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 .
Status of the Application
This Office action is in response to the amendment of March 16, 2026 which canceled claims 1-15 and added new claims 16-29; and amended the first paragraph of the specification.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the status of the parent application should be updated in the first paragraph of the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 16, 26 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Schneider (USPN 5,701,873).
With regards to claim 16 Schneider discloses a high-pressure fuel pump (note the abstract) comprising: a housing (138, see Fig. 4); a camshaft assembly (110) disposed through the housing, the camshaft assembly having an offset lobe (113) and a cam ring (114) encircling the offset lobe; a first modular barrel unit coupled to a first side (top) of the housing; and any one of a passive inlet metering valve (119a, 134), an active inlet metering valve, and a hybrid active inlet metering valve coupled to the housing, wherein the first modular barrel unit includes: a module body (133a) defining: a first opening (129a, 134a; labeled in annotated Fig. 4) configured to receive an inlet valve (134, see Fig. 4), a second opening (labeled in annotated Fig. 4 below) configured to receive a plunger (117), a channel (labeled in the annotated Fig. 4 below) configured to house an outlet check valve (118), and a modular pathway (labeled in the annotated Fig. 4) configured to align with at least one fuel pathway (labeled in annotated Fig. 4) of the housing of the high pressure pump; a plunger disposed in the second opening; and an outlet check valve (118) disposed within the channel.
With regards to claim 26 Scheiner discloses the high-pressure fuel pump of claim 16, further comprising a second modular barrel unit (labeled in annotated Fig. 4) coupled to the housing (labeled in annotated Fig. 4) on a second side (bottom) of the housing opposite from the first side, the first modular barrel unit and the second modular barrel unit are positioned within a first common plane (i.e., the plane of Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
658
615
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 29 Schneider discloses a modular barrel unit (labeled 1st barrel unit in annotated Fig. 4) comprising: a module body (133a) defining: a first opening (labeled in annotated Fig. 4) configured to receive an inlet valve (labeled in annotated Fig. 4) of at least one of a passive inlet (134) metering valve, an active inlet metering valve, and a hybrid active inlet metering valve; a second opening (labeled in annotated Fig. 4) configured to receive a plunger (117); a channel (labeled in annotated Fig. 4) configured to house an outlet check valve (118); and a modular pathway (labeled in annotated Fig. 4) configured to align with at least one fuel pathway (labeled in annotated Fig. 4) of a high-pressure fuel pump; a plunger (117) disposed within the second opening; and an outlet check valve (118) disposed within the channel.
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) 17, 18, 19, 22, 23 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheiner in view of Rosu et al (USPN 8,181,564).
As set forth above, Schneider discloses the fuel pump of claims 16 and 26 including the barrel axis having axis (claim 17) and the plungers having axis (claims 18, 28). The corresponding barrels and plungers have coaxial axis. With regards to claim 19 there are springs (135) biasing the plungers against the cam shaft assembly as claimed. The camshaft assembly includes a centerline point (C, claims 22 and 23). Schneider does not disclose the barrel axes; the plunger axes and the centerline axis all being offset relative to one another.
Rosu et al in Fig. 2 discloses a similar high pressure fuel pump including first (208a) and second (208b) barrel units, first and second plungers (201) and a crankshaft (204) having a centerline (labeled in annotated Fig. 4).
At the time of the effective filing date of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a housing that mounts the barrels and plungers offset to the camshaft centerline, as taught by Rosu et al, instead of a housing that mounts the barrels, plungers and centerline in alignment, as taught in Schneider, since offset and aligned modular pump units are recognized as equivalence for their use in the fuel pumping art and selection of either of these known equivalents to pump fuel by actuating the plungers would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art (Note MPEP 2144.06).
Claim(s) 20, 21, 24, 25 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider in view of Rosu et al as applied to claims 17, 22 and 26 above, and further in view of Gaessler et al (USPN 6,4976,216).
As set forth above Schneider in view of Rosu et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed and Schneider additionally teaches that there may be third and fourth barrel units mounted in a same plane that is different than the same plane the first and second barrel units are mounted in (see Fig. 5). Schneider et al in view of Rosu et al do not teach that the third and fourth barrel units are mounted on third and fourth sides of the housing and offset relative to one another.
Gaessler et al discloses in Fig. 2 a fuel pump including multiple barrel units and plungers 3, 5 evenly spaced and arranged in two planes.
At the time of the effective filing date of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the third and fourth barrel units of Schneider be rotated 90 degrees to be evenly spaced relative to the first and second barrel units, as taught by Gaessler et al, instead of all the barrel units being mounted to extend from the first and second side of the pump since equally spaced and adjacently spaced barrel units are recognized as equivalence for their use in the multi-cylinder fuel pumping art and selection of either of these known equivalents to organize four barrel units would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art (Note MPEP 2144.06). Further it would have been obvious to make the axis of the barrels and plungers be offset relative to one another for the same reasons it would have been obvious to make the first and second barrel units be offset to one another in the rejections of claims 17, 22 and 26 above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 16-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19, note especially claims1-3, 7, 14, 16 and 17, of U.S. Patent No. 12,631,164. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are all broader versions of the claims of the patent. Specifically, the limitations of claims 16, 17, 20 and 21 are all present in claim 1 of the ‘164 patent. The limitations of claim 18 are present in claim 2 of the ‘164 patent. The limitations of claim 19 are present in claim 3 of the ‘164 patent. The limitations of claims 22-25 are present in claim 7 of the ‘164 patent. The limitations of claim 16 and 26 are present in claim 14 of the ‘164 patent. The limitations of claim 27 are present in claim 16 of the ‘164 patent. The limitations of claim 128 are present in claim 17 of the ‘164 patent. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art having possession of the claims in the ‘164 patent would also have possession of the claims in the instant application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES G FREAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4827. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8:00 - 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, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469)295-9278. 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.
/CHARLES G FREAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
CGF
September 29, 2026
