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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 31 July 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 31 July 2026 have been fully considered. However, these arguments are moot in view of the of the following rejection directed to Usui (US 4913119) which is provided in order to fully consider the 15 newly submitted Claims.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 attaching a fitting having a rail connector geometry, the fitting being connected to the fuel line in a materially integral manner from Claim 12 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
Claims 2-5, 7, 11-12, 14 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 2 “the configured rail connectors” should likely read “the configured plurality of rail connectors”.
In Claim 3 “the fuel line” should likely read “the at least one fuel line”.
In Claim 4 “the fuel line” should likely read “the at least one fuel line”.
In Claim 5 “the fuel line” should likely read “the at least one fuel line”.
In Claim 7 “the fuel line” should likely read “the at least one fuel line”.
In Claim 11, lines 2 and 4 “the fuel line” should likely read “the at least one fuel line”.
In Claim 12 “the fuel line” should likely read “the at least one fuel line”.
In Claim 14 “the fuel line” should likely read “the at least one fuel line”.
In Claim 20 “the fuel line” should likely read “the at least one fuel line”.
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.
Claims 1-20 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 “the provided fuel line” in line 5. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if this fuel line is one of the at least one fuel lines from line 3 or another fuel line. Therefore, this limitation is unclear. For purposes of examination, the fuel line will be interpreted as referring to “the provided at least one fuel line”.
Additionally, Claim 1 recites “the fuel line” in lines 6 and 8. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if this is a fuel line from the at least one fuel line or from the provided fuel line of line 5. Therefore, this limitation is unclear. For purposes of examination, the fuel line will be interpreted as referring to “the at least one fuel line”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the semi-finished product is a semi- finished product that completely encloses the fuel line”. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if the semi-finished product is the same as or different from a semi-finished product. For purposes of examination Claim 5 will be interpreted as “wherein the semi-finished product completely encloses the fuel line”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "each front end" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the rail connectors” in line 3. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if the rail connectors are the plurality of rail connectors or the at least three rail connectors. For purposes of examination, they will be interpreted as being the at least three rail connectors.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “oscillating the forming tools at a high frequency and a small stroke”. The terms “high” and “small” in claim 11 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term terms “high” and “small” are 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. Therefore, it is unclear what frequency is “high” and what stroke is “small”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “attaching the semi-finished product comprises attaching a fitting having a rail connector geometry, the fitting being connected to the fuel line in a materially integral manner”. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear what the fitting is and how the fitting relates to the rail connectors. Claim 4 from which Claim 12 depends recites where the rail connectors are configured by attaching a semi-finished product to the fuel line and claim 1 recites where the rail connector is integral to the fuel line. Therefore it is unclear how the semi-finished product is both the fitting and the rail connector and/or how they are both integrally attached to the fuel line.
Claims not specifically referenced are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
(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) 1-2, 4-5, 9, 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Usui (US 4913119).
Regarding Claim 1, Usui discloses a method for producing a fuel rail (Figure 6; Col 1, lines 5-7) for a pressure vessel system having a plurality of pressure vessels for storing fuel1. The method comprising:
providing at least one fuel line (60 generally in Figure 6);
configuring a plurality of rail connectors (61; with three shown in Figure 6), wherein the plurality of rail connectors have, in each case, a cross-sectional area that is enlarged in comparison to the provided fuel line (Figure 6 shows the cross sectional area of the body 63 is larger than the diameter of the connecting pipes area of the fuel rail at 62), wherein the plurality of rail connectors are configured so as to be integral to the fuel line (Col 1, lines 44-46 disclose where the rail connects are brazed with the pipes to form an integral fuel line; where brazing is interpreted as forming an integral connection since the connection is not meant to be removed or detached), and wherein at least one rail connector of the plurality of rail connectors is configured so as to be spaced apart from ends of the fuel line (Figure 6 where all three rail connectors are spaced apart from the ends of the fuel line).
Regarding Claim 2, Usui discloses configuring rail connector connection holes in the configured rail connectors (Figure 6; the top and bottom openings of body 63 of rail connectors 61 as disclosed at Col 1, lines 41-43).
Regarding Claim 4, Usui discloses where the plurality of rail connectors are configured: [a. by a forming method, and/or b. by an additive method, and/or] c. by attaching a semi-finished product to the fuel line in a materially integral manner (the formed socket 61 is attached to the fuel line via brazing as disclosed at Col 1, lines 44-46).
Regarding Claim 5, Usui discloses where the semi-finished product (61) is a semi-finished product that completely encloses the fuel line (via the lateral opening disclosed at Col 1, lines 41-46).
Regarding Claim 9, Usui discloses where the at least one fuel line is a single fuel line (Figure 6; Col 1, lines 44-46 disclose where the rail connects are brazed with the pipes to form an integral fuel line), and the plurality of rail connectors comprises at least three rail connectors connected to one another by the single fuel line without further sealing points between the rail connectors (Figure 6; Col 1, lines 44-46 disclose where the rail connects are brazed with the pipes to form an integral fuel line).
Regarding Claim 12, Usui discloses where attaching the semi-finished product comprises attaching a fitting having a rail connector geometry (61), the fitting being connected to the fuel line in a materially integral manner (via brazing as disclosed at Col 1, lines 44-46).
Regarding Claim 14, Usui discloses where the rail connector connection holes (the top and bottom openings of body 63 of rail connectors 61 as disclosed at Col 1, lines 41-43) run perpendicularly to a longitudinal axis of the fuel line (Figure 6).
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) 3, 15-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usui (US 4913119) in view of Croteau et al (US 20170299122).
Regarding Claim 3, Usui discloses all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose configuring bent sub-regions in the fuel line, wherein the bent sub-regions are disposed between two rail connectors.
Croteau et al teach a method for producing a fuel rail (Figures 10-12; 150 generally) configuring bent sub-regions in the fuel line (sections 165), wherein the bent sub-regions are disposed between two rail connectors (rail connectors 216; Figures 11-12).
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 line of Usui with the bent sections as taught by Croteau et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (bending a fuel rail section located between two rail connectors) to yield predictable results (to secure the rail connectors together).
Regarding Claim 15, Croteau et al teach where the bent sub-regions, in an installed position thereof, are configured to compensate variations in positions of the plurality of pressure vessels (Figure 11; ¶ 48).
Regarding Claim 16, Croteau et al teach where the bent sub-regions are configured to compensate the variations in positions by elastic deformation (¶ 48).
Regarding Claim 17, Croteau et al teach where the plurality of rail connectors lie on a common axis (Figure 11), and the bent sub-regions at least partially run so as to be spaced apart from the common axis (Figure 11).
Regarding Claim 19, Croteau et al teach where the bent sub-regions are, at least in regions, configured in a meandering or zig-zagging shape (Figure 11).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Usui (US 4913119) in view of Stieler et al (US 9157401).
Regarding Claim 6, Usui discloses all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where each front end of the plurality of rail connectors is configured so as to be substantially in a shape of a spherical segment.
Stieler et al teach a fuel rail (12) and a rail connector (15 generally) where each front end of the plurality of rail connectors is configured so as to be substantially in a shape of a spherical segment (at 52; Col 5, lines 26-28).
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 rial connectors of Usui with the spherical segment as taught by Stieler et al for the advantage providing a constant contact seat between the fuel connector and the seat it attaches to, as taught by Stieler et al (Col 7, lines 11-14).
Regarding Claim 7, Usui discloses all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where the plurality of rail connectors are produced from a same material as the fuel line.
Stieler et al teach a fuel rail (12) and a rail connector (30 generally) where the plurality of rail connectors are produced from a same material as the fuel line (stainless steel as taught in Col 3, lines 65-67 and Col 4, lines 36-38).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the plurality of rail connectors and the fuel line of Usui to be made from the same material since selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a commonly used material that is inexpensive and durable.
Regarding Claim 8, Usui discloses all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose wherein providing the at least one fuel line comprises providing a metal pipe, and the metal pipe is a stainless steel pipe.
Stieler et al teach providing the at least one fuel line comprises providing a metal pipe (Figure 1; Col 3, lines 65-67), and the metal pipe is a stainless steel pipe (Col 3, lines 65-67).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the plurality of rail connectors and the fuel line of Usui to be made from the same material since selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a commonly used material that is inexpensive and durable.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usui (US 4913119) in view of Janzen et al (US 20140020228).
Regarding Claim 10, Usui discloses all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where the forming method comprises rotary swaging.
Jansen et al teach a pipe segment (Figure 1) formed by rotary swaging (¶ 15).
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 rail of Usui with the forming method comprising rotary swaging as taught by Jansen et al for the advantage of use of known technique to improve similar devices (using rotary swaging to form a pipe segment) in the same way.
Regarding Claim 11, Janzen et al teaches where the rotary swaging comprises disposing forming tools concentrically about the fuel line (Figure 2, where Usui discloses the fuel line (60 generally) with the corresponding component being the pipe 2 of Janzen et al) and oscillating the forming tools at a high frequency and a small stroke (¶ 15), with relative rotation occurring between the forming tools and the fuel line (thus resulting in rotary swaging taught in ¶ 15).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usui (US 4913119) in view of Asada (US 6050611).
Regarding Claim 13, Usui discloses all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where the rail connector connection holes are configured by boring.
Asada teaches a fuel rail (Figure 1) with holes formed by boring (Col 4, line 54).
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 rail of Usui with the forming method comprising boring as taught by Asada for the advantage of use of known technique to improve similar devices (using boring to create a hole within a pipe) in the same way.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Usui (US 4913119) in view of Croteau et al (US 20170299122).
Regarding Claim 18, Usui, as modified by Croteau et al teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly teach where at least one portion of the bent sub-regions runs perpendicularly to the common axis and is at least 4 cm in length.
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 bent sub-regions to be perpendicular to the common axis since a change in shape of an element involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a shape that easily allows for fluid connection to another rail connector or routes the rail around other critical areas to provide access to those areas. Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality that having the bent sub-regions run perpendicular to the common axis, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bent sub-region of Croteau et al at least 4 cm in length since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentable distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A): Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). In the instant case, the bent sub-region of Croteau et al would not operate differently with the claimed length dimensions since the bent sub-region of Croteau et al function in the same manner as the inventor’s disclosed bent sub-regions.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usui (US 4913119) in view of Croteau et al (US 20170299122) in further view of Göcmen et al (US 20190145363).
Regarding Claim 20, Usui, as modified by Croteau et al teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly teach configuring the bent sub-regions comprises bending the fuel line, and stresses incorporated into the fuel line as a result of the bending are minimized by a thermal treatment.
Göcmen et al teach a pipeline (Figure 1) with bent sub-regions (2) and comprises bending the fuel line, and stresses incorporated into the fuel line as a result of the bending are minimized by a thermal treatment (¶ 26).
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 rail of Usui, as modified by Croteau et al with the forming method comprising thermal treatment as taught by Göcmen et al for the advantage of use of known technique to improve similar devices (using cold deformation to bend a pipe) in the same way.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the attached PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE GARDNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-4PM 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, KENNETH RINEHART (571-272-4881) or CRAIG SCHNEIDER (571-272-3607) can be reached by telephone. 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.
/NICOLE GARDNER/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
1 The recitation “for a pressure vessel system having a plurality of pressure vessels for storing fuel” has not been given patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
Prosecution Insights