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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "107" and "112" have both been used to designate the electromagnet and the coils. Additionally, reference characters "133" and "137" have both been used to designate the sealing element and the air gap disc.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3, Line 3,, “is a” should be “is the.” The “same size” language is a description, not a term, as a result the “same size” does not require an antecedent.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3–6 and 8–10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Teshima et al. (US PGPub 20030151018 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
678
539
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 - Teshima Annotated Fig. 1
Regarding Claim 1, Teshima discloses a shut-off valve (Fig. 1) for closing a tank (101), the shut-off valve (Fig. 1) comprising: a control chamber (Teshima Annotated Fig. 1), a pilot-control valve (8a), a main valve (9a), an electromagnet (4), a driver (Teshima Annotated Fig. 1), a base plate (125, is used because the 1st embodiment, Fig. 1, does not illustrate the elements beyond the solenoid), wherein the electromagnet (8a) comprises a magnet armature (6) and a coil (4), wherein the pilot-control valve (8a) is supported movably in the magnet armature (6), as seen in Fig. 1, wherein the magnet armature (6) is arranged movably such that, when the coil (4) is electrically energized (Para. 45), the magnet armature (6) moves through a magnet armature stroke in a direction of the base plate (125), as described in Fig. 1, wherein the driver (Teshima Annotated Fig. 1) is configured to move the pilot-control valve (8a) out of a rest position of the pilot-control valve (8a), where the driver is attached to the pilot-control valve and as a result moves with the driver, and through a pilot-control valve stroke also in the direction of the base plate (125), Para. 45 and Fig. 1, into a pilot-control valve position (where the pilot-control valve position is the position of the pilot-control valve when the electromagnet is energized) during a movement of the magnet armature (6), wherein the main valve (9a) is movable through a main valve stroke in the direction of the base plate (125), Para. 45, wherein the main valve (9a) is configured to move the pilot-control valve (8s) out of the pilot-control valve position (where the pilot-control valve position is the position of the pilot-control valve when the electromagnet is energized), Para. 45, and further in the direction of the base plate (125), during a movement through the main valve stroke, Para. 45.
Regarding Claim 3, Teshima discloses the magnet armature stroke is the same size as the pilot-control valve stroke (Fig. 1, where the magnet armature and the pilot-control valve are a single element and has a result has the strokes are the same).
Regarding Claim 4, Teshima discloses the pilot-control valve (8a) seals a connection of the control chamber (Teshima Annotated Fig. 1) extending through the main valve (9a) to a low-pressure connection (117) of the shut-off valve (Fig. 1) in the rest position (Fig. 1 illustrates the rest position) and releases the connection in the pilot-control valve position (Para. 45), such that the low-pressure connection (117) can be filled in the pilot-control valve position (Para. 45) in order to lower a pressure in the control chamber (Teshima Annotated Fig. 1) and to move the main valve (9a) through the main valve stroke (where the main valve stroke is the distance in which the main valve travels) in the direction of the base plate (125).
The recitation “in order to lower a pressure in the control chamber and to move the main valve through the main valve stroke in the direction of the base plate” is seen as intended use of the pilot-control valve. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. (MPEP §2114.II).
Regarding Claim 5, Teshima discloses the shut-off valve (Fig. 1) comprises a sealing element (128) that prevents an inflow to the control chamber (Teshima Annotated Fig. 1) from a high-pressure system coupled to the shut-off valve (Fig. 1) when the main valve (9a) has moved through the main valve stroke in the direction of the base plate (125).
PNG
media_image2.png
318
699
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 - Teshima Annotated Fig. 11
Regarding Claim 6, Teshima discloses wherein a residual air gap disc (Teshima Annotated Fig. 11) is arranged between the magnet armature (6) and the base plate (125).
Regarding Claim 8, Teshima discloses a tank system (Fig. 12) for storing a fluid, wherein the tank system (Fig. 12) comprises: a tank (101),and a shut-off valve (Fig. 1) according to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9, Teshima discloses the tank system (Fig. 12) is configured to store hydrogen (Para. 6).
Regarding Claim 10, Teshima discloses the shut-off valve (Fig. 1) is arranged in a cylinder neck (Fig. 12) of a pressure vessel (103) of the tank (101).
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.
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teshima et al. (US PGPub 20030151018 A1) in view of Shi et al. (US PGPub 20240011575 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Teshima discloses the shut-off valve (Fig. 1) comprises a pilot-control valve spring (113) that pushes the pilot-control valve (8a) to the rest position, the shut-off valve (Fig. 1) but does not disclose a position spring.
Shi teaches a position spring (34) in order to maintain a constant elastic force on the moving element (Para. 20).
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 main valve of Teshima with a spring as taught by Shi in order to ensure that the moving element returns to its original position.
Per the Teshima–Shi combination Shi’s spring 34 is located in Teshima’s control chamber and abuts Teshima’s main valve 9a.
The Teshima–Shi combination teaches a position spring (Shi 34) that pushes the main valve (Teshima 9a) to a low-pressure connection (Teshima 117) of the shut-off valve (Teshima Fig. 1), and the shut-off valve (Teshima Fig. 1) comprises a main valve spring (Teshima 14) that pushes the main valve (Teshima 9a) in a direction of the pilot-control valve (Teshima 8a).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 11 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Okamoto et al. (USPN 11754197 B2) and Rau (USPN 11940100 B2) disclose multi spring solenoid valves.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Angelisa L. Hicks whose telephone number is 571-272-9552 and email is Angelisa.Hicks@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:30AM-5:00PM 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 supervisor, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 or 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.
/Angelisa L. Hicks/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights