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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification (see paragraph [0020] of the specification) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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 “permanent magnet” being an “annular body” in Claim 2 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 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 6 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.
Regarding Claim 6, the phrase the “magnet is centered radially on the housing lower part” is indefinite because it is unclear whether the magnet is centered about a radius or alternatively centered about a central axis such that all radiuses are equal. The magnet is described as “centered radially on the housing lower part” (see specification paragraph [0005], Claim 6) while shown in the drawings (see Fig. 2) as being centered axially on the housing lower part. For purposes of examination Claim 6 is being interpreted as the magnet is centered axially on the housing lower part.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manger et. al. (US 9,982,741 B2) in view of Ho et. al. (US 10655748 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Manger discloses a damping valve device (27), comprising: a solenoid coil (33); a pre-stage valve (77); a main-stage valve (79); wherein an actuating force on the main-stage valve is set via the pre-stage valve (77), which can be adjusted by the solenoid coil (79) (see Fig. 2, 4:50-57).
Manger does not disclose an emergency operation device comprising at least one permanent magnet.
Ho teaches an emergency operation device (16) (see Fig. 1) which sets a defined closing force at the pre- stage valve in case of a failure of a power supply of the damping valve device (see 6:21-67), comprising at least one permanent magnet (16) within a magnetic flux circuit of the solenoid coil (see Fig. 1, 6:21-67, 7:1-39).
It would have been obvious to combine the emergency operation device of Ho with the multi-stage dampening valve of Manger in order to increase power efficiency of the dampening valve (see US 10655748 B2 [Ho]; 1: 22-27, 3: 58-67, 4:1-9).
Regarding Claim 2, Ho teaches an emergency operation device comprising an annular body permanent magnet (16) (see Fig. 1) that is part of an outer housing (28) of the valve device (see Fig. 1, 6:21-67, 7:1-39).
It would have been obvious to combine the annular body permanent magnet that is part of the outer valve device housing of a valve of Ho with the multi-stage dampening valve device of Manger in order to reduce power demands when holding the system open (see US 10655748 B2 [Ho]; 1: 22-27, 3: 58-67, 4:1-9).
Regarding Claim 3, Manger does not disclose a polarization of the at least one permanent magnet is formed between an upper and a lower cover side.
Ho teaches an emergency operation device as applied to claim 1 above, wherein a polarization of the at least one permanent magnet (16) is formed between an upper (A) and a lower cover side (B) (see Annotated Fig. 1 below, 6:21-67, 7:1-39, the language “A polarization…formed between” does not require a particular orientation of polarization).
It would have been obvious to combine the permanent magnet where polarization is formed between an upper and lower cover side of Ho with the dampening valve device of Manger in order for the latching magnet to be located within the housing and secured to the valve (see US 10655748 B2 [Ho]; Fig. 1, 3: 58-67, 4:1-9)
PNG
media_image1.png
592
853
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1
Regarding Claim 4, Ho teaches an emergency operation device as applied to claim 1 above, wherein a cross-sectional profile of the at least one permanent magnet (16) has a greater radial width than an axial height (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 5, Manger does not disclose a permanent magnet where it is arranged between a house upper part and a housing lower part.
Ho teaches an emergency operation device as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the at least one permanent magnet (16) is arranged between a housing upper part (30) and a housing lower part (28) (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to combine the permanent magnet arranged between the upper and lower housing parts of Ho with the valve dampening device of Manger in order for the permanent magnets to act upon the pre-stage valve and reduce the power usage of the system (see US 10655748 B2 [Ho]; 1:22-27, 3: 58-67, 4:1-9).
Regarding Claim 6, Manger does not disclose a permanent magnet centered radially on the housing lower part.
Ho teaches an emergency operation device as applied to claim 1 above, where the at least one permanent magnet (16) is centered radially (Refer to 112(b) rejection above for interpretation of “centered radially”) on the housing lower part (28) (see Fig. 1).
In would have been obvious to combine the permanent magnet centered radially on the housing lower part of Ho with the valve dampening device of Manger in order to insure even application of magnetic fields on the valve body and ensuring the valve is held open in without use of the solenoids, reducing the power requirements (see US 10655748 B2 [Ho]; 1:22-27, 3: 58-67, 4:1-9).
Regarding Claim 7, Manger does not disclose a permanent magnet with a height compensation ring added to it.
Ho teaches an emergency operation device as applied to claim 1 above, wherein at least one height compensation ring (60) is added to the at least one permanent magnet (16) (see Fig. 1, 5: 36-54).
It would have been obvious to combine the permanent magnet with at least one height compensation ring (60) of Ho with the dampening valve device of Manger in order to direct the magnetic field of the permanent magnet to hold the valve state without power supplied, reducing the energy requirement of the system (see US 10655748 B2 [Ho]; 1:22-27, 3: 58-67, 4:1-9).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20150081171 A1 [Ericksen].
Ericksen et al. (US 2015/0081171 A1) discloses a dampening valve utilizing a permeant magnet to incorporate shock absorbing functionality into the system without requiring power.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shea Irvin whose telephone number is (571)272-9952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 - 17:00.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at (571) 272-7124. 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.
/S.W.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616