DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Claims 1, 3-9 are pending. Claims 1, 3, 6 are currently amended. Claim 2 is canceled. Claim 2 features are included in claim 1 and have the effect of narrowing the claim scope of the claim set, thus requiring further search and/or consideration.
The amendments to the claims have overcome some of the 35 USC 112 second paragraph rejections as seen below. The rejection under 35 USC 112 second paragraph to claim 2 is maintained as applied to claim 1 as modified based on the amendments.
The remarks are not found persuasive, as the remark merely argue a technical effect, and it cannot be said that Hinz does not perform this technical effect, especially given that all of the structural features of Hinz read on the limitations in the claims and that in operation Hinz provides such technical effect to a greater or lesser degree as broadly claimed.
As mentioned above, the clarity rejection is maintained. Applicants response also indicates a narrower interpretation of the claims than is commensurate in scope therewith. Considering the breadth, an alternate obviousness rejection is required to address the amended claim language and the breadth, all in context with the written description of course.
Considering that the amendments to the claims have required further search and/or consideration and adjustment of the rejections to meet those limitations as seen below, this action must be made final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/11/2025 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 1and 3-9 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 “wherein a filling device is configured to reduce the free space and to increase a coupling capacitance between the coil winding, the housing and the valve dome of each solenoid valve so as to effect low impedance feedback for interference signals from the hydraulic block to the control electronics and produce a plurality of electrically parallel feedback paths between the hydraulic block and the control electronics” where there is a lack of clarity or objective meaningful reference as to how or in what way that some byproduct (i.e. effect) of the low ac resistance (i.e. impedance) from the hydraulic bloc to the control electronics feedback in parallel paths to the control electronics when the coupling capacitance that is only between the coil winding, housing and valve dome (as claimed) occurs when the filling devices (i.e. the insulation) fills a space that somehow increases coupling capacitance (when electrical insulation normally reduces coupling capacitance) between the winding, housing and valve dome through the filling device, and all especially considering that it is improper to import limitations from the written description without proper means plus function nonce style language or special definitions, and so the office must take the most reasonably broad interpretation in context with the written description. MPEP 2111, 2173.05(q)
Claim 3 and 6 each recite “much greater than 1” but there is a lack of objective meaningful reference as to the measure of much greater;
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.
(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 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) 1-3, 5, 6 and 9 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hinz (US 5662392) or in the alternative as being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Hinz;
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinz as applied to claims 1 and 3 (as indefinitely understood) above, and further in view of Prettl (US 2016/0298582);
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinz as applied to claims 1 (as indefinitely understood) above, and further in view of Day (US 5362209.)
Hinz discloses in claim 1: (see annotated figure 1 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
810
1098
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A solenoid valve assembly (see figure 1 and Col 1 ln 59-65) for a vehicle dynamics system (technical field Col 1 ln 5-8, the previous considered a statement of intended use under MPEP 2114), the solenoid valve assembly comprising: a hydraulic block (15); a number of solenoid valves (solenoid valves as discussed Col 1 ln 62) which each comprise a valve dome (4) and a magnet assembly (at 1002); and control electronics (via 11/12), wherein the magnet assembly of each solenoid valve comprises a housing (2/6) and a winding carrier (at 1004 a bobbin/winding carrier), which is located in the housing and onto which a coil winding (1) connected to the control electronics via connection lines (11) is wound, wherein a free space (defined by 6 at 1006) is formed between the housing and the winding carrier of the magnet assembly of each solenoid valve, and wherein a filling device (at 9, insulating material Col 2 ln 14) is configured to reduce the free space (i.e. fill it) and to increase a coupling capacitance between the coil winding, the housing, and the valve dome (the insulation material will have the effect of inhibiting magnetic flux and eddy currents onto the coil winding, so that the generated flux path travels about the coil, casing 6/steel yoke/housing) of each solenoid valve so as to effect low-impedance feedback for interference signals from the hydraulic block to the control electronics (via the casing 6 and not the winding 1) and produce a plurality of electrically parallel feedback paths (along 1008 at 1006 as indicated) between the hydraulic block (15) and the control electronics (11/12 and all for the purpose of reducing for example eddy currents amplifying or reducing the current signals in the coil winding itself.)
If it could be persuasively argued at some future unforeseen date that Hinz does not explicitly disclose: parallel low impedance feedback paths from the hydraulic block to the control electronics, or coupling capacitance between coil winding, housing and valve dome;
Considering the above teaching of Hinz, and considering that one of ordinary skill in the solenoid valve arts would provide: using an electrical insulation filling material device (the plastic resin material of 9) to provide an increased electromagnetic flux coupling between the coil winding, housing and valve dome by increasing the capacitance (i.e. reducing the effective distance) there between, and also as one of ordinary skill in the art would consider, to separate any feedback path that occurs to and from the control electronics and the hydraulic block and that would create interference such as signal current eddy effects so as to bypass in a parallel fashion and reduce such secondary current dampening or amplitudes on the coil current signals, provided for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of the magnetic flux capacity of the solenoid valve itself.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide and arrange as either taught or suggested in Hinz and as suggested by those skilled in the solenoid valve arts with an electrical insulation filling material device such as a plastic resin material as taught in Hinz, so as to provide an increased electromagnetic flux coupling between the coil winding, housing and valve dome of Hinz by increasing the capacitance or in other words by reducing an effective distance there between the coil winding, housing and valve dome, and also provide for separate feedback paths to and from the control electronics and the hydraulic block that may originate there between and that may create interference such as signal current eddy effects so as to bypass such in a parallel fashion and reduce secondary current dampening or amplitudes on the coil current signals as arguably taught in Hinz and as suggested by those skilled in the art, all provided for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of the magnetic flux capacity of the solenoid valve itself.
Hinz discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 3: The solenoid valve assembly according to claim 1, wherein the filling device comprises a filling material (9 is an insulator where under MPEP 608.02 IX the material is indicated as a synthetic resin or plastic material, an 2 is also indicated the same, and is called out as plastic injection molded part Col 2 ln 25) having a predetermined permittivity which is much greater than 1 (plastics and resins have a permittivity between 2 to 4 and is “much” greater than 1 (i.e. 200 to 400 percent greater.))
Hinz discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 4: The solenoid valve assembly according to claim 3, wherein the filling material is an adhesive, a silicone, or a heat-conducting medium (the preceding considered an alternative grouping under MPEP 2131; and where 9 is an electrical insulator that still can conduct heat in some fashion) introduced into the free space; but does not disclose, although Prettl teaches: introducing liquid form medium and being cured (66 is a thermoplastic injection molded adhesive fluid filler material, ph 0098, for the purpose of over-molding and insulating the coil for filling the gaps therein);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Hinz as taught in Prettl a thermoplastic injection molded adhesive fluid filler material, for Hinz as taught in Prettl, all for the purpose of over-molding and insulating the coil for filling the gaps therein.
Hinz discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 5: The solenoid valve assembly according to claim 1, wherein the filling device comprises a sleeve (9 is a sleeve material) inserted into the free space between the coil winding and the housing.
Hinz discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 6: The solenoid valve assembly according to claim 5, wherein said sleeve is made of a plastic material (9 is an insulator where under MPEP 608.02 IX the material is indicated as a synthetic resin or plastic material, an 2 is also indicated the same, and is called out as plastic injection molded part Col 2 ln 25) having a permittivity much greater than 1 (plastics and resins have a permittivity between 2 to 4 and is “much” greater than 1 (i.e. 200 to 400 percent greater.))
Hinz discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 7: The solenoid valve assembly according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose, although Day teaches: an additional edge portion (edge of the coil of 32) enlarges an overall cross section of the coil winding and forms the filling device (and see 32 figure 2 where the coil steps to enlarge and fill the cavity therein, for the purpose of for example maximizing coil windings and generating the magnetic flux thereabout.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Hinz as taught in Day, an additional edge portion of the coil as taught in Day enlarges an overall cross section of the coil winding and forms the filling device as taught in Day, and where the coil can step to enlarge and fill the cavity therein, all for the purpose of for example maximizing coil windings and generating the magnetic flux thereabout.
Hinz discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 8: The solenoid valve assembly according to claim 7, wherein the additional edge portion of the coil winding has a trapezoidal or (the use of alternative language “or” indicating alternative grouping under MPEP 2131) rectangular cross-section (rectangular in cross section.)
Hinz discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 9: A vehicle dynamics system (a brake pressure control system as discussed Col 1 ln 5-8), comprising: the solenoid valve assembly according to claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 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