DETAILED ACTION
Non Final
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS’s submitted on 12/28/2021 and 9/25/2023) are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 1 “an end portion of the conducting wire” the feature is not numerated;
Claim 1 “an inlet of the wire hole” the feature is not numerated;
Claim 7 “a concave-convex structure” the feature is not discloses;
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claims 8-10 are 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 8 recites the limitation "the sealing piece" in line 3. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
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) 1-3, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Connolly (US 5558311); Claims 1-3, 11 (in the alternative) and claims 8-10 (as indefinitely understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connolly and further in view of Fuchs (US 5890928);
Claim(s) 4, 12 ,13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connolly (or in view of Fuchs) as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Just (US 6164266);
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connolly in view of Fuchs as applied to claims 1-3 above;
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connolly in view of Fuchs as applied to claims 1-3 and 6 above, and further in view of Just;
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connolly (or in view of Fuchs) as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Wilson (US 2004/0262558.)
Connolly discloses in claim 1: (see at least annotated figure 4 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
538
792
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A solenoid valve (16 figure 9) coil (at 140), comprising: a solenoid valve coil body (at 100/1420; and a lead wire assembly (at 80 figure 3-5), which comprises a connector (at 106) and a conducting wire (at 40/64/108/110), wherein the connector comprises a wire hole (best seen at 1002), an end portion (at 1004) of the conducting wire extends into the wire hole and is electrically connected (via 108/110 and 148/150) of 142) with the solenoid valve coil body, and the conducting wire and an inlet of the wire hole are sealed (via the nylon resin material of the body 106, Col 4 ln 60-Co 5 ln 5.); If it could be persuasively argued at some future unforeseen date that Connolly does not explicitly disclose: a separate sealing box-like junction housing surface that is molded about the lead wire assembly; Fuchs teaches: a separate sealing box-like junction housing surface (16 figures 1-3) that is molded about the lead wire assembly (11, 12, 14, 17 with multi-conductor cable Col 2 ln 33-38, all for the purpose of reducing moisture and debris entrainment into the assembled electrical connection Col 1 ln 30-35);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Connolly as taught in Fuchs with a separate sealing box-like junction housing surface as taught in Fuchs that is molded about the lead wire assembly of Connolly as taught in Fuchs, all for the purpose of reducing moisture and debris entrainment into the assembled electrical connection.
Connolly discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 2: The solenoid valve coil as claimed in claim 1, wherein the connector comprises a sealing surface (at 111) that is in seal fit with the solenoid valve coil body (when plugged into the socket), the sealing surface is provided with a mounting hole (at 1006 is a sealed hole where if the terminals are removed, the holes remain) communicating with the wire hole, and a conducting piece (108/110 and 148/150) is arranged in the mounting hole, such that the conducting wire is electrically connected with the solenoid valve coil body (when connected.)
Connolly discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 3: The solenoid valve coil as claimed in claim 2, wherein the conducting piece comprises a first plug-in unit (108/110) and a second plug-in unit (148/150), which are plugged with each other, wherein the first plug-in unit (108/110) is electrically connected with the end portion of the conducting wire, and the second plug-in unit is electrically connected with a coil in the solenoid valve coil body (for the purpose of providing electromotive force to the solenoid armature in axial reciprocal fashion.)
Connolly discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claims 4, 12 and 13: wherein the connector is [in-situ] molded (Connolly/Fuchs Col 2 ln 33) on a circumferential outer side of the conducting wire, or, (the use of alternative language invoking an alternative grouping under MPEP 2131) the conducting wire and the inlet of the wire hole are sealed by glue filling. Connolly/Fuchs does not explicitly disclose: injection molding, but Just certainly teaches: using injection molding to create a fluid tight electrical connection to a solenoid valve, Col 4 ln 56-58; Col 6 ln 23-28.)
Accordingly, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to form the connector of Connolly/Fuchs as taught in Just by using injection molding as taught in Just above, for the purpose of creating a fluid tight electrical connection part to a solenoid valve as taught in Just, thus for example reducing the chance of fluid entrainment into the electrical parts and avoiding for example a short.
Connolly discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claims 5 and 14: wherein the connector comprises a junction box (Connolly 106 is a junction box) and a junction box housing (Connolly/Fuchs 16), wherein the junction box housing is provided with the wire hole (Connolly/Fuchs 27 figure 1) and an accommodating groove (inside of 16 at 13/24 that forms a grooved surface for the junction box and wires to be so encased…) communicating with the wire hole, the junction box is arranged in the accommodating groove (as seen Connolly/Fuchs, 11 is surrounded by 16 and is accommodated therein at 24), the mounting hole is arranged on the junction box (as shown at Connolly 1002), and an end face of the junction box housing (at 13/23 of Connolly/Fuchs) provided with the accommodating groove and an outer end face of the junction box (outer end face of 11 along with 18) form the sealing surface (as modified for the purposes as discussed above.)
Connolly discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 6: The solenoid valve coil as claimed in claim 5, wherein the junction box housing is [in-situ] molded on a circumferential outer side of the conducting wire and the junction box, or, (MPEP 2131) the junction boxes is plugged into the junction box housing, and the conducting wire and the inlet of the wire hole on the junction box housing are sealed by glue filling. Connolly/Fuchs does not explicitly disclose: injection molding, but Just certainly teaches: using injection molding to create a fluid tight electrical connection to a solenoid valve, Col 4 ln 56-58; Col 6 ln 23-28.)
Accordingly, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to form the junction box housing of Connolly/Fuchs as taught in Just by using injection molding as taught in Just above, for the purpose of creating a fluid tight electrical connection part to a solenoid valve as taught in Just, thus for example reducing the chance of fluid entrainment into the electrical parts and avoiding for example a short.
Connolly discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 7: The solenoid valve coil as claimed in claim 1, wherein the conducting wire comprises an electric wire, a portion of the connector is a transition portion, wherein an outer surface of the transition portion gradually shrinks inward in a direction from the solenoid valve coil body to the lead wire assembly, or, (MPEP 2131) an outer surface of the transition portion is provided with a concave-convex structure; Connolly does not disclose: a wire sleeve surrounding a circumferential outer side of the electric wire, portion of the connector connected with the wire sleeve is a transition portion; but Wilson discloses: a wire sleeve (at 30/69 figure 5) surrounding a circumferential outer side of the electric wire (90), a portion of the connector (that of 30) connected with the wire sleeve is a transition portion (i.e. transitions narrowly to the lower portion of the sleeve, for the purpose of providing a buttress for stiffness and reduction of material of the part);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide as taught in Wilson for that of Connolly, a wire sleeve as taught in Wilson that surrounds the circumferential outer side of the electric wire as taught in Wilson with a portion of the connector of Connolly as taught in Wilson connected with the wire sleeve as a transition portion, which transitions narrowly to the lower portion of the sleeve, all for the purpose of providing a buttress for stiffness and reduction of material of the part.
Connolly discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 8: The solenoid valve coil as claimed in claim 2, wherein a sealing member (Connolly/Fuchs 18 figure 3) is arranged between the sealing surface of the connector (23 of Connolly/Fuchs) and the solenoid valve coil body (when the contact is made), and the sealing piece is located on a circumferential outer side of the conducting piece (18 is radially outer of the conducting pieces, the radius providing a delimited circumference that is outside the connector.) If it could be persuasively argued at some future unforeseen date that Connolly/Fuchs do not disclose: a cylindrical/circumferential shaped connector; considering that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider providing a circumferential cylindrical shape to fit in a round hole for the purpose of assembly of parts, as a matter of design choice,
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide a cylindrical connector with cylindrical sealing piece to fit into a round hole, for the purpose of providing an assembly of parts that meets socket design requirements and especially, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Connolly discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 9: The solenoid valve coil as claimed in claim 8, wherein the sealing member is a sealing ring (18 as modified is a sealing ring), or, (MPEP 2131) the sealing member is a sealing sheet (18/23 is a elastomeric sheet), and the sealing sheet is provided with an avoidance hole (at 27) for avoiding the conducting piece (12/14.)
Connolly discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 10: The solenoid valve coil as claimed in claim 8, wherein the sealing member comprises a body portion (at 23) and a waterproof rib (at 22), wherein the waterproof rib is arranged on an end face of the body portion facing the solenoid valve coil body (as shown), and/or, (MPEP 2131) the waterproof rib is arranged on an end face of the body portion facing the lead wire assembly.
Connolly discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 11: The solenoid valve coil as claimed in claim 1, wherein the solenoid valve coil body and the connector are connected by a fastener (112/114 per Col 5 ln 7-16 of Connolly where the connector can fasten/latch onto the solenoid valve body.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W JELLETT, whose telephone number is 571-270-7497. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Ken Rinehart can be reached at (571)-272-4881, or Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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.
/Matthew W Jellett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753