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 .
This is in response to the correspondence filed on 3/20/2026.
Claims 3, 5 are cancelled by applicant.
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, inter alia, the “two or more hollow fuel injector receivers spaced along, and disposed perpendicular to, the fuel rail assembly“ recited in claim 1, “a deflector member” recited in claim 6, 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 1 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “each hollow fuel injector receiver” in lines 22, and 24, are believed to be in error for – each of the two or more hollow fuel injector receivers --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1: “each two or more hollow fuel injector receiver” in lines 25-26, is believed to be in error for – each of the two or more hollow fuel injector receivers --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14: it is unclear how “a nozzle” relates to “a nozzle” of claim1, and how it relates to “a separate fuel injector” of claim 1 and to “each fuel injector” of claim 1.
Claim 14: “a nozzle” in line 1 is believed to be in error for -- the nozzle --.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 12, and their dependent claims, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1: the limitation “at least one ingress fuel port connected to the second open end of one of the two or more hollow fuel injection receivers for supplying fuel to the interior fuel passage, and at least one egress fuel port connected to the second open end of one of the two or more hollow fuel injection receivers for removing fuel from the interior fuel passage” appears to be new matter, there is no support for the ingress fuel port and the egress fuel port connected to the second open end of one of the two or more hollow fuel injection receivers.
Claim 12: “the interior fuel passage of the fuel rail assembly includes being internally blocked to only permit fuel circulation past the two or more fuel injector receivers between the one fuel injector receiver to which the at least one ingress fuel port connects and the one fuel injector receiver to which the at least one egress fuel port connects” appears to be new matter, there is no support for the ingress fuel port and the egress fuel port connected to one fuel injection receiver.
Claim 1: the recitation “a separate fuel injector connected to, and in fluid communication with, the open end of each of the two or more hollow fuel injector receivers” does not appear to be supported by the Specification, a single fuel injector connected to two or more fuel injector receivers does not appear to be present in the Specification.
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 1, 6, 7, 12, 14, and their dependent claims, 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: in “a separate fuel injector connected to, and in fluid communication with, the open end of each of the two or more hollow fuel injector receivers”, it is unclear if “the open end” is the same as “a first open end” recited earlier in the claim, or a different open end.
Claim 1: “a fuel supply receiver having a second diameter disposed around the inlet pipe”, it is unclear if the whole fuel supply receiver has a second diameter, or, if the “second diameter” refers to a portion around the inlet pipe, or something else.
Claim 1: “the central longitudinal axis of each hollow fuel injector receiver being perpendicular to the exterior of the fuel rail assembly”, it is unclear what is used as a reference to determine the perpendicular direction of the exterior surface of the fuel rail assembly.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the central longitudinal axis of each hollow fuel injector receiver” in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1: in “a separate fuel injector connected to, and in fluid communication with, the open end of each of the two or more hollow fuel injector receivers”, it is unclear how a separate fuel injector is connected with both of the two or more hollow fuel injector receivers.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “each fuel injector” in “a fuel deflector means associated with each fuel injector for deflecting fuel from an associated fuel injector”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1: in “a fuel deflector means associated with each fuel injector for deflecting fuel from an associated fuel injector”, it is unclear how “an associated fuel injector” relates to “each fuel injector” recited earlier in the same sentence and how these relate to “a separate fuel injector” recited earlier in line 28.
Claim 1: in “at least one ingress fuel port connected to the second open end of [[a]] one of the two or more hollow fuel injection receivers for supplying fuel to the interior fuel passage, and at least one egress fuel port connected to the second open end of [[a]] one of the two or more hollow fuel injection receivers for removing fuel from the interior fuel passage”, it is unclear if “one of the two or more hollow fuel injector receivers” in lines 33-34 is the same as the “one of the two or more hollow fuel injector receivers” of line 36-37, and if they are the same, it is further unclear how at least one ingress fuel port and at least one egress fuel port connected are both connected to the second open end of the one of the two or more hollow fuel injection receivers.
Claim 6: in the recitation “each fuel deflector means”, it is unclear if it relates to “a fuel deflector means” recited in claim 1.
Claim 6: recites the limitation “the associated fuel injector”, it is unclear if it relates to “a separate fuel injector” of claim 1
Claim 7: recites the limitation “a fuel injector”, it is unclear if it relates to “a separate fuel injector” of claim 1, it is unclear if it relates to “the associated fuel injector” of claim 6.
Claim 12: recites the limitation “one fuel injector receivers”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12: in “the one fuel injector receiver to which the at least one ingress fuel port connects and the one fuel injector receiver to which the at least one egress fuel port connects”, it is unclear if “one fuel injector receiver” in line 3 is the same as the “one fuel injector receiver” of line 4, and if they are the same, it is further unclear how at least one ingress fuel port and at least one egress fuel port connected are both connected to the one fuel injection receiver.
Claim 14: it is unclear how “an associated fuel injector” relates to “an associated fuel injector” of claim1, and how it relates to “a separate fuel injector” of claim 1 and to “each fuel injector” of claim 1.
Claim 14: it is unclear how “a nozzle” relates to “a nozzle” of claim1, and how it relates to “a separate fuel injector” of claim 1 and to “each fuel injector” of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 and its dependent claims could be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 1, prior art fails to teach the following exact combination and relationship between the limitations, in combination with the
other limitations of the claim:
a separate fuel injector connected to, and in fluid communication with, the open end of each of the two or more hollow fuel injector receivers
at least one ingress fuel port connected to the second open end of [[a]] one of the two or more hollow fuel injection receivers for supplying fuel to the interior fuel passage,
and at least one egress fuel port connected to the second open end of [[a]] one of the two or more hollow fuel injection receivers for removing fuel from the interior fuel passage.
The closest prior art is Maqbool in view of Daniau and Rene. However, Maqbool in view of Daniau and Rene does not teach, in combination with the other limitations of claim 1, the exact combination of limitations of the invention as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but they are not persuasive. However, to the extent possible, applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the body of the rejections above, at the appropriate location.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) rejections do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues on page 10, regarding the drawings:
PNG
media_image1.png
599
959
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response: Examiner respectfully disagree that one of ordinary skill in the art would read the word “boss” in the specification and readily interpret it as being a “fuel injector receiver”; furthermore, the limitation “perpendicular” depends on a different element for the fuel injector receiver to be perpendicular to, and the specification and figures do not clearly indicate this relationship (i.e., it is unclear what is perpendicular to what, it is unclear how it is determined if something is perpendicular to something else and what measurements and parameters are used to make such determination), the absence of any clear label on the figures of which point to the exact features considered to be the hollow fuel injector receivers, it is not possible to establish a clear relationship between the positions of the elements.
Applicant argues on page 11, regarding the drawings:
PNG
media_image2.png
133
952
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response: there are no labels in the figures indicating which feasure is the ‘deflector member”.
Applicant argues on page 16:
PNG
media_image3.png
169
971
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response: As claimed, the diameters being considered for each element and their measurements is broad and can be interpreted in different ways, with different possible interpretations of points of reference.
Applicant argues on page 17:
PNG
media_image4.png
610
947
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response: as previously claimed, the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims would lead one of ordinary skill to understand that the previously used prior art reads on the previous set of claims. Regarding the amended claims, see the pages above.
Applicant argues on page 18:
PNG
media_image5.png
80
953
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response: Applicant does not provide an explanation of why the element 3 of Daniau is not a fuel rail assembly. An argument by the applicant is not evidence unless it is an admission, in which case, an examiner may use the admission in making a rejection. See MPEP § 2129 and § 2144.03 for a discussion of admissions as prior art.
Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of applicant statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration.
Applicant argues on page 19:
PNG
media_image6.png
177
932
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response: The set of claims examined by the previous office action did not include positive limitations regarding the increase or decrease in size outside the combustion chamber, the prior art used in the rejection read on those claims.
Applicant argues on page 21:
PNG
media_image7.png
366
923
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Rene teaches the limitations of the fuel deflector means as discussed in the previous rejection, the fuel deflector means as indicated in annotated Image provided in the previous office action addressed the limitations, as claimed.
Applicant argues on pages 23-24:
PNG
media_image8.png
204
963
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Using the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations as presented in the previous set of claims, the prior art taught the limitations as discussed in the previous rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Roberto T. Igue whose telephone number is (303)297-4389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at (571) 270-5426. 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.
/ROBERTO TOSHIHARU IGUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/PHUTTHIWAT WONGWIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights