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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 10 Nov 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-6 and 8-10 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the abstract and the claims overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 16 Sept 2025.
Specification
The substitute specification has been entered.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a valve unit in claim 1; a guide unit in Claim 1; a magnetic drive unit in Claim 4; a biasing unit in Claim 5; a utilization device in Claim 10. The examiner notes that “a tilting means” is also being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The Specification describes the valve unit as: “the valve unit is arranged between a valve inlet for the inflow of the fluid flow and a valve outlet for the outflow of the fluid flow. In particular, the valve opening is part of the valve unit” ¶ 6
The Specification describes the guide unit as: “The valve device further comprises a guide unit with a guide element which is connected to the valve body and can be moved along a movement axis in order to transfer the valve unit from the closed state to the open state. The guide unit also comprises a counter-guide element for guiding the guide element along the movement axis. The guide unit comprises a tilting means, by means of which the guide element can be tilted, i.e. preferably aligned at an angle, to the movement axis for contacting, in particular in the closed state, between the valve seat and the valve body.” ¶ 3
The Specification describes the tilting means as: “The tilting means can define the center of rotation. Furthermore, the tilting means can be integrated into the guide element or the counter-guide element. When tilting, the tilting means can contact the guide element or the counter-guide element, in particular permanently or temporarily. Preferably, a gap exists between the guide means and the counter-guide means. The gap can have the smallest cross-section in the area of the tilting means. Preferably, the guide element and the counter-guide element can form a cardan joint through the tilting means. Tilting can occur in particular when the valve unit is transferred from the open state to the closed state or vice versa. Tilting can compensate for a coaxiality of the valve body and/or the movement axis to the valve seat, in particular due to tolerances. The tilting means can minimize or eliminate the gap between the guide means and the counter-guide means. The change of state of the valve unit between the open state and the closed state can be simplified as a result. For example, requirements for a drive unit can be reduced. Furthermore, the guidance provided by the guide unit can be improved so that wear and/or noise emissions can be reduced” ¶ 9-10
The Specification describes the magnetic drive unit as: “The magnetic drive unit can, for example, comprise an electric coil to move the magnetic armature.” ¶ 13
The Specification describes the biasing unit as: “The biasing unit can, e.g., comprise a spring, in particular in the form of a compression spring.” ¶ 14
The Specification describes the utilization device as: “the utilization device can comprise a fuel cell system, in particular for driving the vehicle.” ¶ 20
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hitachi Astemo Ltd (JP5178653B2; with references taken from Examiner provided English Machine Translation).
Regarding Claim 1, Hitachi Astemo Ltd disclose(s) a valve device (Figures 4-6) for a fluid system (¶ 8). The device having1:
a valve unit (plunger 4 and valve seat 61) with a valve seat (61) and a valve body (plunger 4), which contacts the valve seat in a closed state of the valve unit (Figure 4) to close a valve opening (62) and in an open state is remote from the valve seat to clear the valve opening for a fluid flow in the fluid system (¶ 17),
a guide unit (together 300, 220 and E1) having a guide element (300) which is connected to the valve body (plunger 4; Figures 4-6) and can be moved along a movement axis to transfer the valve unit from the closed state into the open state (¶ 17), and having a counter-guide element (220) for guiding the guide element along the movement axis (along O2 in Figures 4-6),
wherein the guide unit (together 300, 220 and E1) comprises a tilting means (contact point E1), by which the guide element (300) can be tilted relative to the movement axis (to O1 in Figures 4-6) for the contact between the valve seat and the valve body (Figures 5-6),
wherein the tilting means (contact point E1) is formed by a rolling section (Figures 5 and 6; as the guide unit leans and rolls about the contract point E1 as it tilts or straightens) on the guide element (300).
Regarding Claim 3, Hitachi Astemo Ltd disclose(s) wherein the counter-guide element (220) comprises a cylindrical interior (Figure 4 where 221 and 300 sits), in which the guide element is arranged so as to be moveable (Figures 4-6).
Regarding Claim 4, Hitachi Astemo Ltd disclose(s) wherein a magnetic drive unit (7 generally) is provided for moving the guide element (¶ 17), wherein the guide element is configured as a magnetic armature (¶ 17).
Regarding Claim 5, Hitachi Astemo Ltd disclose(s) wherein the valve body (plunger 4) is biased into the closed state by a biasing unit (by spring 9; ¶ 14 and 16 disclose where the valve is a normally closed valve), wherein the biasing unit (spring 9) is configured to bring the valve unit into the closed state when the drive unit is de-energized (¶16).
Regarding Claim 6, Hitachi Astemo Ltd disclose(s) wherein the tilting means (contact point E1) surrounds the guide element in a ring-like manner (the larger diameter portion 320 of armature 300 surrounds the smaller diameter portion 330 in a ring-like manner).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitachi Astemo Ltd (JP5178653B2; with references taken from Examiner provided English Machine Translation) in view of Hattori et al (US 2019/0061718).
Regarding Claim 2, Hitachi Astemo Ltd disclose(s) wherein the valve seat comprises a support surface (Figures 4-6 at the surface of seat 61) for the valve body (the bottom of the plunger at 43 as seen in Figure 4), wherein the valve body comprises a contact surface (the bottom of the plunger 4 at 43), wherein the contact surface rests on the support surface in the closed state of the valve unit (Figure 4),
But fails to expressly disclose wherein the valve seat comprises a support surface, at least sections of which are conical, wherein the valve body comprises a contact surface, at least sections of which are round.
Hattori et al teach(es) wherein the valve seat (Figure 11) comprises a support surface (44d), at least sections of which are conical (¶ 61 at 44d1), for the valve body (Figure 11), wherein the valve body (42c) comprises a contact surface (the lower surface as seen in Figure 11), at least sections of which are round (¶ 54 discloses where they are spherically formed), wherein the contact surface rests on the support surface in the closed state of the valve unit (Figure 11a).
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 system of Hitachi Astemo Ltd with the system as taught by Hattori et al for the advantage of reducing the friction between the valve body and the valve seat, as taught by Hattori et al (¶ 87-88).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori et al (US 2019/0061718) in view of Hitachi Astemo Ltd (JP5178653B2; with references taken from Examiner provided English Machine Translation).
Regarding Claim 10, Hattori et al disclose(s) a fluid system (Figure 1). The system having2:
a fluid tank (4) for storing a fluid (¶ 30), a utilization device for utilizing the fluid (the wheel cylinders of ¶ 30), and a valve device, which is arranged between the fluid tank and the utilization device (Figure 1),
but fails to expressly disclose where the valve device is the valve device of Claim 1.
Hitachi Astemo Ltd teach(es) the valve device of Claim 1: a valve device (Figures 4-6) for a fluid system (¶ 8). The device having3:
a valve unit (plunger 4 and valve seat 61) with a valve seat (61) and a valve body (plunger 4), which contacts the valve seat in a closed state of the valve unit (Figure 4) to close the valve opening (62) and in an open state is remote from the valve seat to clear the valve opening for a fluid flow in the fluid system (¶ 17),
a guide unit (together 300, 220 and E1) having a guide element (300) which is connected to the valve body (plunger 4; Figures 4-6) and can be moved along a movement axis to transfer the valve unit from the closed state into the open state (¶ 17), and having a counter-guide element (220) for guiding the guide element along the movement axis (along O2 in Figures 4-6),
wherein the guide unit (together 300, 220 and E1) comprises a tilting means (contact point E1), by which the guide element (300) can be tilted relative to the movement axis (to O1 in Figures 4-6) for the contact between the valve seat and the valve body (Figures 5-6),
wherein the tilting means (contact point E1) is formed by a rolling section (Figures 5 and 6; as the guide unit leans and rolls about the contract point E1 as it tilts or straightens) on the guide element (300).
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 system of Hattori et al with the valve as taught by Hitachi Astemo Ltd for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the solenoid valve of Hitachi Astemo Ltd within the hydraulic system of Hattori et al) to yield predictable results (to control the passage of hydraulic oil within the brake system).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 Nov 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant amends Claim 1 to incorporate the limitations “wherein the tilting means is formed by a rolling section on the guide element”. While these limitations incorporate some of the language of Claim 7, the limitations of Claim 1 change the scope of previously presented Claim 7 and therefore Hitachi Astemo Ltd disclose the limitations of Claim 1.
As discussed above, Hitachi Astemo Ltd discloses wherein the tilting means (contact point E1) is formed by a rolling section (Figures 5 and 6; as the guide unit leans and rolls about the contract point E1 as it tilts or straightens) on the guide element (300).
Therefore, these arguments are unpersuasive.
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 NICOLE GARDNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-4PM 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, KENNETH RINEHART (571-272-4881) or CRAIG SCHNEIDER (571-272-3607) can be reached by telephone. 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.
/NICOLE GARDNER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/REINALDO SANCHEZ-MEDINA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
1 The transitional term “having” has been interpreted as open terminology, allowing for the inclusion of other components in addition to those recited. See MPEP 2111.03.
2 The transitional term “having” has been interpreted as open terminology, allowing for the inclusion of other components in addition to those recited. See MPEP 2111.03.
3 The transitional term “having” has been interpreted as open terminology, allowing for the inclusion of other components in addition to those recited. See MPEP 2111.03.