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 .
Prosecution Reopened
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 07/08/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reinicke 5501425.
Regarding claim 12, Reinicke teaches the invention as claimed: A valve (10 Figs. 1-2) comprising:
a valve body (11 and 12) having a flow path (between 19’ to 20’ in Figs. 1-2, see col. 2, ll. 55-60);
a seal (comprising 23, 24, and 25 in Figs. 1-2, see col. 2, ll. 58-65 and col. 3, ll. 1-6) disposed in the flow path (see Figs. 1-2), the seal (comprising 23, 24, and 25) having a default closed state (the normally closed position shown in Fig. 1, wherein the 23 part is seated on 17, see col. 2, ll. 58-65 and col. 3, ll. 1-6) sealed against a seal seat (17) so as to block flow through the flow path (col. 2, ll. 58-65 and Fig. 1) and an open state (the open position shown in Fig. 2, wherein the 23 part is moved away from 17, see col. 2, ll. 23-26 and 58-65) in which the seal (the 23 part) permits flow through the flow path (col. 1, ll. 65 to 68, col. 2, ll. 58-65 and Fig. 2);
an armature (comprising 30 and 31 in Figs. 1-2) disposed in the valve body (11 and 12, see Figs. 1-2); and
an electromagnet (comprising 35 in Figs. 1-2) configured to magnetically push (when receiving an electric current in a first direction that causes the 35 to generate a magnetic field 37 in Fig. 2) the armature (30 and 31) to apply force (a pushing force provided by 31) on the seal (the 23 part) and thereby move the seal (the 23 part) from the default closed state (when the 23 part seated on the seal seat 17 as shown in Fig. 1) to the open state (when the 23 part moves away from the seal seat 17 as shown in Fig. 2), the force (the pushing force provided by 31) causing a portion of the seal to deflect and thereby to be separated from (note: according to American Heritage Dictionary, deflect means cause to bent, turn or deviate and deflection means the movement of a structure or structural part as a result of stress; when term “a portion of the seal” is interpreted as the 23 part, the 23 deviate from the default closed position as a result of pushing force provided by 31 and is separated from 17; or when term “a portion of the seal” is interpreted as the 25 part, the spring 25 bents as a result of pushing force provided by 31 and thereby separates from 17 because the 23 part is separates from 17, see Fig. 2) the seal seat (17) so as to permit the flow through the flow path (col. 1, ll. 65 to 68, col. 2, ll. 58-65 and Fig. 2).
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinicke 5501425 in view of Bosley 4690371.
Regarding claim 1, Reinicke teaches the invention as claimed: A valve (10 Figs. 1-2) comprising:
a valve body (11 and 12) having a flow path (between 19’ to 20’ in Figs. 1-2, see col. 2, ll. 55-60);
a seal (comprising 23, 24, and 25 in Figs. 1-2, see col. 2, ll. 58-65 and col. 3, ll. 1-6) disposed in the flow path (see Figs. 1-2), the seal (comprising 23, 24, and 25) having a default closed state (the normally closed position shown in Fig. 1, wherein the 23 part is seated on 17, see col. 2, ll. 58-65 and col. 3, ll. 1-6) sealed against a seal seat (17) so as to block flow through the flow path (col. 2, ll. 58-65 and Fig. 1) and an open state (the open position shown in Fig. 2, wherein the 23 part is moved away from 17, see col. 2, ll. 23-26 and 58-65) in which a portion of the seal deflects and thereby separates from (note: according to American Heritage Dictionary, deflect means cause to bent, turn or deviate and deflection means the movement of a structure or structural part as a result of stress; when term “a portion of the seal” is interpreted as the 23 part, the 23 deviate from the default closed position as a result of pushing force provided by 31 and is separated from 17; or when term “a portion of the seal” is interpreted as the 25 part, the spring 25 bents as a result of pushing force provided by 31 and thereby separates from 17 because the 23 part is separates from 17, see Fig. 2) the seal seat (17) so as to permit flow through the flow path (col. 1, ll. 65 to 68, col. 2, ll. 58-65 and Fig. 2);
an armature (comprising 30 and 31 in Figs. 1-2) disposed in the valve body (11 and 12, see Figs. 1-2) and moveable with respect to the seal (see Figs. 1-2); and
an electromagnet (comprising 35 in Figs. 1-2) that is configured to selectively receive an electric current in a first current direction (that causes the 35 to generate a magnetic field 37 in Fig. 2), wherein when the electric current is in the first current direction (that causes the coil 35 to generate the magnetic field 37 in Fig. 2) the electromagnet (comprising the 35) actuates the armature (30 and 31 in Figs. 1-2) to change the seal (comprising 23, 24, and 25 in Figs. 1-2) from the default closed state (Fig. 1) to the open state (Fig. 2; also see col. 3, ll. 40-58), and
when the electric current is zero (the 35 is not energized as shown in Fig. 1) the spring (32) actuates the armature (30 and 31 in Figs. 1-2) to change the seal (the 23 part) from the open state (Fig. 2) to the default closed state (Fig. 1; also see col. 3, ll. 1-10 and ll. 13-28).
Reinicke does not teach the electromagnet that is configured to selectively receive an electric current in said first current direction or a second current direction opposite said first current direction, wherein when the electric current is in the second current direction, the electromagnet actuates said armature to change said seal from said open state to said default closed state.
However, Bosley teaches a valve (title and 10 in Fig. 1) comprising: an armature (15 comprising a yoke formed by 14, 17 and 18, Fig. 1 and col. 3, ll. 40-48) disposed in the valve body (see Fig. 1) and moveable with respect to the seal seat (the inlet of the orifice 24, see Fig. 1); and
an electromagnet comprising a first coil winding (12) and a second coil winding (13, see Fig. 1) and is configured to selectively receive an electric current (an electric current passing through the serially connected two coils 12 and 13, from col. 4, l. 64 to col. 5, l. 8) in a first current direction (a first current direction that causes the rod portion 20a of 15 to move toward the orifice 24, which generates a magnetic field that is opposite as the one shown in Fig. 2a) or a second current direction (a second current direction that causes the rod portion 20a of 15 to move away from the orifice 24, which generates a magnetic field as shown in Fig. 2a),
wherein when the electric current is in the first current direction (which generates the magnetic field that is opposite as the one shown in Fig. 2a), the electromagnet (12 and 13) actuates the armature (15) to change the seal (the 23 part) from a first state (the 23 part moves away from the inlet of the orifice 24) to a second state (the 23 part moves toward the inlet of the orifice 24; see Fig. 2a and from col. 4, l. 64 to col. 5, l. 8 and col. 7, ll. 35-42) and
when the electric current is in the second current direction (which generates the magnetic field as shown in Fig. 2a), the electromagnet (12 and 13) actuates the armature (15) to change the seal (the 23 part) from the second state (the 23 part moves toward the inlet of the orifice 24) to the first state (the 23 part moves away from the inlet of the orifice 24; see Fig. 2a and from col. 4, l. 64 to col. 5, l. 8 and col. 7, ll. 35-42).
Bosley further teaches wherein providing the electric current in two opposite current directions to move the armature in two opposite direction (see discussion above) is used to replace providing an electric current in only one direction to move the armature in a first direction and providing a zero electric current and using a spring to move the armature to a second direction opposite to the first direction in order to improve valve control sensitivity (see col. 7, ll. 35-42 and col. 2, ll. 28-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Reinicke with Bosley’s teaching of
i) replacing Reinicke’s 30 with Bosley’s yoke formed by 14, 17 and 18; and
ii) replacing Reinicke’s electromagnet formed by a single coil winding 50 with Bosley’s electromagnet formed by a first coil winding 12 and a second coil winding 13, such that
the electromagnet that is configured to selectively receive an electric current in a first current direction or a second current direction opposite the first current direction, wherein when the electric current is in the second current direction, the electromagnet actuates the armature to change the seal from the open state to the default closed state
in order to controllable dynamic response in both of the moving directions of the armature (Bosley, col. 7, ll. 35-42) and improve valve control sensitivity (Bosley, col. 2, ll. 28-40).
Regarding claim 2, Reinicke in view of Bosley further teaches wherein the electromagnet (Bosley’s electromagnet in Bosley’s Fig. 1) includes a first coil winding (Bosley’s 12) and a second coil winding (Bosley’s 13) that is oppositely wound (per Bosley’s col. 4, ll. 30-40, from Bosley’s col. 4, l. 64 to Bosley’s col. 5, l. 8, Bosley’s 12 and 13 are connected to each other in series, and the electric current has the first current direction passes through the two serially connected coils 12 and 13 to generate upstream S – downstream N magnetic field in 12 and upstream N – downstream S magnetic field in 13 as shown in Bosley’s Fig. 2a, which requires Bosley’s 12 and 13 to be wound oppositely).
Regarding claim 3, Reinicke in view of Bosley further teaches wherein the armature (comprising Reinicke’s 31 in Reinicke’s Figs. 1-2 and Bosley’s yoke formed by 14 and 17-18 in Bosley’s Fig. 1) includes a rod portion (Reinicke’s 31 in Reinicke’s Figs. 1-2), a yoke (Bosley’s yoke formed by 14 and 17-18 in Bosley’s Fig. 1) comprised of a permanent magnet (Bosley’s 14 in Bosley’s Fig. 1 and col. 3, ll. 40-48) and a keeper (Bosley’s 17-18 in Bosley’s Fig. 1) that surrounds the permanent magnet (see Bosley’s Fig. 1).
Reinicke in view of Bosley as discussed so far does not teach a shell that encases the yoke.
However, Bosley further teaches a shell (16) that encases the yoke (formed by 14 and 17-18 in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide Reinicke in view of Bosley with Bosley’s shell encasing the yoke in order to prevent corrosion of the yoke that exposes to the working fluid (Bosley, col. 5, ll. 9-22).
Regarding claim 4, Reinicke further teaches wherein the rod portion (31) has a tip (annotated Fig. 2) that is in contact with the seal (the 23 part, see annotated Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
620
982
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Reinicke in view of Bosley further teaches wherein the shell (Bosley’s 16) is a material selected from the group consisting of titanium-based alloy, aluminum-based alloy, and polymer (per Bosley’s col. 5, ll. 9-13, Bosley’s 16 a non-ferromagnetic and corrosion resistant material such as Teflon, which is polymer).
Regarding claim 8, Reinicke in view of Bosley further teaches wherein when the electric current is in the first current direction (which generates the magnetic field that is opposite as the one shown in Bosley’s Fig. 2a) the electromagnet (Bosley’s 12 and 13 in Bosley’s Fig. 1) magnetically pushes (because Bosley’s 12 and 13 generate an upstream N - downstream S magnetic field in 12 that opposite as the one shown in Bosley’s Fig. 2a and an upstream S -downstream N magnetic field in 13 that opposite as the one shown in Bosley’s Fig. 2a) the rod portion (Reinicke’s 31 in Reinicke’s Figs. 1-2) to apply force on the seal (Reinicke’s 23 part in Reinicke’s Figs. 1-2) and thereby move the seal (Reinicke’s 23 part in Reinicke’s Figs. 1-2) from the default closed state (as shown in Reinicke’s Fig. 1) to the open state (as shown in Reinicke’s Fig. 2) and when the electric current is applied in the second current direction (which generates the magnetic field as shown in Bosley’s Fig. 2a) the electromagnet (Bosley’s 12 and 13 in Bosley’s Fig. 1) magnetically pulls (because Bosley’s 12 and 13 generate an upstream S - downstream N magnetic field in 12 as shown in Bosley’s Fig. 2a and an upstream N -downstream S magnetic field in 13 as shown in Bosley’s Fig. 2a) the rod portion (Reinicke’s 31 in Reinicke’s Figs. 1-2) to remove the force on the seal (Reinicke’s 23 part in Reinicke’s Figs. 1-2) and thereby move the seal (Reinicke’s 23 part in Reinicke’s Figs. 1-2) from the open state (as shown in Reinicke’s Fig. 2) to the default closed state (as shown in Reinicke’s Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Reinicke in view of Bosley further teaches a controller (per Bosley’s col. 3, ll. 18-20 and col. 6, ll. 22-30, an active sensor feedback is provided to Bosley control loop in Bosley Fig. 4 in order to enhance dynamic damping, which requires an electronic controller) connected with the electromagnet (Bosley’s 12 and 13) and configured to selectively apply the electric current in the first direction or the second direction (Bosley’s electronic controller adjusting the electric current provided to Bosley’s coils 12 and 13 according to Bosley’s active sensor feedback, see Bosley’s Fig. 4 and Bosley’s col. 6, ll. 30-45).
Regarding claim 11, Reinicke in view of Bosley further teaches wherein the controller (Bosley’s electronic controller, see Bosley’s col. 3, ll. 18-20 and col. 6, ll. 22-30) is configured to apply the electric current in the second current direction (Bosley’s second current direction that causes Bosley’s 15 to move toward Bosley’s 24, which generates the magnetic field that is opposite as the one shown in Bosley’s Fig. 2a) for a preset amount of time (an amount of time for a stroke movement of Bosley’s 15 per Bosley’s col. 6, ll. 29-49 and col. 7, ll. 13-42, e.g., 0.5s as shown by the curve C’ in Bosley’s Fig. 6) to move the seal (Reinicke’s 23 part in Reinicke’s Figs. 1-2) from the open state (at the peak point of the curve between A-B in Bosley’s Fig. 3a, Reinicke’s 23 part is separated from Reinicke’s 17 as shown in Reinicke’s Fig. 2) to the default closed state (at B in Bosley’s Fig. 3a and Bosley’s col. 5, ll. 35-43, Reinicke’s 23 part is seated on Reinicke’s 17 as shown in Reinicke’s Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Reinicke further teaches the seal (comprising 23, 24, and 25, see Figs. 1-2) is an elastomer (the 25 part is spring, col. 3, ll. 3-5).
Regarding claims 13 and 17, Reinicke further teaches wherein the electromagnet includes a single coil (35, Figs. 1-2), and the armature (30 and 31) includes a rod portion (31, Figs. 1-2).
Reinicke further teaches wherein a spring (32) is provided to hold the armature (31 and 30) in the default closed state (Fig. 1 and col. 3, 20-28),
wherein the electromagnet (comprising 35 in Fig. 1) is configured to selectively receive an electric current in a first current direction (that causes the 35 to generate a magnetic field 37 in Fig. 2),
wherein when the electric current is in the first current direction (that causes the coil 35 to generate the magnetic field 37 in Fig. 2) the electromagnet (comprising the 35) magnetically pushes the armature (the 31 part in Figs. 1-2) to apply force (the pushing force from the 31 to the 23, see Fig. 2) on the seal (the 23 part) to move the seal from the closed state (as shown in Fig. 1) to the open state (as shown in Fig. 2; also see col. 3, ll. 40-58), and
when the electric current is zero (the 35 is not energized as shown in Fig. 1), the spring (32) pulls the armature (30 and 31 in Figs. 1-2) and causes to move the portion of the seal (the 23 part) to move and to thereby seat on the seal seat (17) so as to block the flow through the flow path (as shown in Fig. 2; also see col. 3, ll. 1-10 and ll. 13-28).
Reinicke does not teach the electromagnet is formed by a plurality of coil windings that includes a first coil winding and a second coil winding that are oppositely wound, and the armature includes a yoke comprised of a permanent magnet and a keeper that surrounds the permanent magnet, and a shell that encases the yoke.
However, Bosley teaches a valve (title and 10 in Fig. 1) comprising: an armature (15) includes a rod portion (20a, Fig. 1), a yoke (comprising 14 and 17-18, Fig. 1) comprised of a permanent magnet (14, col. 3, ll. 40-48) and a keeper (17-18) that surrounds the permanent magnet (see Fig. 1), and a shell (16) that is a non-ferromagnetic and corrosion resistant material (col. 5, ll. 9-13) and encases the yoke (see Fig. 1),
an electromagnet comprising a first coil winding (12) and a second coil winding (13, see Fig. 1) that are oppositely wound (per col. 4, ll. 30-40, and from col. 4, l. 64 to col. 5, l. 8, 12 and 13 are connected to each other in series, and the electric current has the first current direction passes through the two serially connected coils 12 and 13 to generate upstream S – downstream N magnetic field in 12 and upstream N – downstream S magnetic field in 13 as shown in Fig. 2a, which requires 12 and 13 to be wound oppositely).
Bosley further teaches the electromagnet (12 and 13) is configured to selectively receive an electric current (an electric current passing through the serially connected two coils 12 and 13, from col. 4, l. 64 to col. 5, l. 8) in a first current direction (a first current direction that causes the rod portion 20a of 15 to move toward the orifice 24, which generates a magnetic field that is opposite as the one shown in Fig. 2a) or a second current direction opposite the first current direction (a second current direction that causes the rod portion 20a of 15 to move away from the orifice 24, which generates a magnetic field as shown in Fig. 2a),
wherein when the electric current is in the first current direction (which generates the magnetic field that is opposite as the one shown in Fig. 2a), the electromagnet (12 and 13) magnetically pushes (because an upstream N - downstream S magnetic field is generated in 12 that opposite as the one shown in Fig. 2a and an upstream S - downstream N magnetic field is generated in 13 that opposite as the one shown in Fig. 2a) the armature (the 20a) to move toward the seal seat (the inlet of the orifice 24; see Fig. 2a and from col. 4, l. 64 to col. 5, l. 8 and col. 7, ll. 35-42), and
when the electric current is in the second current direction (which generates the magnetic field as shown in Fig. 2a), the electromagnet (12 and 13) magnetically pulls (because an upstream S - downstream N magnetic field is generated in 12 as shown in Fig. 2a and an upstream N - downstream S magnetic field is generated in 13 as shown in Fig. 2a) the armature (15) to reduce the force (the pushing force provided by 20a) on the seal (the 23 part), the reduction in force causing the seal (the 23 part) to move away from the seal seat (the inlet of the orifice 24, see Fig. 2a and from col. 4, l. 64 to col. 5, l. 8 and col. 7, ll. 35-42),
wherein providing the electric current in two opposite current directions to move the armature in two opposite direction (see discussion above) is used to replace providing an electric current in only one direction to move the armature in a first direction and providing a zero electric current and using the spring to move the armature to a second direction opposite to the first direction in order to improve valve control sensitivity (see col. 7, ll. 35-42 and col. 2, ll. 28-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Reinicke with Bosley’s teaching of
i) replacing Reinicke’s electromagnet formed by a single coil winding 50 with Bosley’s electromagnet formed by a first coil winding 12 and a second coil winding 13 in order to provide controllable dynamic response in both of the moving directions of the armature (Bosley, col. 7, ll. 35-42); and
ii) replacing Reinicke’s 30 with Bosley’s yoke formed by 14, 17 and 18, such that
the armature includes a rod portion, a yoke comprised of a permanent magnet and a keeper that surrounds the permanent magnet, and a shell that encases the yoke
in order to hold the armature in normally-close state by providing an axial force generated by the permanent magnet and the keeper without a mechanical force provided by a spring of the valve, and thereby, a spring rate of said spring is set to cancel any or all desired fraction in the valve to improve control sensitivity (Bosley, col. 2, ll. 28-40), and to prevent corrosion of the yoke that exposes to the working fluid by encasing the yoke with a shell (Bosley, col. 5, ll. 9-22).
Regarding claim 14, Reinicke further teaches wherein the rod portion (31, Figs. 1-2) has a distal tip (annotated Fig. 2 in claim 4) that is in contact with the seal (the 23 part, see Fig. 2) and the seal is an elastomer (the 25 part is a spring, which is an elastomer).
Regarding claim 16, Reinicke in view of Bosley further teaches the shell (Bosley’s 16) is a material selected from the group consisting of titanium-based alloy, aluminum-based alloy, and polymer (per Bosley’s col. 5, ll. 9-13, Bosley’s 16 a non-ferromagnetic and corrosion resistant material such as Teflon, which is polymer).
Claims 5-6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinicke 5501425 in view of Bosley 4690371, and in further view of Gao 20130199286.
Regarding claim 5, Reinicke in view of Bosley further teaches wherein the shell (Bosley’s 16) is a non-ferromagnetic and corrosion resistant material (Bosley’s col. 5, ll. 9-13).
Reinicke in view of Bosley does not teach the shell is formed of a titanium-based alloy.
However, Gao teaches a piston cylinder unit (10a-10b) comprising a cylinder (12; analogous to the shell of Bosley) and a piston (20; analogous to the armature of Bosley), wherein the cylinder (12) is formed by titanium-based alloy that is a non-ferromagnetic and corrosion resistant material ([0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Reinicke in view of Bosley with Gao’s using titanium-based alloy as the required non-ferromagnetic and corrosion resistant material because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material (or material compound), in this case, titanium-based alloy, on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, in this case, as a non-ferromagnetic and corrosion resistant material, as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416, MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 6, Reinicke further teaches the seal (comprising 23, 24, and 25, see Figs. 1-2) is an elastomer (the 25 part is spring, col. 3, ll. 3-5).
Regarding claim 15, Reinicke in view of Bosley further teaches the shell (Bosley’s 16) is a non-ferromagnetic and corrosion resistant material (Bosley’s col. 5, ll. 9-13).
Reinicke in view of Bosley does not teach said shell is formed of a titanium-based alloy.
However, Gao teaches a piston cylinder unit (10a-10b) comprising a cylinder (12; analogous to the shell of Reinicke in view of Bosley) and a piston (20; analogous to the armature of Reinicke in view of Bosley), wherein the cylinder (12) is formed by a titanium-based alloy that is a non-ferromagnetic and corrosion resistant material ([0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Reinicke in view of Bosley with Gao’s using titanium-based alloy as the required non-ferromagnetic and corrosion resistant material because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material (or material compound), in this case, titanium-based alloy, on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, in this case, as a non-ferromagnetic and corrosion resistant material, as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416, MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NEWMAN 3520137 in view of Reinicke 5501425 and Bosley 4690371.
Regarding claim 18, NEWMAN teaches the invention as claimed: A rocket motor (see Fig. 1) comprising:
a propellant tank (18 or 19) holding propellant (col. 3, ll. 35-40);
a combustor (the combustor in engine 28 or 29, col. 4, ll. 1-14);
a nozzle (the trumpet-shaped portion of the engine 28 or 29, see Fig. 1) attached with the combustor (the combustor in engine 28 or 29, col. 4, ll. 1-14);
a supply line (the line between component 23 to engine 28 or the line between component 41 to engine 29, see Fig. 1) fluidly connecting the propellant tank (18 or 19) and the combustor (the combustor in engine 28 or 29, col. 4, ll. 1-14); and
a valve (26 or 27) situated in the supply line (see Fig. 1) and is an electromagnetic gas control valve (see Fig. 1 and col. 4, ll. 1-15).
NEWMAN does not teach said valve including: a valve body having a flow path connecting an inlet and an outlet, a seal disposed in the flow path, the seal having a default closed state sealed against a seal seat so as to block flow through the flow path and an open state in which a portion of the seal deflects and thereby separates from the seal seat so as to permit flow through the flow path, an armature disposed in the valve body and moveable with respect to the seal, and an electromagnet that is configured to selectively receive an electric current in a first current direction, wherein when the electric current is in the first current direction the electromagnet actuates the armature to move the seal from the default closed state to the open state.
However, Reinicke teaches an electromagnetic gas control valve (10 Figs. 1-2 and col. 1, ll. 20-30) for a spacecraft application comprising:
a valve body (11 and 12) having a flow path (between 19’ to 20’ in Figs. 1-2, see col. 2, ll. 55-60);
a seal (comprising 23, 24, and 25 in Figs. 1-2, see col. 2, ll. 58-65 and col. 3, ll. 1-6) disposed in the flow path (see Figs. 1-2), the seal (comprising 23, 24, and 25) having a default closed state (the normally closed position shown in Fig. 1, wherein the 23 part is seated on 17, see col. 2, ll. 58-65 and col. 3, ll. 1-6) sealed against a seal seat (17) so as to block flow through the flow path (col. 2, ll. 58-65 and Fig. 1) and an open state (the open position shown in Fig. 2, wherein the 23 part is moved away from 17, see col. 2, ll. 23-26 and 58-65) in which a portion of the seal deflects and thereby separates from (note: according to American Heritage Dictionary, deflect means cause to bent, turn or deviate and deflection means the movement of a structure or structural part as a result of stress; when term “a portion of the seal” is interpreted as the 23 part, the 23 deviate from the default closed position as a result of pushing force provided by 31 and is separated from 17; or when term “a portion of the seal” is interpreted as the 25 part, the spring 25 bents as a result of pushing force provided by 31 and thereby separates from 17 because the 23 part is separates from 17, see Fig. 2) the seal seat (17) so as to permit flow through the flow path (col. 1, ll. 65 to 68, col. 2, ll. 58-65 and Fig. 2);
an armature (comprising 30 and 31 in Figs. 1-2) disposed in the valve body (11 and 12, see Figs. 1-2) and moveable with respect to the seal (see Figs. 1-2); and
an electromagnet (comprising 35 in Figs. 1-2) that is configured to selectively receive an electric current in a first current direction (that causes the 35 to generate a magnetic field 37 in Fig. 2), wherein when the electric current is in the first current direction (that causes the coil 35 to generate the magnetic field 37 in Fig. 2) the electromagnet (comprising the 35) actuates the armature (30 and 31 in Figs. 1-2) to move the seal (comprising 23, 24, and 25 in Figs. 1-2) from the default closed state (Fig. 1) to the open state (Fig. 2; also see col. 3, ll. 40-58), and
when the electric current is zero (the 35 is not energized as shown in Fig. 1) the spring (32) actuates the armature (30 and 31 in Figs. 1-2) to move the seal (the 23 part) from the open state (Fig. 2) to the default closed state (Fig. 1; also see col. 3, ll. 1-10 and ll. 13-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosed but non-depicted electromagnetic gas control valve of NEWMAN to be Reinicke’s electromagnetic gas control valve because it is noted that the use of a known prior art structure (in this case the use of a electromagnetic gas control valve), to obtain predictable results (in this case to control the gas fluid flow through the system) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, MPEP 2141 III A.
NEWMAN in view of Reinicke does not teach the electromagnet that is configured to selectively receive an electric current in said first current direction or a second current direction opposite said first current direction, wherein when the electric current is in the second current direction, the electromagnet actuates said armature to move said seal from said open state to said default closed state.
However, Bosley teaches a valve (title and 10 in Fig. 1) comprising: an armature (15 comprising a yoke formed by 14, 17 and 18, Fig. 1 and col. 3, ll. 40-48) disposed in the valve body (see Fig. 1) and moveable with respect to the seal seat (the inlet of the orifice 24, see Fig. 1); and
an electromagnet comprising a first coil winding (12) and a second coil winding (13, see Fig. 1) and is configured to selectively receive an electric current (an electric current passing through the serially connected two coils 12 and 13, from col. 4, l. 64 to col. 5, l. 8) in a first current direction (a first current direction that causes the rod portion 20a of 15 to move toward the orifice 24, which generates a magnetic field that is opposite as the one shown in Fig. 2a) or a second current direction (a second current direction that causes the rod portion 20a of 15 to move away from the orifice 24, which generates a magnetic field as shown in Fig. 2a),
wherein when the electric current is in the first current direction (which generates the magnetic field that is opposite as the one shown in Fig. 2a), the electromagnet (12 and 13) actuates the armature (15) to move the seal (the 23 part) from a first state (the 23 part moves away from the inlet of the orifice 24) to a second state (the 23 part moves toward the inlet of the orifice 24; see Fig. 2a and from col. 4, l. 64 to col. 5, l. 8 and col. 7, ll. 35-42) and
when the electric current is in the second current direction (which generates the magnetic field as shown in Fig. 2a), the electromagnet (12 and 13) actuates the armature (15) to move the seal (the 23 part) from the second state (the 23 part moves toward the inlet of the orifice 24) to the first state (the 23 part moves away from the inlet of the orifice 24; see Fig. 2a and from col. 4, l. 64 to col. 5, l. 8 and col. 7, ll. 35-42).
Bosley further teaches wherein providing the electric current in two opposite current directions to move the armature in two opposite direction (see discussion above) is used to replace providing an electric current in only one direction to move the armature in a first direction and providing a zero electric current and using a spring to move the armature to a second direction opposite to the first direction in order to improve valve control sensitivity (see col. 7, ll. 35-42 and col. 2, ll. 28-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify NEWMAN in view of Reinicke with Bosley’s teaching of
i) replacing Reinicke’s 30 with Bosley’s yoke formed by 14, 17 and 18; and
ii) replacing Reinicke’s electromagnet formed by a single coil winding 50 with Bosley’s electromagnet formed by a first coil winding 12 and a second coil winding 13, such that
the electromagnet that is configured to selectively receive an electric current in a first current direction or a second current direction opposite the first current direction, wherein when the electric current is in the second current direction, the electromagnet actuates the armature to change the seal from the open state to the default closed state
in order to controllable dynamic response in both of the moving directions of the armature (Bosley, col. 7, ll. 35-42) and improve valve control sensitivity (Bosley, col. 2, ll. 28-40).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NEWMAN 3520137 in view of Reinicke 5501425 and Bosley 4690371, and in further view of Gao 20130199286.
Regarding claim 19, NEWMAN in view of Reinicke and Bosley further teaches wherein the electromagnet includes a first coil winding (Bosley’s 12 in Bosley’s Fig. 1) and a second coil wingding (Bosley’s 12 in Bosley’s Fig. 1) that are oppositely wound (per Bosley’s col. 4, ll. 30-40, and from col. 4, l. 64 to col. 5, l. 8, Bosley’s 12 and 13 are connected to each other in series, and the electric current has the first current direction passes through the two serially connected Bosley’s coils 12 and 13 to generate upstream S – downstream N magnetic field in Bosley’s 12 and upstream N – downstream S magnetic field in Bosley’s 13 as shown in Bosley’s Fig. 2a, which requires Bosley’s 12 and 13 to be wound oppositely),
the armature (Reinicke’s 31 in Reinicke’s Figs. 1-2 and Bosley’s 15 in Bosley’s Fig. 1) includes a rod portion (Reinicke’s 31 in Reinicke’s Figs. 1-2), a yoke (Bosley’s 14, 17, and 18) comprised of a permanent magnet (Bosley’s 14, see Bosley’s col. 3, ll. 40-48) and a keeper (Bosley’s 17-18) that surrounds the permanent magnet (see Bosley’s Fig. 1), and a shell (Bosley’s 16) that encases the yoke (Bosley’s 14, 17, and 18, see Bosley’s Fig. 1), and the shell (Bosley’s 16) a non-ferromagnetic and corrosion resistant material (see Bosley’s col. 5, ll. 9-13).
NEWMAN in view of Reinicke and Bosley does not teach said shell is formed of a titanium-based alloy.
However, Gao teaches a piston cylinder unit (10a-10b) comprising a cylinder (12; analogous to the shell of NEWMAN in view of Bosley) and a piston (20; analogous to the armature of NEWMAN in view of Bosley), wherein the cylinder (12) is formed by titanium-based alloy that is a non-ferromagnetic and corrosion resistant material ([0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify NEWMAN in view of Reinicke and Bosley with Gao’s using titanium-based alloy as the required non-ferromagnetic and corrosion resistant material because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material (or material compound), in this case, titanium-based alloy, on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, in this case, as a non-ferromagnetic and corrosion resistant material, as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416, MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in the Appeal Bried filed 07/08/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues, on pp. 5-9, that Examiner’s interpretation for term “deflect”, is inconsistent with Applicant’s usage of deflect in the specification, which refers to deformation of a portion of a structure under applied force rather than translation of a component.
Examiner does not agree with such argument because: i) the specification does NOT provide a special definition of defining term “deflect” as “deformation”; ii) Applicant shall notice that, it is appropriate to compare the meaning of terms given in technical dictionaries in order to ascertain the accepted meaning of a term in the art. In re Barr, 444 F.2d 588, 170 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1971). MPEP 2173.05(a)(III). Additionally, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow”. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004); MPEP 2111.01. Also, “Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993)”, MPEP 2145(VI); and iii) therefore, term “deflect” is interpreted as its plain meaning (according to American Heritage Dictionary, deflect means cause to bent, turn or deviate and deflection means the movement of a structure or structural part as a result of stress), and limitation “… a portion of the seal deflects and thereby separates from the seal seat..” is taught by Reinicke (when term “a portion of the seal” is interpreted as the 23 part, the 23 deviate from the default closed position as a result of pushing force provided by 31 and is separated from 17; or when term “a portion of the seal” is interpreted as the 25 part, the spring 25 bents as a result of pushing force provided by 31 and thereby separates from 17 because the 23 part is separates from 17, see Fig. 2).
Examiner Note
Applicant is suggested to clarify that i) in the open state a portion of the seal deforms and thereby separates from the seal seat; or ii) the seal is formed by a soft material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JINGCHEN LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-6639. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-4:30.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/JINGCHEN LIU/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
