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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Figure 2, reference number “49J”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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.
It appears that 49J should be changed to 49I.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph 29 lines 2 and 3, the reference numbers “49l” should be changed to “49I”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-10 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 the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-5, 7 and 8, the phrase “sleeve-like” is indefinite, as it is not clear what structures would be considered like a sleeve.
Claims 6, 9 and 10 are rejected due to their dependence upon claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2014-73018 A to Mori et al.
Re-claim 1, Mori et al. disclose a vibration damper having an adjustable damping valve device comprising: a fixed sleeve (see figure 4 and combination of elements 36, 38 and 41) return member that comprises a conductive portion 36 and an insulating portion 41; a valve armature 46/47 is axially movable within the sleeve fixed return member; an actuator 34 has a magnetic coil 34A that applies a magnetic actuation force to the valve armature; the sleeve fixed return member cooperates with a pole disk 43 that conducts a magnetic flux of the magnetic coil and on which an axial transfer of the magnetic flux for actuating movement of the valve armature takes place, the insulating portion 41 of the sleeve fixed return member is adjoined in a direction of the pole disk by a second conductive portion 38 and the valve armature axially overlaps the second conductive portion depending on a stroke. When fully moved downwardly in figures 3/4, the armature overlaps a top end 38E of portion 38. See also figure 5 and an alternative arrangement.
Re-claim 2, the second conductive portion 38 of the sleeve fixed return member has a magnetic conductivity that increases in the direction of the pole disk. The iron core pole disk increases the magnetic conductivity in that region.
Re-claim 3, the second conductive portion 38 of the sleeve fixed return member forms a magnetic flux path parallel with the pole disk to a housing portion 38B that conducts the magnetic flux.
Re-claim 4, the conductive portion 36 and the insulating portion 41 of the sleeve fixed return member are formed in a seamless manner. Portions 36, 38 and 41 are welded together at points 42 to form a seamless singular element.
Re-claims 5 and 6, the insulating portion 41 is formed by a cross sectional reduction of the sleeve fixed return member forming a groove, see figure 4.
Re-claim 7, the groove is formed on an outer circumference of the sleeve fixed member.
Re-claim 8, a transition region between the insulating portion 41 and the second conductive portion 38 of the sleeve fixed return member has in a direction of the second conductive portion 38 a cross sectional increase. As seen in figure 4, the cross sectional area increases from portion 41 to portion 38.
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.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al. in view of US 10,598,141 to Bohmann et al.
Re-claims 9 and 10, as shown in figure 3, the pole disk 43 has an axial projection 43E and during the stroke position of the valve armature with respect to the pole disk, there is an axial overlap between the valve armature and the pole disk. However, Mori et al. fail to teach the valve armature having an annular space configured to receive the axial projection when approaching the pole disk, or the axial projection of the pole disk having a conical shape in the direction of the valve armature.
Bohmann et al. teach various arrangements of an armature 38 and pole disk 40, see figures 3 and 4. One arrangement includes an armature (moving element) 38 having an annular space 54 (i.e. recess) that receives a projection 52 of the pole disc 40. The projection has a conical shape. This arrangement is an improvement over a flat stop face (figure 7), in that the conical shape reduces noise during contraction events (see column 2 lines 24-44 and column 6 lines 1-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have shaped the interacting surfaces of the pole disk and armature of Mori et al. with a pole disc having a conical projection received into a armature recess as taught by Bohmann et al., thus reducing noises associated with a contraction event between the armature and pole disk.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kato, Mills, Pellmann, Klenk, Foster, Deland and Bahr each teach a valve having a sleeve with an insulating portion.
Any inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas Williams whose telephone number is 571-272-7128. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday from 6:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
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.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-6584.
TJW
May 29, 2026
/THOMAS J WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights