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 .
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, 2, 4, 6, 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lehue (US 20170225668).
In Re claim 1, Lehue discloses a coil assembly comprising: a bobbin (20) having a hole at a center thereof; a first coil (50); a second coil (60); an armature (30); an insulator (90) between the first and second coil; and a coil case (81, 82).
In Re claims 2 and 9, although not shown, the coils inherently necessarily include coil terminals (par. 0014) to receive an electrical current and properly function.
In Re claim 4, the examiner points out that the coil terminals must necessarily exit the coil case in order to be electrically connected with their respective components and function properly; and electrical wires are inherently covered in a jacket to protect and insulate the electrical wires from moisture, chemicals, friction, and short-circuit.
In Re claims 6 and 13, see fig. 2.
In Re claims 7 and 14, see Abstract.
In Re claim 8, Lehue discloses a hydraulic valve of a brake system (pars. 0001-0002), comprising: a bobbin (20) having a hole at a center thereof; a movable armature (30); a first coil (50); a second coil (60); an insulator (90) between the first and second coil; and a coil case (81, 82).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 10/20230036710) in view of Kuhl et al. (US 2021/0284119) and Lehue (US 2017/0225668).
In Re claim 1, Lee et al. disclose a coil assembly comprising: a bobbin (33) having a hole at a center thereof; a first coil (31); a second coil (32); an armature (22); and a coil case (35). Lee et al. fail to teach that the coils have different winding diameters and an insulator between the coils.
Kuhl et al. is related to the art of coil assemblies, and teaches providing a compact radially overlapping of the solenoid coils (320, 322), allowing for a greater net force and more compact design than positioning them longitudinally. 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 coils of Lee et al. to be radially overlapping, as taught by Kuhl et al. to provide the benefit of allowing for a greater net force and more compact design.
Lehue is related to the art of art of coil assemblies, and teaches providing an insulator (90) between adjacent radially positioned first and second coils (50, 60), in order to electrically insulate them from one another and thus prevent any risk of short circuit (par. 0036). 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 coil assembly to include an insulator, as taught by Lehue, in order to electrically insulate the coils from one another and thus prevent any risk of short circuit.
In Re claims 2, 3, 9, 10, and 20, see fig. 4 of Lee et al..
In Re claims 4, 11, and 19, the examiner points out that the coil terminals must necessarily exit the coil case in order to be electrically connected with their respective components and function properly; and electrical wires are inherently covered in a jacket to protect and insulate the electrical wires from moisture, chemicals, friction, and short-circuit.
In Re claims 5, 12, and 16, see first electronic controller (100) and second electronic controller (200) of Lee et al..
In Re claims 6 and 13, see fig. 1 of Kuhl et al., and fig. 2 of Lehue.
In Re claims 7 and 14, see Abstract of Lee et al..
In Re claims 8 and 14, Lee et al. disclose a hydraulic valve of an electric brake system (Abstract), comprising: a bobbin (33) having a hole at a center thereof; a movable armature (22); a first coil (31); a second coil (32); and a coil case (35). Lee et al. fail to teach that the coils have different winding diameters and an insulator between the coils.
Kuhl et al. is related to the art of brake valve coil assemblies, and teaches providing a compact radially overlapping of the solenoid coils (320, 322), allowing for a greater net force and more compact design than positioning them longitudinally. 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 coils of Lee et al. to be radially overlapping, as taught by Kuhl et al. to provide the benefit of allowing for a greater net force and more compact design.
Lehue is related to the art of art of brake valve coil assemblies, and teaches providing an insulator (90) between adjacent radially positioned first and second coils (50, 60), in order to electrically insulate them from one another and thus prevent any risk of short circuit (par. 0036). 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 coil assembly to include an insulator, as taught by Lehue, in order to electrically insulate the coils from one another and thus prevent any risk of short circuit.
In Re claims 17 and 18, Lee et al. disclose that the second coil acts to ensure redundancy within the hydraulic valve if there is a failure in the other circuit/coil.
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 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