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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/27/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 “the groove comprises: a first axial side having a toroidal shape; and a second axial side, opposite the first axial side, having a conical shape.” (Claim 2) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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.
Claim 15 is 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.
Claim 15 the location/structure of the groove is unclear. Claim 15 recites that “when the coil is energized, the armature assembly is displaced and the detent is radially displaced out of the groove and rests against the armature assembly”. Parent claim 1 which recites that “an armature assembly comprising a groove”. If the groove is in the armature assembly, who does the detent displace out of thee groove and rest against the armature? Clarification is the structure of the groove is required.
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, 4, 14, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mantoan [US 2021/0151233].
Claim 1, Mantoan discloses a detent solenoid [105], comprising: an armature assembly [111/113/116] comprising a groove [140/158]; a coil [not shown; paragraph 0020] arranged for displacing the armature assembly; and a detent [155] arranged for seating in the groove [158 is the detent; paragraph 0026].
Claim 3, Mantoan discloses the detent solenoid of claim 1 wherein: the armature assembly comprises: an armature [113]; and a shaft [116] fixed in the armature; and the groove [158] is disposed in the shaft [paragraph 0026; figures 4a and 4b].
Claim 4, Mantoan discloses the detent solenoid of claim 3 wherein the armature is made of a ferrous material [paragraph 0020].
Claim 14, Mantoan discloses the detent solenoid of claim 1 wherein the detent [155] is seated in the groove [140/158] when the armature assembly is in a rest position [figure 4a].
Claim 15, as best understood, Mantoan discloses the detent solenoid of claim 14 wherein, when the coil is energized, the armature assembly is displaced and the detent is radially displaced out of the groove and rests against the armature assembly [figure 4b].
Claim 17, Mantoan discloses the detent solenoid of claim 1 further comprising a second detent [figure 1 discloses 4 detents], wherein: the detent and the second detent are disposed circumferentially opposite one another [figure 1]; and respective central axes of the detent and the second detent are aligned so that radial forces from the detent and the second detent acting on the armature assembly are balanced [figure 1].
Claims 1, 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith [US 3,027,772].
Claim 1, Smith discloses a detent solenoid [figure 2], comprising: an armature assembly [18/20/24] comprising a groove [28/30]; a coil [14] arranged for displacing the armature assembly; and a detent [32] arranged for seating in the groove [figures 1-5].
Claim 2, Smith discloses the detent solenoid of claim 1 wherein the groove [28/30] comprises: a first axial side having a toroidal shape [right side in figures 3-5]; and a second axial side [left side in figures 3-5 generally at 46], opposite the first axial side, having a conical shape [due to 38/46].
Claim 17, Smith discloses the detent solenoid of claim 1 further comprising a second detent [figure 1 discloses 4 detents], wherein: the detent and the second detent are disposed circumferentially opposite one another [figure 1]; and respective central axes of the detent and the second detent are aligned so that radial forces from the detent and the second detent acting on the armature assembly are balanced [figure 1].
Claims 1, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Biser [US 3,308,410].
Claim 1, Biser discloses a detent solenoid [figure 2], comprising: an armature assembly [42/44/54] comprising a groove [60/62]; a coil [18] arranged for displacing the armature assembly; and a detent [64] arranged for seating in the groove [figures 2 AND 3].
Claim 14, Biser discloses the detent solenoid of claim 1 wherein the detent [64] is seated in the groove [60/62] when the armature assembly is in a rest position [figure 4].
Claim 16, Biser discloses the detent solenoid of claim 1 further comprising a drawn sleeve [20] fixed in the coil [18] and arranged to guide the armature assembly [42/44/54, as shown in figure 2, 20 provides a surface to guide armature portion 42 during actuation].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mantoan [US 2021/0151233].
Claim 2, Mantoan discloses the detent solenoid of claim 1 with the exception of wherein the groove comprises: a first axial side having a toroidal shape; and a second axial side, opposite the first axial side, having a conical shape. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the groove, since applicant has not disclosed that a groove with a first axial side having a toroidal shape; and a second axial side, opposite the first axial side, having a conical shape solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with disclosed groove of Mantoan. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) where the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bernard Rojas whose telephone number is (571)272-1998. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. thru Fri. 7:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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 S Ismail can be reached at (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 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.
/BERNARD ROJAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837