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 .
Claims 1 – 16 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jehle et al. (US 6,155,236) and in view of Wood et al. (US 5,348,229).
Regarding Claim 1:
Jehle et al. teaches an injection valve (9) for liquid fuels or gaseous fuels for installation in a cylindrical receptacle (3) of a cylinder head (1), wherein the injection valve has a body component (10) with an outer circumferential recess (11).
Jehle et al. is silent to the injection valve, together with the cylindrical receptacle of the cylinder head forms an inlet path configured as an annular space for a fuel. Jehle et al. however, teaches the nozzle injection is for fuel and is injected into the combustion chamber which forms a fuel path and space.
Wood et al. teaches a well known and art established fuel injector inserted into a receptacle comprising an inlet path configured as an annular space for a fuel (via 12 and 16, Fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the inlet and annular space of Wood et al. in order to deliver fuel to a combustion chamber for combustion.
Regarding Claim 2:
Jehle et al. is silent to the inlet path is continued upstream and downstream of the recess as an internal inlet channel.
However, Wood et al. teaches the inlet path is continued upstream and downstream of the recess as an internal inlet channel (16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the inlet and annular space of Wood et al. in order to deliver fuel to a combustion chamber for combustion.
Regarding Claim 3:
Jehle et al. is silent to the inlet path is divided, at least in sections, into at least two substantially parallel-guided paths.
However, Wood et al. teaches the inlet path is divided, at least in sections, into at least two substantially parallel-guided paths (Fig 1, along 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the inlet and annular space of Wood et al. in order to deliver fuel to a combustion chamber for combustion.
Regarding Claim 4:
Jehle et al. is silent to the injection valve has at least one external sealing ring.
However, Wood et al. teaches an o-ring as a sealing ring (Col 2 line 52 – 56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the o-ring of Wood et al. in the injection valve of Jehle et al. in order to seal the valve into the cylinder head.
Regarding Claim 5:
Jehle et al. teaches the fuel is a liquid fuel (see abstract).
Regarding Claim 6:
See rejection of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 7:
Jehle et al. teaches the cylindrical receptacle is formed by a water sleeve (2, 7) integrated into the cylinder head, which separates the inlet path configured as an annular space from a cooling water channel (4) formed in the cylinder head.
Regarding Claim 8:
See rejection of Claim 4 above.
Regarding Claim 9:
See rejection of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 10:
Jehle et al. teaches the method to form the cylindrical receptacle and to seal a cooling water channel (4) formed in the cylinder head (1), a water sleeve (2, 7) is inserted into the cylinder head (1) before installing the injection valve (Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 11:
See rejection of Claim 4 above.
Regarding Claim 12:
See rejection of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 13:
See rejection of Claims 2 and 3 above.
Regarding Claim 14:
See rejection of Claim 4 above.
Regarding Claim 15:
The limitations of the claim is considered an intended use and therefore not given patentable weight. However, both Jehle et al. and Wood et al. teach the use of all types of fuel.
Regarding Claim 16:
See rejection of Claim 7 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Page 5 of the Remarks, the Applicant argues that neither Jehle or Wood teaches “an inlet path formed when a body component of an injection nozzle is inserted into a cylindrical receptacle of a cylinder head.” The Examiner disagrees and maintains the rejection. Based on the broad but reasonable interpretation of the claim language, there is no positive recitation of where “an inlet path” is formed. Figure 2 of the Applicant also shows inlet path 2 formed at the top of the injection valve 1 after being inserted into cylinder head 6. Jehle is used to teach a general fuel injection valve having a receptacle for insertion into a cylinder head. Wood is then used to teach the inlet path 12 of which an internal fuel passage 16 forms circumferentially around it. This meets the definition of what is particularly claimed by the Applicant.
In response to applicant's argument that the bodily incorporation between Wood and Jehle, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LONG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1899. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 - 5:00.
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 at 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 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.
/LONG T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights