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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 2/9/26. These drawings are unacceptable as they appear to be the exact same drawings as before and are not hatched (see below).
AGAIN, new corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because Figs. 1 and 4-8 are cross-sections but do not have proper hatching and is just differentiated by what appears to be grayscaled (lighter or darker grays for different parts). Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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 1 now does not make sense as amended as the applicant claims “wherein the non-ferromagnetic spacer and the ferromagnetic core tube define a uniform thickness along in a radial direction of the ferromagnetic core tube throughout the longitudinal axis”, but the ferromagnetic core tube is never seen as having a uniform thickness as there is a flange as seen to the left side of Fig. 1 that sticks out so does not meet this requirement. This appears to be the case in all of the figures as far as the examiner can tell as the drawings are barely understandable. It appears the applicant needs to abandon this application in lieu of a CIP to fix the multitude of issues in this application.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoppe et al. US 2016/0126043 in view of Graner et al. US 2014/0346383 in view of Matsusaka US 2002/0057153.
Regarding claim 4, Hoppe et al. discloses a solenoid assembly (Figs. 2A-2C) comprising: a ferromagnetic core piece 16, 17 (Figs. 2A-2C and of iron so ferromagnetic [0016]) comprising a radial exterior surface, a longitudinal axis, a first tube portion 17 and a second tube portion 16, the first tube portion having a first radial exterior surface (exterior of 17), and an outer radial surface, the outer radial surface extending between a longitudinal edge and an outer most radial edge, the outer radial surface being radially spaced apart from and substantially parallel to the first radial exterior surface (Figs. 2A-2C), the second tube portion having a second radial interior surface (interior of 16), the second tube portion extending along the longitudinal axis from an end portion to an end, the end of the second tube portion having a radial edge extending outwardly in a radial direction, (Figs. 2A-2C) the first radial exterior surface of the first tube portion being affixed to the second radial interior surface of the second tube portion (Fig. 2A), the ferromagnetic core tube comprising a channel (at 18) disposed between first tube portion and the second tube portion on the radial exterior surface of the ferromagnetic core tube, the channel circumscribing the ferromagnetic core piece along a given portion of the longitudinal axis, the channel comprising a plurality of radial exterior surfaces (areas at ends of 18), wherein the channel defines an air gap (18 is empty thus is an air gap); and an excitation coil 14 disposed radially outward of the first radial exterior surface and radially inward of the outer radial surface of the ferromagnetic core piece (Figs. 2A-2C).
Hoppe lacks the shape of the overall ferromagnetic core piece being a tube. Graner discloses the shape of the ferromagnetic core piece being a tube. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the ferromagnetic core piece of Hoppe to be a tube as disclosed by Graner as a matter of simple substitution of shapes and/or to provide a shape that was easier and cheaper to manufacture.
Hoppe discloses the longitudinal edges of first and second tube being affixed but lacks the radial edge of the second tube portion being affixed to the outer most radial edge of the first tube portion. Matsusaka discloses the radial edge of the second tube portion being affixed to the outer most radial edge of the first tube portion (at 57 and 64). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connection of the edges of Hoppe to be radially as disclosed by Matsusaka instead of longitudinally as a matter of simple substitution of connection directions and/or to provide a stronger connection.
Regarding claim 8, Hoppe lacks a location the first tube portion and the second tube portion with respect to one another is maintained by a (i) face weld between the first tube portion and the second tube portion, (ii) crimping the first tube portion to the second tube portion, (iii) staking the first tube portion to the second tube portion, or (iv) a snap ring removably affixed to the to second tube portion but this is product by process. Matsusaka discloses staking to maintain position of multiple parts. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product in the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to maintain the location of the first and second tube portion of Hoppe by staking as disclosed by Linkner as a matter of simple substitution of connection features and/or to provide a connection that would keep the two pieces in place without needing an adhesive.
Regarding claim 9, Hoppe discloses the first tube portion or the second tube portion is made by machining [0015]. The examiner would like to note that claim 9 is product by process.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoppe et al. US 2016/0126043 in view of Graner et al. US 2014/0346383 in view of Matsusaka US 2002/0057153 in view of Robert Bosch DE 10 2015 224 152 B3.
Regarding claim 7, Hoppe lacks a location of the first tube portion and the second portion with respect to one another is maintained by a nut removably affixed to an end part of the first portion. Robert Bosch discloses a location of the first tube portion and the second portion with respect to one another is maintained by a nut 20 removably affixed to an end part 13 of the first portion 12. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first end portion of Hoppe to have a nut as disclosed by Robert Bosch in order to provide an adjustable first tube portion in relation to the second tube portion and/or obvious to try a nut on the first end portion of Hoppe as taught by Robert Bosch to provide adjustability of the first tube portion.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoppe et al. US 2016/0126043 in view of Graner et al. US 2014/0346383 in view of Matsusaka US 2002/0057153in view of Linkner et al. US 2006/0043326.
Regarding claim 8, Hoppe lacks a location the first tube portion and the second tube portion with respect to one another is maintained by a (i) face weld between the first tube portion and the second tube portion, (ii) crimping the first tube portion to the second tube portion, (iii) staking the first tube portion to the second tube portion, or (iv) a snap ring removably affixed to the to second tube portion but this is product by process. Linkner discloses crimping the flux tube 30 to maintain position. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product in the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to maintain the location of the first and second tube portion of Hoppe by crimping as disclosed by Linkner as a matter of simple substitution of connection features and/or to provide a connection that would keep the two pieces in place without needing an adhesive.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoppe et al. US 2016/0126043 in view of Graner et al. US 2014/0346383 in view of Bircann et al. US 2002/0060620.
Regarding claim 13, Hoppe discloses a solenoid assembly (Figs. 2A-2C) comprising: a ferromagnetic core piece 16, 17 comprising a radial exterior surface, a longitudinal axis, a first tube portion 16, a second tube portion (inner 17), and a radial outer shell (outer 17), the first tube portion having a first radial exterior surface (the exterior of 16), the first tube portion having a first end portion extending substantially perpendicular to the first radial exterior surface (Figs. 2A-2C), the second tube portion having a second radial interior surface, the second tube portion extending along the longitudinal axis from an end portion to an end (end to end), the first radial exterior surface of the first tube portion being affixed to the second radial interior surface of the second tube portion (Figs. 2A-2C), the ferromagnetic core tube comprising a channel 18 disposed between first tube portion and the second tube portion on the radial exterior surface of the ferromagnetic core piece, the channel circumscribing the ferromagnetic core piece along a given portion of the longitudinal axis, the channel comprising a plurality of radial exterior surfaces (see 18 in Figs. 2A-2C); and an excitation 14 coil disposed radially outward of the first tube portion and the second tube portion of the ferromagnetic core piece, the excitation coil disposed radially inward of the radial outer shell (coil is radially outward of inner 16 and inner 17 and inward of outer 17).
Hoppe lacks the shape of the overall ferromagnetic core piece being a tube. Graner discloses the shape of the ferromagnetic core piece being a tube. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the ferromagnetic core piece of Hoppe to be a tube as disclosed by Graner as a matter of simple substitution of shapes and/or to provide a shape that was easier and cheaper to manufacture.
Hoppe lacks 17 being separate such that the end of the second tube portion having a radial edge extending outwardly in a radial direction, the radial outer shell having a first radial cutout located at a first end and a second radial cutout located at a second end, the radial outer shell being affixed to the first tube portion at the first radial cutout, the radial outer shell being affixed to the second tube portion at the second radial cutout.
Bircann discloses in Figs. 2-3, a separate outer shell 38’ and a second tube 16’ in which the end of the second tube portion having a radial edge extending outwardly in a radial direction, the radial outer shell having a first radial cutout located at a first end (Figs. 2-3) and a second radial cutout located at a second end (Figs. 2-3), the radial outer shell being affixed to the first tube portion at the first radial cutout (top of Figs. 2-3 affixed to 32’), the radial outer shell being affixed to the second tube portion at the second radial cutout (bottom of Figs. 2-3 affixed to 16’). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to separate 17 of Hoppe into separate pieces as disclosed by Bircann and make the outer shell have radial cutouts to connect the outer shell to the two tube portions/pole pieces of Hoppe as a matter of simple substitution of separating a single piece and providing strong connection features that would enable fixing the solenoid of Hoppe easier as the separate pieces and radial cutouts would provide quick and easy access to the solenoid by just removing the outer shell without having to take the entire solenoid apart.
Hoppe lacks a non-ferromagnetic spacer affixed to the plurality of radial exterior surfaces in the channel. Graner discloses a non-ferromagnetic spacer 108 affixed to the plurality of radial exterior surfaces in the channel [0011, Inconel is non-magnetic]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a non-magnetic spacer as disclosed by Graner in the air gap of Hoppe as a matter of simple substitution of flux restrictor and/or to provide better flux management.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the applicant’s arguments of 2/9/26 to claim 1, the claim amendments are not supported by the disclosure and the drawings are objected to and is rejected by a 112 rejection thus the claim is unexaminable as it is so unclear.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The drawing objections are maintained and the examiner cannot make out what the applicant is claiming. Regarding the arguments to claims 4 and 7-9, this is just claim old 6 written in to claim 4. Regarding the argument to claims 13, this is just old claim 14 written in to claim 13.
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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN BASTIANELLI whose telephone number is (571)272-4921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-4921 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/John Bastianelli/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
571-272-4921
Prosecution Insights