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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to applicant’s argument of the drawing objection, Examiner respectfully disagrees and Notes that the drawing objection is maintained since the drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
In regards to applicant’s argument that the prior art reference Anderson et al. does not disclose the pin socket as claimed, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Hence applicant’s arguments directed at the difference of the function of the connecting part and pin socket of Anderson et al. with regards to applicant’s disclosure is considered moot, since such difference is not recited in the claim language. Applicant’s current set of claims are considered broad and given the claims the broadest reasonable interpretation the prior art reference does read on the claims as is rejected below. The pin socket 46 of Anderson et al. is considered to be at an end of the connecting part 40 since it opens at the end of the connecting part as illustrated. Applicant’s current claim language merely limits the claim to having at least one support part arranged on the connecting part, which given the claim language the broadest reasonable interpretation the fingers 45 of Anderson et al. do read on such claim language as is rejected below.
In response to applicant's argument that in the prior art reference Lee the coil does not require encapsulation, is unclear what applicant is referring to since Lee was not used to teach or disclose an encapsulation layer. Examiner notes that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Since the following grounds of rejection are being maintained, the instant Office action has been made final.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the electronic expansion valve recited in claim 14, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 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, 7-13, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,843,946).
Regarding claim 1, Anderson et al. disclose a framework (Figs. 1-11), wherein the framework comprises a framework body (51 & 52), a connecting part (40) and a pin socket (46), wherein a first end of the connecting part (40) is arranged on a peripheral surface (Fig. 2) of the framework body (51 & 52), the pin socket (46) is arranged at a second end of the connecting part (40) away (Fig. 2) from the framework body (51 & 52), the framework further comprises at least one support part (45), and the at least one support part (45) is arranged on the connecting part (40).
Regarding claim 2, Anderson et al. disclose the framework (Figs. 1-11), wherein the at least one support part (45) is eccentrically provided (Fig. 7) on the connecting part (40) in a length direction (Fig. 7) of the connecting part (40).
Regarding claim 3, Anderson et al. disclose the framework (Figs. 1-11), wherein there are a plurality of support parts (45), and the plurality of support parts (45) are provided on the connecting part (40) at intervals (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 4, Anderson et al. disclose the framework (Figs. 1-11), wherein each of the at least one support part (45) comprises a support column or a support bar (Fig. 7), and the support bar extends in a length direction (Fig. 7) of the connecting part (40).
Regarding claim 7, Anderson et al. disclose a framework assembly (Figs. 1-11), wherein the framework assembly comprises two frameworks (Figs. 2-3) snap-fitted with each other (Column 4 lines 27-61), each of the two frameworks comprises a framework body (51 & 52), a connecting part (40) and a pin socket (46), in the each of the two frameworks (Figs. 2-3), a first end of the connecting part (40) is arranged on a peripheral surface (Fig. 2) of the framework body (51 & 52), the pin socket (46) is arranged at a second end of the connecting part (40) away from the framework body (51 & 52), the framework bodies of the two frameworks are arranged opposite to each other (Figs. 2-3), the connecting parts (40) of the two frameworks are arranged opposite to each other (Figs. 2-3), and the pin sockets (46) of the two frameworks are arranged in a staggered manner (Fig. 8A), the framework assembly further comprises a support part (45), at least one connecting part (40) of the two frameworks is provided with the support part (45), and the support part (45) is used for supporting the connecting parts (40) of the two frameworks (Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 8, Anderson et al. disclose the framework assembly (Figs. 1-11), wherein the connecting parts (40) of the two framework bodies (Figs. 2-3) are both provided with the support parts (45).
Regarding claim 9, Anderson et al. disclose the framework assembly (Figs. 1-11), wherein the support part (45) on one connecting part (40) and the support part (45) on the other connecting part (40) are arranged in a staggered manner (Fig. 8A).
Regarding claim 10, Anderson et al. disclose the framework assembly (Figs. 1-11), wherein the support part (45) on one connecting part (40) is arranged opposite to the support part (45) on the other connecting part (40).
Regarding claim 11, Anderson et al. disclose the framework assembly (Figs. 1-11), wherein one connecting part (40) of the two framework bodies (Fig. 2-3) is provided with the support part (45).
Regarding claim 12, Anderson et al. disclose the framework assembly (Figs. 1-11), wherein the support part (45) comprises a support column or a support bar (Fig. 7), and the support bar extends in a length direction (Fig. 7) of the connecting part (40).
Regarding claim 13, Anderson et al. disclose a coil assembly (Figs. 1-11), comprising the framework assembly (Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 15, Anderson et al. disclose the coil assembly (Figs. 1-11), wherein the connecting parts (40) of the two framework bodies (Figs. 2-3) are both provided with the support parts (45).
Regarding claim 16, Anderson et al. disclose the coil assembly (Figs. 1-11), wherein the support part (45) on one connecting part (40) and the support part (45) on the other connecting part (40) are arranged in a staggered manner (Fig. 8A).
Regarding claim 17, Anderson et al. disclose the coil assembly (Figs. 1-11), wherein the support part (45) on one connecting part (40) is arranged opposite (Fig. 8A) to the support part (45) on the other connecting part (40).
Regarding claim 18, Anderson et al. disclose the coil assembly (Figs. 1-11), wherein one connecting part (40) of the two framework bodies (Figs. 2-3) is provided with the support part (45).
Regarding claim 19, Anderson et al. disclose the coil assembly (Figs. 1-11), wherein the support part (45) comprises a support column or a support bar (Fig. 7), and the support bar extends in a length direction (Fig. 7) of the connecting part (40).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,843,946) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,298,820).
Regarding claim 5, Anderson et al. disclose the essential features of the claimed invention but lacks disclosure wherein each of the at least one support part comprises a support column, and a cross section of the support column is a circle or a polygon.
Lee et al. teach a framework (Figs. 1-7) having a connecting part (16) that includes a column support part (15) having a cross section of a circle or a polygon (Fig. 5, Column 3 lines 59-68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connecting part of Anderson et al. with a support part as taught by Lee et al. for the advantage of facilitating the hooking of the coil ends as necessary (Column 3 lines 59-68).
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,843,946) in view of Shi (CN 208982741).
Regarding claim 6, Anderson et al. disclose the essential features of the claimed invention but lacks disclosure wherein the pin socket comprises a connecting segment and a plug-in segment which are connected to each other, the connecting segment is connected with the connecting part, an angle is formed between an extending direction of the connecting segment and an extending direction of the plug-in segment, and a reinforcing part is provided between the connecting segment and the plug-in segment.
Shi teaches a framework (Figs. 1-3) comprising a pin socket (coupled to 16 or 28, Fig. 2) having a connecting segment (Fig. 2) and a plug-in segment (Fig. 2) which are connected to each other (Fig. 2), the connecting segment is connected with a connecting part (11 or 21), an angle (Fig. 1) is formed between an extending direction of the connecting segment and an extending direction of the plug-in segment (Fig. 2), and a reinforcing part (Fig. 2) is provided between the connecting segment and the plug-in segment (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pin socket of Anderson et al. with a pin socket as taught by Shi since they are considered art recognized equivalents in the art of terminal blocks for a coil assembly, that perform the same function of enabling a terminal connection for powering a coil assembly.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi (CN 208982741) in view of Anderson et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,843,946).
Regarding claim 14, Shi discloses an electronic expansion valve (translated background and summary section) comprising a coil assembly (Figs. 1-3), but lacks disclosure of the coil assembly of claim 13.
Anderson et al. teach the coil assembly of claim 13 as is rejected above.
It would have been obvious of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coil assembly of Shi with a coil assembly as taught by Anderson et al. since they are considered recognized equivalents in the art of coil assemblies that perform the same function of generating specific electromagnetic fields.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Reinaldo Sanchez-Medina, telephone number 571-270-5168, fax number 571-270-6168. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (7:30AM-4:00PM 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 supervisors can be reached by phone. Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/REINALDO SANCHEZ-MEDINA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights