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 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 1-13 | 15 | 17 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:
In claim 1, the statement “which is configured to push the magnet core element and the magnet armature element away from one another” means that the magnet core element is movable, which contradicts with the disclosure, it is disclosed that The magnet core element 10 is fixed relative to the housing 78, preferably on the housing 78 [paragraph 36 of the PGPUB US 20240003461 A1], which renders the claims indefinite. The statement is interpreted as - which is configured to push the magnet armature element away from the magnet core element -.
In claim 15, the statement “the application face for the reset spring runs through the theoretical armature rotation point of the magnet armature element or, as seen from the magnet core element, runs below the theoretical armature rotation point of the magnet armature element” is vague and unclear, since the armature is not rotatable, and leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers, thereby rendering the definition of the subject-matter of said claim unclear. the limitation "the theoretical armature rotation point". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “preferably … preferentially” in claims 2-3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “preferably … preferentially” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The statements “the reset spring has a diameter-length ratio of at least 0.35, preferably at least 0.4 and preferentially at least 0.45 … a difference between the outer diameter of the reset spring and the inner diameter of the reset spring and from a length of the reset spring, is more than 0.85, preferably more than 1.0 and preferentially more than 1.1” are vague, it is unclear which value should be considered, it seems that the numbers before the terms “preferably … preferentially” should not be considered, which renders the claims indefinite.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the radial direction” should be changed to -- a radial direction --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 | 4-9 | 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goossens et al. US 20050178991 A1 [Goossens].
Regarding claims 1 | 14-16, Goossens teach An electromagnetic actuator device, in particular an electromagnetic valve device [fig. 1], having at least one magnet core element [see the plug-shaped magnet core 3, fig. 1], having a magnet armature element [see the magnet armature 5, fig. 1], which is supported movably relative to the magnet core element [paragraph 11] and forms a receiving recess [see the stepped bore 13], and having a reset spring [see the spring 6], which is configured to push the magnet armature element away from the magnet core element [paragraph 10 teaches that Consequently, the magnet armature 5 is urged, under the effect of spring 6, at the opposed magnet armature end surface], the magnet armature element [5] having an application face, which is arranged inside the receiving recess [see the face of element 15] and on which a first end of the reset spring is supported [see element 6 and element 15, fig. 1], comprising a damping element [4 and/or the protrusion in the middle of element 4], which is arranged between the magnet core element [3] and the magnet armature element [5] and which forms a spring seat [fig. 1 shows the protrusion forms a seat for spring 6], on which a second end [the end toward element 4] of the reset spring [6], lying opposite the first end [fig. 1], is supported [fig. 1], wherein as seen from the magnet core element [3], the application face [see the face of element 15] for the reset spring [see the spring 6] runs in a lower half of the magnet armature element [lower half of element 5]; wherein at least in an operation state of the magnet armature element [5] in which the reset spring is maximally relaxed [when element 5 is up toward element 3], the reset spring is arranged fully inside the receiving recess [see the stepped bore 13] of the magnet armature element [5]; [as best understood based on the 112 rejection above] and wherein the application face [see the face of element 15] for the reset spring [6] runs through the armature [5].
Regarding claim 4, Goossens teach The electromagnetic actuator device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the damping element [4 and/or the protrusion in the middle of element 4] is arranged in a central region of the magnet armature element and/or the magnet core element [fig. 1 shows that the protrusion is arranged in a central region of the magnet core element 3], said central region lying radially inward as seen relative to an axial direction of the magnet armature element and/or of the magnet core element [fig. 1 shows that central region lying radially inward as seen relative to an axial direction of the magnet armature element 5 and/or of the magnet core element 3].
Regarding claim 5, Goossens teach The electromagnetic actuator device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the damping element is arranged at least partially in the receiving recess [fig. 1 shows that the protrusion in the middle of element 4 is arranged at least partially in the receiving recess 13].
Regarding claim 6, Goossens teach The electromagnetic actuator device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the damping element [4] is movable inside the receiving recess [at least partially movable inside the recess 13].
Regarding claim 7, Goossens teach The electromagnetic actuator device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the magnet core element [3] has a further receiving recess [see the recess that houses element 4, fig. 1], which is configured to receive the damping element [4 and/or the protrusion in the middle of element 4] in such a way that it is at least substantially secured against radial movements [element 4 moves up and down only, fig. 1].
Regarding claim 8, Goossens teach The electromagnetic actuator device as claimed in claim 1, wherein as seen from the magnet core element [3] in the axial direction [toward element 5], the spring seat of the damping element [fig. 1 shows the protrusion forms a seat for spring 6] is arranged below an end of the magnet armature element [the protrusion is arranged below the upper end of element 5, fig. 1] facing toward the magnet core element [3, fig. 1].
Regarding claim 9, Goossens teach The electromagnetic actuator device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the damping element [4 and/or the protrusion in the middle of element 4] is formed at least partially from an elastomer [4 is a spring, paragraph 11].
Regarding claim 12, Goossens teach The electromagnetic actuator device as claimed in claim 1, wherein a portion of the magnet armature element [5] lying radially outward [the upper part of element 5 toward element 6] is free of covering elements [fig. 1], such as damping elements [4 and/or the protrusion in the middle of element 4], on at least one side facing toward the magnet core element [3, fig. 1].
Regarding claim 13, Goossens teach The electromagnetic actuator device as claimed in claim 1, wherein at least a large portion of an overlap section of the magnet armature element [the upper part of element 5 toward element 6], which is configured to enclose at least a portion of the magnet core element [the protrusion that surrounded with element 4] in a radial direction in at least one operation state of the magnet armature element [5], is free of covering elements [element 4 is not a covering element, fig. 1], such as damping elements [4 and/or the protrusion in the middle of element 4], on at least one side facing toward the magnet core element [3, fig. 1].
Regarding claim 17, Goossens teach A solenoid valve [abstract], in particular a 2/2-way valve [inherent feature for the valve], having an electromagnetic actuator device [fig. 1] as claimed in claim 1.
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goossens et al. US 20050178991 A1 [Goossens].
Regarding claims 2-3, Goossens discloses the claimed invention, at paragraph [0015] Goossens teaches that the diameter of the guiding pin 16 is chosen to be only slightly smaller than the inside diameter of the spring 6 configured as a helical spring diameter, fig. 1 shows that spring 6 has length, Goossens is silent about a diameter-length ratio of at least 0.35, or at least 0.4 or at least 0.45, a diameter relevant for calculating the diameter-length ratio being formed from an average value of an outer diameter of the reset spring and an inner diameter of the reset spring, and a quotient, which is formed from a difference between the outer diameter of the reset spring and the inner diameter of the reset spring and from a length of the reset spring, is more than 0.85, or more than 1.0 or more than 1.1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to consider the values above for performing the movement of the armature, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior arts of record when considered as a whole, alone or in combination neither anticipates nor renders obvious the combination of - the damping element is realized as a multi-part structural element having at least two components or as a composite structural element having at least two components, a first component of the multi-piece structural element or of the composite structural element being formed from the elastomer and being arranged at least partially in a region of the damping element facing toward an abutment face of the magnet armature element.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMAD A MUSLEH whose telephone number is ((571)272-9086. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10 am - 7 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shawki S. Ismail can be reached on 571 272 3985. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohamad A Musleh/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837