DETAILED ACTION
Non Final
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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Claims 1-5, 7-14, 17-20 are pending. The filing of the IDS after allowance and the instant request for continued examination on 4/16/2026 has necessitated further search and/or consideration of the claims and application of secondary teaching reference Xu which modifies Watanabe to address the claims as previously amended. It was also determined that claim 1 remains unclear based on the last phrase in the claim, which lacks objective meaningful reference as to the installation space. Lastly the office provides a proposed amendment for allowable subject matter.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/16/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-5, 7-14, 17-20 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 annular step and the annular plate being surrounded to form an installation space, and the first sealing structure being disposed in the installation space”. It is unclear and/or uncertain (i.e. there appears to be a zone of uncertainty) from a reading of the claim as to what is intended by the term/phrase/idea and how such a term/phrase/idea should be interpreted. In other words, there is a lack of objective meaningful reference as to what is surrounding the annular step and annular plate to form the installation space, or should the phrase be interpreted as – the annular step and the annular plate formed to surround an installation space…--? In the interest of compact prosecution, the term/phrase will be given its broadest reasonable interpretation. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7,8, 10-14, 17-20 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US 9046189) and in view of Xu (CN 203453501; and with attached English language translation (ELT));
Claim(s) 3, 9 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Xu as applied to claims 1, 8 (as indefinitely understood) above, and further in view of Schlick (US 2014/0217318)
Claim(s) 7, 13 (in the alternative) is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Xu as applied to claims 1 (as indefinitely understood) above, and further in view of Kratzer (US 8424840.)
Watanabe discloses in claim 1: (see at least partially annotated figure 1 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
876
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
An electromagnetic valve (solenoid valve figure 1), wherein the electromagnetic valve comprises: a valve cover (at 10/72/74/76 including 10b and 1002) and a valve core (at 42), the valve core being disposed in the valve cover (as shown); a first sealing structure (at 34) and a sealing sleeve (at 1004 which is a valve cover sealing sleeve), the sealing sleeve being disposed at one end of the valve cover (the distal or bottom end as opposed to the proximal or top end), and the first sealing structure being disposed at an end (as proximal end) of the sealing sleeve which is [part of and] close to the valve cover (as shown) so as to form a valve port (via 30); and a driving assembly (36/56), the driving assembly driving the valve core to move (reciprocally) along an axial direction (central axis thereof) to open or close the valve port; there is a hardness difference between a part (for example 1006) which is matched with the valve core (i.e. and between 32) on the first sealing structure and the valve core (34 which is elastically deformable polyimide resin, or polyether-ether ketone resin etc… for providing an elastically deformable (i.e. softer seat) than that of the smaller diameter portion of the valve body 42 at 1006, the material hatching indicated as a metal per MPEP 608.02 IX, the material matching that of movable iron core Col 4 ln 29-35); wherein the first sealing structure (34) is [axially arranged] between the valve cover (76/10b) and the sealing sleeve (1004, i.e. 34 is axially disposed between the two and when closed is limited in movement axially); the valve cover comprises: a valve cover body (10b); an [integral] annular plate (at 1002, 1002a), disposed on one side of the valve cover body which is (distally) away from the driving assembly and [supporting] the sealing sleeve; and an annular step (1002a), disposed on an inner surface (24) of the annular plate and abutted against the first sealing structure, the annular step and the annular plate being surrounded to form an installation space (the annular stepped space above 1002a), and the first sealing structure being disposed in the installation space (as shown); Watanabe does not disclose: the first sealing structure limited or held between the valve cover and the sealing sleeve; the valve cover body abutted against the sealing sleeve; the first sealing structure being axially held between the annular step and the sealing sleeve in the installation space; but Xu teaches: the first sealing structure (13/14 figure 2and 3) limited or held between the valve cover (at 5) and the sealing sleeve (at 1); the valve cover body abutted against the sealing sleeve (at the junction of 3); the first sealing structure being axially held between the annular step (the region at 10 of 5) and the sealing sleeve (1) in the installation space (as shown for the purpose of for example maintaining an axially seated position of the sealing structure in an assembled arrangement, and for replacement during or after wear thereof.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Watanabe as taught in Xu with the first sealing structure being limited or held between the valve cover and the sealing sleeve as taught by Xu with the valve cover body being abutted against the sealing sleeve at a junction thereof as taught in Xu and with the first sealing structure being axially held between the annular step as taught in Xu with the sealing sleeve being arranged in the installation space as taught by Xu, and all for the purpose of for example maintaining an axially seated position of the sealing structure in an assembled arrangement, and for replacement during or after wear thereof.
Watanabe discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 2: The electromagnetic valve as claimed in claim 1, wherein a hardness of the first sealing structure is lower than a hardness of the valve core to form a soft seal (as necessarily the case.)
Watanabe discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 3: The electromagnetic valve as claimed in claim 1, but does not disclose: a hardness of the valve core is lower than a hardness of the first sealing structure to form a soft seal; but considering that Schlick teaches: an elastomeric hardness valve core part (at 32 and see ph 0025) and a metallic hardness first sealing structure (31), for the purpose of for example allowing for replaceability of the valve core for adequate sealing of the valve during prolonged use;
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide as taught in Schlick for that of Watanabe, an elastomeric hardness valve core part and a metallic hardness first sealing structure as taught in Schlick, for the purpose of for example allowing for replaceability of the valve core for adequate sealing of the valve during prolonged use, and especially considering that the above would merely be considered a rearrangement of parts of Watanabe for the above indicated exemplary reasons.
Watanabe discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 4: The electromagnetic valve as claimed in claim 1, wherein the hardness of the first sealing structure (34) is lower than the hardness of the sealing sleeve (1004 is a metal material such as iron as discussed above, and 34 is elastomeric material as discussed above, 34 having a lower hardness or being more elastic than that of 1004.)
Watanabe discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claims 5 and 14: wherein the first sealing structure is made of one of (the following considered an alternative grouping under MPEP 2131) rubber, silicone and plastic (as discussed above, where rubber, silicone and plastic are mere categorical for more specific species of the same).
Watanabe discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 7: The electromagnetic valve as claimed in claim 1, wherein the valve port comprises a first hole section (at the top that is adjacent to 1006 at 32) and a second hole section (at 30) which are connected with each other (as shown), and the first hole section is communicated with an inner cavity (at 1008) of the sealing sleeve through (via) the second hole section; the first hole section is a tapered hole (as shown, the valve body 42 at 1006 will at least compress 34 to provide a conical inward tapering surface to match that of 1006), and the inner diameter of the tapered hole gradually decreases along a direction from the first sealing structure to the sealing sleeve (as discussed to match that of 1006.)
If it could be persuasively argued at some future unforeseen date that Watanabe does not explicitly disclose: a fluid communicating tapered first hole section; Kratzer teaches: a fluid communicating tapered first hole section (at 8 figure 1 with a matching sealing area surface valve seat (of 11) to valve body surface sealing area (of 12.2) for the purpose of for example, providing a uniform pressure seal there across, so as to provide for minimal deformation of the sealing surface and more consistent sealing action.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide as taught in Kratzer for that of Watanabe, a fluid communicating tapered first hole section as taught by Kratzer with a matching sealing area of a surface valve seat to valve body surface sealing area as taught in Kratzer all for the purpose of for example, providing a uniform pressure seal there across, and provide for minimal deformation of the sealing surface and more consistent sealing action.
Watanabe discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 8: The electromagnetic valve as claimed in claim 1, wherein the driving assembly comprises a first magnetic adsorption structure (at 36) and a second magnetic adsorption structure (at 59), the valve core is connected with an end of the first magnetic adsorption structure (at 38) which is away (distally) from the second magnetic adsorption structure, a through hole (via 38/40) is disposed in the first magnetic adsorption structure, a balance hole (44/48/66) is disposed in the valve core, and the balance hole is communicated with the through hole.
Watanabe discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 9: The electromagnetic valve as claimed in claim 8, wherein the balance hole comprises a first section (48/66 or 44) and a second section (44 or 48/66), the first section is close (proximal) to the through hole, and the second section is away (distal) from the through hole; but Watanabe does not disclose: although Schlick teaches: the inner diameter of the second section (at the opening of 21 adjacent the seat) is greater than the inner diameter of the first section (at the proximal end adjacent the spring, provided for the purpose of increasing the fluid flow rate at the entrance/exit into out of the balance hole, so as to equalize pressure across the valve core.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide as taught in Schlick for that of Watanabe, an inner diameter of the second section as taught in Schlick with the opening of the balance hole adjacent the seat being greater than the inner diameter of the first section and at the proximal end adjacent the spring as taught in Schlick, all for the purpose of increasing the fluid flow rate at the entrance/exit into out of the balance hole, so as to equalize pressure across the valve core.
Watanabe discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 10: The electromagnetic valve as claimed in claim 1, wherein the electromagnetic valve further comprises: a valve seat (1), having an installation channel (6/4/2) and a flow channel (8/16), and the valve cover, the sealing sleeve and the first sealing structure being all disposed in the installation channel (as shown in the valve seat 1, and as modified by Xu for the reasons indicated above, where as taught also in Xu the valve seat contains the arrangement as claimed.)
Watanabe discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 11: The electromagnetic valve as claimed in claim 10, wherein the electromagnetic valve further comprises: a second sealing structure (at 14), the second sealing structure being disposed (transversely) between the sealing sleeve (1004) and the valve seat (1); or (the use of alternative language indicating a grouping under MPEP 2131), a third sealing structure (20), the third sealing structure being disposed (transversely) between the valve cover (at 1002) and the valve seat (at 1); or, a second sealing (14) structure and a third sealing structure (20), the second sealing structure being disposed between the sealing sleeve and the valve seat, and the third sealing structure being disposed between the valve cover and the valve seat (as discussed.)
Watanabe discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 12: The electromagnetic valve as claimed in claim 11, wherein the sealing sleeve comprises a sealing sleeve body (at 1004a) and an annular convex part (at 1004b) which is disposed on an outer circumferential surface of the sealing sleeve body, the annular convex part has an annular groove (at 1004c), and the second sealing structure (14) is disposed in the annular groove.
Watanabe discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 13: The electromagnetic valve as claimed in claim 1, wherein a first matching part (the face of 34) is disposed on the first sealing structure, a second matching part (the face of 1006) is disposed on the valve core, one of the first matching part and the second matching part is a first protrusion (i.e. 1006 face), the other one of the first matching part and the second matching part is a first concave part (when 1006 is seated onto 34), and the first protrusion extends (slightly) into the first concave part and is matched with the first concave part in a limiting manner (to form the seal);
If it could be persuasively argued at some future unforeseen date that Watanabe does not explicitly disclose: a concave sealing structure second matching part; Kratzer teaches: a concave sealing structure second matching part (at 8 figure 1 with a matching concave sealing area surface valve seat (of 11) to first sealing structure convex surface sealing area (of 12.2) for the purpose of for example, providing a uniform pressure seal there across, so as to provide for minimal deformation of the sealing surface and more consistent sealing action.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide as taught in Kratzer for that of Watanabe, a concave sealing structure second matching part as taught in Kratzer with a matching concave sealing area surface valve seat to a first sealing structure convex surface sealing area as taught in Kratzer, all for the purpose of for example, providing a uniform pressure seal there across, so as to provide for minimal deformation of the sealing surface and more consistent sealing action.
Watanabe discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 17: The electromagnetic valve as claimed in claim 4, wherein the valve port comprises a first hole section (at 32) and a second hole section (at 30) which are connected with each other, and the first hole section is communicated with an inner cavity (at 22) of the sealing sleeve through the second hole section.
Watanabe discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 18: The electromagnetic valve as claimed in claim 17, wherein the first hole section is a tapered hole (i.e. when seated against 1006 at 32 there is a surface taper of 34), and the inner diameter of the tapered hole gradually decreases (from surface top at 32 and into or…) along a direction from the first sealing structure to the sealing sleeve.
Watanabe discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 19: The electromagnetic valve as claimed in claim 17, wherein the central axis of the first hole section and the central axis of the second hole section are coaxially disposed (as shown.)
Watanabe discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 20: The electromagnetic valve as claimed in claim 8, wherein the electromagnetic valve further comprises a spring (at 58), and the spring is disposed between the first magnetic adsorption structure and the second magnetic adsorption structure (as shown to bias the valve closed.)
Proposed Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a proposed statement for reasons of allowable subject matter: if adopted, the prior art would fail to disclose or render obvious in claim 1 the following: “…wherein the first sealing structure is limited between the valve cover and the sealing sleeve; the valve cover comprises: a valve cover body; an annular plate, disposed on one side of the valve cover body which is away from the driving assembly and abutted against the sealing sleeve; and an annular step, [[disposed]] pressed to extend radially inwards from [[on]] an inner surface of the annular plate and abutted against a top surface of the first sealing structure, the annular step and the annular plate surrounding the first sealing structure which receives the first sealing structure when [[being]] disposed in the installation space” in combination with the other limitations set forth in the independent claim, where it is noted that to provide such a claimed arrangement without further teaching of the above would require improper hindsight bias.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W JELLETT, whose telephone number is 571-270-7497. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Ken Rinehart can be reached at (571)-272-4881, or Craig Schneider can be reached 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 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.
/Matthew W Jellett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights