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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 1, 2026, has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
Replacement drawings were received on May 1, 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 10, 12-15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US2023/0278065 (“Walter”).
Regarding claim 10, Walter discloses a gas metering valve, comprising:
a housing (mainly defined by “21”, “37” and housing element(s) encasing electromagnetic actuator “26”) in which a gas chamber (“20”) is formed, which can be filled with gaseous fuel via an inlet opening (see annotated fig. 5, below) and from which gaseous fuel can be discharged in a metered manner (via armature “33” and electromagnet “26”) via an outlet opening (“23”);
a valve element (mainly defined by “24” and “25”) which is longitudinally moveably arranged (so as to allow valve head “24” to contact and separate from valve seat “22”) in the gas chamber, wherein the valve element has a valve seal surface (upper surface of valve head, relative to the orientation of fig. 5) which cooperates with a valve seat (“22”) for opening and closing the outlet opening;
a magnetic armature (“33”) which is connected to the valve element (via threaded shaft “48”) and can be moved by an electromagnet (“28”);
a bellows (“39”) which is connected in a gas-tight manner (via laser welding; see specification paragraphs [0072] through [0074]) to the valve element at one end (“42”) and to the housing at the other end (“40”), wherein the gas-tight connection with the housing is formed along a sealing line (defined along connection face “41”);
wherein a diameter (see “sealing line diameter” in annotated partial of fig. 7, below) of the sealing line is greater than a diameter (see “valve seat diameter” in annotated partial of fig. 7, below) of the valve seat, such that, using pressure in the gas chamber, a resulting pneumatic longitudinal force is exerted on the valve element in a closing direction (although not explicitly discussed by Walter, fluid pressure acting in a closing direction on bellows “39” is larger than fluid pressure acting on valve head “24” towards an opening direction because of the difference in respective effective pressure areas),
wherein the bellows forms a gas-tight separation between the gas chamber (“20”) and a magnet armature chamber (bellows “39” seals stem “25” away from fluid disposed in chamber “20”),
wherein the magnet armature ("33") is arranged in the magnet armature chamber (chamber within which magnet armature "33" is disposed),
wherein the magnet armature chamber is connected to ambient air via a compensating line (channels defined in housing "21" disposed proximal to spring "32", which provides atmospheric air to inside of bellows "39" and magnet armature chamber of magnet armature "33"),
wherein, during operation of the gas metering valve, ambient pressure prevails in the magnet armature chamber (chamber “49” is exposed to ambient air via openings proximal to spring “32”) so that a differential pressure between the gas chamber and the magnet armature chamber generates the pneumatic longitudinal force (operating fluid in chamber "20" causes a pressure differential between gas chamber "20" and parts exposed to atmospheric air, which includes an interior of the bellows "39" and an interior of the magnet armature chamber of magnet armature "33").
PNG
media_image1.png
921
1031
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards recitations directed to the fluid being handled (e.g., “gas”), “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d * > 996 < , 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Walter discloses a valve disk (24) formed at an outlet end (bottom end, relative to the orientation of fig. 5) of the valve element (mainly defined by 24 and 25), the valve seal surface (upper conical surface of valve head 24, which abuts seat 22) being formed on the valve disk and facing the housing (facing upward, relative to the orientation of fig. 5).
Regarding claim 13, Walter discloses the valve seal surface (upper conical surface of valve head 24, which abuts seat 22) is conical in shape.
Regarding claim 14, Walter discloses the magnet armature (33) is a plunger armature (see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15, Walter discloses the magnet armature (33) is sealed in a gas-tight manner (magnet armature 33 is isolated from fluid in chamber 20) against the gas chamber (20) by the bellows (39).
Regarding claim 17, Walter discloses the magnet armature (33) is arranged in the magnet armature chamber (see chamber within which armature 33 reciprocates) which can be filled with gas (atmospheric gas) and in which a lower pressure prevails during operation of the gas metering valve (operating fluid pressure enters chamber 20; however, armature 33 remains to be exposed to atmospheric pressure via openings proximal spring 32) than in the gas chamber (20).
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walter in view of engineering expedient.
Regarding claim 11, Walter discloses the diameter of the sealing line (see “sealing line diameter” in annotated partial fig. 7, above) being larger than the diameter of the valve seat (see “valve seat diameter” in annotated partial fig. 7, above).
Walter is silent to the diameter of the sealing line being at least 5% larger than the diameter of the valve seat.
However, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention would know that experimenting with different bellows sizes and/or different diameters of the sealing line would affect the fluid forces acting on the bellows, and subsequently on the valve element.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the invention of Lewis by configuring the diameter of the sealing line to be at least 5% larger than the diameter of the valve seat, to effect a desired fluid pressure force on the valve element, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 2383.
Claim 16, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walter in view of DE10204655 (“Stier”).
Regarding claim 16, Walter discloses the gas metering valve having an actuator spring (32) isolated form the gas chamber; however, Walter does not disclose a closing spring is arranged in the gas chamber, the closing spring being arranged under a pressure bias between a shoulder on the housing and the valve element and exerts a closing force in a longitudinal direction on the valve element.
Stier teaches (see fig. 1) a closing spring (22) is arranged in an operation fluid chamber (chamber within which spring 22 is disposed), the closing spring being arranged under a pressure bias (compression) between a shoulder (see bottom abutment of spring 22, relative to the orientation of fig. 1) on a housing (mainly defined by 2 and 20) and a valve element (mainly defined by 16, 19 and 23) and exerts a closing force in a longitudinal direction (vertical direction, relative to the orientation of fig. 1) on the valve element.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the invention of Walter by employing a closing spring is arranged in the gas chamber, the closing spring being arranged under a pressure bias between a shoulder on the housing and the valve element, as taught by Stier, to ensure sufficient closure of the valve element.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 1, 2026, have been fully considered.
With regards to the drawing objections, set forth in the Office action dated January 16, 2026, drawings filed May 1, 2026, have overcome these objections and are, therefore, now withdrawn.
With regards to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Applicant’s amendments filed May 1, 2026, have overcome these rejections, and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, set forth in the Office action dated January 16, 2026, are now withdrawn.
With regards to the prior art rejection of claim 10 over Walter, Applicant’s amendments do not overcome the previous prior art, see Office action, above, and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN107191661, NL8202471 and DE102016206473 disclose a solenoid valve having a bellows seal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hailey K. Do whose direct telephone number is (571)270-3458 and direct fax number is (571)270-4458. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00AM-5:00PM ET) and Friday (8:00AM-12:00PM ET).
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 supervisors, Kenneth Rinehart at 571-272-4881, or Craig M. Schneider 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAILEY K. DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights