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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-4 & 6-20 are pending on the application, of which claims 1-3, 6-8, 10, 13, 18, & 20 are amended.
In light of the amendments to the claims the previous rejection is withdrawn in favor of the new ground of rejection presented below.
The previous rejection to the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn, except for that to claim 1 for lack of a lack of antecedent basis for the phrase “the direction”.
The previous claim objection is withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicant argues, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 1 for the phrase “the direction”, that the phrase is inherent. This argument is not persuasive because, although there may be a direction from the piston to the stop, it may not be the only possible direction, thus there is ambiguity regarding the direction. For example, MPEP 2173.05(e) provides an example of an inherent limitation in the form of “the outer surface of said sphere”; this limitation does not lack antecedent basis because there a sphere always has an outer surface and there is not ambiguity as to if another outer surface exists.
Applicant argues that Miura does not disclose any comparative rigidity between the damping body and the main body, and alleges that it is not inherent that the damping body has a rigidity lower than the main body to dampen movement of the piston. Applicant also alleges that Miura does not disclose any mechanical property of either of the main body or dampening body.
These arguments are not found persuasive, because Miura clearly showcases that the portion recited as the main body deforms the portion defined as the damping body (e.g., Figs.5A-5C). Such figures clearly indicate that upon collision that damping body elastically deforms, and thus must be of lower rigidity than the main body. If applicant's position is that an element which deforms when contacting another element has a higher rigidity than the element which does not deform upon contact, then such a statement should be clearly made on the record.
Although the action recites metallic material as an example, this is merely for the purposes of providing an example of a material that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to be envisaged by Miura. A skilled artisan recognizes that Miura attempts to dampen a collision of the main body by utilizing elastic deformation of the dampening body (Figs.5A-5C). Thus, although various materials are known to be capable of providing magnetic capabilities, Miura disqualifies such materials which have a rigidity less than the element which is to be elastically deformed (i.e., rubber).
Applicant argues that the Schieweck reference does not rubber stop does not have a rigidity lower than the cited main body. This is not found persuasive because the stop (i.e., damping body) is made of rubber and at least a portion of the main body which contacts the stop is made of steel [0023 & 0025]. If applicant's position is that steel is less rigid than rubber, then such a statement should be clearly made on the record.
Applicant argument towards the Minegishi reference is that the term "shock-absorbing member" is not sufficient to disclose a difference in rigidity between the piston and the shock absorbing member as it merely plays a functional role to mitigate impact forces.
This argument is not found persuasive because a shock absorbing member which mitigates impact forces, commensurate in scope with Minegashi, would be understood to be a member which dampens the movement of the piston during contact to absorb the shock. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that such a component requires a rigidity lower than the piston in order to receive and dampen shocks which occur during impact.
Secondly, as applicant's arguments are only directed towards the shock absorbing member ref 74 and does not argue against the alternative component being cited to as the damping body, it is believed that the interpretation of Minegishi where the alternative component being referred to as the damping body still applies.
The remaining of applicant’s remarks are directed to and dependent upon applicants arguments which have been addressed above, and are not persuasive for the same reasons.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 & 12 objected to because of the following informalities: “the guide body” should be “the cylindrical guide body”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the direction" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitations will be understood as “a direction”.
The term “generally cylindrical” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to how close to cylindrical a damping body must be in order to be considered “generally” cylindrical.
As to claim 10, applicant states “the spring also bears against the stop”, such a phrase indicates that the spring bears against some other element. However, it is unclear as to what other element the spring bears against in order for the spring to “also” bear against the stop. For examination purposes, the limitation will be understood stood as “bears against the stop”.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the vehicle" in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The remaining limitations are rejected for being dependent upon a previously rejected claim.
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) 1-4, 6-7, 11, 15-17 & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miura (US 20140367595 A1).
As to claim 1, Miura teaches an automatic valve (figure 1) suitable for cleaning surfaces, comprising:
– a valve body (refs 13, 14, 15 and 16) including with a fluid duct connecting a fluid inlet (ref 13) and a fluid outlet (ref 14) of the valve body;
– a diaphragm (ref 17) arranged to adopt, by deformation, either a closed position or an open position, the diaphragm sealing off the fluid duct when in the closed position and allowing fluid to flow in the fluid duct from the fluid inlet to the fluid outlet when the diaphragm is in the open position [0025 & 0038];
– an actuator (ref SL) including a stop (ref 22), a spring (ref 23) and a piston (ref 20), the piston comprises a main body extending from a first end (right-hand) to a second end (left-hand) along an axis of elongation (see Fig.8), the piston configured to move, by translation along the axis of elongation, between an engaged position and a disengaged position, (see arrow in Fig.8), the piston adopting, by default and under action of the spring, the engaged position wherein the piston holds the diaphragm in the closed position (Fig.8 & [0027]); the actuator further comprising actuating means (ref 21) configured to force the piston to move in the direction of the stop toward the disengaged position so as to allow the diaphragm to adopt the open position [0027], the actuator comprising a damping body (refs 24 & 25), positioned between the second end and the stop, the damping body having a lower rigidity than that of the main body ([0027 & 0038-0039] the main body is formed of a magnetic material, e.g., metallic while the damping body is formed of rubber [0031]) so as to dampen movement of the piston when the piston moves from the engaged position toward the disengaged position; the damping body is generally cylindrical in shape (see Figs.2-5 & 10-15) and comprises a first section (Fig.2 ref 24a) and a second section (refs 24 & 25) that has a smaller diameter than a diameter of the first section so as to form a bearing shoulder (see Figs.2 and 8). The limitation of cleaning surfaces is merely intended use, and since the valve can be utilized to provide fluid for cleaning surfaces, it reads on the limitation.
As to claim 2, Miura teaches the automatic valve of claim 1, wherein the actuator comprises a cylindrical guide body (ref 22), the guide body having a bottom surmounted by a guide wall delimiting a housing in which the piston is disposed (see Fig.8), the piston configured to slide within the housing, the guide wall having an edge, opposite the bottom and delimiting an opening (see Fig.8 portion where ref 20 exits).
As to claim 3, Miura teaches the automatic valve of claim 2, wherein the bottom of the guide body forms the stop (see Fig.8).
As to claim 4, Miura teaches the automatic valve of claim 2, wherein the bottom comprises a peripheral zone (area overlapping periphery of the piston) and a central zone (inner area overlapping area containing the spring and ref 25) that is recessed with respect to a reference plane defined by the peripheral zone, the central zone forming the stop (see Fig.8).
As to claim 6, Miura teaches the automatic valve of claim 5, wherein the spring is arranged coaxially with the second section and bears against the bearing shoulder (Fig.8).
As to claim 7, Miura teaches the automatic valve of claim 5, wherein the first section and the second section are made of different materials [0030-0031 & 0049].
As to claims 11 & 19, Miura teaches the automatic valve of claim 1, wherein the damping body comprises a polymer material that is an elastomer [0030-0031].
As to claim 15, Miura teaches the automatic valve of claim 1, wherein the activation means comprises at least one electromagnetic coil [0027].
As to claim 16, Miura teaches the automatic valve of claim 1, wherein the valve body comprises a seat arranged in the fluid duct between the inlet and outlet [0026, 0030, & 0036], the diaphragm located and configured to press against the seat when the piston is in the engaged position [0036].
As to claim 17, Miura teaches the automatic valve of claim 1, wherein the diaphragm comprises an elastomeric material (paragraph 0044).
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 11-12, 15-17, & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schieweck (US 20170211718 A1) in view of Miura (US 20140367595 A1).
As to claims 1 & 6-7, Schieweck discloses an automatic valve (Fig.1) comprising:
– a valve body (see shaded portion containing refs 5-6, 9-11, 23, & 24) including a fluid duct (ref 11 connecting refs 23 & 24) connecting a fluid inlet (ref 23) and a fluid outlet (ref 24) of the valve body;
– a diaphragm (refs 6 & 21) configured so as to adopt, by deformation, either a closed position or an open position, the diaphragm sealing off the fluid duct when the diaphragm is in the closed position (Fig.1) and allowing fluid to flow in the fluid duct from the fluid inlet towards the fluid outlet when the diaphragm is in the open position [0020-0021];
– an actuator (refs 3-4, 12, 13, & 29) including a stop (ref 29), a spring (ref 13) and a piston (refs 3-4), the piston comprises a main body extending from a first end (i.e., lower end) to a second end (i.e., upper end) along an axis of elongation (ref 20), the piston is configured to move, by translational along the axis of elongation, between an engaged position and a disengaged position [0020-0022], the piston adopting, by default and under action of the spring, the engaged position (Fig. 1) wherein the piston holds the diaphragm in the closed position (Fig. 1); the actuator further comprising actuating means (ref 12) configured to force the piston to move in the direction of the stop, toward the disengaged position so as to allow the diaphragm to adopt the open position; the actuator also includes a damping body (ref 17 & [0025]), positioned between the second end and the stop (Fig. 1) the damping body having a lower rigidity than that of the main body [0023 & 0025] so as to damp the movement of the piston when the piston moves from the engaged position to the disengaged position thereof [0025]. The limitation of cleaning surfaces is merely intended use, and since the valve can be utilized to provide fluid for cleaning surfaces, it reads on the limitation.
Schieweck does not disclose the damping body having a first section and a second section with a diameter less than the first section to form a shoulder, a coaxial spring bearing against the shoulder, and the first and second section being made of different materials. However, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Miura.
Miura discloses an art related valve (abstract), wherein a cylindrical damping member (refs 24/25) can be utilized with a coaxial spring (ref 23) in order to absorb kinetic energy from a piston collision [0039], thereby dampening noise and vibration. The damping member has a first section (ref 24) and a second section (ref 25) with a smaller diameter than the first section, thereby forming a shoulder. The spring bears against the shoulder and allows for closing of the valve when deenergized [0027 & 0030]. Each of the first and second sections are made of different materials (see [0030-0031] i.e., resin vs rubber).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Schieweck to utilize the damper configuration (i.e., step shaped damper and spring) of Miura as a known alternative for the absorbing of kinetic energy (Miura [0039]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known damping configuration is place of another with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 2, Schieweck teaches the automatic valve of claim 1, wherein the actuator comprises a cylindrical guide body (see refs 2, 14, & 29 surrounding at least part of refs 3 and 4), the guide body having a bottom (ref 29) surmounted by a guide wall (portion of ref 2 housing ref 13 & ref 3 and connecting to ref 29) delimiting a housing in which the piston is disposed and the piston configured to slide within the housing, the guide wall having an edge opposite the bottom and delimiting an opening (Fig.1).
As to claim 3, Schieweck teaches the automatic valve of claim 2, wherein the bottom of the guide body forms the travel stop (Fig.1).
As to claim 4, Schieweck teaches the automatic valve of claim 2, wherein the bottom includes a peripheral zone (i.e., portion of ref 29 receiving portion of ref 2) and a central zone (portion of ref 29 containing ref 17) that is recessed with respect to a reference plane defined by the peripheral zone (at the outer stop close to 14), the central zone forming the stop. Alternatively, a separate interpretation of the art could be made such that the portion of ref 29 surrounding refs 13 and 14 defines the guide wall and the peripheral zone is defined by the cylindrical space between ref 14 and ref 17, while the recessed inner zone is defined by ref 17, specifically in the location overlapping with ref 8.
As to claims 11 & 19, Schieweck teaches the automatic valve of claim 1, wherein the damping body comprises a polymer material that is elastomeric [0025].
As to claim 12, Schieweck teaches the automatic valve of claim 1, wherein the main body comprises, from the second end to the first end, a cylindrical ferromagnetic yoke (ref 2) and an output shaft (ref 4) of a diameter smaller than that of the ferromagnetic yoke, so as to form a first shoulder.
As to claim 15, Schieweck teaches the automatic valve of claim 1, wherein the activation means comprise at least one electromagnetic coil [0020 & 0024-0026].
As to claim 16, Schieweck teaches the automatic valve of claim 1, wherein the valve body comprises a seat (ref 10, with which ref 21 engages) arranged in the fluid duct between the fluid inlet and the fluid outlet, the diaphragm located and configured to press against the seat when the piston is in the engaged position (Fig.1).
As to claim 17, Schieweck teaches the automatic valve of claim 1, wherein the diaphragm comprises an elastomeric material [0011].
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schieweck (US 20170211718 A1) in view of Miura (US 20140367595 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sisk (US 20070069166 A1) and Watanabe (US 20130020514 A1).
As to claim 8, Modified Schieweck teaches the valve of claim 1, but does not disclose the damping body partly housed in the main body. However, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Sisk and Watanabe.
Sisk discloses an art related valve (abstract), and showcases that a dampening body can be located externally of a piston (Figs.2-3 ref 70) or within a portion of the piston body (Fig.4 ref 70) while still allowing for reduction of noise (abstract & [0023]).
Watanabe discloses an art related valve (abstract), wherein it is shown that there are many known damper configurations including configurations in which a damper can be provided partially within a piston body (see all figures).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Schieweck to provide the damping body at least partly within a housing of the main body, as such is a known configuration in the art (Sisk Fig.4 & [0023], also Watanabe all figures). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known damper configuration in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 9, Modified Schieweck teaches the valve of claim 8 wherein the second section has a projection with respect the second end (see Miura ref 25).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schieweck (US 20170211718 A1) in view of Miura (US 20140367595 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Regalbuto (US 20220306048 A1).
As to claim 18, Schieweck teaches the automatic valve of claim 1 but does not disclose a fluid assembly for cleaning surfaces, however it is well-known that solenoid valves can be utilized in assemblies utilized for cleaning. Further, a fluid assembly for cleaning vehicle surfaces utilizing solenoid valves is known in the art, as seen by Regalbuto.
Regalbuto discloses a fluid assembly for cleaning sensor surfaces of a vehicle (abstract), wherein the system utilizes a solenoid valve [0036], and are thus related in the field of valves. The assembly comprises: a solenoid valve (ref 134); a tank of cleaning liquid (ref 130) a supply duct (ref 136) connecting the tank of cleaning liquid to an inlet of the valve (see Fig.2); a nozzle (ref 110) fluidically connected to an outlet of the valve to project cleaning liquid onto a surface of the vehicle (i.e., sensor surface of the vehicle surface; see Figs.1 & 8, also [0036, 0038 & 0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the solenoid valve of Schieweck in the fluid assembly cleaning system of Regalbuto. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a known type of solenoid valve, when a specific solenoid valve is not indicated.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, & 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minegishi (US 20090140196 A1) in view of Miura (US 20140367595 A1).
As to claims 1 & 6-7, Minegishi teaches an automatic valve (Fig.1) for cleaning surfaces, comprising:
– a valve body (ref 12) provided with a fluid duct (refs 26, 28, & 30) connecting a fluid inlet (ref 34) and a fluid outlet (36) of the valve body;
– a diaphragm (refs 58, 62) arranged to adopt, by deformation, either a closed position or an open position, the diaphragm sealing off the fluid duct when the diaphragm is in the closed position (Fig.1) and allowing fluid to flow in the fluid duct from of the fluid inlet to the fluid outlet when the diaphragm is in the open position (Fig.2);
– an actuator including a stop (ref 72), a spring (ref 80) and a piston (refs 20 & 50), the piston comprises a main body extending from a first end (i.e., a lower end) to a second end (i.e., an upper end) along an axis of elongation, the piston configured to move, by translation along the axis of elongation, between an engaged position and a disengaged position (Figs.1-2), the piston adopting, by default and under action of the spring, the engaged position (Fig.1) wherein the piston retains the diaphragm in the closed position (Fig.1 & [0050]); the actuator further comprises actuating means (i.e., fluid pressure see [0048-0050]) configured to force the piston to move in the direction of the stop, towards the disengaged position so as to allow the diaphragm to adopt the open position; the actuator comprising a damping body (ref 74 or spring inside the spring ref 80), positioned between the second end and the stop (Figs.1-2) the damping body having a lower rigidity than a rigidity of the main body (implicit; see [0035] indicating that ref 74 absorbs shocks from the piston, thus the rigidity of the damping body must be less than the main body, similarly, in the case of the inner spring, as the spring will compress before the main body upon activation, the rigidity of the spring must be less than the main body) so as to damp movement of the piston when the piston moves from the engaged position toward the disengaged position. The limitation of cleaning surfaces is merely intended use, and since the valve can be utilized to provide fluid for cleaning surfaces, it reads on the limitation.
Minegishi does not disclose the damping body having a first section and a second section with a diameter less than the first section to form a shoulder, a coaxial spring bearing against the shoulder, and the first and second section being made of different materials. However, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Miura.
Miura discloses an art related valve (abstract), wherein a cylindrical damping member (refs 24/25) can be utilized with a coaxial spring (ref 23) in order to absorb kinetic energy from a piston collision [0039], thereby dampening noise and vibration. The damping member has a first section (ref 24) and a second section (ref 25) with a smaller diameter than the first section, thereby forming a shoulder. The spring bears against the shoulder and allows for closing of the valve when deenergized [0027 & 0030]. Each of the first and second sections are made of different materials (see [0030-0031] i.e., resin vs rubber).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Minegishi to utilize the damper configuration (i.e., step shaped damper and spring) of Miura as a known alternative for the absorbing of kinetic energy (Miura [0039]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known damping configuration is place of another with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 2, Minegishi teaches the automatic valve of claim 1, wherein the actuator comprises a cylindrical guide body (ref 14 including ref 16), the guide body having a bottom (ref 16) surmounted by a guide wall (see Figs.1-2 ref 14), delimiting a housing in which the piston is disposed, the piston configured to slide within the housing (Figs.1-2), the wall having an edge, opposite the base, delimiting an opening (see Fig.1 through which the piston ref 50 exits).
As to claim 3, Minegishi teaches the automatic valve of claim 2, wherein the bottom of the guide body forms the stop (see Figs.1-2).
As to claim 4, Minegishi teaches the automatic valve of claim 2, wherein the bottom comprises a peripheral zone (see outer zone of 72) and a central zone (see inner zone where inner spring is provided) that is recessed with respect to a reference plane defined by the peripheral zone (Fig.1), the central zone forming the stop (for the damping body, which is the inner spring shown in figure 1).
As to claim 10, Minegishi teaches the automatic valve of claim 1, wherein the spring also bears against the stop (see Fig.1 ref 80).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minegishi (US 20090140196 A1) in view of Miura (US 20140367595 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sisk (US 20070069166 A1) and Watanabe (US 20130020514 A1).
As to claim 8, Modified Minegishi teaches the valve of claim 1, but does not disclose the damping body partly housed in the main body. However, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Sisk and Watanabe.
Sisk discloses an art related valve (abstract), and showcases that a dampening body can be located externally of a piston (Figs.2-3 ref 70) or within a portion of the piston body (Fig.4 ref 70) while still allowing for reduction of noise (abstract & [0023]).
Watanabe discloses an art related valve (abstract), wherein it is shown that there are many known damper configurations including configurations in which a damper can be provided partially within a piston body (see all figures).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Minegishi to provide the damping body at least partly within a housing of the main body, as such is a known configuration in the art (Sisk Fig.4 & [0023], also Watanabe all figures). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known damper configuration in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 9, Modified Minegishi teaches the valve of claim 8, wherein the second section has a projection with respect the second end (see Miura ref 25).
Claim(s) 12-14 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minegishi (US 20090140196 A1) in view of Miura (US 20140367595 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Buerkert (DE1169242B).
As to claim 12, Minegishi teaches the valve of claim 1, wherein the main body comprises a small diameter portion (ref 50), which reads on an output shaft, extending from a larger shaft portion (ref 46) and forming a shoulder. The larger shaft portion does not read on a ferromagnetic yoke. However, solenoid type diaphragm valves are known in the art, as seen by Buerkert
Buerkert discloses an art related valve (see claim 1), wherein a dampening element (ref 19), a yoke (ref 10), and an output shaft (ref 11) can be provided within a cylindrical guide body with guide wall having a bottom serving as a stop (see walls of ref 5) in a direction form a second end to a first end. The bottom and wall delimit a housing in which the piston is disposed for sliding into and out of the housing, wherein the guide wall has an edge opposite the bottom and delimits and opening (see area in which refs 11-12 exit) . The damper is located between the piston and stop, and the output shaft is seen to have a diameter smaller than the yoke. Further, closure element (ref 12) acts as a cover which caps the edge of the guide body in a sealed manner (see figure), which is provided with a circular opening providing passage for the shaft (see where ref 11 fits into ref 12). Accordingly, it is known in the art, that a valve operation may be energized via a solenoid rather than fluid pressure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Minegishi to utilize electromagnetic activation of the valve in place of fluid pressure activation, as both are known means for operating a diaphragm type valve. In performing such a modification, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to utilize the damping element, yoke, output shaft, and guide body of Buerkert along with the requisite solenoid elements (e.g., coils and the like) in order to provide the solenoid type diaphragm valve. The only difference remaining between the invention of claim 12 and that of Modified Minegishi is the presence of the spring. However, a skilled artisan recognizes that since the spring is utilized to provide the valve in a closed position, similar in function to the magnet of Buerkert (ref 16). Thus, a skilled artisan would find the use of either a spring or the magnet to be obvious as each element is known for providing the valve in a closed position. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known valve energizing configuration in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claims 13-14 & 20, Modified Minegishi teaches the valve of claim 12, having the guide body, guide wall, and edge delimiting an opening with a cover capping said edge, and the cover having a circular opening for passage of an output shaft (see Buerkert figure).
Claim(s) 13-14 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minegishi (US 20090140196 A1) in view of Miura (US 20140367595 A1) and Buerkert (DE1169242B) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Asai (US 20190186650 A1), Kubota (US 20200189528 A1), and Kozak (US 20110042598 A1). The following alternative rejection is provided assuming arguendo that Buerkert does not explicitly indicate that the cover caps the edge of the body in sealed manner.
As to claims 13-14 & 20, Modified Minegishi teaches the valve of claim 12 and all limitations of claim 13 except for the cover capping the edge of the guide body in a sealed manner. However, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Asai, Kubota, and Kozak.
Asai discloses an art related valve wherein a cover member (ref 5) closes an end of an actuator [0035] and connects the actuator to the valve body (see Figs.6A-13). The cover member has a circular opening (Figs.6A-13 ref 5a) for a piston shaft to extend from in order to interface with a diaphragm of the valve (refs 11 or 41). Accordingly, a cover member is known in the art for closing one end of an actuator and connecting to a valve body.
Kubota discloses a system utilizing a valve (abstract), and thus related in the field of valves, wherein a seal (ref 44) is provided around a moveable portion of piston to prevent water from entering the internal area of the solenoid actuator [0071].
Kozak discloses an art related valve (abstract), wherein a cover member is arranged around a decreasing diameter portion of a piston. The cover member is provided with a hole for the piston to extend through in order to retain diaphragm [0057].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Minegishi to provide a cover member with a circular opening for passage of an end of the piston, so that an opening of the actuator can be closed (Asai [0035]) and connected to a valve body, while also providing said cover as a sealing member in order to prevent water intrusion (Kubota [0071]) while retaining the diaphragm element (Kozak [0057]). Such a modification would merely implement known structural configurations for the connection of an actuator to a valve body while also preventing water ingress and retaining of the valve element.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minegishi (US 20090140196 A1) in view of Miura (US 20140367595 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baldovino (US 20190077376 A1).
As to claim 18, Minegishi teaches the automatic valve of claim 1 but does not disclose a fluid assembly for cleaning surfaces, however it is well-known that valves can be utilized in assemblies utilized for cleaning. Further, a fluid assembly for cleaning vehicle surfaces utilizing valves is known in the art, as seen by Baldovino.
Baldovino discloses a fluid assembly for cleaning surfaces of a vehicle (abstract), wherein the system utilizes a valve [0040], and are thus related in the field of valves. The assembly comprises: a valve (ref 56); a tank of cleaning liquid (ref 34) a supply duct (see Fig.3 duct containing ref 70 and extending into ref 56) connecting the tank of cleaning liquid to an inlet of the valve (see Fig.3); a nozzle (ref 30) fluidically connected to an outlet of the valve to project cleaning liquid onto a surface of the vehicle (i.e., sensor surface of the vehicle surface; see Figs.1-2, also [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the solenoid valve of Minegishi in the fluid assembly cleaning system of Baldovino. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a known type of solenoid valve, when a specific solenoid valve is not indicated.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura (US 20140367595 A1) in view of Sisk (US 20070069166 A1) and Watanabe (US 20130020514 A1).
As to claim 8, Miura teaches the valve of claim 1, but does not disclose the damping body partly housed in the main body. However, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Sisk and Watanabe.
Sisk discloses an art related valve (abstract), and showcases that a dampening body can be located externally of a piston (Figs.2-3 ref 70) or within a portion of the piston body (Fig.4 ref 70) while still allowing for reduction of noise (abstract & [0023]).
Watanabe discloses an art related valve (abstract), wherein it is shown that there are many known damper configurations including configurations in which a damper can be provided partially within a piston body (see all figures).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Miura to provide the damping body at least partly within a housing of the main body, as such is a known configuration in the art (Sisk Fig.4 & [0023], also Watanabe all figures). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known damper configuration in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 9, Miura teaches the valve of claim 8, wherein the second section has a projection with respect the second end (see Miura ref 25).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura (US 20140367595 A1) in view of Buerkert (DE1169242B).
As to claim 12, Miura teaches the valve of claim 1, but does not disclose the main body comprising a yoke and output shaft with diameter smaller than the yoke and forming a shoulder. However, such a piston configuration is known in the art for use in solenoid valves, as seen by Buerkert.
Buerkert discloses an art related valve (see claim 1), wherein a dampening element (ref 19), an armature (ref 10, i.e., a ferromagnetic magnetic yoke), and an output shaft (ref 11) can be provided within a cylindrical guide body with guide wall having a bottom serving as a stop (see walls of ref 5) in a direction form a second end to a first end. The bottom and wall delimit a housing in which the piston is disposed for sliding into and out of the housing, wherein the guide wall has an edge opposite the bottom and delimits and opening (see area in which refs 11-12 exit) . The damper is located between the piston and stop, and the output shaft is seen to have a diameter smaller than the yoke. Further, closure element (ref 12) acts as a cover which caps the edge of the guide body in a sealed manner (see figure), which is provided with a circular opening providing passage for the shaft (see where ref 11 fits into ref 12). Accordingly, Buerkert discloses an alternative piston configuration known for use in solenoid valves for controlling the opening and closing of a valve member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Miura to utilize the piston configuration of Buerkert (i.e., the yoke, output shaft) for connection to the valve closure diaphragm (Miura ref 17), as such is a known alternative piston configuration in the art. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known solenoid valve piston configuration in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 13-14 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura (US 20140367595 A1) in view of Buerkert (DE1169242B) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Asai (US 20190186650 A1), Kubota (US 20200189528 A1), and Kozak (US 20110042598 A1).
As to claims 13-14 & 20, Modified Miura teaches the valve of claim 12, wherein the actuator comprises a cylindrical guide body (Miura ref 22), the guide body having a bottom surmounted by a guide wall delimiting a housing in which the piston is disposed (see Miura Figs.2 & 8), the piston configured to slide within the housing, the guide wall having an edge, opposite the bottom and delimiting an opening (see Miura Figs.2 & 8 portion where ref 20 exits). Miura does not disclose the presence of cover capping the edge of the guide body in a sealed manner. However, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Asai, Kubota, and Kozak.
Asai discloses an art related valve wherein a cover member (ref 5) closes an end of an actuator [0035] and connects the actuator to the valve body (see Figs.6A-13). The cover member has a circular opening (Figs.6A-13 ref 5a) for a piston shaft to extend from in order to interface with a diaphragm of the valve (refs 11 or 41). Accordingly, a cover member is known in the art for closing one end of an actuator and connecting to a valve body.
Kubota discloses a system utilizing a valve (abstract), and thus related in the field of valves, wherein a seal (ref 44) is provided around a moveable portion of piston to prevent water from entering the internal area of the solenoid actuator [0071].
Kozak discloses an art related valve (abstract), wherein a cover member is arranged around a decreasing diameter portion of a piston. The cover member is provided with a hole for the piston to extend through in order to retain diaphragm [0057].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Miura to provide a cover member with a circular opening for passage of an end of the piston, so that an opening of the actuator can be closed (Asai [0035]) and connected to a valve body, while also providing said cover as a sealing member in order to prevent water intrusion (Kubota [0071]) while retaining the diaphragm element (Kozak [0057]). Such a modification would merely implement known structural configurations for the connection of an actuator to a valve body while also preventing water ingress and retaining of the valve element.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura (US 20140367595 A1) in view of Regalbuto (US 20220306048 A1).
As to claim 18, Miura teaches the automatic valve of claim 1 but does not disclose a fluid assembly for cleaning surfaces, however it is well-known that solenoid valves can be utilized in assemblies utilized for cleaning. Further, a fluid assembly for cleaning vehicle surfaces utilizing solenoid valves is known in the art, as seen by Regalbuto.
Regalbuto discloses a fluid assembly for cleaning sensor surfaces of a vehicle (abstract), wherein the system utilizes a solenoid valve [0036], and are thus related in the field of valves. The assembly comprises: a solenoid valve (ref 134); a tank of cleaning liquid (ref 130) a supply duct (ref 136) connecting the tank of cleaning liquid to an inlet of the valve (see Fig.2); a nozzle (ref 110) fluidically connected to an outlet of the valve to project cleaning liquid out of a nozzle and onto a surface of the vehicle (i.e., sensor surface of the vehicle surface; see Figs.1 & 8, also [0036, 0038 & 0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the solenoid valve of Miura in the cleaning system of Regalbuto. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a known type of solenoid valve, when a specific solenoid valve is not indicated.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Barker (US 3462115 A) plug/dampening member with first and second sections and a spring surrounding the dampening member
Shi (US 20240011575 A1) a solenoid valve (Fig.1) having a movable plunger portion (refs 31+33) and a stop (ref 51) with a spring (ref 33) and damper body (ref 6); the stop formed by the bottom of a guide body (ref 5); damping body can have a step shape (see all Figs.)
Shinohe (WO2016132467A1) showcases a solenoid valve having a plunger (ref 20), a stop (ref 12c), a dampening body with a spring (ref 31), the dampening body having a step shape (see Fig.2)
Nakazawa (US 20160312912 A1) showcases a solenoid valve with a spring and dampening body (refs 49/50) located between a stop (ref 42a) and plunger (ref 43), where the spring can be provided in a recess portion of the plunger (Fig.2).
Meisiek (US 20160305571 A1) showcases a solenoid valve with a stop (ref 17) having a dampening body (ref 23) and a spring (ref 25) located between the stop and a plunger (refs 4 & 19) with recess portion in plunger and stop to receive spring and portion of dampening body.
Choi (KR20140146353A) showcases a solenoid valve having a piston (ref 20), a step shaped dampening body (ref 70), a spring (ref 60), and a stopper (ref 81). The piston has a recessed portion to receive a shaft which pierces the dampening body.
Lee (US 20180313298 A1) showcases a solenoid valve (Fig.2) with a stop (ref 40) and a dampening body (ref 300) having deformable and non-deformable parts (Figs.4-5)
Kaneko (WO2022054746A1) step shaped piston and core with spring located between the two (Figs.5, 8, 16-17 & 19) within recessed portion of core
Ryu (US 20220042481 A1) showcases a shock absorber (ref 135) located in a plunger recess between the plunger and the core
Kam (US 20230028195 A1) elastic member to dampen and absorb shock can have different shapes and different locations between two magnetic bodies (refs 170-174). The spring is within a plunger recess and the dampening body is located in a stop recess.
Kobayashi (US 20220252128 A1) a shock absorber configuration for a solenoid valve with different configurations for a spring (Figs.1, 5-7) with recessed portions of a stop
Okamoto (US 20220099210 A1) showcases a solenoid valve with a lid/cap (ref 18) and a pole piece defining a stop with a spring located between the plunger and the pole.
Kubota (US 20200189528 A1) showcases a solenoid valve with a stopper having a step shape and a spring located between the stopper and a piston (Figs.5 & 7) within the piston recess
Jeon (US 20190092305 A1) showcases different damper configurations for a valve (refs 160, 170, 180).
Jin (US 20180156353 A1) solenoid valve with rubber buffer member (ref 41) to minimize noise from contact with plunger and spring located in piston recess
Godbillon (US 20180209559 A1) showcases a solenoid valve where a dampening body and spring position between a plunger and a stop can be switched (see Figs.2-4) such that it can be provided in a stop recess or a piston recess
Ambrosi (US 20120012769 A1) showcases a solenoid valve with a spring and step shaped damper body between a plunger and a stop, with a shape matching a piston recess (see fig.7).
Sisk (US 20070069166 A1) showcases a solenoid valve with a damper body and spring between a stop and piston (Figs.2-4).
Burrola (US 20030107016 A1) showcases a solenoid valve with a step shaped damper body and spring located between a stopper and a piston (Fig.3)
Osterbrink (US 5538219 A) showcases a solenoid valve with a piston (ref 52) with a step portion (ref 80) and having a recess for a spring (ref 60) to interface with a bottom of the stopper (ref 50)
Skinner (US 3665960 A) showcases a solenoid valve having a stopper (ref 29) to limit plunger (ref 17) movement via the presence of a step shaped protrusion (ref 32) located on the piston. A spring (ref 30) is also provided between the stop and the piston
Barker (US 3523676 A) showcases a solenoid valve having a stopper (ref 11) with a step shaped element (ref 16) for fitment with a recess (ref 20) of a plunger (ref 18), a spring (ref 15) is located between the stopper and the piston
Biernat (US 20230065461 A1) showcases a top surface of a piston can conform to a bottom portion of a top surface a cooperating element (Fig.3)
Asai (US 20190186650 A1) showcases an exploded diagram of a solenoid valve having a stop, plunger, and diaphragm within a tube (see Figs.4 & 6). The spring ensures the valve is closed when not energized [0036].
Barrett (US 20120305822 A1) a spring is retained utilizing a projecting portion of a member [0040]
Kozak (US 20110042598 A1) showcases a solenoid diaphragm valve with spring located between a plunger and a stopper (see Figs.1A & 2A).
Perz (US 20100108927 A1) show cases a solenoid valve with different damper body configurations (Figs.4-7).
Asai (JP2010164104A) showcases a solenoid valve with different damper body configurations (see all figures).
Hofmann (US 20090267009 A1) show cases a solenoid valve with different damper body configurations (see all figures).
Vollmer (US 20070158603 A1) showcases a solenoid valve with an elastic stop below a toper surface of a tube in which the solenoid is provided (Fig.1)
Spryshak (US 6405743 B1) showcases a solenoid valve having a dashpot (ref 56) for dampening of the solenoid valve and a spring surrounding a step shaped plunger and stopper (see Fig.2)
Sausner (US 5467961 A) showcases a solenoid valve where a step shaped dampening member is provided to interact with the spring (see where ref 13 interfaces with ref 16)
Cook (US 4901974 A) showcases a solenoid valve having a piston with a dampening element and a spring located between the stopper and the piston (Fig.1)
Garner (US 2735047 A) showcases a solenoid valve that utilizes an elastomeric element (ref 78) after a stopper (ref 72) to prevent vibration.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAIR CHAUDHRI whose telephone number is (571)272-4773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am to 5:00pm EST.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at (571)272-1414. 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.
/OMAIR CHAUDHRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights