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 were received on September 29, 2025. These drawings are not acceptable. The drawings are objected to because the reference character “19” is used in the specification (see amendment filed 9/29/2025) to designate a piston rod; however, figure 1 uses the reference character “19” is used to designate a part or surface of the housing (1) or magnet armature chamber (17).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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 10-18 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 10 recites the limitation “the magnet armature chamber” in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that the recitation “the magnet armature chamber” in claim 10, line 17, should read –the magnetic armature [[chamber]]--.
Claims 11-18 are rejected because they depend on a rejected claim.
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, as best understood, 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 the magnet armature chamber (bellows 39 seals stem 25 away from fluid disposed in chamber 20).
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 a 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).
Regarding claim 18, Walter discloses the magnet armature chamber (see chamber within which armature 33 reciprocates) is connected to ambient air via a compensating line (opening(s) defined in housing section 21 proximal to spring 32; see fig. 3).
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, as best understood, 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 September 29, 2025, have been fully considered.
With regards to the objections to the drawings, Applicant alleges that amendments to the specification filed 9/29/2025 have overcome the drawing objections; however, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The specification merely changes the reference character designated for the piston rod to be “19”, but the piston rod (19) moves synchronously together with the magnet armature (18) and the valve element (8). Figure 1 indicates the reference character “19” as a portion of the housing (1) or the magnet armature chamber (17), which cannot move with the magnet armature (18) or the valve element (8). Therefore, reference character “19” in figure 1 fails to indicate the correct element of the invention.
With regards to the objection to the specification, in light of the current amendments, the objection to the specification is now withdrawn.
With regards to the claim objection(s), in light of the current amendments, these claim objection(s) are now withdrawn.
With regards to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 16, in light of the current amendments, this rejection is now withdrawn; however, the amended claims have necessitated a new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 10, see Office action, above.
With regards to the prior art rejection of claims 10 and 12-15 over Lewis, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejection(s) of claim(s) 10 and 12-15 over Lewis have been considered but are moot because the current ground of rejection does not rely on Lewis, or any combinations thereof, for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 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