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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 8/12/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-7 and 9-12 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 5/28/2026.
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.
Claims 1-5, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gluck et al. (US 4,838,259) in view of Weinberg (US 3,379,214) in view of Cahan (US 2,288,436) and further in view of Speer (US 2013/0200283 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gluck discloses a method (column 6, line 39-column 7, line 24) of controlling a solenoid (column 3, lines 50-53, solenoid portion in recitation “solenoid actuated valve”) connected to a valve 22 having an open position (column 3, lines 50-58, position that allows the flow) allowing a flow through the valve and a closed position (column 3, lines 50-58, “closed position”) preventing the flow through the valve, the method comprising:
applying an actuating voltage (figure 5, column 6, lines 54-56, voltage used for opening the valve) to the solenoid 70 for a first time span to actuate the solenoid; and
lowering voltage (column 6, lines 47-54, figure 5) applied to the solenoid and to a holding voltage that is lower than the actuating voltage to hold the solenoid for a second span of time and wherein the actuating voltage is above the rated voltage (column 6, lines 47-56, examiner construes that solenoid is rated and actuating voltage is above the rated voltage as claimed in claim 1 of Gluck) but is silent regarding actuate solenoid against a bias and wherein the solenoid has a coil to which the actuating and holding voltages are applied, wherein the solenoid is rated for continuous operation at a rated voltage.
However, Weinberg teaches a method of operating the solenoid valve comprising actuate the solenoid against a bias and the solenoid has a coil 14 (figure 1, column 3, lines 42-65) for the purpose of using a design of a solenoid valve that operates to open or close the fluid line (column 3, lines 42-65).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the method of Gluck to incorporate actuate solenoid against a bias and wherein the solenoid has a coil as taught by Weinberg for the purpose of using a design of a solenoid valve that operates to open or close the fluid line (column 3, lines 42-65).
Examiner further construes that Gluck modified in view of Weinberg will result in having wherein the solenoid has a coil to which the actuating and holding voltages are applied and the coil is rated for continuous operation at a rated voltage.
Weinberg is silent regarding a bias that biases the valve to the open position.
However, Cahan teaches wherein the bias biases the valve to the open position (page 2, second column, lines 13-18, element 31 is left open) for the purpose of using a valve design that is operational to close when actuating the solenoid valve (page 2, second column, lines 13-18).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the bias of Gluck (modified in view of Weinberg) to incorporate wherein the bais biases the valve to the open position as taught by Cahan for the purpose of using a valve design that is operational to close when actuating the solenoid valve (page 2, second column, lines 13-18).
Gluck is silent regarding filtering the flow through a filter medium seated in the valve when the valve is in the open position.
However, Speer teaches a design of a solenoid valve (see figure without any number) comprising filtering the flow through a filter medium 8 seated in the valve 1 when the valve is in the open position (paragraph 0021, figure without any number) for the purpose of filtering the contents passing through the valve (see figure without any number, paragraph 0021).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the valve of Gluck to incorporate filtering the flow through a filter medium seated in the valve when the valve is in the open position for the purpose of filtering the contents passing through the valve (see figure without any number, paragraph 0021).
Regarding claim 2, Gluck discloses wherein the holding voltage is below the rated voltage (column 6, lines 47-56, examiner construes the holding voltage is below the rated voltage as claimed in claim 1 of Gluck).
Regarding claim 3, Gluck discloses wherein applying the actuating voltage to the solenoid is performed after the bias is relaxed and the voltage applied to the solenoid is dropped below the holding voltage for a span of time during which the coil has cooled to a first temperature (figure 5, column 6, lines 52-56, before initiating or after one complete cycle, the bias has to be relaxed in order to change the valve state and during that time the coil would have cooled to a first temperature due to lack of voltage application but the temperature will rise when applying holding voltage), wherein the coil is raised to a second temperature during the second span of time.
Regarding claim 4, Gluck discloses wherein the first time span is short enough (see figure 5 where “T2” is much shorter) so that coil does not exceed the second temperature during the first span of time.
Regarding claim 5, Gluck discloses holding the solenoid valve in the actuated position (figure 5, column 6, lines 47-56) but is silent regarding actuating the solenoid against the bias actuates the valve to the closed position, and wherein holding the solenoid against the bias holds the valve in the closed position.
However, Cahan teaches actuating the solenoid against the bias actuates the valve to the closed position (page 2, second column, lines 13-18, page 3, first column, lines 61-67), and wherein holding the solenoid against the bias holds the valve in the closed position (page 3, first column, lines 61-67) for the purpose of using a valve design that is operational to close when actuating the solenoid valve (page 2, second column, lines 13-18).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the valve operation of Gluck to incorporate actuating the solenoid against the bias actuates the valve to the closed position, and wherein holding the solenoid against the bias holds the valve in the closed position as taught by Cahan for the purpose of using a valve design that is operational to close when actuating the solenoid valve (page 2, second column, lines 13-18).
Regarding claim 10, Gluck discloses wherein the actuating voltage is higher than the rated voltage (column 6, lines 47-56, examiner construes that solenoid is rated and actuating voltage is above the rated voltage as claimed in claim 1 of Gluck), but is silent regarding the first span of time is short enough to apply the first voltage without causing a failure mode for the coil where the failure mode includes at least one of insulation breakdown, housing or bobbin melting or distortion, or armature seizing.
However, since Gluck is already teaching application of the actuating voltage higher than the rated voltage and the first span of time, even though Gluck does not explicitly recite the first span of time is short enough to apply the first voltage without causing a failure mode for the coil where the failure mode includes at least one of insulation breakdown, housing or bobbin melting or distortion, or armature seizing, one can construe that Gluck is inherently teaching the feature because without such measure means, the solenoid of Gluck will not function and will fail. Gluck in view of Weinberg will result in having a coil as explained in rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12, Gluck discloses applying the actuating voltage to the solenoid (figure 5) includes applying Watts (column 6, lines 47-54, Watts will be applied as well in order to apply voltage) to the solenoid and wherein holding the solenoid for the second span of time includes applying Watt (column 6, lines 47-54, Watts will be applied as well in order to apply voltage) to the solenoid at the holding voltage (figure 5).
Gluck fails to explicitly recite the applying Watts include applying 20 Watts and 1 Watt, as required by the claim.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the Watt application would result in a difference in function of modified Gluck device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the applied Watts of modified Gluck would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such modification and it appears that the device would function as intended being given the claimed Watts. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed Watt solves any stated problem, indicating that the Watt “may” be 20 Watts and 1 Watt (“Applying the actuating voltage Vhigh can include applying 20 Watts … 1 Watt … for example”, see specification page 10, last line – page 11, line 2) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the claimed Watt that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, 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 applied Watts of modified Gluck to have 20 Watts and 1 Watt as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gluck et al. (US 4,838,259) in view of Weinberg (US 3,379,214) in view of Cahan (US 2,288,436) in view of Speer (US 2013/0200283 A1) and further in view of Mantell (US 2004/0153027 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Gluck/Cahan/Weinberg/Speer (hereinafter referred as “modified Gluck”) discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above in claims 1 and 5. Modified Gluck is silent regarding further comprising lowering the voltage below the holding voltage in response to over pressure in an insufflation line, thereby opening the valve to the open position under the bias to relieve the over pressure in the insufflation line.
However, Mantell teaches a design of an insufflator tube comprising opening the valve in response to over pressure in an insufflation line (paragraph 0029, lines 5-7) for the purpose of relieving pressure in the insufflation line (paragraph 0029, lines 5-7).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the method of modified Gluck to incorporate opening the valve in response to over pressure in an insufflation line as taught by Mantell for the purpose of relieving pressure in the insufflation line (paragraph 0029, lines 5-7).
Modified Gluck modified in view of Mantell will result in lowering voltage below the holding voltage in response to over pressure in an insufflation line, thereby opening the valve to the open position under the bias to relieve the over pressure in the insufflation line because Gluck already teaches lowering the voltage to return the valve to its original state (figure 5), Cahan teaches the use of biasing means to keep the valve in open state as explained in the rejection of claims 1 and 5 above.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gluck et al. (US 4,838,259) in view of Weinberg (US 3,379,214) in view of Cahan (US 2,288,436) in view of Speer (US 2013/0200283 A1) and further in view of Thomson et al. (US 2009/0139522 A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Gluck discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above in claims 1 and 5. Modified Gluck is silent regarding further comprising lowering voltage to zero in a loss of power event, thereby opening the valve to the open position under the bias to relieve pressure in a surgical cavity in a patient. However, one can construe that the valve is capable to stay in closed position in modified Gluck until the solenoid is provided with the voltage and in the event of power loss, the voltage applied will drop to zero thereby resulting in valve opening.
Furthermore, Thomson teaches a method of automatic resuscitator comprising lowering voltage to zero in a loss of power event thereby opening the valve to the open position (paragraph 0046, lines 9-13) for the purpose of allowing the device to operate by allowing the gas to flow in or out as per the design of the medical device (paragraph 0046, lines 9-13).
Modified Gluck in view of Thomson will result in having lowering voltage to zero in a loss of power event, thereby opening the valve to the open position under the bias to relieve pressure in a surgical cavity in a patient.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the method of modified Gluck to incorporate further comprising lowering voltage to zero in a loss of power event, thereby opening the valve to the open position under the bias to relieve pressure in a surgical cavity in a patient as taught by Thomson for the purpose of allowing the device to operate by allowing the gas to flow in or out as per the design of the medical device (paragraph 0046, lines 9-13).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gluck et al. (US 4,838,259) in view of Weinberg (US 3,379,214) in view of Cahan (US 2,288,436) in view of Speer (US 2013/0200283 A1) and further in view of Barker (3,424,951).
Regarding claim 9, modified Gluck discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above in claim 1. Modified Gluck is further silent regarding wherein at least one of the actuating voltage and the holding voltage is applied as an alternating waveform that averages at the respective actuating and/or holding voltage.
However, Barker teaches a method of controlling the valve comprising applying the voltage as an alternating waveform that averages at the respective voltage (figure 6, column 6, lines 58-63) for the purpose of using a well-known alternative waveform to apply voltage to the solenoid valve (column 6, lines 58-63, figure 6).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the actuating and/or holding voltage of Gluck to incorporate wherein a voltage is applied as an alternating waveform that averages at the voltage as taught by Barker for the purpose of using a well-known alternative waveform to apply voltage to the solenoid valve (column 6, lines 58-63, figure 6).
Modified Gluck modified in view of Barker will result in having wherein at least one of the actuating voltage and the holding voltage is applied as an alternating waveform that averages at the respective actuating and/or holding voltage.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gluck et al. (US 4,838,259) in view of Weinberg (US 3,379,214) in view of Cahan (US 2,288,436) in view of Speer (US 2013/0200283 A1) and further in view of Schmidt (US 2009/0323247 A1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Gluck discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above in claim 1. Modified Gluck is silent regarding the holding voltage is 5 Volts.
However, Schmidt teaches a design of a safe circuit for driving a solenoid valve (figure 2) comprising the holding voltage is 5 Volts (paragraph 0015, lines 22-24) for the purpose of keeping the valve in actuated position using low power (paragraph 0006, lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the holding voltage of modified Gluck to incorporate the holding voltage is 5 Volts as taught by Schmidt for the purpose of keeping the valve in actuated position using low power (paragraph 0006, lines 1-3).
Modified Gluck further does not explicitly disclose the actuating voltage is 48 Volts, as required by the claim.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the actuating voltage would result in a difference in function of modified Gluck device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the actuating voltage of modified Gluck would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such modification and it appears that the device would function as intended being given the claimed voltage. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed voltage solves any stated problem, indicating that the voltage “may” be 48 Volts (“The actuating voltage Vhigh can be 48 Volts … for example”, see specification page 10, line 23) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the claimed voltage that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, 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 actuating voltage of modified Gluck to have 48 Volts as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply in view of the present rejection.
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 NILAY J SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-9689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM-4:30 PM 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 supervisor, CHELSEA STINSON can be reached at 571-270-1744. 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.
/NILAY J SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
