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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 4/2/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 10 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, line 4, there appears a grammatical error in the recitation “lowering voltage applied to the solenoid and to a holding voltage”. For examination purposes, examiner construes the limitation as “lowering voltage applied to the solenoid to a holding voltage”.
Regarding claim 3, line 2, the recitation “voltage” appears to be amended to recite “the voltage” in order to refer to “voltage” recited in claim 1, line 4.
Regarding claim 6, line 1, the recitation “lower voltage” appears to be amended to recite “lowering the voltage” in order to refer to “voltage” recited in claim 1, line 4.
Regarding claim 7, line 1, the recitation “lowering voltage” appears to be amended to recite “lowering the voltage” in order to refer to “voltage” recited in claim 1, line 4.
Claim 10 recites “the first voltage” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 12, the recitation “a second span of time” in lines 2-3 appears to be amended to recite “the second span of time” in order to refer to “a second span of time” recited in claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 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).
Regarding claim 1, Gluck discloses a method (column 6, line 39-column 7, line 24) comprising:
applying an actuating voltage (figure 5, column 6, lines 54-56, voltage used for opening the valve) to a 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.
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 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 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 a 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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiltebrandt et al. (US 4,207,887) in view of Gluck et al. (US 4,838,259) and further in view of Cahan (US 2,288,436).
Regarding claim 1, Hiltebrandt teaches a method comprising: applying an actuating voltage to a solenoid (column 2, lines 57-61, voltage applied to element 20 to initiate closure) but is silent regarding applying an actuating voltage to a solenoid for a first time span; and lowering voltage applied to the solenoid and to a holding voltage that is lower than the actuating voltage to hold the solenoid against the bias for a second span of time, wherein the solenoid is rated for continuous operation at a rated voltage, and wherein the actuating voltage is above the rated voltage.
However, Gluck teaches a method of operating solenoid comprising applying an actuating voltage (figure 5, column 6, lines 54-56, voltage used for opening the valve) to a 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 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) for the purpose of operating the solenoid in response to signals sent by the control module (column 6, lines 39-41).
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 operating the solenoid of Hiltebrandt to incorporate applying an actuating voltage to a solenoid for a first time span; and lowering voltage applied to the solenoid and to a holding voltage that is lower than the actuating voltage to hold the solenoid against the bias for a second span of time, wherein the solenoid is rated for continuous operation at a rated voltage, and wherein the actuating voltage is above the rated voltage as taught by Gluck for the purpose of operating the solenoid in response to signals sent by the control module (column 6, lines 39-41).
Hiltebrandt is silent regarding actuate the solenoid against a bias, the solenoid has a coil to which the actuating and holding voltages are applied and wherein the coil is rated for continuous operation at a rated voltage.
However, Cahan teaches a method of operating resuscitating device comprising actuate the solenoid against a bias (page 2, second column, lines 13-19) and the solenoid has a coil (page 2, lines 13-19, “solenoid coil”) for the purpose of designing a solenoid valve that is operational under the applied voltage (page 2, lines 13-19).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the design of a solenoid valve of Hiltebrandt to incorporate actuate the solenoid against a bias, the solenoid has a coil as taught by Cahan for the purpose of designing a solenoid valve that is operational under the applied voltage (page 2, lines 13-19).
Furthermore, Hiltebrandt modified in view of Gluck and Cahan will result in having the solenoid has a coil to which the actuating and holding voltages are applied and wherein the coil is rated for continuous operation at a rated voltage.
Regarding claim 5, Hiltebrandt discloses wherein the solenoid is operatively connected to a valve (column 2, lines 57-61, position where insufflation duct is left open) having an open position for allowing flow through the valve and a closed position (position where insufflation duct is closed) for preventing flow through the valve but is silent regarding wherein the bias 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 method of Hiltebrandt 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).
Hiltebrandt further discloses actuating the valve to closed position (column 2, lines 57-61) but is silent regarding wherein actuating the solenoid against the bias actuates the valve to the closed position, and wherein the holding the solenoid against the bias holds the valve in the closed position.
However, Gluck teaches regarding actuating the valve and holding the solenoid to hold the valve in the actuated position (figure 5, column 6, lines 47-56) for the purpose of operating the solenoid in response to signals sent by the control module (column 6, lines 39-41).
Hiltebrand modified in view of Cahan and Gluck would result in a modified method comprising wherein actuating the solenoid against the bias actuates the valve to the closed position, and wherein the holding the solenoid against the bias holds the valve in the closed position.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiltebrandt et al. (US 4,207,887) in view of Gluck et al. (US 4,838,259) in view of Cahan (US 2,288,436) and further in view of Mantell (US 2004/0153027 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Hiltebrandt/Gluck/Cahan (hereinafter referred as “modified Hiltebrandt”) discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above in claims 1 and 5. Modified Hiltebrandt is silent regarding further comprising 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.
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 Hiltebrandt 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 Hiltebrandt 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), Hiltebrandt teaches the valve in open state until being actuated and 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.
Regarding claim 8, modified Hiltebrandt discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above in claims 1 and 5. Modified Hiltebrandt is silent regarding further comprising filtering flow through the valve in the open position to reduce or prevent particulates passing through the valve.
However, Mantell teaches further comprising filtering flow (paragraph 0027) through the valve 27 in the open position to reduce or prevent particulates passing through the valve for the purpose of removing the particles or objects passing through the flow (paragraph 0027).
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 Hiltebrandt to incorporate further comprising filtering flow through the valve in the open position to reduce or prevent particulates passing through the valve as taught by Mantell for the purpose of removing the particles or objects passing through the flow (paragraph 0027).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiltebrandt et al. (US 4,207,887) in view of Gluck et al. (US 4,838,259) in view of Cahan (US 2,288,436) and further in view of Thomson et al. (US 2009/0139522 A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Hiltebrandt discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above in claims 1 and 5. Modified Hiltebrandt 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 Hiltebrandt 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 Hiltebrandt 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 hiltebrandt 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) and further in view of Barker (3,424,951).
Regarding claim 9, Gluck discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above in claim 1. 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) 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pekander (US 2018/0110420 A1): discloses a system and method of controlling a medical device comprising a solenoid valve.
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
Prosecution Insights