Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This Non-final Office Action is in response to the amended claims filed on 8/26/2025.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending.
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 Objections
Claim 15 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
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.
Claim 4 is 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 4 recites the limitation "the pre-chamber spark plug" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lentz et al. (US 3,257,503).
As to claim 1 Lentz discloses a spark plug for a gas engine comprising a seating surface of a tapered shape (figure 3 #42), a first thread (figure 1 #46) and a second thread (figure 1 #20), wherein the seating surface (figure 3 #42) is interposed between the first thread and the second thread.
As to claim 2 Lentz discloses the spark plug according to claim 1, wherein the seating surface has a conical shape (best shown in figure 3).
As to claim 3 Lentz discloses the spark plug according to claim 1, wherein the first thread (figure 1 #46) has a first diameter that is smaller than a second diameter of the second thread (figure 1 #20).
The first thread is internal and the second external giving the external thread a wider diameter.
As to claim 4 Lentz discloses the spark plug according to claim 1, wherein along a longitudinal axis of the pre-chamber spark plug, the first thread and the second thread are arranged in the area of opposing sides of the seating surface. (shown in figure 1)
As to claim 5 Lentz discloses the spark plug according to claim 1, wherein the first thread (figure 1 #26) and the second thread (figure 1 #20) are arranged within a tip portion (figure 1 #12) of the spark plug, wherein in particular the tip portion comprises a pre-combustion chamber (the prechamber is the unnumbered hollow area under #28 within the tip of the sparkplug).
As to claim 7 Lentz discloses a spark plug sleeve (figure 1 #12) for mounting a spark plug according to claim 1 on a gas engine, comprising a further seating surface (figure 1 #36) of a tapered shape, a further first thread (figure 1 #46) and a further second thread (figure 1 #20), wherein the further seating surface is interposed between the further first thread and the further second thread (shown in figure 1).
As to claim 8 Lentz discloses the spark plug sleeve according to claim 7, wherein the further seating surface has a conical shape (shown in figure 1).
As to claim 9 Lentz discloses the spark [[Spark]] plug sleeve according to claim 7,wherein the further first thread (figure 1 #46) has a first diameter (D1) that is smaller than a second diameter (D2) of the further second thread (figure 1 #20).
The first thread is internal and the second external giving the external thread a wider diameter.
As to claim 10 Lentz discloses the spark plug sleeve according claim 7, wherein along a longitudinal axis (L) of the spark plug sleeve (figure 1 #12), the further first thread (figure 1 #46) and the further second thread (figure 1 #20) are arranged in the area of opposing sides of the further seating surface (figure 1 #36, shown in figure 1).
As to claim 11 Lentz discloses the spark plug sleeve (figure 1 #12) according to claim 7, wherein the further first thread (figure 1 #46) and the further second thread (figure 1 #20) are arranged within a tip portion (figure 1 #12) of the spark plug sleeve (the sleeve itself is the tip portion).
As to claim 13 Lentz discloses the spark plug sleeve according to claim 7, further comprising an external thread (figure 1 #20) configured to form a threaded connection between the spark plug sleeve (figure 1 #12) and a cylinder head (not shown ) of the engine.
As to claim 14 Lentz discloses the spark plug sleeve according to claim 13, wherein the further first thread (figure 1 #26) and the external thread (figure 1 #20) overlap in a direction along the longitudinal axis (L) of the spark plug sleeve (figure 1 #12).
As to claim 15 Lentz discloses a spark plug assembly (figure 1), in particular for a gas engine comprising a spark plug according to claim 1 and a spark plug sleeve (figure 1 #12) according to claim 7, wherein the spark plug is received within the spark plug sleeve (shown in figure 1) such that the first thread (figure 1 #26) is engaged with the further first thread (figure 1 #46), the second thread (figure 1 #20) is engaged with the further second thread (the thread of the cylinder head not shown), and that the seating surface (figure 1 # 42) abuts on the further seating surface (figure 1 #36).
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lentz et al. (US 3,257,503).
As to claim 6 Lentz discloses the spark plug according to claim 1, wherein the first thread (figure 1 #26) is arranged at a first distance (d1) from the seating surface (figure 1 #42), wherein the second thread (figure 1 #20) is arranged at a second distance (d2) from the seating surface, however is silent to each one of the first distance (d1) and the second distance (d2) is smaller than a diameter (D1) of the pre-chamber spark plug at the seating surface.
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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 patentably distinct from the prior art device.
In this case the dimensions of the device would not change the operation of the device the dimensions would be changed in order to fit into the cylinder head of the engine.
As to claim 12 Lentz discloses the spark plug sleeve according to claim 7, wherein the further first thread (figure 1 #46) is arranged within a first distance (d1) from the further seating surface (figure 1 #36), wherein the further second thread (figure 1 #20) is arranged at a second distance (d2) from the further seating surface (figure 1 #36), however is silent to each one of the first distance (d1) and the second distance (d2) is smaller than a diameter (D1) of the spark plug sleeve (figure 1 #12) at the further seating surface [[(26b)]].
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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 patentably distinct from the prior art device.
In this case the dimensions of the device would not change the operation of the device the dimensions would be changed in order to fit into the cylinder head of the engine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERMAN D MANLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5539. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7-5:30 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, 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.
SHERMAN D. MANLEY
Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/SHERMAN D MANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/JACOB M AMICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights