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 .
Status of the Application
This action is responsive to the amendment dated 2/05/2026. Claims 1-12 remain pending. Claim 12 has been amended. The applicant’s amendment has necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection below. This action is Final.
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the 112(b) rejection applied in the last Office Action. The 112(b) rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the 103 rejection over Park in view of Sakaguchi is not proper because the teaching is not obvious. First, Applicant argues that the buffer members would interfere with the spring when the spring is compressed so that the buffer members would not function as intended. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2141.03 states: "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." In view of MPEP 2141.03, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to modify the assembly of Park such that the springs could be repositioned in the control chamber and allow the rest of the valving members to function as intended. For instance, the springs could be positioned within recesses in the same manner as shown in Sakaguchi so that the springs have additional room to compress and in turn allow the buffer members to function as intended.
Also, Applicant argues that relocating the springs would affect the position of the first plunger. However, this argument is based on speculation and there is no reason based on the specification of Park and/or Sakaguchi that would suggest that the position the plungers would be change. Again, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to reposition the spring without having to change the positions of the plungers.
Lastly, Applicant argues that moving the springs would result in the plungers of Park not having a rectilinear stroke. This argument is also based on speculation with no specific reason why repositioning the springs would result in the plunger being unstable. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to reposition the springs to be within the control chamber and maintain the structural integrity and functional operation of the valve assembly.
The arguments above also apply to Applicant’s argument directed to claim 8.
For at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the 103 rejection over Park in view of Sakaguchi is maintained.
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) 1-9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 11,649,906) in view of Sakaguchi et al. (US 6,675,831, hereafter “Sakaguchi”).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a shut-off valve (10) for hydrogen tank systems (intended use), comprising a housing (100) in which an annular solenoid (200) is accommodated for acting on a magnetic armature (the bottom portion of 300 that is within 220 as shown in Fig. 1) of a control valve (300) in the form of a flat armature (Fig. 1) and a magnetic armature (the upper portion of 400 that is within 230 as shown in Fig. 1) of a main valve (600) in the form of a plunger-type armature (Fig. 1), wherein the two magnetic armatures are arranged coaxially and together they border a control chamber (the chamber formed within 200 as shown in Fig. 1) formed within the solenoid, which is pneumatically connected to a control valve chamber (the chamber formed directly above 220 with reference to Fig. 1 that 300 controls fluid flow through) on one side and to a main valve chamber (the chamber formed directly below 230 with reference to Fig. 1 that 600 controls fluid flow through) on the other side, and wherein at least one spring (310, 410) is accommodated in the control chamber for restoring the two magnetic armatures, but fails to disclose the at least one spring is accommodated in the control chamber.
Sakaguchi teaches a shut-off valve comprising at least one spring (29) that is accommodated in the control chamber (the chamber formed within 30). (Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify both of the springs of the shut-off valve of Park such that they are accommodated in the control chamber as taught by Sakaguchi since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a construction that includes an outer surface surrounding the spring to help guide the spring during operation. (Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 2, Park in view of Sakaguchi further disclose the shut-off valve according to claim 1, wherein the magnetic armature in the form of a flat armature is at a circumferential radial distance (a) from the housing. (Figs. 1, 4)
Regarding claim 3, Park in view of Sakaguchi further disclose the shut-off valve according to claim 1, wherein the magnetic armature in the form of a flat armature forms or comprises a control valve piston (320) interacting with a control valve seat (the seat at the bottom of 110 with reference to Fig. 1 which cooperates with 320).
Regarding claim 4, Park in view of Sakaguchi further disclose the shut-off valve according to claim 1, wherein the magnetic armature in the form of a plunger-type armature is guided within the solenoid via a guide (230), and the control chamber is connected in a pneumatically throttling manner to the main valve chamber via the guide and/or a flow channel formed in the region of the guide. (as shown in Fig. 1, a flow channel is formed through 230)
Regarding claim 5, Park in view of Sakaguchi further disclose the shut-off valve according to claim 1, wherein the magnetic armature in the form of a plunger-type armature has a shape of a cylinder, which further features a geometry and/or an element (430) for forming a stroke stop. (Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 6, Park in view of Sakaguchi further disclose the shut-off valve according to claim 5, wherein the stroke stop is configured to be non-sealing, wherein the geometry and/or the element for forming the stroke stop is a stop surface facing the solenoid. (Fig. 1; see how 430 does not seal any part of the valve is includes an upper and/or side surface that faces the solenoid)
Regarding claim 7, Park in view of Sakaguchi further disclose the shut-off valve according to claim 1, wherein the magnetic armature in the form of a plunger-type armature is coupled or can be coupled to a main valve piston for releasing and closing a main valve seat. (400 is coupled to 600)
Regarding claim 8, Park in view of Sakaguchi further disclose the shut-off valve according to claim 1, wherein at least two coaxially arranged springs are accommodated in the control chamber comprising a first spring supported on the magnetic armature of the main valve and a second spring supported on the magnetic armature of the control valve. (as taught by Sakaguchi above)
Regarding claim 9, Park in view of Sakaguchi further disclose the shut-off valve according to claim 1, wherein the control valve comprises a down-regulating region (110) that is connected to a down-regulating region (120) of the main valve. (110 and 120 are fluidly connected when the valves are opened)
Regarding claim 12, Park in view of Sakaguchi further disclose the shut-off valve according to claim 7, wherein the main valve piston is biased towards the magnetic armature by a spring in the main valve chamber. (for the purposes of this claim, the modification of Sakaguchi is utilized to add a spring to the control chamber; see how 410 biases 400 such that 600 is biased to 400 as shown in Fig. 1)
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Sakaguchi and Pechtold (US 2006/0283510).
Regarding claim 10, Park in view of Sakaguchi further disclose a hydrogen supply line system and a shut-off valve according to claim 1 for shutting off the fluid through the hydrogen supply line, but fails to disclose a hydrogen tank system comprising at least one pressurized gas container and a shut-off valve according to claim 1 for shutting off the at least one pressurized gas container.
Pechtold teaches a hydrogen tank system (para. [0002]) comprising at least one pressurized gas container (62) and a shut-off valve (60) for shutting off the at least one pressurized gas container. (Fig. 3)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the shut-off valve of Park to be utilized in a hydrogen tank system as taught by Pechtold for the purpose of utilizing the shut-off valve of Park in an alternative device such as a hydrogen tank system in which shut-off valves are known and desired.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 PAUL J GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-0544. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, 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.
/PAUL J GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753