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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the end-of-stroke system is coupled to the needle and is arranged at an axial distance, namely measured along the longitudinal axis, other than zero from the gasket to be farther from the injection nozzle with respect to the gasket; and wherein the end-of-stroke system in each position does not interrupt the feeding channel and thus does not prevent the gaseous fuel from flowing along the feeding channel towards the injection nozzle passing alongside the end-of-stroke system as recited in lines 26-35 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “according to one of claim 1” should read --according to claim 1.-- Same objection applies to claims 9 and 10. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims1-10 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 1 recites the limitation "which is arranged at the injection valve to obtain the valve seat" in line 20. It appears to be idiomatically and/or grammatically incorrect.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "…is arranged at an axial distance, namely measured along the longitudinal axis, other than zero from the gasket to be farther from the injection nozzle with respect to the gasket" in lines 27-30. It appears to be idiomatically and/or grammatically incorrect. Especially it is unclear what is the meaning of “other than zero from the gasket?”
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the stroke of the needle" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “bulb-like shape” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “bulb-like shape” 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. Modern LED bulb comes with various shape and geometry, the exact size, shape or geometry to meet the claim limitation is not known. Clarification is respectfully requested.
The term “adjacent” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “adjacent” 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 closeness to meet the claim limitation is not known. Clarification is respectfully requested.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohlhafer (DE102014224340).
With respect to claim 1, Ohlhafer discloses a fuel injector (Fig. 1-4) for a gaseous fuel and comprising: an injection nozzle (1); a support body (7) with a tubular shape, which has a longitudinal axis (X) and is provided therein with a feeding channel (11) ending in the injection nozzle; an injection valve (2 and 6) configured to adjust the gaseous fuel flow through the injection nozzle and provided with a movable shutter (10 or bottom disk end of 2) arranged outside the support body and with a valve seat (22); an actuator ([0020]), configured to move the shutter between a closed position of the injection valve (Fig. 1, 3), in which the shutter is pressed against the valve seat, and an open position of the injection valve (Fig. 2, 4), in which the shutter is separate from the valve seat to create a passage opening (3) through which the gaseous fuel flows; a needle (2) which supports the shutter; an elastomeric material gasket (6), which is arranged at the injection valve to obtain the valve seat and comes into contact with the shutter in the closed position of the injection valve; and an end-of-stroke system (4/3, [0027]), which determines (controls or limits) the closed position and is separate from and independent of the gasket; wherein the end-of-stroke system is coupled to the needle and is arranged at an axial distance, namely measured along the longitudinal axis, other than zero from the gasket to be farther from the injection nozzle with respect to the gasket; and wherein the end-of-stroke system in each position does not interrupt the feeding channel and thus does not prevent the gaseous fuel from flowing along the feeding channel towards the injection nozzle passing alongside the end-of-stroke system.
With respect to claim 2, Ohlhafer discloses the fuel injector according to claim 1, wherein the end-of-stroke system is calibrated (designed) so that, in the closed position, the shutter is in contact with the gasket and elastically compresses the gasket (Fig. 1, 3).
With respect to claim 3, Ohlhafer discloses the fuel injector according to claim 1, wherein the end-of-stroke system is configured to (capable of) stop a movement of the shutter regardless of the contact of the shutter against the gasket which defines the valve seat.
With respect to claim 4, Ohlhafer discloses the fuel injector according to claim 1, wherein the end-of-stroke system comprises a first abutment member (at 21) integral with the needle, and a second abutment member (lower end of 7), which is integral with the support body, faces the first abutment member and comes into contact with the first abutment member to stop the movement of the needle (Fig. 1, 3).
With respect to claim 5, Ohlhafer discloses the fuel injector according to claim 4, wherein the two members of the end-of-stroke system are arranged inside the feeding channel and occupy only partially the feeding channel so that in each position the fuel is free to flow along the feeding channel towards the injection nozzle passing alongside the end- of-stroke system (same configuration as the Applicant’s invention).
With respect to claim 9, Ohlhafer discloses the fuel injector according to claim 1, wherein the shutter is arranged on the outside of the support body and, in order to shift from the closed position to the open position of the injection valve, it moves towards the outside of the support body in a same direction of movement as a fuel feeding direction (same configuration as the Applicant’s invention).
With respect to claim 10, Ohlhafer discloses the fuel injector according to claim 1, wherein the end-of-stroke system is not adjacent to the gasket (relative to the gap between bottom of 7 and 21).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohlhafer in view of Shi (GB2613396).
With respect to claims 6 and 7, Ohlhafer discloses the fuel injector according to claim 1, except for wherein: the actuator comprises a closing spring configured to push the shutter towards the closed position; and the end-of-stroke system is configured to stop the stroke of the needle pushed by the closing spring (Claim 6), and wherein the stroke of the needle, which moves due to the thrust exerted by the closing spring, does not stop because of the contact between the shutter and the gasket, but it stops because of the contact occurring in the end-of-stroke system (Claim 7).
However, Shi teaches a fuel injector (Figs. 1-11) comprising an actuator (26) comprises a closing spring (50) configured to push the shutter (42 of 40) towards the closed position; and the end-of-stroke system (44) is configured to (capable of) stop the stroke of the needle (24) pushed by the closing spring (Claim 6), and wherein the stroke of the needle, which moves due to the thrust exerted by the closing spring, does not stop because of the contact between the shutter and the gasket (seat 34), but it stops because of the contact occurring in the end-of-stroke system (Claim 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a closing spring, as taught by Shi, to Ohlhafer’s actuator, in order to constantly close the passage (page 9, third paragraph and Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 8, Ohlhafer discloses the fuel injector according to claim 1, wherein the shutter has a (flat) bulb-like shape and comprises: an initial (upper) portion which is coupled to the valve seat and has, along the longitudinal axis, a progressively increasing outer diameter; an intermediate (middle) portion having, along the longitudinal axis, a constant outer diameter; and an end (lower) portion,
Ohlhafer fails to disclose the end portion, which is closer to the injection nozzle and has, along the longitudinal axis, a progressively decreasing outer diameter.
However, Shi teaches a fuel injector (Figs. 1-11) comprising a shutter (40) has a bulb-like shape (Fig. 3) and comprises: an initial (upper) portion which is coupled to the valve seat and has, along the longitudinal axis, a progressively increasing outer diameter; an intermediate (middle) portion having, along the longitudinal axis, a constant outer diameter; and an end (lower) portion, which is closer to the injection nozzle and has, along the longitudinal axis, a progressively decreasing outer diameter.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a bulb-like shape shutter, as taught by Shi, to Ohlhafer’s shutter, in order to provide a specific passage to the spraying fuel (page 12 and Fig. 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to show the art with respect to a fuel injector: Neitz, Yanagihara, Rynhart, Potz, Fuseya, Beck, Coldren, Kappel, Tian, Fochtman, Stier, Borissov and Wing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 July 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights