DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on page 11 that “Kaneda does not identify any oil reservoir space formed on plunger (16) in the region where the plunger's outer longitudinal surface intersects the plunger's end surface, much less an annular oil reservoir space at that region having a wedge-shaped cross-section defined at least partially by the armature in the region of the intersection between the plunger's outer longitudinal surface and end surface.” This argument is not persuasive because Kaneda teaches oil reservoir space A, 12a, as shown in figures 1-2, and also discussed in paragraph 28. Kaneda also shows the oil reservoir formed on the armature in the same region as disclosed by the applicant (this was discussed in detail in response to arguments of the prior office action). The annular shape of the space is clearly shown in figure 2. The wedge shape is not taught by Kaneda, but instead taught by Ishibashi. Thus, this argument, and all other arguments made by the applicant, that point to Kaneda not teaching the wedge shape are moot.
On page 13, the applicant argues with respect to the Ishibashi reference that: “Even assuming that Ishibashi discloses a tapered recess, Ishibashi does not teach or suggest using that recess as an annular oil reservoir space at the claimed intersection region between an armature outer longitudinal surface and an armature end surface.” This argument is not persuasive because oil reservoir space formed on the armature is already taught by Kaneda. Ishibashi teaches that the armature can have a wedge shape that allows for specific improvements to magnetic flux distribution. This improvement is capable of being applied to any armature that does not have a wedge shape, such as armature of Kaneda. When this teaching is applied to Kaneda as discussed in the rejection, the wedge shape of the armature of the combined device forms the reservoir space, since the position of the armature in the combined device does not change from the original position of the armature of Kaneda.
On page 14, the applicant argues that “…As such, Ishibashi discloses that after formation of the distribution-adjusting recess (alpha) the recess is filled with a nonmagnetic material to improve sliding performance between the plunger (4) and the conduct core (5). Therefore, if the distribution-adjusting recess (alpha) was added to Kaneda, a person having ordinary skill in the art would also fill that recess with a nonmagnetic material to improve sliding performance, as taught by Ishibashi. This disclosure further confirms that Ishibashi's recess is not an oil reservoir…” This argument is not persuasive because Ishibashi was used for teaching of the wedge shape, while oil reservoir is already taught by Kaneda. This teaching of filling the gap with what appears to be lubricating material further supports the position of the examiner, since oil is a nonmagnetic lubricating material. Thus, Ishibashi already teaches filling the gap with material that has similar properties as oil, which further supports the position of the examiner that the structure of the Ishibashi reference is fully capable of functioning with oil positioned at the location of the wedge of the armature.
On page 16, with respect to claims 8 and 18, the applicant argues “Applicant does not concede that In re Aller applies where, as here, the applied art does not disclose the claimed reservoir structure in the first instance. The In re Aller rationale therefore does not cure Kaneda's failure to disclose the claimed reservoir structure or claims 8 and 18's additional height limitation.” This argument is not persuasive because Kaneda in view of Ishibashi teaches the claimed reservoir structure.
On page 17, with respect to the sleeve structure, the applicant argues that “The Action's mapping effectively combines Kaneda's bore (11a) with a separate cover (14) to reconstruct the claimed armature sleeve. In other words, the mapping selects a longitudinal wall from Kaneda's yoke/core bore and an inward end portion from Kaneda's separate cover, and then treats those separate structures as if they were a single armature sleeve. But Kaneda does not disclose a single armature sleeve including a longitudinal wall corresponding to bore (11a) and an inwardly extending end portion corresponding to the inner bottom surface of cover (14).” This argument is not persuasive because the claim language does not specify the details of the sleeve structure that are being argued. The claim language only requires that the armature is slidably supported by the sleeve structure, and that the sleeve structure has a longitudinally extending wall and an end portion that extends inwardly at the end of the wall. Structures 11a and 14 identified in the rejection as together being the sleeve, meet all of the claimed requirements of a sleeve, including a longitudinally extending wall and an inwardly extending end portion. How a sleeve is manufactured or other details about the sleeve that are presented in the arguments are not included in the claim language.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-14, 18-20, and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneda et al. (US 2004/0159812) in view of Ishibashi (US 2010/0301978).
In re claim 1, Kaneda, in figures 1-3, discloses a solenoid actuator, the actuator comprising: a coil (17) at least partially surrounding an axis; an armature sleeve (11a) extending at least partially through the coil, the armature sleeve including a longitudinally extending wall that extends generally parallel to the axis, and an end portion (the inner bottom surface of 14 forms this portion of the sleeve) that extends inwardly at an end of the longitudinally extending wall; an armature slidably supported in the armature sleeve for movement along the axis between at least first and second actuation positions, the armature having an armature body (16) having an outer longitudinal surface facing the longitudinally extending wall and an end surface facing the end portion of the armature sleeve; the longitudinally extending wall having a sliding fit with the outer longitudinal surface of the armature; and an oil reservoir space (A, 12a) formed on the armature in a region of an intersection between the outer longitudinal surface and the end surface of the armature (as seen in figure 1), wherein the oil reservoir space is annular (as seen in figure 2). Kaneda does not disclose a wedge shaped cross section. Ishibashi however, teaches a similar device having a wedge shaped cross section defined at least partially by the armature in the claimed region (figure 2b shows the best view). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adapted the wedge shaped cross section as taught by Ishibashi to the device of Kaneda to improve the magnetic flux distribution (see paragraph 67 of Ishibashi).
In re claim 2, Kaneda, in figures 1-3, discloses a housing (14) fixed to the coil and having an armature receiving space that receives at least a portion of the armature sleeve into which the armature is movable in at least one of the actuation positions and a coil receiving space in which the coil is located, and a solenoid cover (13) located on an opposite side of the coil from the housing.
In re claim 3, Kaneda, in figures 1-3, discloses that an actuator pin (26a, 26) extends from the armature and through the cover.
In re claim 4, Kaneda, in figures 1-3, discloses an actuator pin support (21) connected to the cover, and a stop (28) for the first actuation position of the armature formed on the actuator pin support, and the actuator pin extends through an opening in the actuator pin support.
In re claim 9, Kaneda discloses that the longitudinally extending wall of the armature sleeve is generally cylindrical, and the outer longitudinal surface of the armature is generally cylindrical (as shown in figure 2).
In re claim 10, Kaneda discloses that the end portion of the armature sleeve forms a travel end stop for the second actuation position of the armature (as seen in figure 1).
In re claim 11, Kaneda, in figures 1-3, discloses an actuator assembly, comprising: a support part (any external part where the actuator is mounted); a solenoid actuator (shown in figure 1) connected to the support part, the solenoid actuator having a coil (17) at least partially surrounding an axis, an armature sleeve (11a) extending at least partially through the coil, the armature sleeve including a longitudinally extending wall that extends generally parallel to the axis, and an end portion (the inner bottom surface of 14 forms this portion of the sleeve) that extends inwardly at an end of the longitudinally extending wall, and an armature slidably supported in the armature sleeve for movement along the axis between at least first and second actuation positions, the armature having an armature body (16) having an outer longitudinal surface facing the longitudinally extending wall and an end surface facing the end portion of the armature sleeve, and an actuator pin (26a) extending from the armature; and an actuation part (26) that is acted upon by the actuator pin in at least one of the first or second actuation positions; wherein the longitudinally extending wall has a sliding fit with the outer longitudinal surface of the armature, and an oil reservoir space (A, 12a) is formed on the armature in a region of an intersection between the outer longitudinal surface and the end surface of the armature (as seen in figure 1), wherein the oil reservoir space is annular (as seen in figure 2). Kaneda does not disclose a wedge shaped cross section. Ishibashi however, teaches a similar device having a wedge shaped cross section defined at least partially by the armature in the claimed region (figure 2b shows the best view). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adapted the wedge shaped cross section as taught by Ishibashi to the device of Kaneda to improve the magnetic flux distribution (see paragraph 67 of Ishibashi).
In re claim 12, Kaneda discloses that the support part is located in a wet area of a transmission (see paragraphs 3 and 9 discussing this).
In re claim 13, Kaneda discloses that the solenoid actuator further comprises a housing (14) fixed to the coil and having an armature receiving space that receives at least a portion of the armature sleeve into which the armature is movable in at least one of the actuation positions and a coil receiving space in which the coil is located, and a solenoid cover (13) located on an opposite side of the coil from the housing.
In re claim 14, Kaneda, in figures 1-3, discloses an actuator pin support (21) connected to the cover, and a stop (28) for the first actuation position of the armature formed on the actuator pin support, and the actuator pin extends through an opening in the actuator pin support.
In re claims 8 and 18, Kaneda discloses the claimed device except for the claimed range of heights of the oil reservoir space. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen annular space height value in the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 34, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
In re claim 19, Kaneda discloses that the longitudinally extending wall of the armature sleeve is generally cylindrical, and the outer longitudinal surface of the armature is generally cylindrical (as shown in figure 2).
In re claim 20, Kaneda discloses that the end portion of the armature sleeve forms a travel end stop for the second actuation position of the armature (as seen in figure 1).
In re claim 23, Kaneda, in figures 1-3, discloses a solenoid actuator, the actuator comprising: a coil (17) at least partially surrounding an axis; an armature sleeve (11a) extending at least partially through the coil, the armature sleeve including a longitudinally extending wall that extends generally parallel to the axis, and an end portion (the inner bottom surface of 14 forms this portion of the sleeve) that extends inwardly at an end of the longitudinally extending wall; an armature slidably supported in the armature sleeve for movement along the axis between at least first and second actuation positions, the armature having an armature body (16) having an outer longitudinal surface facing the longitudinally extending wall and an end surface facing the end portion of the armature sleeve; the longitudinally extending wall having a sliding fit with the outer longitudinal surface of the armature; and an oil reservoir space (A, 12a) formed on the armature in a region of an intersection between the outer longitudinal surface and the end surface of the armature (as seen in figure 1), wherein the oil reservoir space is annular (as seen in figure 2). Kaneda does not disclose a wedge shaped cross section. Ishibashi however, teaches a similar device having a wedge shaped cross section defined at least partially by an angled surface of the armature in the claimed region (figure 2b shows the best view). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adapted the wedge shaped cross section as taught by Ishibashi to the device of Kaneda to improve the magnetic flux distribution (see paragraph 67 of Ishibashi).
In re claims 24-25, Kaneda discloses the claimed device except for the claimed range of wedge angles or the claimed values of armature specifications. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen wedge angle values and claimed armature specification values in the claimed ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, paragraphs 32-35, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneda et al. (US 2004/0159812) in view of Ishibashi (US 2010/0301978) and Ichihashi et al. (US 4746888).
In re claims 21-22, Kaneda discloses the oil in the reservoir space but does not explicitly discuss oil being between the armature and the sleeve. Ichihashi however, teaches a similar device with oil being located (at least in passages 31) between the armature (13) and the sleeve (8). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adapted the device of Kaneda/Ishibashi to have oil between the armature and the sleeve as disclosed by Ichihashi to improve lubrication.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneda et al. (US 2004/0159812) in view of Ishibashi (US 2010/0301978) and Goossens et al. (US 6318703).
In re claim 26, Kaneda/Ishibashi discloses the claimed device except for a stainless steel sleeve. Goossens however, in figure 1, discloses a similar device having a stainless steel sleeve (1’, see line 53, column 2). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a stainless steel sleeve as taught by Goossens in the device Kaneda/Ishibashi to improve durability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. A list of pertinent prior art is attached in form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Talpalatski whose telephone number is (571)270-3908. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM - 6 PM PT.
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, Shawki Ismail can be reached at 5712723985. 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.
/Alexander Talpalatski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights