DETAILED ACTION
Non Final
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/28/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Claims 1-11, 13, 16-19, 22-25 are pending. Claims 1, 13 and 22 are currently amended. Claims 12, 14, 15, 20 and 21 are canceled. Claims 23-25 are newly added. It appears that no new matter has been added. The amendments have required further search and consideration and application of secondary reference Zurke to claims 1-10 and 22 as seen below. The remaining amendments are found persuasive. The drawing objections are withdrawn.
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.
(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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
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(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schnelker (US 2013/0264507); or in the alternative, Claim(s) 1-10 and including Claim 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schnelker in view of Zurke (US 2010/0155683.)
Schnelker discloses in claim 1: (see at least annotated figure 1 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
1030
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A valve (solenoid valve figure 1) comprising: a valve body (5/20/22 defines a body for the valve fluid control) having a port section (at 22) and a coil support section (at 5/20) extending along a longitudinal axis (of 15), the body including a bore (the inner bore of 20) extending at least partially through the coil support section; a plunger (4/10/24) slideably coupled in the bore; and at least one bushing (20/21/23/24 where they act as extension of the body for bushing and) including at least one cylindrical bore bearing surface (inside surface of 20 delimited by 21and also see 24) in the bore and configured to align the plunger within the bore (as shown, the bearing/bushing surface aligns the plunger, ph 0019 where a bearing/busing is arrangeable at the bearing region 21 inside of 20), and wherein the body is over-molded (i.e. the portion 5 along with 20 is injection molded at the bearing rigid structure of 9 to form the bearing surface thereon, ph 0013) onto (onto as covering or forms) the at least one bushing (20/21as see Zurke for exemplary injection molded plastic bearing/bushing.) If it could be persuasively argued at some future unforeseen date that Schnelker does not explicitly disclose, although Zurke teaches: a bearing/bushing with the body overmolded directly onto the bearing bushing (ph 0034-0035, provided for the purpose of compensating for irregularities in the axial alignment of the cavity and coil support);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Schnelker as taught in Zurke with a bearing/bushing with the body overmolded directly onto the bearing bushing as taught in Zurke, and all provided for the purpose of compensating for irregularities in the axial alignment of the cavity and coil support.
Schnelker (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) discloses in claim 2: The valve of claim 1, wherein the at least one cylindrical bore bearing surface comprises a first cylindrical bore bearing surface (20) at least partially in the coil support section (at 21) of the body and a second cylindrical bore bearing surface (at 1004 and as integrally formed with coil former 5 per ph 0020.) If it could be persuasively argued that Schnelker does not explicitly disclose: a larger diameter first cylindrical bore bearing surface materially integrally formed with uniform transition slope down to a smaller diameter second cylindrical bore bearing surface; Considering that Schnelker teaches: integrally connecting the valve sleeve 22/26 and the coil former 5 ph 0020 and using injection molding material to form the coil former ph 0021; and considering that Schnelker teaches providing a uniform transition slope (at 1002) from a larger diameter section to a smaller diameter section, (all for the purpose of for example uniform and consistent material expansion and contraction when subject to thermal change);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Schnelker as suggested and/or taught above, with a larger diameter first cylindrical bore bearing surface materially integrally formed with uniform transition slope (as taught in Schnelker) and down to a smaller diameter second cylindrical bore bearing surface, and all for the purpose of for example uniform and consistent material expansion and contraction when subject to thermal change.
Schnelker discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 3: The valve of claim 2, wherein the second cylindrical bore bearing surface is at least partially in the port section of the body (upper section of 22.)
Schnelker discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 4: The valve of claim 3, further including a poppet (the end portion of 26/28 figure 2) mounted on the plunger (4 via 26) and slideably received in the port section (22) of the body; wherein the poppet includes a cylindrical poppet bearing surface (facing that of 1004 which matches that of applicants plunger poppet bearing surface at 350 figure 2) configured to cooperate with the second cylindrical bore bearing surface to align the plunger within the bore (as shown.)
Schnelker discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 5: The valve of claim 2, the bore further includes a conical section (at the transition of 20 to 23) between the first cylindrical bore bearing surface and the second cylindrical bore bearing surface (or as modified via the alternative embodiment as discussed ph 0020.)
Schnelker discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 6: The valve of claim 5, wherein the conical section of the bore is angled with respect to the first cylindrical bore bearing surface and the second cylindrical bore bearing surface (smaller at the top and wider at the bottom, where or as modified as discussed above, the transition narrows...)
Schnelker discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 7: The valve of claim 2, wherein the first cylindrical bore bearing surface has a larger diameter (diameter of 20 is slightly larger than that of inner diameter of 26) than the second cylindrical bore bearing surface (at 1004 figure 1.)
Schnelker discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 8: The valve of claim 1, wherein the plunger includes a first cylindrical plunger bearing surface (4) configured to cooperate with the at least one cylindrical bore bearing surface to align the plunger within the bore.
Schnelker discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 9: The valve of claim 8, wherein the plunger includes a second cylindrical plunger bearing surface (of 10/24 opposed to 1004) longitudinally spaced from the first cylindrical plunger bearing surface.
Schnelker discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 10: The valve of claim 9, wherein the first cylindrical plunger bearing surface has a larger diameter (as shown, 4 is slightly larger in diameter…) than the second cylindrical plunger bearing surface (as shown at 1004, outside diam of 24.)
Schnelker discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) 22: The valve of claim 1, wherein the body is directly over-molded onto (onto as covering or forms) the at least one bushing (as modified for the reasons discussed above.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 16-19 and 23-25 are allowed. Claims 11 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious in claim 11 “…at least the coil support section of the body comprises injection molded polymer; wherein the at least one cylindrical bore bearing surface comprises a first cylindrical bore bearing surface at least partially in the coil support section of the body and a second cylindrical bore bearing surface; wherein the first cylindrical bore bearing surface has a larger diameter than the second cylindrical bore bearing surface; and wherein the bore further includes a conical section between the first cylindrical bore bearing surface and the second cylindrical bore bearing surface” in combination with the other limitations set forth above; where it would not have been obvious to provide the above claimed arrangement especially without improper hindsight construction of the same, given the lack of teaching in the art in combination with the independent and intervening claim limitations;
Claims 13 and 23 are allowed for the reasons previously indicated in the final action mailed on 10/28/2025 as pertains to claim 13.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W JELLETT, whose telephone number is 571-270-7497. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Ken Rinehart can be reached at (571)-272-4881, or Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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.
/Matthew W Jellett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753