Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 17, 2026
Application No. 18/958,273

FUEL DELIVERY SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SPARK IGNITED ENGINES OF WORK VEHICLES

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Nov 25, 2024
Priority
Jan 31, 2024 — provisional 63/627,146
Examiner
HOLBROOK, TEUTA BAJRAMOVIC
Art Unit
3747
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Deere & Company
OA Round
2 (Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
7m
Est. Remaining
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allowance Rate
461 granted / 639 resolved
+2.1% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
669
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§103
48.2%
+8.2% vs TC avg
§102
28.6%
-11.4% vs TC avg
§112
20.1%
-19.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 639 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION This office action is a reply to the amendment dated May 29, 2026. Claims 1, 3, 7, 15, 17 and 19 have been amended; and, claims 7-14 have been withdrawn due to a restriction requirement. Claims 1-6 and 15-20 remain pending in this application. 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) 1, 2, 4-6, 15, 16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Channing (US 5,887,572), in view of Duerrwaechater et al. (US 2017/0218893 A1), hereafter Duerrwaechater. Regarding claims 1 and 15, Channing discloses a fuel delivery system (10, Fig. 1) for a work vehicle, the fuel deliver system comprising: a fuel tank (12) operable to store fuel therein; a primary fuel pump (16); a fuel regulator device (70) operatively connected with the primary fuel pump by a primary fuel deliver line (32); and a fuel cooler device (28) operatively coupled with the fuel regulator device by a fuel bypass line (98) and with the fuel tank by a fuel return line (46), wherein the fuel regulator device is operable to: receive unregulated supply fuel delivered to the fuel regulator device from the primary fuel pump via the primary fuel delivery line (shown in Figs. 2-6; unregulated fuel port 64) ; control a property of a portion of the unregulated supply fuel received from the primary fuel pump for output from the fuel regulator device as regulated fuel (column 4, line 32-53); deliver the regulated fuel via a regulated fuel delivery line to a secondary fuel pump of the work vehicle (22); and deliver to the fuel cooler device as bypass fuel via the fuel bypass line remaining portions of the unregulated supply fuel received by the fuel regulator device that are not delivered to the secondary fuel pump, wherein the fuel cooler device is operable to: receive the bypass fuel delivered to the fuel cooler device from the fuel regulator device via the fuel bypass line (Figs. 3 depicts excess fuel from port 34 passing through pressure regulator via port 76 with open passage toward port 98); cool the bypass fuel received by the fuel cooler device to generate cooled bypass fuel; and deliver the cooled bypass fuel to the fuel tank via the fuel return line (column 4, line 57-66). Channing does not disclose a primary fuel pump disposed in the fuel tank. Duerrwaechater discloses a fuel delivery system for a vehicle wherein a primary fuel pump (12) is disposed in the fuel tank (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the primary fuel pump inside the fuel tank of Channing as taught by Duerrwaechater in order to protect the pump and provide a compact system. Regarding claims 2 and 16, Channing discloses the method wherein: the cooling by the fuel cooler device of the bypass fuel received by the fuel cooler device provides a sole source (line 46) of cooling to any fuel returned to the fuel tank from the fuel delivery system and the work vehicle. Regarding claims 4 and 18, Channing discloses the method wherein: the delivering the regulated fuel comprises delivering the regulated fuel by the fuel regulator device operable to deliver the regulated fuel via the regulated fuel delivery line to the secondary fuel pump of the work vehicle adapted to pressurize the regulated fuel to a working pressure adapted for use by a spark ignited internal combustion engine of the work vehicle (Fig. 1; column 3, line 59-61). Regarding claims 5 and 19, Channing discloses the method further comprising: controlling a pressure of the unregulated supply fuel by the fuel regulator device to control a pressure of the unregulated supply fuel received from the primary fuel pump for output from the fuel regulator device to the secondary fuel pump of the work vehicle via the regulated fuel delivery line as the regulated fuel (column 1, line 5-8; Fig. 1 and Fig. 2). Regarding claims 6 and 20, Channing discloses the method further comprising: controlling a flow rate of the unregulated supply fuel by the fuel regulator device to control a flow rate of the unregulated supply fuel received from the primary fuel pump for output from the fuel regulator device to the secondary fuel pump of the work vehicle via the regulated fuel delivery line as the regulated fuel (column 5, line 45-63). Claim(s) 3 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Channing (US 5,887,572), in view of Duerrwaechater et al. (US 2017/0218893 A1), and in further view of Tuschl et al. (DE 19619934), hereafter Tuschl. Regarding claims 3 and 17, Channing as modified with Duerrwaechater is silent to a method wherein: the cooling by the bypass fuel comprises cooling the bypass fuel using an external flow of air passing over a portion of the fuel cooler device. Tuschl discloses a fuel cooler (16, Fig. 3) using an external flow of air passing over a portion of the fuel cooler device. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the fuel cooler of Tuschl in the system of Channing in order to cool the fuel through the bypass line. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed May 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “Channing is directed to a fuel delivery system that conditions fuel such as by filtering the fuel before delivering the filtered fuel to an injector pump or the like of a vehicle.” And, “Channing fails to disclose the combination of features as set out in claim 1 including and without limitation the features of a fuel regulator device operable to deliver to a fuel cooler device as bypass fuel via a fuel bypass line remaining portions of unregulated supply fuel received by the fuel regulator device that are not delivered to a secondary fuel pump, and a fuel cooler device operable to receive the bypass fuel delivered to the fuel cooler device from the fuel regulator device via the fuel bypass line, cool the bypass fuel received by the fuel cooler device to generate cooled bypass fuel, and deliver the cooled bypass fuel to a fuel tank of a work vehicle via a fuel return line.” Pages 13-14. In response to applicant's argument that Channing is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this instance, and further explained in the rejection above, Channing discloses a fuel regulator device 70 that received unregulated fuel through port 34 and further through passage 76 and through the open ports 98 and 48. Channing further discloses: “It should be noted that cooler inlet port 98 may be formed in housing 60, which communicates with port 96 and return outlet port 48, should a cooler be used in system 10.” (Column 4, line 63-66). 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 TEUTA B HOLBROOK whose telephone number is (571)270-3276. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-4:30pm 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, LINDSAY LOW can be reached at 571-272-1196. 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. /TEUTA HOLBROOK/ Examiner Art Unit 3747 /GEORGE C JIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 25, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
May 29, 2026
Response Filed
Jul 14, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12704104
FUEL PRESSURE ACCUMULATING DEVICE
2y 9m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12704087
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DIAGNOSING THERMOSTAT FAULT OF ENGINE COOLING SYSTEM
1y 10m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12674431
ENGINE
1y 11m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12662976
PROFILED COVER PLATE FOR A PISTON
2y 6m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12631158
FUEL GAS HEATING SYSTEM
2y 4m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+26.4%)
2y 3m (~7m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 639 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month