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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, the Examiner suggests adding “electrical” in “one additional electrical contact” for consistency and clarity.
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 2 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.
In claim 2, “the additional electrical contact” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Claim 1 recites “at least one additional electrical contact.” The Examiner suggests amending to “the at least one additional electrical contact” for consistency and clarity.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Koenekamp (US 7,549,438 B2).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Koenekamp relates generally to a heated valve that employs a divided solenoid where only one of the coils in the solenoid is energized to provided valve heating during freeze conditions, where the valve has particular application for a valve in an anode outlet unit (i.e. drain or purge valve) of a fuel cell system (1:5-11). Koenekamp teaches the valve 40 includes a divided electromagnetic solenoid 70 (i.e. magnet coil), that is activated to lift the valve tappet 60 (i.e. actuates the electromagnetic valve) (4:4-7). Koenekamp teaches the coils may be energized to provide heat (4:26-36) and that there are multiple terminals (Fig. 3: terminals 84,86,88) (i.e. electrical contacts).
Koenekamp teaches a typical fuel cell stack may have two hundred or more stacked fuel cells, receive a cathode input gas, and receive an anode input gas (1:37-46).
Regarding claim 2, Koenekamp teaches terminal 88 is shown mid-way between the terminals 84 and 86, which reads on “centrally provided.”
Regarding claim 3, Koenekamp teaches more than two coils can be provided in the solenoid (4:43-47).
Regarding claim 5, Koenekamp teaches the valve 40 includes a cylindrical valve body 42, typically made of a metal, such as stainless steel, and a cylindrical valve housing 44, typically made of a suitable plastic (3:55-65). The valve housing of Koenekamp reads on the claimed valve body, and the valve body of Koenekamp reads on the metal insert parts.
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.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koenekamp as applied to claims 1-3, and 5-6 above, and further in view of Siepierski et al. (“Siepierski, US 2003/0077499 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Koenekamp teaches the valve 40 needs to be designed so that heat generated by the solenoid 70 (i.e. magnet coil) is able to reach the valve seat 58 (4:62-63); the valve tappet 60 can be made of a thermally conductive material (4:64-65). Koenekamp depicts in Fig. 2 the solenoid 70 in direct contact with valve tappet 60 and in direct contact with valve body 42 when activated.
As discussed, Koenekamp teaches the solenoid (i.e. magnet coil) but does not teach the iron components of the magnet coil. However, it is well known in the art that iron is a common magnetic material (ferromagnetic).
For example, Siepierski teaches permanent magnets can be made of neodymium-boron-iron, inter alia ([0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use a magnet coil with the aforementioned iron components in order to predictably produce a coil with magnetism since such iron was a commonly known/suitable magnetic material, as evidenced by Siepierski ([0025]). The examiner notes that the MPEP establishes that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is generally not a matter of patentable distinction (MPEP 2143).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL H. LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2548. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
/DANIEL H LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights