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 .
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
Claim 1, the phrase “the at least one closure element is configured to open or to close the at least one nozzle”.
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Where are the structures of “open or to close the at least one nozzle” in the drawings?
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.
This is an exemplary of the errors. Applicant should carefully review the entire specification/drawings to fix this issue.
Use consistent phraseology to describe a component, part or element in the specification/drawings.
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 1-3, 5-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weiss Johann (EP 2256389).
Regarding claim 1, Johann discloses an Electromagnet comprising:
an armature space (2),
an armature (3) which is arranged longitudinally movably in the armature space (2), the armature (3) having a penetration opening (30),
at least one closure element (43), and
at least one nozzle (71), wherein the armature (3) supports the at least one closure element (43) which is mounted movably in the penetration opening (30),
wherein the at least one closure element (43) is configured to open or to close the at least one nozzle (71),
wherein the at least one closure element (43) comprises:
a guiding element (41), which configured to guide the at least one closure element (43) in the penetration opening (30), and
a sealing element (40) which is supported by the guiding element (41), and locking or floating manner on the guiding element (41).
Since Figure 1 of the applicant shows the guiding element (41) and the at least one closure element (4) are the same element. Therefore, Johann’s element (43), which is both the guiding element (43) and the closure element (43), reads on the claim.
Regarding claim 2, Johann discloses:
the at least one closure element (43) further comprises a supporting spring (33), wherein the supporting spring (33) is provided in the penetration opening (30), the sealing element (4) being supported by the supporting spring (33).
Regarding claim 3, Johann discloses:
an end winding of the supporting spring (33) which bears against the sealing element (4) is added and/or ground down.
Regarding claim 5, Johann does not disclose:
wherein on an outer circumferential side of the sealing element (4), the sealing element (4) has a supporting step (34) which is supported against an inner circumferential-side supporting step (34) of the guiding element (43).
Regarding claim 6, Johann discloses:
wherein the supporting step (34) of the sealing element (4) is arranged in a tenth or half, facing the at least one nozzle (71), of a longitudinal extent of the sealing element (4).
Regarding claim 7, Johann discloses:
the guiding element (43) has a hollow cylindrical portion (see the drawing below), in which the sealing element (4) is arranged.
[AltContent: textbox (Not Conical surface)][AltContent: textbox (bounding collar)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Guiding ribs)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Hollow sleeve)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Hollow cylindrical portion)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
240
163
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Johann discloses:
the guiding element (43) is configured as a hollow sleeve (see the drawing above) and/or has guiding ribs (see the drawing above) which run longitudinally on an outer circumferential side of the guiding element (43).
Regarding claim 10, Johann discloses:
the guiding element (43) has a bounding collar (see the drawing above) which bears against the sealing element (4) on an outer circumferential side of the guiding element (43).
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 4, 9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss Johann (EP 2256389).
Regarding claim 4, Johann does not disclose: the guiding element (43) is configured from a thermoplastic material.
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 guiding element (43) is configured from a thermoplastic material for the purpose of suitability of the intended use. Since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 9, Johann does not disclose:
wherein on the outer circumferential side, the guiding element (43) has at least one conical surface (see the drawing above) or curved surface.
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 outer circumferential side, the guiding element (43) change the NOT conical surface (see the drawing above) or curved surface, as taught by Johann, to the conical surface for the purpose of suitability of the intended use. Since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claims 11-13, Johann does not explicitly disclose: the sealing element (4) is formed from a vulcanization-free material or from an elastic plastic (claim 11), or an elastomer (claim 12), or a fluoro-rubber (FKM) material (claim 13)
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 sealing element (4) as taught by Johann is formed from a vulcanization-free material or from an elastic plastic (claim 11), or an elastomer (claim 12), or a fluoro-rubber (FKM) material (claim 13) for the purpose of suitability of the intended use. Since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the REMARKS:
Page 18, applicant argued that:
“Johann fails to disclose a sealing element which is held "in a locking or floating manner on the guiding element".
This argument is not found to be persuasive, because claim 1 does not specifically disclose the structures of how the “sealing element which is held "in a locking or floating manner on the guiding element”. Therefore, the sealing element (40) as taught by Johann, which is held in a locking or floating manner on the guiding element (41), still reads on claim 1.
Page 18, Applicant also argued that:
“Johann describes its guide element (41) and sealing nipple (40) are formed of one piece.”
This argument is not found to be persuasive, because Figures 3a and 3b clearly show that the guide element (41) and sealing nipple (40) are formed of two pieces.
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
/SHAWKI S ISMAIL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2837