DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “720” has been used to designate both “a sealing part” and “a second sealing member” in fig. 1. 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. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102anticipated as being anticipated by Megerle et al. (US 6,254,199).
In Re claim 1, Megerle et al. disclose a vehicle braking apparatus comprising: a pump housing (valve block 20) having an inlet (84) and outlet (86); a valve body (14); a plunger (28); a seat (36) having a passage hole (38); a flow path (44) between the seat and valve body; an elastic part (spring 42) disposed between the seat and plunger; and a sealing part (46) pressed into the housing and seat (see 48) and including a fluid flow through passage (58), the valve body being seated on an upper portion of the sealing part so as to restrain the sealing part (see interaction between 16 and 46 in fig. 1).
In Re claim 2, see first sealing member (see 48) and first communication passage (58, 66); and second sealing member (upper portion of 46) and second communication passage (70).
In Re claim 3, see first sealing member (see 48); seat (36); second sealing member (46); housing (20); and valve body (14).
In Re claims 5-7, see second sealing member (46) and plurality of second ports (there are three openings 70).
In Re claim 8, the second sealing member has a stepped cross-sectional profile leading to the second ports (see 70 and left-hand side of 46 in fig. 1).
In Re claims 9 and 10, see filters (62, 72).
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102anticipated as being anticipated by Jeong et al. (US 2022/0348179).
In Re claim 1, Jeong et al. disclose a vehicle braking apparatus (fig. 7) comprising: a pump housing (valve block 180) having an inlet (A, B) and outlet (C); a valve body (130) a plunger (120); a seat (156) having a passage hole (see P2); a flow path (D) between the seat and valve body; an elastic part (spring 210) disposed between the seat and plunger; and a sealing part (unlabeled bottom member) pressed into the housing and seat (see adjacent 156) and including a fluid flow through passage (see vertical through hole), the valve body being seated on an upper portion of the sealing part so as to restrain the sealing part (see fig. 7).
In Re claim 2, see first sealing member (inner portion of unlabeled bottom member adjacent 156) and first communication passage (vertical through hole); and second sealing member (radially outer portion of unlabeled bottom member) and second communication passage (see spaced gaps between the bottom member and 130).
In Re claim 3, see sealing member (unlabeled bottom member); seat (156); housing (180); and valve body (130).
In Re claim 4, see central portion of the unlabeled bottom member, which extends further upward than a radial outside of the unlabeled bottom member.
In Re claims 5-7, see second sealing member (radial outside of the unlabeled bottom member) and plurality of circumferentially spaced second ports (see gap between radial outside of the unlabeled bottom member and 130).
In Re claim 8, the second sealing member has a stepped cross-sectional profile leading to the second ports (see step immediately adjacent to the gap between the radial outside of the unlabeled bottom member and 130).
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 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (US 2022/0348179) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Megerle et al. (US 6,254,199).
In Re claims 9 and 10, Jeong et al. fails to disclose filters associated with the inlet/outlet of the valve.
Megerle et al. is related to the art of solenoid valves within brake systems, and teaches providing such a valve with filters (62, 72). The filters protect the internal components - such as the spring, seat, orifices, etc. - from dirt, rust, and particulates. This prevents premature wear, clogs, and, most importantly, failure to seal, which causes leaks. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the valve of Jeong et al. to include filters, as taught by Megerle et al., simply to protect the valve from debris, thus ensuring proper functionality, and increasing the lifespan of the valve.
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 THOMAS W IRVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3095. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
/THOMAS W IRVIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights