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, 4, 5, 13 and 14 are pending. Claims 1, 4, 5 are currently amended. Claims 2-3, 6-12 are canceled. Claims 13 and 14 are newly added. It appears that no new matter has been entered. The amendments have required further search and/or consideration and application of additional art to meet the claim limitations as seen below. Accordingly for these reasons the action must be made Final.
Regarding the remarks address the deficiency of Oikawa in regard to the fluid passing axially through the coil. The amendments were persuasive, but newly applied Kimmel at least teaches that which was lacking in Oikawa as addressed in the remarks, and now Kimmel is the primary reference.
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.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kimmel (US 6484700);
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimmel and further in view of Oikawa (US 8585014);
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimmel in view of Oikawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamagata (US 7973627.)
Kimmel discloses in claim 1: (see at least annotated figure 6 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
788
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A solenoid valve (figure 6) comprising: a coil (at 114) configured to generate a magnetic force upon being energized (via magnetic flux acting on the armature 132); a stator core (124/126 and 140 which acts for magnetic circuit transference between 132 and 124) provided with the coil on an outside and a bore (at 168/148/142/104/106) on an inside; a valve (at 132/134/138) that is placed reciprocally movably in an axial direction in the bore, an outer periphery of the valve having a sliding part (outer periphery of 134 at 168); and a slid part (of 152 or inside of the bore opposed to 168) that is placed on an inner periphery of the bore and is configured to slide relative to the sliding part (the parts slide relative to each other) of the valve when the valve reciprocally moves (as shown), the solenoid valve being configured that the stator core urges the valve in the axial direction by the magnetic force generated by the coil to reciprocally move the valve (as discussed Col 5 ln 10-20), wherein a part (132) of the outer periphery of the valve forms a magnetic circuit with the stator core, and another part (at 134) of the outer periphery of the valve, which forms no magnetic circuit (134 is outside the circuit), constitutes the sliding part (134 is the sliding part as discussed above); the valve includes one end portion (the end of 136/138) on one side in the axial direction, and the sliding part not forming the magnetic circuit is placed on an outer periphery of the one end portion; the solenoid valve further includes a valve seat (surface of 142 at 1002), on which the valve is to be seated, the valve seat being placed at a position facing the one end portion (facing surface of 138) of the valve in the axial direction (1002 provides an inner surface that faces axially towards the one end portion of 138 for closing in the axial direction); the valve seat includes a valve hole (at 1004) extending in the axial direction, and is configured such that, when the valve is seated on the valve seat, the valve hole is closed (a shown); and the slide part is configured by a sleeve (at 1006) that extends in the axial direction and is formed integrally (structurally) with the valve seat (at 1002). Kimmel does not necessarily disclose, although Oikawa teaches: the slide part (36a) is configured by a non-magnetic sleeve (Fig 2, Col 7 ln 45-55, Fig 15 and 16, Col 16 ln 39-40, provided for the purpose of improving sliding action between parts);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Kimmel as taught in Oikawa, with the slide part having a configuration with a non-magnetic sleeve as taught in Oikawa, and all provided for the purpose of improving sliding action between parts.
Kimmel discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 4 : wherein the valve includes another end portion (end at 132) on another side in the axial direction (axially opposed to 138), and the sliding part not forming the magnetic circuit (tip of 132 is away from the centerline of the magnetic circuit) is placed on an outer periphery of the other end portion (at outer periphery of 132), and the slid part is configured by a ring (148 opposed to 132) that is formed separately from the stator core (as shown.) Kimmel does not necessarily disclose, although Oikawa teaches: the slid part (36b) is configured by a non-magnetic ring (Fig 2, Col 7 ln 45-55, Fig 15 and 16, Col 16 ln 39-40, provided for the purpose of improving sliding action between parts);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Kimmel as taught in Oikawa, with the slid part having a configuration as a non-magnetic ring as taught in Oikawa, and all provided for the purpose of improving sliding action between parts.
Kimmel discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 5: wherein the valve includes another end portion (end at 132) on another side in the axial direction (axially opposed to 138), and the sliding part (tip end of 132) is placed on an outer periphery of the other end portion (that end at 132), but Kimmel does not disclose: a valve end portion sliding part configured by a non-magnetic ring that is formed separately from the valve; but Yamagata teaches: a valve end portion sliding part configured by a non-magnetic ring that is formed separately from the valve (Col 9 ln 18, where the annular rings are resin and guide the valve, and have the added benefit of reducing buildup on the sleeve inner surface);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Kimmel as taught in Yamagata, in lieu of the non magnetic slid part, as taught in Yamagata, a valve end portion sliding part configured by a non-magnetic ring that is formed separately from the valve as taught in Yamagata, where the annular rings are resin and guide the valve, and have the added benefit of reducing buildup on the sleeve inner surface.
Kimmel discloses in claim 13: A solenoid valve (figure 6) comprising: a coil (at 114) configured to generate a magnetic force upon being energized (via magnetic flux acting on the armature 132); a stator core (124/126 and 140 which acts for magnetic circuit transference between 132 and 124) provided with the coil on an outside and a bore (at 168/148/142/104/106) on an inside; a valve (at 132/134/138) that is placed reciprocally movably in an axial direction in the bore, an outer periphery of the valve having a sliding part (outer periphery of 134 at 168); and a slid part (of 152 or inside of the bore opposed to 168) that is placed on an inner periphery of the bore and is configured to slide relative to the sliding part (the parts slide relative to each other) of the valve when the valve reciprocally moves (as shown), the solenoid valve being configured that the stator core urges the valve in the axial direction by the magnetic force generated by the coil to reciprocally move the valve (as discussed Col 5 ln 10-20), wherein a part (132) of the outer periphery of the valve forms a magnetic circuit with the stator core, and another part (at 134) of the outer periphery of the valve, which forms no magnetic circuit (134 is outside the circuit), constitutes the sliding part (134 is the sliding part as discussed above); the valve includes one end portion (the end of 136/138) on one side in the axial direction, and the sliding part not forming the magnetic circuit is placed on an outer periphery of the one end portion; the solenoid valve further includes a valve seat (surface of 142 at 1002), on which the valve is to be seated, the valve seat being placed at a position facing the one end portion (facing surface of 138) of the valve in the axial direction (1002 provides an inner surface that faces axially towards the one end portion of 138 for closing in the axial direction); the valve seat includes a valve hole (at 1004) extending in the axial direction, and is configured such that, when the valve is seated on the valve seat, the valve hole is closed (a shown); and the valve includes (i) an inner hole (at 136) and (ii) a pore (at 144) penetrating from the inner hole through a wall (bodily of 134) of the valve, the pore being configured such that only when the valve is separated (open) from the valve seat, the valve hole is in communication with the pore and the inner hole (as shown.)
Kimmel discloses in claim 14: The solenoid valve according to claim 13, wherein: the stator core further comprises an inner hole (inside of 126) in communication with the bore, such that the inner hole and the bore extend completely through the stator core (they pass all the way through) in the axial direction, and when the valve is separated from the valve seat, the inner hole of the valve is in communication with the inner hole of the stator core (fluid flow through the coil), such that fluid can flow in the axial direction through the valve hole, the pore, the inner hole of the valve, and the inner hole of the stator core.
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