line 2 of claim 42 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function because no structure for “a valve means” was found in the applicant’s specification or drawings (0051-0055, 0057 of Applicants PGPub US 2025/0277478. Para. 0054 states “the retaining mechanism may be a clamping mechanism,” but no further mention of the clamping mechanism was found in the applicants specification and no retaining mechanism or clamping mechanism was found in applicants drawings). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 25-44 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.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “the housing inlet comprises a coupling” in line 10 of claim 25 and further recites “the housing outlet comprises a coupling” lines 11-12 of claim 25 It is unclear if there are separate “couplings” or if these are the same “coupling”. The examiner will interpret these limitations as “the housing inlet comprises a first coupling … the housing outlet comprises a second coupling.”
Claims 26-44 depend from claim 25, therefore claims 26-44 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “the housing inlet comprises a coupling configured to engage with an inlet insert and the housing outlet comprises a coupling configured to engage with an outlet insert” in lines 1-3 of claim 26 but claim 25 recites “the housing inlet comprises a coupling” in line 10 of claim 25 and further recites “the housing outlet comprises a coupling” lines 11-12 of claim 25. It is unclear if there are separate “couplings” or if these are the same “couplings.” The examiner will interpret this limitation as “the housing inlet comprises the first coupling configured to engage with an inlet insert and the housing outlet comprises the coupling configured to engage with an outlet insert” in conjunction with the proposed interpretation of claim 25.
The term “substantially aligned along a longitudinal axis” in lines 2-3 of claim 27 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The examiner finds that the specification lacked some standard for measuring the degrees intended because the term aligned is defined as “arranged in a specified way” by dictionary.com and one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand how to measure the recited definitions. See MPEP 2173.05(b) (For example, in Ex parte Oetiker, 23 USPQ2d 1641 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992), the phrases "relatively shallow," "of the order of," "the order of about 5mm," and "substantial portion" were held to be indefinite because the specification lacked some standard for measuring the degrees intended.)
Claim 36 recites limitation “the, or each, O-ring is made of a low carbon steel having a carbon content of 0.05% to 0.25% by weight, or a stainless steel, or a ceramic material” in lines 1-3 of claim 36. It is not clear which O-ring the applicant is referring to.
Claim 37 recites the limitation “wherein the or each coupling comprises a thread” in lines 1-2 of claim 38, and it is unclear as to which coupling the applicant is referring to. The examiner will interpret this limitation in conjunction with the interpretation of claim 25 as “The modular fuel injector according to claim 25, wherein the first coupling comprises a thread and/or the second coupling comprises a thread.
Claim 38 depend from claim 37, therefore claim 38 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim 38 recites the limitation “wherein the thread is provided” in lines 1-2 of claim 38 however, claim 37 recites the limitation “wherein the or each coupling comprises a thread” it is not clear which thread on which coupling the applicant is referring to.
Claim 38 recites the limitation” wherein the thread is provided: on an outside of the housing and configured to engage at least one of: a corresponding thread of the inlet insert, a corresponding thread of the outlet insert, and a corresponding thread of a nut; or on an inside of the housing and configured to engage at least one of: a corresponding thread of the inlet insert, and a corresponding thread of the outlet insert” in lines 1-9 of claim 38 however it is not clear how a thread can engage each of the items listed in this limitation because recitation “at least one of A or B” is understood to encompass one limitation A or one limitation B. On the other hand, the recitation “at least one of A and B” is understood to require one of each item, i.e. at least one limitation A in combination with one limitation B.
Claim 39 recites the limitation “the coupling” in lines 1-2 of claim 39. however, however, Claim 25 recites the limitation “the housing inlet comprises a coupling” in line 10 of claim 25 and further recites “the housing outlet comprises a coupling” and therefore it is not clear as to which coupling the applicant is referring.
Claim 40 recites the limitation "the valve element" in line 1-2 of claim 40. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 42 recites the limitation “a retaining mechanism” in line 2 of claim 42 however claim 41 recites “retaining mechanism” in line 2 of claim 41. It is unclear if these are the same retaining mechanism or different retaining mechanisms.
The above are just examples of inconsistencies and problematic issues noted by the Examiner. Applicant is advised to carefully review and amend the application to correct other deficiencies. For the purpose of examination, the claims will be examined as best understood by the Examiner.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 25-32, 34, 37-38, and 41-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mueller (US 5,524,826).
Regarding claim 25, Mueller discloses a modular fuel injector (Figure, All structural features omitting 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 13.; The fuel injector is modular by way of having separate modules (11, 21, 50) performing particular functions where the definition of module is “a part of a machine, especially a computer, which performs a particular function” as defined by Collins dictionary.), comprising:
a housing (21) comprising a housing inlet (Annotated Figure A), a valve port (Annotated Figure A), and a housing outlet (Annotated Figure A); and
a valve (17) coupled to the housing via the valve port, the valve comprising:
a valve inlet (Annotated Figure A) in fluid communication with the housing inlet;
a valve outlet (Annotated Figure A) in fluid communication with the housing outlet;
a valve opening (Annotated Figure A) disposed between the valve inlet and the valve outlet; and
valve means (31, 33) disposed within the valve,
wherein the valve is configurable between a closed position (Col. 4: Ln. 1-11), in which the valve means closes the valve opening, and an open position (Col. 4: Ln. 30-41), in which the valve opening is open, placing the valve inlet and the valve outlet into fluid communication,
wherein the housing inlet comprises a coupling (Annotated Figure A) configured to engage with an inlet insert configured to engage with a fuel supply and/or the housing outlet comprises a coupling configured to engage with an outlet insert (Annotated Figure A) comprising a fuel injector tip.
Annotated Figure(s)
PNG
media_image1.png
838
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 26, Mueller discloses the modular fuel injector according to claim 25, wherein the housing inlet comprises a coupling (Annotated Figure A) configured to engage with an inlet insert and the housing outlet comprises a coupling (Annotated Figure A) configured to engage with an outlet insert.
Regarding claim 27, Mueller discloses the modular fuel injector according to claim 25, further comprising
Regarding claim 28, Mueller discloses the modular fuel injector according to claim 25, and further discloses wherein the housing inlet and the housing outlet are substantially aligned along a longitudinal axis of the housing (Annotated Figure A; The housing inlet and housing outlet are aligned along a longitudinal axis.).
Regarding claim 29, Mueller discloses the modular fuel injector according to claim 28, and further wherein a flow path through the modular injector from the housing inlet to the housing outlet diverges from the longitudinal axis of the housing (Fluid flows through 13 through the valve to 73 which diverges from the longitudinal axis of the housing.; Col. 3: Ln. 62 to Col. 4: Ln. 11).
Regarding claim 30, Mueller discloses the modular fuel injector according to claim 29, and further discloses wherein the valve is arranged such that a flow path through the valve diverges from the longitudinal axis of the housing thus diverging the flow path through the modular injector from the longitudinal axis of the housing (Col. 3: Ln. 62 to Col. 4: Ln. 11; The fluid flows through 59 diverging from the longitudinal axis of the housing.).
Regarding claim 31, Mueller discloses a modular fuel injector according to claim 29, and further discloses wherein a longitudinal axis of the valve (Annotated Figure A) is at an angle (Approximately 90 degrees) relative to the longitudinal axis of the housing, optionally wherein the angle is from 50° to 90°, optionally from 20° to 75°, optionally from 35° to 60°, optionally about 45° (The underlined limitations are optional and not required. See MPEP § MPEP 2173.05(h).).
Regarding claim 32, Mueller discloses the modular fuel injector according to claim 25, further comprising a seal (35; Col. 2: Ln. 53-66) between the valve and the housing for sealing an inlet side of the valve from an outlet side of the valve.
Regarding claim 34, Mueller discloses the modular fuel injector according to claim 25 further comprising an insulator (Annotated Figure A) configured to thermally insulate the valve from the
Regarding claim 37, Mueller discloses the modular fuel injector according to claim 25, and further discloses wherein the or each coupling comprises a thread (Annotated Figure A; Threads are shown on the coupling of the housing inlet and the coupling of the housing outlet.).
Regarding claim 38, Mueller discloses the modular fuel injector according to claim 37, wherein the thread (Annotated Figure A; Threads on the coupling of the housing inlet) is provided:
on an outside of the housing (Annotated Figure A) and configured to engage at least one of:
a corresponding thread of the inlet insert (An inlet insert is not positively recited and the provided threads are capable of engaging a corresponding thread of the inlet insert).
Regarding claim 41, Mueller discloses the modular fuel injector according to claim 25, and further discloses, wherein at least a portion of the housing (Annotated Figure B) is shaped to provide engaging surfaces for a retaining mechanism configured to retain the modular injector in an engine.
Regarding claim 42, Mueller discloses the modular fuel injector according to claim 41, further comprising a retaining mechanism (Annotated Figure B) configured to engage with said engaging surfaces.
Annotated Figure(s)
PNG
media_image2.png
774
619
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 43, Mueller discloses a fuel injection system (Figure, all structural features) for direct injection of a fuel, the system comprising:
a source of pressurized fuel (Figure, 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 13; Col. 2: Ln. 41-57), and
the modular fuel injector according to claim 25, the source of fuel being connected to the housing inlet (Figure).
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.
Claim(s) 33, 35, and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller in view of Fern (US 2014/0338633).
Regarding claim 33, Mueller discloses the modular fuel injector according to claim 25, but does not disclose the injector further comprising a non-return valve for preventing fluid flow through the housing outlet into the housing, optionally, if the modular injector comprises the outlet insert, the non-return valve is provided in the outlet insert (The underlined limitations are optional and not required. See MPEP § MPEP 2173.05(h).).
However, Fern teaches a prior art comparable fuel injector (Fig. 3-5B, all structural features comprising a non-return valve (104, 106, 108) for preventing fluid flow through a housing outlet (96) into the housing (Para. 0068).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the non-return valve taught by Fern into the injector disclosed by Mueller to prevent blowback gas resulting from the ignition of fuel within a combustion chamber (Fern Para. 0068), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 35, Mueller discloses the modular fuel injector according to claim 25, but does not disclose wherein the housing inlet coupling comprises an O-ring for sealedly coupling the housing inlet and the inlet insert and/or the housing outlet coupling comprises an O-ring for sealedly coupling the housing outlet and the outlet insert.
However, Fern teaches a prior art comparable fuel injector (Fig. 3-5B, all structural features), comprising a housing outlet (Fig. 3, 96) coupling comprises an O-ring (Fig. 3, 98) for sealedly coupling the housing outlet and an outlet insert (Fig. 3, 132).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teaching to include the teaching of an O- for sealedly coupling the housing outlet and an outlet insert taught by Fern between the housing and outlet insert (Mueller – Figure, 15) disclosed by Mueller, to seal and provide a resilient member to provides a secure frictional engagement (Fern – Para. 0046) between the housing and outlet insert.
Regarding claim 44, Mueller discloses a fuel injection system according to claim 43, but does not disclose wherein the source of a fuel comprises at least one of: a source of hydrogen; a source of ammonia; and a source of natural gas.
However, Fern teaches a prior art comparable fuel injector system (Fig. 1-8, all structural features), wherein the source of a fuel is natural gas (Para. 0003, 0028).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide natural gas as the source of fuel as taught by Fern, to provide a stable fuel source and provides a cost-effective contribution to cleaner mobility (Para. 0003).
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller in view of Fern and Matsushita (JP 2005282667).
Regarding claim 36, Mueller in view of Fern teaches the modular fuel injector according to claim 35, but does not teach wherein the, or each, O-ring is made of a low carbon steel having a carbon content of 0.05% to 0.25% by weight, or a stainless steel, or a ceramic material.
However, Matsushita teaches an O-ring made of stainless steel (Figure 1; Para. 0009).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teaching of an o-ring made of stainless steel taught by Matsushita into the O-ring taught by Mueller in view of Fern to improve the reliability of joints (Matsushita – Para. 0017) and to provide a seal with greater confidence at high temperatures and pressures (Matsushita – Para. 0007).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the, or each, O-ring is made of a low carbon steel having a carbon content of 0.05% to 0.25% by weight, or a stainless steel, or a ceramic material since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use or purpose MPEP 2144.07
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller in view of Upadhye (US 10,683,786).
Regarding claim 39, Mueller discloses the modular fuel injector according to claim 25, but does not disclose wherein the coupling comprises at least one of: at least one slot for engaging a corresponding projection of the inlet insert or the outlet insert; and at least one projection for engaging a corresponding slot of the inlet insert or the outlet insert.
However, Upadhye teaches a prior art comparable injector (Fig. 11-12, 600) wherein a coupling (Fig. 11-12, {604, 608, 610, 612}) comprises at least one projection (Fig. 11-12, 604) for engaging a corresponding slot (Fig. 11-12, 244) of an inlet insert (Fig. 11-12, 204; Col. 18: Ln. 25-27).
Therefore, the Examiner finds that the substitution of one known element, namely the coupling of the housing inlet as disclosed by Mueller for another, namely the coupling as taught by Upadhye would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the substitution of coupling shown in Upadhye would have yielded predictable results, namely, providing a connection between the coupling of the housing inlet and a fuel source (Mueller – Figure, 13; Col. 2: Ln. 41-57). In addition, the coupling has also been taught by Upadhye to have the benefit of allowing the servicing of one or more internal components (Col. 18: Ln. 17-21).
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller in view of Chen (US 6,065,450).
Regarding claim 40, Mueller discloses the modular fuel injector according to claim 25, and further discloses wherein
a valve seat (35) surrounding the valve opening,
a spring (27) arranged to urge the
a drive pin (61) having a first end (End of 61 nearest 65) and a second end (End of 61 nearest 29, the drive pin being aligned with the valve opening,
Mueller does not disclose wherein the valve element is a ball valve element and wherein in the closed position, the ball valve element is held in the valve seat by the spring, closing the valve opening, and in the open position, 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.
However, Chen teaches a prior art comparable Fuel injector (Fig. 2-4, all structural features), comprising a valve (Fig. 3, 75) comprising a valve element (Fig. 3, 53) is a ball valve element,
a valve seat (Fig. 3, 61) surrounding a valve opening (Fig. 3, inside of 61)
a spring (Fig. 3, 82) arranged to urge the ball valve element onto the valve seat to close the valve opening, and
a drive pin (Annotated Fig. 3) having a first end (Annotated Fig. 3) and a second end (Annotated Fig. 3), the drive pin being aligned with the valve opening,
wherein in the closed position, the ball valve element is held in the valve seat by the spring, closing the valve opening (Col. 5: Ln. 37-50), and in the open position, 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. 5: Ln. 51-63).
Therefore, the examiner finds that the substitution of one known element, namely the valve as disclosed by Mueller for another, namely the valve as taught by Chen would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the substitution of the valve shown in Chen would have yielded predictable results, namely, opening the valve to allow fuel to flow through the valve opening and/or closing the valve to prevent fuel from flowing through the valve opening.
Annotated Figure(s)
PNG
media_image3.png
607
984
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK whose telephone number is (571)270-5465. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 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 supervisor, Arthur 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.
/ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK/Examiner, Art Unit 3752 September 18, 2026
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights