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 1-14 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “while maintaining a fluid communication between the armature chamber and the fluid chamber in both the first and second resistance levels” is not clear, because it is only conclusory statement. what does it mean “the fluid chamber in both the first and second resistance levels”? Resistance is the value not the level. How does the resistance actually make with level. Is it the level measurement, or the resistance to the water or the fluid?
The statement “while maintaining a fluid communication between the armature chamber and the fluid chamber in both the first and second resistance levels” is vague and unclear 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. Such a statement attempts to define the subject- matter in terms of the result to be achieved, which merely amounts to a statement of the underlying problem, without providing the technical features necessary for achieving this result.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 9, 12 and 14, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by Moreno et al. (US 2006/0180782).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Moreno discloses a device comprising:
an armature (22) located in an armature chamber (44),
wherein the armature has a moving armature rod (26),
wherein the actuator (10) is configured to fill the armature chamber (44) with a fluid (see the abstract) when the armature rod (26) moves such that the fluid is drawn into the armature chamber (44) from a fluid chamber (38) of the motor vehicle via a fluid path when the armature rod (26) is connected to the fluid chamber, and
wherein a flow resistance in the fluid path (48) between the armature chamber (44) and the fluid chamber is configure to be set to a first resistance level or a second resistance level (see the abstract & para. [0022]).
It is inherent while maintaining a fluid communication between the armature chamber (44) and the fluid chamber (38) in both the first and second resistance levels.
Regarding claim 2, Moreno discloses:
the electromagnetic actuator is mounted on the fluid chamber (38), and wherein the fluid chamber (38) is fluidly connected to the actuator (10).
Regarding claim 3, Moreno discloses:
the fluid path (44) is formed at least in part by an axial hole (see the drawing below), in the armature rod (26), a radial hole (see the drawing below) at the fluid chamber end of the armature rod (26), and
at least one radial hole (see the drawing below) in the armature rod (26) at the armature chamber end.
[AltContent: textbox (Recess)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Radial hole)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Axial hole )][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
421
293
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Moreno discloses:
the actuator (10) is configured to fill the armature chamber (44) with fluid through a predefined number of axial movements.
Regarding claim 12, Moreno discloses:
the armature chamber (44) has a discharge gap (see the drawing below) at an end lying opposite the fluid chamber (38),
wherein the discharge gap enables draining of the armature chamber (44).
[AltContent: textbox (Discharge gap)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
361
368
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moreno et al. (US 2006/0180782).
Regarding claims 10 and 11:
Although Moreno does not explicitly disclose the predefined number of axial movements includes less than three movements of the armature or the predefined number of axial movements exactly one movement of the armature, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the predefined number of axial movements includes less than three movements of the armature or the predefined number of axial movements exactly one movement of the armature for the purpose of suitability of the intended use, 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 271, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/8/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the REMARKS:
Page 9, Applicant argued that:
“Moreno does not disclose or suggest the features of claim 1 as amended”.
This argument is not found to be persuasive, because the features of claim 1 as amended “, “while maintaining a fluid communication between the armature chamber and the fluid chamber in both the first and second resistance levels” is not clear. what does it mean “the fluid chamber in both the first and second resistance levels”? Resistance is the value not the level. How does the resistance actually make with level. Is it the level measurement, or the resistance to the water or the fluid?
The statement “while maintaining a fluid communication between the armature chamber and the fluid chamber in both the first and second resistance levels” is vague and unclear 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. Such a statement attempts to define the subject- matter in terms of the result to be achieved, which merely amounts to a statement of the underlying problem, without providing the technical features necessary for achieving this result.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and the drawing objections set forth in this Office action and to include 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 art does not teach or suggest the electromagnetic actuator comprising:
Claim 4: the armature rod is radially encompassed by a core at the fluid chamber end, wherein a gap is located between the core and the armature rod which forms a segment of the fluid path, wherein the gap has a stepped longitudinal cross section that has a first step and a second step, with which the first and second flow resistance levels are obtained when the radial hole at the fluid chamber end is at the first or second step in the gap.
Claim 6: the armature chamber has a first fluid reservoir and second fluid reservoir, wherein the radial hole at the armature chamber end positionable at the level of first fluid reservoir and the first and second fluid reservoirs are configured to be connected for fluid transfer by a segment of the fluid path.
Claim 13: a housing; a magnetic coil, which radially encompasses an interior chamber; a pole tube, which extends into the interior chamber encompassed by the coil; a core, which extends into the interior chamber encompassed by the coil and lies axially opposite the pole tube; the armature that can move axially inside the armature chamber; and a bearing, wherein at least the core and the pole tube form the armature chamber, wherein the armature sheath for the armature forms a choke between the first and second fluid reservoirs, wherein the armature rod is supported by the bearing, and wherein the pole tube and the bearing form the discharge gap.
Claims 16-18 are allowed.
The prior art does not teach or suggest the electromagnetic actuator comprising the armature chamber has a first fluid reservoir and second fluid reservoir, wherein the radial hole at the armature chamber end is positionable at the level of first fluid reservoir and the first and second fluid reservoirs are configured to be connected for fluid transfer by a segment of the fluid path.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 should be directed to Lisa Homza whose telephone number is (571) 272-3592.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Shawki 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.
/Lisa Nhung Homza/
Patent Examiner - Art Unit 2837
January 8, 2026
/SHAWKI S ISMAIL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2837