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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 22 June 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 5-8, 12-16 remain pending in the application.
The examiner notes that the amendment filed 22 June 2026 changes the status of previously presented claims. In the Claim set dated 13 Jan 2026 Claims 2-4 and 9-11 are cancelled, and Claim 12 depends from Claim 1.
Therefore, Claims 9-11 will be treated as cancelled and Claim 12 will be treated as depending from Claim 1, as Applicant acknowledges Claim 1, 5-8 and 12-16 as currently pending in the Remarks filed 22 June 2026.
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(s) 1, 5-7, and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heimann (US 3,809,123) in view of Oglesby et al (WO 00/23740; provided by Applicant on the IDS dated 27 Feb 2024) in further view of Massie (US 3754154).
Regarding Claim 1, Heimann discloses a bistable valve assembly (Figure 1). The assembly comprising:
an interior cavity (within 1 in Figure 1);
a first pressure post (2) having a first pressure orifice inlet (abstract) in fluidic communication with the interior cavity (Figure 1);
a second pressure post (3) having a second pressure orifice inlet (abstract) in fluidic communication with the interior cavity (Figure 1);
a third pressure orifice outlet (4; Col 2, lines 28-44) in fluid communication with the interior cavity (Figure 1) and positioned between said first and second pressure orifices (Figure 1 between 2 and 3);
a magnetic shuttle (8) movable within the interior cavity (Figure 1) having a first membrane (9) on a first end thereof (upwards in the orientation of Figure 1) and a second membrane (10) on a second end thereof (downwards in the orientation of Figure 1);
a first electromagnetic coil (16) disposed about the first pressure post (2; Col 2, lines 25-26); and
a second electromagnetic coil (17) disposed about the second pressure post (3; Col 2, lines 25-26);
wherein actuation of the first and second magnetic coils cause displacement of the magnetic shuttle (Col 2, lines 45-52),
but fails to expressly disclose wherein the first pressure post comprises a first magnetic pole face positioned at the first pressure orifice inlet;
wherein the second pressure post comprises a second magnetic pole face positioned at the second pressure orifice inlet;
where the first and second pressure posts are formed from ferromagnetic material,
wherein the first electromagnetic coil, when energized, supplies magnetic charge to the first magnetic pole face, said magnetic charge moving the magnetic shuttle into sealing engagement with the first pressure orifice;
wherein the second electromagnetic coil, when energized, supplies magnetic charge to the second magnetic pole face, said magnetic charge moving the magnetic shuttle into sealing engagement with the second pressure orifice.
Oglesby et al teach a bistable valve (Page 6, lines 29-30) assembly
wherein the first pressure post (8) comprises a first magnetic pole face (31) positioned at the first pressure orifice inlet (to 7; Figure 2);
wherein the second pressure post (9) comprises a second magnetic pole face (31) positioned at the second pressure orifice inlet (to 9; Figure 2);
where the first (8) and second (9) pressure posts are formed from magnetic material (page 10, lines 24-26),
wherein the first electromagnetic coil (37a), when energized, supplies magnetic charge to the first magnetic pole face (page 12, line 28-page 13, line 6; page 11, lines 28-32), said magnetic charge moving the magnetic shuttle into sealing engagement with the first pressure orifice (page 12, line 28-page 13, line 6);
wherein the second electromagnetic coil (37b), when energized, supplies magnetic charge to the second magnetic pole face (page 12, line 28-page 13, line 6; page 11, lines 28-32), said magnetic charge moving the magnetic shuttle into sealing engagement with the second pressure orifice (page 12, line 28-page 13, line 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pressure posts of Heimann with the pressure posts as taught by Oglesby et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the posts of Oglesby et al with the system of Heimann) to yield predictable results (to energize the posts and provide a stronger attraction for the shuttle to seal directly to).
Massie teaches an assembly (Figure 1) with a first (3) and second (4) pressure post (Figure 1) which are formed of a ferromagnetic material (Col 3, lines 62-63).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the first and second pressure posts of Oglesby et al to be made from a ferromagnetic material since selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a commonly used material that is inexpensive and durable, and prone to withstand corrosion, as taught by Massie (abstract).
Regarding Claim 5, Oglesby et al teach where one of the first (37a) and second electromagnetic coils (37b), when energized, supplies an attractive magnetic charge and the other of the first and second electromagnetic coils, when energized, supplies a repellant magnetic charge (page 12, line 28-page 13, line 6).
Regarding Claim 6, Oglesby et al teach where the first electromagnetic coil (37a), when energized, supplies an attractive magnetic charge and the second electromagnetic coil (37b), when energized, supplies a repellant magnetic charge, said attractive and repellant charges cooperating to move the magnetic shuttle to a first end of the interior cavity sealing the first pressure orifice (page 12, line 28-page 13, line 6).
Regarding Claim 7, Oglesby et al teach where the first electromagnetic coil (37a), when energized, supplies a repellant attractive magnetic charge and the second electromagnetic coil (37b), when energized, supplies an attractive magnetic charge, said attractive and repellant charges cooperating to move the magnetic shuttle to a second end of the interior cavity sealing the second pressure orifice (page 12, line 28-page 13, line 6).
Regarding Claim 12, Oglesby et al teach where one of the first (37a) and second electromagnetic coils (37b), when energized, supplies an attractive magnetic charge and the other of the first and second electromagnetic coils, when energized, supplies a repellant magnetic charge (page 12, line 28-page 13, line 6).
Regarding Claim 13, Oglesby et al teach where the first electromagnetic coil (37a), when energized, supplies an attractive magnetic charge and the second electromagnetic coil (37b), when energized, supplies a repellant magnetic charge, said attractive and repellant charges cooperating to move the magnetic shuttle to a first end of the interior cavity sealing the first pressure orifice (page 12, line 28-page 13, line 6).
Regarding Claim 14, Oglesby et al teach where the first electromagnetic coil (37a), when energized, supplies a repellant attractive magnetic charge and the second electromagnetic coil (37b), when energized, supplies an attractive magnetic charge, said attractive and repellant charges cooperating to move the magnetic shuttle to a second end of the interior cavity sealing the second pressure orifice (page 12, line 28-page 13, line 6).
Regarding Claim 15, Heimann discloses where the first post (2) and the second post (3) further comprising at least one stabilizing feature (the flange of the post extends to housing 1).
Regarding Claim 16, Heimann discloses where the interior valve cavity (within 1 in Figure 1) is located between the first and the second post (Figure 1).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heimann (US 3,809,123) in view of Oglesby et al (WO 00/23740; provided by Applicant on the IDS dated 27 Feb 2024) in further view of Massie (US 3754154) in further view of Fukui et al (US 2003/0120157).
Regarding Claim 8, Heimann, as modified by Oglesby et al and Massie, teach all essential elements but is moot to the magnetic shuttle further comprising: a first and second magnet, each magnet having a first magnetic pole and a second magnetic pole, the first magnetic poles facing each other and the second magnetic poles facing the first and second posts.
Fukui et al teach a valve assembly (Figure 1A) with a magnetic shuttle (4 generally), the magnetic shuttle further comprising: a first and second magnet (5A and 5B in Figure 3A), each magnet having a first magnetic pole (N) and a second magnetic pole (S), the first magnetic poles (N) facing each other and the second magnetic poles (S) facing the first and second posts (where the posts are disclosed in Oglesby et al).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Heimann as modified by Oglesby et al and Massie with the system as taught by Fukui et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (providing the magnets of Fukui et al with the system of Heimann) to yield predictable results (to interact with coils to move the valve shutter).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Oglesby et al fail to teach "the first electromagnetic coil, when energized, supplies magnetic charge to the first post and first pressure orifice inlet, said magnetic charge moving the magnetic shuttle to a first end of the interior cavity sealing the first pressure orifice," as required by Claim 1. However, this limitation no longer appears in amended Claim 1 and therefore the argument is moot.
As discussed above, Oglesby et al teach wherein the first pressure post (8) comprises a first magnetic pole face (31) positioned at the first pressure orifice inlet (to 7; Figure 2); wherein the second pressure post (9) comprises a second magnetic pole face (31) positioned at the second pressure orifice inlet (to 9; Figure 2); where the first (8) and second (9) pressure posts are formed from magnetic material (page 10, lines 24-26), wherein the first electromagnetic coil (37a), when energized, supplies magnetic charge to the first magnetic pole face (page 12, line 28-page 13, line 6; page 11, lines 28-32), said magnetic charge moving the magnetic shuttle into sealing engagement with the first pressure orifice (page 12, line 28-page 13, line 6); and wherein the second electromagnetic coil (37b), when energized, supplies magnetic charge to the second magnetic pole face (page 12, line 28-page 13, line 6; page 11, lines 28-32), said magnetic charge moving the magnetic shuttle into sealing engagement with the second pressure orifice (page 12, line 28-page 13, line 6).
Applicant further argues that Oglesby et al fails to teach the structure in which the pressure posts themselves form part of the operative magnetic circuit that directly attracts the magnetic shuttle into sealing engagement with the pressure orifice. The claim requires that energization of the electromagnetic coil supplies magnetic charge to the pressure post and pressure orifice inlet such that the shuttle is magnetically attracted into the sealing position. However, as seen in Figure 2 of Oglesby et al the posts do form a part of the magnetic circuit as seen by the circuit loops 24a and 24b shown in Figure 2. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that only the pressure post and pressure orifice inlet themselves become the operative magnetic pole face that directly attracts and retains the shuttle in the sealing position) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant further argues that the claim affirmatively requires magnetic charging of the post and pressure-orifice structure itself and requires that such magnetic charging move the shuttle into sealing engagement with the respective pressure orifice. However, Oglesby et al teach wherein the first electromagnetic coil (37a), when energized, supplies magnetic charge to the first magnetic pole face (page 12, line 28-page 13, line 6; page 11, lines 28-32), said magnetic charge moving the magnetic shuttle into sealing engagement with the first pressure orifice (page 12, line 28-page 13, line 6); and wherein the second electromagnetic coil (37b), when energized, supplies magnetic charge to the second magnetic pole face (page 12, line 28-page 13, line 6; page 11, lines 28-32), said magnetic charge moving the magnetic shuttle into sealing engagement with the second pressure orifice (page 12, line 28-page 13, line 6). This is further seen in Figure 2 with the magnetic loops 24a and 24b, of which the posts are part of the energization circuit to move the shuttle between the post positions. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant further argues that the rejection does not identify where Oglesby et al discloses magnetic charging of the pressure post and pressure-orifice inlet as claimed. Nor does the rejection identify where Oglesby et al teaches that the pressure post and pressure-orifice structure functions as the magnetic attraction surface that produces the sealing action recited by the claims. These features are seen in Figure 2 with the magnetic loops 24a and 24b, of which the posts are part of the energization circuit to move the shuttle between the post positions and further discussed in page 11, lines 28-32. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Therefore, these arguments are unpersuasive.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE GARDNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-4PM EST.
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 supervisors, KENNETH RINEHART (571-272-4881) or CRAIG SCHNEIDER (571-272-3607) can be reached by telephone. 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.
/NICOLE GARDNER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights