DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-12 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 direct injection" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the one hand" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the other hand" in line 3/4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the retaining means" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the outer diameter" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the diameter of the bottom" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the bulge" in line 12/13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The Applicants must revise or clarify the claimed features.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 2, 5 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ISHIZUKA et al. (US 2023/0374962 A1).
Regarding claim 1, ISHIZUKA invention teaches a fuel pump (100) for the direct injection of fuel for internal combustion engines [para. 0002], the fuel pump (100) comprising: a pump body (1), a pumping chamber in which a piston [plunger (2)] is slidingly fitted [Figure 2 illustrates a pumping chamber], a spring (4) bearing on the one hand on the pump body (1) and on the other hand against an end [lower end portion (2c)] of the piston (2) [see Figure 5] projecting out of the pump body (1) via a retaining washer (15) and joining means [Figures 5 and 6 illustrate a joining means] between the retaining washer (15) and the end (2c) of the piston (2), the retaining means [Figures 5 and 6 illustrate a retraining means] comprising a circular groove [portion (2d)] at the end (2c) of the piston (2), the retaining means comprising an aperture [mounting portion (19)] made in the retaining washer (15) allowing the end (2c) of the piston (2) to pass into the aperture (19), and a notch (19a) in the retaining washer (15) accommodated in the circular groove [portion (2d) would be considered as a groove] and joined to the aperture (19) by a slot [portion (19c)] which is narrower than the outer diameter of the piston (2) at the end (2c) but wider than the diameter of the bottom of the groove (2d), the retaining washer (15) comprising a seat (18) having a central axis on which the spring (4) bears, the seat (18) being annular in shape and located in a plane passing through the bulge or located beyond the end (2c) of the piston (2), wherein the retaining washer (15) further comprises a guide crown (17) which is substantially frustoconical in shape and extends along the spring (4) from the seat (18) to center the spring (4) on the retaining washer (15) [Figure 2 illustrates fuel pump configuration and Figures 5-12 illustrate the connection between the retaining washer and the end of piston; and further illustrate the retainer configuration].
Regarding claim 2, as discussed in claim 1, ISHIZUKA invention further teaches wherein the retaining means further comprises an indentation on the retaining washer around the notch in which is accommodated a bulge of the piston between the groove and the end of the piston, a neck at the outlet of the indentation into the slot being of a smaller width than a diameter of the bulge [Figures 5, 7, 9 and 10].
Regarding claim 5, as discussed in claim 1, ISHIZUKA invention further teaches wherein the washer (15) is arranged in the groove (2d) with an axial clearance, the clearance being greater than the depth of the indentation [Figures 5, 7, 9 and 10].
Regarding claim 10, as discussed in claim 1, ISHIZUKA invention further teaches wherein the aperture (19) extends into the relief of the retaining washer (19), from the seat (18), the inner periphery of which it eats into, through the crown (17) and a ring (17) which prolongs the crown towards the central axis (A) and extends in a plane which is elevated relative to the plane of the seat (18) [Figures 5, 7, 9 and 10].
Regarding claim 11, see discussion in claim 1 [retainer (15)].
Regarding claim 12, see discussion in claim 1; further see para. 0048-0050.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 3, 4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISHIZUKA et al.
Regarding claim 3, ISHIZUKA invention discloses the claimed invention except for the indentation has a depth of between 0.05 and 1mm.
Regarding to the configuration of the indentation, notes Figures 6 and 10, ISHIZUKA illustrates the retainer (15) includes the indentation; It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a depth of between 0.05-1mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, there is nothing in the record which establishes that the claimed parameters present a novel or unexpected result, and such modification, i.e. choosing from a finite number of predictable solutions, is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (April 30, 2007)).
Regarding claim 4, as discussed and motivated in claim 3, ISHIZUKA invention also obvious to be considered that the indentation has a depth of between 0.3 and 0.4 mm.
Regarding claim 6, ISHIZUKA invention discloses the claimed invention except for the frustoconical crown has a cone angle between an axis (A) of the cone and a generatrix of between 200 and 300.
Notes Figure 6, ISHIZUKA illustrates the retainer (15) includes the frustoconical crown; It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a cone angle for the frustoconical crown which is between 200 and 300, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, there is nothing in the record which establishes that the claimed parameters present a novel or unexpected result, and such modification, i.e. choosing from a finite number of predictable solutions, is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (April 30, 2007)).
Regarding claim 7, ISHIZUKA invention discloses the claimed invention except for a ratio of a diameter of the retaining washer (15) to a thickness of the washer by the seat is between 10 and 20.
Notes Figures 6-10, ISHIZUKA illustrates the retainer (15) which would have been well-known to have provided the ratio of a diameter of the retaining washer (15) to a thickness of the washer by the seat is between 10 and 20; It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a ratio of 10 and 20 therebetween, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, there is nothing in the record which establishes that the claimed parameters present a novel or unexpected result, and such modification, i.e. choosing from a finite number of predictable solutions, is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (April 30, 2007)).
Regarding claim 8, as discussed and motivated in claim 7, ISHIZUKA invention also well-known to include the ratio of the diameter of the retaining washer to the diameter of the piston is between 3 and 5.
Regarding claim 9, ISHIZUKA invention discloses the claimed invention except for the ratio of a diameter of the piston (2) to a diameter of the bottom of the circular slot is between 1.4 and 1.7.
Notes Figures 6-10, ISHIZUKA illustrates the retainer (15) which would have been well-known to have provided the ratio of a diameter of the piston (2) to a diameter of the bottom of the circular slot is between 1.4 and 1.7; It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a ratio of a 1.4 and 1.7 therebetween, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, there is nothing in the record which establishes that the claimed parameters present a novel or unexpected result, and such modification, i.e. choosing from a finite number of predictable solutions, is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (April 30, 2007)).
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHNNY H HOANG whose telephone number is (571) 272-4843. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday [Maxi-Flex].
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, Logan Kraft can be reached on (571) 270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
August 26, 2026
/JHH/
/Johnny H. Hoang/
Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LOGAN M KRAFT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747
