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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Regarding claim 10, recitation “… apply the electric current in the first direction or the second direction” is believed to be in error for - - apply the electric current in the first current direction or the second current direction - -
Regarding claim 12, term “the closed state” is believed to be in error for - - the default closed state - -
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 10-11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bosley 4690371.
Regarding claim 1, Bosley teaches the invention as claimed: A valve (10, see Fig. 1 and title) comprising:
a valve body (11) having a flow path (from between 30 and 25, see Fig. 1);
a seal (23 and 22, Fig. 1 and from col. 3, l. 67 to col. 4, l. 2, col. 5, ll. 21-28, and col. 7, ll. 35-42) disposed in the flow path (see Fig. 1), the seal (23 and 22) having a default closed state (a normally closed position per col. 3, ll. 49-56 and col. 7, ll. 35-42) sealed against (via 23) a seal seat (an inlet of orifice 24, see Fig. 1) so as to block flow through the flow path (see Fig. 1 and col. 3, ll. 49-56) and an open state (an open position per col. 4, ll. 1-5 and ll. 24-30, and col. 7, ll. 30-42) in which a portion of the seal (the portion 23) deflects (because 23 in Figs. 10-11b is elastic seal per col. 2, ll. 45-51, col. 7, l. 53 to col. 8, l. 5, and claim 10, when 23 is not pressing on the inlet of orifice 24, the 23 deflects back to the default shape) and thereby separates from the seal seat (the inlet of orifice 24) so as to permit flow through the flow path (see Fig. 1 and col. 4, ll. 1-5 and 24-29);
an armature (15, Fig. 1 and col. 3, ll. 41-45) disposed in the valve body (see Fig. 1) and moveable with respect to the seal (23 in Figs. 10-11b is elastic seal per col. 2, ll. 45-51, col. 7, l. 53 to col. 8, l. 5, and claim 10; when 23 contacts the inlet of 24 and stops moving and 15 is still moving toward 24 until 23 is sealed against to the inlet of 24, 15 is moveable with respect to 23); and
an electromagnet (12 and 13, Fig. 1) that is configured to selectively receive an electric current (an electric current passing through the serially connected two coils 12 and 13, per col. 4, l. 64 to col. 5, l. 8) in a first current direction (a first current direction that causes 15 to move away from 24, which generate a magnetic field as shown in Fig. 2a) or a second current direction (a second current direction that causes 15 to move toward 24) opposite the first current direction (in order to generate a magnetic field that is opposite as the one shown in Fig. 2a), wherein when the electric current is in the first current direction (which generate the magnetic field as shown in Fig. 2a) the electromagnet (12 and 13) actuates the armature (15) to change the seal (changing the position of the portion 23) from the default closed state to the open state (see Fig. 2a and from col. 4, l. 64 to col. 5, l. 8) and when the electric current is in the second current direction (which generate 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 (changing the position of the portion 23) from the open state to the default closed state (see Fig. 2a and from col. 4, l. 64 to col. 5, l. 8 and col. 7, ll. 35-42).
Regarding claim 2, Bosley further teaches wherein the electromagnet includes a first coil winding (12) and a second coil winding (13, Fig. 1) that is 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).
Regarding claim 3, Bosley further teaches wherein the armature (15) includes a rod portion (20a, Fig. 1), a yoke (comprising 14, 17, and 18, Fig. 1) comprised of a permanent magnet (14, col. 3, ll. 40-48) and a keeper (17 and 18) that surrounds the permanent magnet (see Fig. 1), and a shell (16) that encases the yoke (see Fig. 1 and col. 3, ll. 42-48 and ll. 60-65).
Regarding claim 4, Bosley further teaches wherein the rod portion (20a, Fig. 1) has a tip (annotated Fig. 1) that is in contact with the seal (the portion 23).
PNG
media_image1.png
988
1118
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Bosley further teaches wherein the shell (16) is a material selected from the group consisting of titanium-based alloy, aluminum-based alloy, and polymer (per col. 5, ll. 9-13, 16 a non-ferromagnetic and corrosion resistant material such as Teflon, which is polymer).
Regarding claim 10, Bosley further teaches comprising a controller (per col. 3, ll. 18-20 and col. 6, ll. 22-30, an active sensor feedback is provided to the control loop in Fig. 4 in order to enhance dynamic damping, which requires an electronic controller) connected with the electromagnet (12 and 13) and configured to selectively apply the electric current in the first direction or the second direction (such electronic controller adjusting the electric current provided to the coils 12 and 13 according to the active sensor feedback, see Fig. 4 and col. 6, ll. 30-45).
Regarding claim 11, Bosley further teaches wherein the controller (the electronic controller, see col. 3, ll. 18-20 and col. 6, ll. 22-30) is configured to apply the electric current in the second current direction (the second current direction that causes 15 to move toward 24, which generates the magnetic field that is opposite as the one shown in Fig. 2a) for a preset amount of time (an amount of time for a stroke movement of 15 per col. 6, ll. 29-49 and col. 7, ll. 13-42, e.g., 0.5s as shown by the curve C’ in Fig. 6) to move the seal (the portion 23) from the open state (the peak point of the curve between A-B in Fig. 3a) to the default closed state (B in Fig. 3a, also see Fig. 3a and col. 5, ll. 35-43).
Regarding claim 20, Bosley further teaches wherein the seal (23 and 22) is an elastomer (per col. 5, ll. 20-28 and Fig. 2a, 22 is a spring, i.e., an elastomer; and per col. 2, ll. 45-51, col. 7, l. 53 to col. 8, l. 5, and claim 10, 23 in Figs. 10-11b is a elastic seal, i.e., an elastomer).
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 (12) having a flow path (between an inlet 19’ to an outlet 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 (see Figs. 1-2); and
an electromagnet (comprising 35 in Fig. 1) configured to magnetically push a rod portion (the 31 part) of the armature to apply force (a pushing force from the 31 to the 23 part) on the seal (the 23) and thereby move the seal (the 23 part) from the closed state to the open state (see Fig. 2), the force (the pushing force from the 31 to the 23 part, see Fig. 2) causes a portion of the seal (the 23 part) to deflect and thereby to be separated from the seal seat (17) so as to permit the flow through the flow path (the 31 pushes the 23 part, such that the 23 part moves away from the default closed position, i.e., deflects, and is separated from the seal seat 17 in order for the flow from the inlet 19’ flowing to the outlet 20’, see Fig. 2 and col. 2, ll. 55-65; note: according to American Heritage Dictionary, deflect means cause to turn or deviate and deflection means the movement of a structure or structural part as a result of stress).
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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosley 4690371 in view of Gao 20130199286.
Regarding claim 5, Bosley further teaches wherein the shell (16) is a non-ferromagnetic and corrosion resistant material (col. 5, ll. 9-13).
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 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, Bosley further teaches wherein the seal (23 and 22) is an elastomer (per col. 5, ll. 20-28 and Fig. 2a, 22 is a spring, i.e., an elastomer; and per col. 2, ll. 45-51, col. 7, l. 53 to col. 8, l. 5, and claim 10, 23 in Figs. 10-11b is a elastic seal, i.e., an elastomer).
Claims 1, 3, 8, 13-14, and 16-17 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 (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 (when term “a portion of the seal” is interpreted as the 23 part, the 23 moves away from the default closed position, i.e., deflects, and is separated from 17, note: according to American Heritage Dictionary, deflect means cause to 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 25 part, the spring 25 deflects due to pushing force from 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 (see Figs. 1-2) and moveable with respect to the seal (see Figs. 1-2); and
an electromagnet (comprising 35 in Fig. 1) 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 (the 23 part) 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 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.
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 such method of providing the electric current in two opposite current directions to move the armature in two opposite direction (see discussion above) is used to replace a method of 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 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 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 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 13, Reinicke further teaches the electromagnet is formed by a single winding (the single coil 35 in Fig. 1), and the armature includes a rod portion (pin 31 in Figs. 1-2) and a core rod (30 in 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) actuates the armature (30 and 31 in Figs. 1-2) to move the seal (the 23 part) from the open state (as shown in Fig. 2) to the closed state (as shown in Fig. 1; 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) actuates the armature (15) to 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 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 such method of providing the electric current in two opposite current directions to move the armature in two opposite direction (see discussion above) is used to replace a method of 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. 1) that is in contact with the seal (the valve member 23 part, see Fig. 2) and the seal is an elastomer (the 25 part is a spring, which is an elastomer).
PNG
media_image2.png
851
1142
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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).
Regarding claim 17, Reinicke in view of Bosley as discussed for claim 13 above teaches the claimed function of claim 17, see demonstration in rejection for claim 13 above.
Claim 15 is 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 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 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 or a second current direction opposite the 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 and when the electric current is in the second current direction the electromagnet actuates the armature to move the seal from the open state to the default closed state.
However, Bosley teaches an electromagnetic control valve for controlling a gas flow in high-performance application (col. 2, ll. 1-5, col. 1, ll. 15-20 and 10 in Fig. 1) comprising:
a valve body (11) having a flow path (from between 30 and 25, see Fig. 1);
a seal (23 and 22, Fig. 1 and from col. 3, l. 67 to col. 4, l. 2, col. 5, ll. 21-28, and col. 7, ll. 35-42) disposed in the flow path (see Fig. 1), the seal (23 and 22) having a default closed state (a normally closed position per col. 3, ll. 49-56 and col. 7, ll. 35-42) sealed against (via 23) a seal seat (an inlet of orifice 24, see Fig. 1) so as to block flow through the flow path (see Fig. 1 and col. 3, ll. 49-56) and an open state (an open position per col. 4, ll. 1-5 and ll. 24-30, and col. 7, ll. 30-42) in which a portion of the seal (the portion 23) deflects (because 23 in Figs. 10-11b is elastic seal per col. 2, ll. 45-51, col. 7, l. 53 to col. 8, l. 5, and claim 10, when 23 is not pressing on the inlet of orifice 24, the 23 deflects back to the default shape) and thereby separates from the seal seat (the inlet of orifice 24) so as to permit flow through the flow path (see Fig. 1 and col. 4, ll. 1-5 and 24-29);
an armature (15, Fig. 1 and col. 3, ll. 41-45) disposed in the valve body (see Fig. 1) and moveable with respect to the seal (23 in Figs. 10-11b is elastic seal per col. 2, ll. 45-51, col. 7, l. 53 to col. 8, l. 5, and claim 10; when 23 contacts the inlet of 24 and stops moving and 15 is still moving toward 24 until 23 is sealed against to the inlet of 24, 15 is moveable with respect to 23); and
an electromagnet (12 and 13, Fig. 1) that is configured to selectively receive an electric current (an electric current passing through the serially connected two coils 12 and 13, per col. 4, l. 64 to col. 5, l. 8) in a first current direction (a first current direction that causes 15 to move away from 24, which generate a magnetic field as shown in Fig. 2a) or a second current direction (a second current direction that causes 15 to move toward 24) opposite the first current direction (in order to generate a magnetic field that is opposite as the one shown in Fig. 2a), wherein when the electric current is in the first current direction (which generate the magnetic field as shown in Fig. 2a) the electromagnet (12 and 13) actuates the armature (15) to move the seal (move the portion 23 away from the inlet of orifice 24) from the default closed state to the open state (see Fig. 2a and from col. 4, l. 64 to col. 5, l. 8) and when the electric current is in the second current direction (which generate 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 (move the portion 23 toward the inlet of orifice 24) from the open state to the default closed state (see Fig. 2a and from col. 4, l. 64 to col. 5, l. 8 and col. 7, ll. 35-42).
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 Bosley’s electromagnetic gas control valve because the electromagnetic gas control valve as taught by Bosley can be operate over a continuously variable range of stable positions (Bosley, col. 1, ll. 55-60) and have a high corrosion resistant (Bosley, col. 2, ll. 50-65).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NEWMAN 3520137 in view of Bosley 4690371, and in further view of Gao 20130199286.
Regarding claim 19, NEWMAN in view of 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 (Bosley’s 15 in Bosley’s Fig. 1) includes a rod portion (Bosley’s 20a in Fig. 1), a yoke 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 (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 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 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 filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered.
I. Regarding amended claim 1, on p. 6, Applicant argues that Bosley does not teach limitation, “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”.
Examiner does not agree because: Bosley teaches a portion of the seal (the 23 portion) having a default closed state (a normally closed position per col. 3, ll. 49-56 and col. 7, ll. 35-42) sealed against a seal seat (an inlet of orifice 24, see Fig. 1) so as to block flow through the flow path (see Fig. 1 and col. 3, ll. 49-56) and an open state (an open position per col. 4, ll. 1-5 and ll. 24-30, and col. 7, ll. 30-42) in which a portion of the seal (the portion 23) deflects (because 23 in Figs. 10-11b is elastic seal per col. 2, ll. 45-51, col. 7, l. 53 to col. 8, l. 5, and claim 10, when 23 is not pressing on the inlet of orifice 24, the 23 deflects back to the default shape) and thereby separates from the seal seat (the inlet of orifice 24) so as to permit flow through the flow path (see Fig. 1 and col. 4, ll. 1-5 and 24-29).
II. Regarding amended claims 1 and 12, on p. 6, Applicant argues that Reinicke does not teach, “a seal where an applied force on the seal ‘causes a portion of the seal to deflect and thereby separate from the seal seat.’ In Reinicke, both the valve member 23 and the seal seat are of a hard materials and displace entirely (Reinicke col. 2, 11. 63-67 "The poppet valve member 23 and seat member 17 are preferably of a hard material such as silicon carbide, and their flat-to-flat engagement for the closed condition preferably involves lap-ground surfaces."). Even if there was an infinitesimal amount of deflection of Reinicke' s material, it is the movement of the entire valve member 23 off of the seat that permits flow, not the deflection. There is no deflection of a portion of the seal that causes the portion to be separated from the seal seat so as to permit the flow through the flow path”.
Examiner does not agree because: according to at least American Heritage Dictionary, deflect means cause to turn or deviate and deflection means the movement of a structure or structural part as a result of stress, and it is noted, “Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims”, MPEP 2145. In this case, claims 1 and 12 does not require the seal is a soft materials and the shape of a portion of the seal is changed/deformed so as to permit flow through the flow path as Applicant argues. Therefore, Reinicke teaches a portion of the seal (the 23 part) to deflect and thereby to be separated from the seal seat (17) so as to permit the flow through the flow path (the 31 pushes the 23 part, such that the 23 part moves away from the default closed position, i.e., deflects, and is separated from the seal seat 17 in order for the flow from the inlet 19’ flowing to the outlet 20’, see Fig. 2 and col. 2, ll. 55-65).
Examiner Note
Applicant is suggested to further define the structural/material difference between the disclosed invention and the references on the record, e.g., the seal a one-piece structure or the portion of the seal that seals against the seal seat is an elastic material. An interview may be requested in order to promote compact prosecution.
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 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/ /GERALD L SUNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741 Examiner, Art Unit 3741