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 .
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) 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bachmaier et al. (6,969,009) in view of Hohl (2004/0079815)
Regarding claim 11, Bachmaier et al. shows a gas injector for injecting a gaseous fuel, comprising: an actuator having an armature (3); a closing element (v) which has a valve needle and is connected to the armature (fig 1, 4), wherein the closing element opens and closes a gas path at a sealing seat (fig 1, 4); a closed lubricant chamber (27) in which the armature is arranged; and a flexible sealing element (14 or 5) which seals the lubricant chamber and makes axial movability of the valve needle possible; wherein the lubricant chamber is filled with a liquid lubricant (6) and a gas (7).
But fails to disclose that the actuator is magnetic.
Hohl teaches a magnetostrictive actuator for a fuel injector [0024]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to replace the actuator of Bachmaier et al. with a magnetostrictive actuator in order to achieve high force density and a large displacement.
Regarding claim 12, wherein the flexible sealing element is a bellows (fig 4) or a membrane.
Regarding claim 13, further comprising a return element (2), wherein the return element is arranged inside the lubricant chamber (fig 2).
Regarding claim 14, comprising a deep-drawn part (9), which is a housing part of the lubricant chamber (fig 2).
Regarding claim 15, wherein the deep-drawn part is canister- shaped and has a central filling opening (8) closed by a closure unit (10).
Regarding claim 16, wherein: (i) the gas in the lubricant chamber is air (7) or carbon dioxide or a noble gas, and/or (ii) the liquid lubricant is oil or perfluoropolyether or a heptane isomer or a nonane.
Regarding claim 19, wherein a volume of the liquid lubricant is greater than a volume of the gas in the lubricant chamber (fig 1, 4).
Regarding claim 20, further comprising: a damper unit (spring 2 can be considered a damper unit) arranged in the lubricant chamber (fig 1).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, the above combination fails to teach wherein the pressure in the lubricant chamber is in a range of 1 to 4 x 105 Pa at 20°C.
The examiner notes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to make the pressure in the lubricant chamber is in a range of 1 to 4 x 105 Pa at 20°C since changing the internal pressure of the chamber would have been an obvious to try variation because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a finite number of identified, predictable conditions (increase pressure, decrease pressure to keep pressure the same), and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in determining an appropriate pressure through routine experimentation optimization.
The proposed modification merely involves selecting an operating pressure of the chamber to obtain a desired chamber function. The claimed pressure therefore represents the optimization of a known parameter for its known purpose rather than a modification producing unexpected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON J BOECKMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-2708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 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 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.
/JASON J BOECKMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 10/8/2026
