Detailed Action1
America Invents Act Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because reference number 146 in figure 4 is a different diameter than reference number 146 in figures 5 and 11. Further, the specification refers to reference number 146 both as an overtravel diameter and upper diameter (see ¶ [0042] & [0056] of Applicant’s originally filed specification). Based upon Applicant’s specification and figure 5, it appears reference number 146 in figure 4 should be 152. 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.
Rejections under 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention
Claims 2-3 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2 and 23 each recite the overtravel diameter structure extending from the flange. Claims 3 and 24 each recite the nominal diameter transitions to an upper diameter of the overtravel diameter structure that extends from the flange toward the distal end along a third length of the overtravel diameter structure, the upper diameter being greater than the nominal diameter. Applicant’s originally filed disclosure teaches “the overtravel diameter can be transitioned to from a first diameter of a nominal diameter to the overtravel diameter via a chamfered transition between the upper diameter and the overtravel diameter. The overtravel diameter near the distal end of the armature can be less than or equal to about 5 millimeters over a length of the armature.”2 Paragraph [0056] of Applicant’s originally filed specification also discusses the overtravel diameter.3 Further, Applicant’s originally filed disclosure does not teach an upper diameter portion between the nominal diameter and the flange being part of the overtravel diameter structure that produces the claimed benefits. Thus, the overtravel diameter is the reduced diameter at the distal end of the armature—not the diameter/shape of the entire length of the portion extending from the flange. While Applicant can claim the structure of the entire portion extending from the flange, Applicant does not have support for the entire structure being an hydraulic separation feature that improves the armature as claimed.
Claim 22 is rejected for depending from claim 2.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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 2-3 and 22-24 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 2 and 23 each recite an overtravel diameter structure. In light of Applicant’s originally filed disclosure, it is unclear what the difference is between this element and the previously recited modified overtravel diameter structure. Are these separate elements? Is the modified overtravel diameter structure part of the overtravel diameter structure?
The rest of the claims are rejected for depending from one of claims 2 and 23.
Rejections under 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.
(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, 4, 7, 10, 25, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 11,300,068 (“Hill”).
Claim 1 recites an armature for a fuel injector with a longitudinal axis, the armature extending along a longitudinal axis and being configured to be positioned adjacent a gap in the fuel injector and configured to move along the longitudinal axis between first and second positions such that the armature moves in a proximal direction as the armature moves from the first position to the second position so as to force fuel out of the gap and moves in a distal direction as the armature moves from the second position to the first position so as to draw fuel into the gap. The examiner notes that the fuel injector is not a positively recited element, and, the function of the armature within the fuel injector are intended use limitations. Thus, a prior art armature merely has to be capable of being used in a fuel injector as claimed. Hill teaches an armature 56 that can be used in a fuel injector as claimed (figs. 2-3, col. 4 lines 28-65, wherein the armature is movable between two positions to allow injection of fuel).
Hill also teaches the armature including a bore extending through the armature along the longitudinal axis (figs. 3).
Claim 1 also recites and a hydraulic separation feature configured to improve hydraulic separation of the armature such that a travel time between the first and second positions is reduced as the armature comes to rest, wherein the hydraulic separation feature includes at least one of a modified mass structure, a modified overtravel diameter structure, and one or more diffusion holes. The examiner notes that "a modified mass structure" and "a modified overtravel diameter" are broad limitations, and as detailed in 1 [0053] & [0055]-[0056] of Applicant's originally filed specification, include a flange that is capable of being formed by machining a larger/heavier flange portion (e.g. the flange portion of a prior art armature capable of being bigger or heavier), and, a distal end diameter that is capable of being machined from a larger diameter distal end (e.g. the distal end diameter of a prior art armature capable of being larger than it is), respectively. Hill teaches at least a modified mass structure (fig. 3, wherein the tapered surface on the bottom of the flange is capable of being machined from an initial pre-machined flange portion that did not have the taper) and one or more diffusion holes (fig. 3, i.e. annular through hole in flange).
Regarding claim 10, Hill teaches a fuel injector (44) (col. 3 lines 52-56) comprising: a body (62) having a longitudinal axis extending between a proximal end and a distal end of the body (fig. 2); a stator assembly (84) configured to be received within the body (fig. 2-3, col. 4 lines 28-41); and an armature (56) extending along the longitudinal axis of the body (fig. 3, col. 4 lines 32-41), the armature positioned adjacent a gap in the fuel injector and configured to move along the longitudinal axis between first and second positions such that the armature moves in a proximal direction as the armature moves from the first position to the second position so as to force fuel out of the gap and moves in a distal direction as the armature moves from the second position to the first position so as to draw fuel into the gap (fig. 3, col. 4 lines 28-65).
Hill also teaches the armature including a bore extending through the armature along the longitudinal axis (fig. 3). Claim 1 also recites a hydraulic separation feature configured to improve hydraulic separation of the armature such that a travel time between the first and second positions is reduced as the armature comes to rest, wherein the hydraulic separation feature includes at least one of a modified mass structure, a modified overtravel diameter structure, and one or more diffusion holes. This is taught by Hill as detailed in the rejection to claim 1, above.
Regarding claims 4 and 25, Thomas further teaches the hydraulic separation feature includes at least two of the modified mass structure, the modified overtravel diameter structure, and the one or more diffusion holes (see rejection to claim 1, above, wherein Hill teaches both the modified mass structure and the one or more diffusion holes).
Regarding claims 7 and 28, Thomas teaches the hydraulic separation feature includes each of the modified mass structure and the one or more diffusion holes (see rejection to claim 1, above, wherein Hill teaches both the modified mass structure and the one or more diffusion holes).
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-10, 23, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPGPub No. 2020/0318591 (“Thomas”).
Claim 1 recites an armature for a fuel injector with a longitudinal axis, the armature extending along a longitudinal axis and being configured to be positioned adjacent a gap in the fuel injector and configured to move along the longitudinal axis between first and second positions such that the armature moves in a proximal direction as the armature moves from the first position to the second position so as to force fuel out of the gap and moves in a distal direction as the armature moves from the second position to the first position so as to draw fuel into the gap. The examiner notes that the fuel injector is not a positively recited element, and, the function of the armature within the fuel injector are intended use limitations. Thus, a prior art armature merely has to be capable of being used in a fuel injector as claimed. Thomas teaches an armature 30 that can be used in a fuel injector as claimed (figs. 1-2, ¶ [0015]-[0016], wherein the armature is movable between two positions to allow injection of fuel).
Thomas also teaches the armature including a bore extending through the armature along the longitudinal axis (fig. 2).
Claim 1 also recites a hydraulic separation feature configured to improve hydraulic separation of the armature such that a travel time between the first and second positions is reduced as the armature comes to rest, wherein the hydraulic separation feature includes at least one of a modified mass structure, a modified overtravel diameter structure, and one or more diffusion holes. The examiner notes that "a modified mass structure" and "a modified overtravel diameter" are broad limitations, and as detailed in 1 [0053] & [0055]-[0056] of Applicant's originally filed specification, include a flange that is capable of being formed by machining a larger/heavier flange portion (e.g. the flange portion of a prior art armature capable of being bigger or heavier), and, a distal end diameter that is capable of being machined from a larger diameter distal end (e.g. the distal end diameter of a prior art armature capable of being larger than it is), respectively. Thomas teaches at least a modified mass structure (fig. 2, wherein the tapered surface on the bottom of the flange is capable of being machined from an initial pre-machined flange portion that did not have the taper) and a modified overtravel diameter (fig. 2, wherein the diameter of the armature 30 at the distal end is smaller than the rest of the diameter of the portion extending from the flange).
PNG
media_image1.png
363
737
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Thomas teaches a fuel injector (¶ [0014]) comprising: a body (12) having a longitudinal axis extending between a proximal end and a distal end of the body (figs. 1-2, ¶ [0014]); a stator assembly (9/36/40) configured to be received within the body (fig. 2, ¶ [00115]); and an armature (30) extending along the longitudinal axis of the body (fig. 2, ¶ [0015] & [0016]), the armature positioned adjacent a gap in the fuel injector and configured to move along the longitudinal axis between first and second positions such that the armature moves in a proximal direction as the armature moves from the first position to the second position so as to force fuel out of the gap and moves in a distal direction as the armature moves from the second position to the first position so as to draw fuel into the gap (fig. 2, ¶ [0015] & [0016]).
Thomas also teaches the armature including a bore extending through the armature along the longitudinal axis (fig. 2).Claim 1 also recites a hydraulic separation feature configured to improve hydraulic separation of the armature such that a travel time between the first and second positions is reduced as the armature comes to rest, wherein the hydraulic separation feature includes at least one of a modified mass structure, a modified overtravel diameter structure, and one or more diffusion holes. This is taught by Thomas as detailed in the rejection to claim 1, above.
Regarding claims 4 and 25, Thomas further teaches the hydraulic separation feature includes at least two of the modified mass structure, the modified overtravel diameter structure, and the one or more diffusion holes (see rejection to claim 1, above, wherein Thomas teaches both the modified mass structure and the modified overtravel diameter structure).
Regarding claims 6 and 27, Thomas further teaches the hydraulic separation feature includes the modified mass structure and the modified overtravel diameter structure (see rejection to claim 1, above, wherein Thomas teaches both the modified mass structure and the modified overtravel diameter structure).
Regarding claim 8, Thomas further teaches the modified overtravel diameter structure includes an overtravel diameter that is reduced along a length of the armature in a direction from the proximal end to the distal end (see annotated fig. 2 of Thomas provided in the rejection to claim 1, above).
Claim 9 recites the overtravel diameter structure is transitioned from a first diameter of a nominal diameter portion to the overtravel diameter via a chamfered transition portion between the nominal diameter and the overtravel diameter. The examiner notes that this limitation is not required if another one of the hydraulic separation features is present (since the overtravel diameter structure is not required for claim 1). Since Thomas teaches a modifed mass structure, the overtravel diameter structure is not required. However, Thomas also teaches the overtravel diameter structure being partially transitioned from a first/nominal diameter to the overtravel diameter via a chamfered transition portion that is between the nominal and overtravel diameters (see fig. 2 of Thomas).
Claims 2 and 23 each recite the armature includes a flange and an overtravel diameter structure extending from the flange to a distal end of the armature, wherein the modified overtravel diameter structure includes an overtravel diameter extending from the distal end along a first length of the armature, the overtravel diameter transitioning to a nominal diameter along a second length of the overtravel diameter structure that is located between the flange and the first length, the nominal diameter being greater than the overtravel diameter. Thomas teaches this as illustrated in annotated fig. 2 of Thomas, below.
PNG
media_image2.png
505
684
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-3, 10, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPGPub No. 2022/0120247 (“Busato”).
Claim 1 recites an armature for a fuel injector with a longitudinal axis, the armature extending along a longitudinal axis and being configured to be positioned adjacent a gap in the fuel injector and configured to move along the longitudinal axis between first and second positions such that the armature moves in a proximal direction as the armature moves from the first position to the second position so as to force fuel out of the gap and moves in a distal direction as the armature moves from the second position to the first position so as to draw fuel into the gap. The examiner notes that the fuel injector is not a positively recited element, and, the function of the armature within the fuel injector are intended use limitations. Thus, a prior art armature merely has to be capable of being used in a fuel injector as claimed. Busato teaches an armature 9 that can be used in a fuel injector as claimed (figs. 1-2, ¶ [0109] & [0135], wherein the armature is movable between two positions to allow injection of fuel).
Busato also teaches the armature including a bore extending through the armature along the longitudinal axis (figs. 2 & 19).
Claim 1 also recites and a hydraulic separation feature configured to improve hydraulic separation of the armature such that a travel time between the first and second positions is reduced as the armature comes to rest, wherein the hydraulic separation feature includes at least one of a modified mass structure, a modified overtravel diameter structure, and one or more diffusion holes. Figures 2 & 19 of Busato illustrate an overtravel diameter structure that has portions with smaller diameters than other portions, which reads on a modified overtravel diameter structure.
Regarding claim 10, Busato teaches a fuel injector (¶ [0001]) comprising: a body (1) having a longitudinal axis extending between a proximal end and a distal end of the body (figs. 1-2, ¶ [0109]); a stator assembly (2) configured to be received within the body (fig. 2, ¶ [0109]); and an armature (30) extending along the longitudinal axis of the body (fig. 2, ¶ [0015] & [0016]), the armature (9) positioned adjacent a gap in the fuel injector and configured to move along the longitudinal axis between first and second positions such that the armature moves in a proximal direction as the armature moves from the first position to the second position so as to force fuel out of the gap and moves in a distal direction as the armature moves from the second position to the first position so as to draw fuel into the gap (fig. 2, ¶ [0056] & [0135]-[0143]).
Busato also teaches the armature including a bore extending through the armature along the longitudinal axis (fig. 2 & 19). Claim 1 also recites a hydraulic separation feature configured to improve hydraulic separation of the armature such that a travel time between the first and second positions is reduced as the armature comes to rest, wherein the hydraulic separation feature includes at least one of a modified mass structure, a modified overtravel diameter structure, and one or more diffusion holes. This is taught by Busato as detailed in the rejection to claim 1, above.
Claim 2 and 23 each recite the armature includes a flange and an overtravel diameter structure extending from the flange to a distal end of the armature, wherein the modified overtravel diameter structure includes an overtravel diameter extending from the distal end along a first length of the armature, the overtravel diameter transitioning to a nominal diameter along a second length of the overtravel diameter structure that is located between the flange and the first length, the nominal diameter being greater than the overtravel diameter. This is taught as illustrated in annotated fig. 19 of Busato, below, wherein
PNG
media_image3.png
455
666
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 3 and 24 each recite the nominal diameter transitions to an upper diameter of the overtravel diameter structure that extends from the flange toward the distal end along a third length of the overtravel diameter structure, the upper diameter being greater than the nominal diameter. This is taught by annotated fig. 19 of Busato illustrated in the rejection to claims 2 and 23, above.
Rejections under 35 USC 1034
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious5 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5, 7, 11, 21, 26, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas as applied to claims 1 or 10 above, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2005/0139798 (“Tojo”).
Regarding claims 5 and 26, Thomas teaches the hydraulic separation feature includes each of the modified mass structure, the modified overtravel diameter structure (fig. 2; see rejection to claim 1 above). Thomas fails to explicitly teach the hydraulic separation feature also including the one or more diffusion holes. However, this would have been obvious in view of Tojo.
Tojo is also directed to a fuel injector having a stator and armature, wherein the armature is moved vertically via a solenoid to inject fuel (¶ [0004]-[0008] & [0031]-[0032]). Tojo teaches a plurality of through holes 55 and/or notches 53 in the flange to decrease fluid resistance and reduce weight of the armature so that response of the armature is enhanced (figs. 2-5, ¶ [0008] & [0035]-[0036]).
In this case, each of Thomas and Tojo are directed to a fuel injector having a stator and armature, wherein the armature is moved vertically via a solenoid to inject fuel. Tojo teaches there is a reasonable expectation of success of enhancing response of the armature by providing holes and/or notches in the flange. Thus, to enhance response of the armature of Thomas, it would be obvious to provide a plurality of holes through the flange, wherein the holes are evenly distributed.
Regarding claims 7 and 28, Thomas teaches the hydraulic separation feature includes each of the modified mass structure (fig. 2; see rejection to claim 1 above). Thomas fails to explicitly teach the hydraulic separation feature also including the one or more diffusion holes. However, this would have been obvious in view of Tojo for the same reasons detailed in the rejection to claim 5, above.
Regarding claims 11 and 29, Thomas fails to explicitly teach the hydraulic separation feature includes the one or more diffusion holes, and wherein the one or more diffusion holes is a plurality of diffusion holes through a flange of the armature, and wherein the plurality of diffusion holes are radially spaced about the longitudinal axis. However, this would have been obvious in view of Tojo for the same reasons detailed in the rejection to claim 5, above (see also figs. 3-5 of Tojo).
Regarding claim 21, Thomas fails to explicitly teach the plurality of diffusion holes includes four diffusion holes through the flange (Tojo illustrates only three diffusion holes). However, Tojo teaches the number of notches, and thus number of diffusion holes (since a diffusion hole is provided between two notches), can be determined as appropriate (¶ [0033] of Tojo). Thus, it would be obvious to add an additional diffusion hole and notch (so that there are four notches and holes). This can predictably enhance response of the armature by making the armature lighter and decreasing fluid resistance.
In the alternative, routine optimization is not inventive (see MPEP 2144.05(II)). In this case, Tojo teaches that the diffusion holes enhance response of the armature by making the armature lighter and decreasing fluid resistance. Thus, one of skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success of adding one or more notches and diffusions holes as this may further enhance response of the armature by making the armature lighter and decreasing fluid resistance.
Claims 11, 21, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill as applied to claims 1 or 10 above, and further in view of Tojo.
Regarding claims 11 and 29, Hill further teaches the hydraulic separation feature includes the one or more diffusion holes (see rejection to claim 1 above). However, Hill fails to explicitly teach the one or more diffusion holes is a plurality of diffusion holes through a flange of the armature, and wherein the plurality of diffusion holes are radially spaced about the longitudinal axis. However, this would have been obvious in view of Tojo.
Tojo is also directed to a fuel injector having a stator and armature, wherein the armature is moved vertically via a solenoid to inject fuel (¶ [0004]-[0008] & [0031]-[0032]). Tojo teaches a plurality of through holes 55 and/or notches 53 in the flange to decrease fluid resistance and reduce weight of the armature so that response of the armature is enhanced (figs. 2-5, ¶ [0008] & [0035]-[0036]).
In this case, each of Hill and Tojo are directed to a fuel injector having a stator and armature, wherein the armature is moved vertically via a solenoid to inject fuel, and wherein the flange of the armature has a through hole therein. Tojo teaches that it is predictable to have a plurality of through holes instead of a single one. Thus, it would be obvious to substitute the annular through hole of Hill with a plurality of through holes as taught by Tojo, wherein the holes are evenly distributed around the flange. Tojo teaches that this will still predictably allow for the fluid resistance to be decreased.
Regarding claim 21, Thomas fails to explicitly teach the plurality of diffusion holes includes four diffusion holes through the flange (Tojo illustrates only three diffusion holes). However, Tojo teaches the number of notches, and thus number of diffusion holes (since a diffusion hole is provided between two notches), can be determined as appropriate (¶ [0033] of Tojo). Thus, it would be obvious to add an additional diffusion hole and notch (so that there are four notches and holes). This can predictably enhance response of the armature by making the armature lighter and decreasing fluid resistance.
In the alternative, routine optimization is not inventive (see MPEP 2144.05(II)). In this case, Tojo teaches that the diffusion holes enhance response of the armature by making the armature lighter and decreasing fluid resistance. Thus, one of skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success of adding one or more notches and diffusions holes as this may further enhance response of the armature by making the armature lighter and decreasing fluid resistance.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas as applied to claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 22, Thomas teaches the overtravel diameter structure includes a chamfered transition from the overtravel diameter to the nominal diameter (see fig. 2 of Thomas). Thomas fails to explicitly teach the chamfered transition is angled about 160 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis. About 160 degrees is interpreted as 160 degrees +- the degree of error associated with the measurement as stated in ¶ [0065] of Applicant’s originally filed specification. As illustrated below, the angle of the chamfer is around 20 degrees (wherein the angle added to the below drawing is a 20-degree angle)—which means it’s around 160 degrees when measured from the opposite direction.
PNG
media_image4.png
138
172
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, this would be an obvious design choice. As detailed above, Thomas teaches a chamfer angle of around/close to 160 degrees. Making this angle about 160 degrees does not seem to be a critical feature of the claimed invention, produce unexpected results, or solve a stated problem over other angles near 160 degrees. In addition, the slightly modified structure of Thomas would not perform a different function than the armature of Thomas.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 26, 2026 (“the remarks”) have been fully considered. The examiner agrees the amendments to the claims overcome the previous prior art rejections. Thus, the previous prior art rejections are withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle Cook whose telephone number is 571-272-2281. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-3545. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner's supervisor Thomas Hong (571-272-0993). 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct quotations from claims are presented in italics. All information within non-italicized parentheses and presented with claim language are from or refer to the cited prior art reference unless explicitly stated otherwise.
2 ¶ [0010] of Applicant’s originally filed specification.
3 “In examples, the overtravel diameter 152 is near the distal end 156 of the armature
140 and can be less than or equal to about 5 millimeters over a length 153 of the armature 140. In
examples, the length 153 is about 1.5mm. For instance, overtravel diameter 152 can be reduced from about 5.55mm to be about 4.95mm through a step chamfer design. In examples, the overtravel diameter 152 is transitioned to from a first diameter of a nominal diameter of a portion 500 of the body 200 to the overtravel diameter 152 via a chamfered transition 502 between the nominal diameter at the portion 500 and the overtravel diameter 152. The first diameter can be greater than the second diameter (e.g., by a multiple of about 2). In examples, the first diameter is about 9.5mm and the second diameter is about 4mm. Chamfered transition 502 can help in controlling part-to- part variation through tighter control of upper diameter 146 or overtravel diameter 152 in manufacturing. A range of percentage reduction can vary from about 15 to 55%. By reducing the length of the overtravel diameter 152 in this way, a corresponding face or face surface area (which can be in contact with the squeeze film), the armature 140 faces lesser squeeze film resistance during overtravel motion. This helps to cover the overtravel distance in a shorter amount of time before coming to rest. It should also be noted that reducing the overtravel diameter 152 also reduces the face or face surface area of the lower surface (at a distal end) of the armature 140. In examples, the chamfered section 502 can be about 160 degrees, and the resulting face or face surface is between 1 and 2mm.”
4 In 103 rejections, when the primary reference is followed by “et al.”, “et al.” refers to the secondary references. For example, if Jones was modified by Smith and Johnson, subsequent recitations of “Jones et al.” mean “Jones in view of Smith and Johnson”.
5 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”
Prosecution Insights