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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the resilient element with three, evenly distributed, elements, each having a resilient tip recited in claim 37 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 28, 29, 32, 33, 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 28, 29, 32, 33, 38, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
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) 26, 30, 34-36, 41-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Mueller et al (DE 3722344 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Mueller discloses a three-way valve (in 6, 10) comprising: a housing having three successive openings (at 4, 3’, 2) interconnected by a fluid flow path, the fluid flow path having: a first chamber between a first and a second of the three successive openings 4, 3’, and a second chamber between the second and a third of the three successive openings 3’, 2; a vent ball 17 and a corresponding vent ball seat adjacent the first chamber; a supply ball 20 and a corresponding supply ball seat adjacent the second chamber; and a separator pin 18 between, and configured to bear against, the vent ball 17 and the supply ball 20, wherein the vent ball seat, the vent ball, the supply ball seat, the supply ball, and the separator pin are functionally linked so that when one of the vent ball and the supply ball is seated against the corresponding ball seat, the other of the vent ball and the supply ball is off its corresponding ball seat, wherein the valve is configurable between a default position (translation, page 3, para 3), in which the second opening 3’ is in fluid communication with the first opening 4’, and an actuated position (no solenoid excitation), in which the second opening 3’ is in fluid communication with the third opening 2, wherein the valve further comprises: a resilient element 22 for biasing the supply ball towards the supply ball seat.
As to claim 30, the resilient element comprises a coil spring 22.
As to claims 34-36, Mueller discloses comprising a holder (24,25 and portion around and below 24,25) for retaining the coil spring 22, wherein the holder comprises a cavity, and the coil spring is arranged within the cavity such that movement of the coil spring is guided by the holder, wherein the coil spring is fully retained within the cavity.
As to claims 41-44, an actuator is (at 10) coupled to the vent ball 17, the actuator is coupled to the vent ball 17 so that actuation of the actuator causes the vent ball 17, the separator pin 18, and the supply ball 20 to move so that the valve is reconfigured from the default position to the actuated position ((translation, page 3, para 3), wherein the actuator (at 10) is a solenoid 9 configured so that when the solenoid is energised, the valve is in the actuated position, and when the solenoid is de-energised, the valve is in the default position, further comprising: a plunger 13 configured to move upon energisation of the solenoid 9; a passage cavity hosting 11) between the plunger 13 and the vent ball 17; and a plunger pin 11 provided in said passage, one (lower)end of the plunger pin 11 configured to bear against the vent ball 17, and the other (upper) end of the plunger pin 17 configured to be moved by the plunger 13 when the solenoid is energised, so that upon energisation of the solenoid, the plunger moves the plunger pin, causing the vent ball, the separator pin, and the supply ball to move, to reconfigure the valve from the default position to the actuated position.
As to claim 45, Mueller discloses a device 1 comprising a three-way valve according to claim 26. The recitation “damper” is considered to be a name given the claimed device relative to its intended use. From M.P.E.P. §2111.02 (II): If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir.1999). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed.Cir. 1997). As evidenced by the explanation given above, the claimed structure finds their equivalents in the reference(s) applied. As such the device of Mueller is readable as a “damper”.
Claim(s) 26, 30, 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Hoglund et al (20190264586).
Regarding claim 26, Hoglund, Fig. 4, discloses a three-way valve (Hp,CP,LP) comprising: a housing 4 having three successive openings 12, 5, 14 interconnected by a fluid flow path, the fluid flow path having: a first chamber (for 21) between a first and a second of the three successive openings 12,5, and a second chamber (for 22) between the second and a third of the three successive openings 5,14; a vent ball 21 (For oil vent LP) and a corresponding vent ball seat adjacent the first chamber; a supply ball 22 and a corresponding supply ball seat adjacent the second chamber; and a separator pin 23 between, and configured to bear against (taken to mean push against), the vent ball 21 and the supply ball 22, wherein the vent ball seat, the vent ball, the supply ball seat, the supply ball, and the separator pin are functionally linked so that when one of the vent ball and the supply ball is seated against the corresponding ball seat, the other of the vent ball and the supply ball is off its corresponding ball seat, wherein the valve is configurable between a default position (inactive position, abstract) , in which the second opening 5 is in fluid communication with the first opening 12, and an actuated position (Para 24, active state), in which the second opening 5 is in fluid communication with the third opening 14, wherein the valve further comprises: a resilient element 17 for biasing the supply ball 22 towards the supply ball seat.
As to claim 30, 31, resilient element is a coil spring 17 sized to receive a portion of the supply ball 22.
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) 27-29, 39, 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller et al (DE 3722344 A1).
As to claim 27, 28, Mueller discloses that maximum biasing force exerted by the resilient element 22 on the supply ball 20 for biasing the supply ball towards the supply ball seat is less than a force (actuation force of solenoid must be greater to move the valve) required for reconfiguring the valve from the default position to the actuated position, but fails to disclose the claimed range of ratio between activation force and maximum spring force. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to employ device with claimed range of ratio between activation force and maximum spring force, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
As to claim 29, Mueller discloses spring 29 which would have a preload but fails to disclose the claimed range of preload force. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to employ device with claimed range of preload force, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
As to claims 39 and 40, Mueller discloses supply pressure applied from source (at 2) which would a hydraulic force on the valve and internal pressure on the valve in operation, but fails to disclose claimed range of hydraulic force on the valve and internal pressure on the valve. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to employ device with claimed range of hydraulic force on the valve and internal pressure on the valve, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 37, 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller et al (DE 3722344 A1) in view of Wynn (20060108006).
As to claim 37, Mueller discloses the resilient element 22 as a coil spring biasing a ball 20, but fails to disclose a resilient element with internal ribs having with resilient tips. Wynn, fig 8, teaches a resilient element 90 for biasing a ball 80 comprises at least three, evenly distributed, elements (internally extending ribs), each having a resilient tip.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Mueller with biasing mechanism as resilient element with internal ribs having with resilient tips as taught by Wynn as an art-recognized functionally equivalent substitute ball biasing mechanism yielding predictable results of providing a biasing force on ball.
As to claim 38, Mueller as modified (as taught by Wynn) would have diameter of the supply ball necessarily larger than a diameter formed by the resilient tips but fails to disclose claimed range of ratio of diameter of the supply ball and diameter formed by the resilient tips. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to employ device with claimed range of ratio of diameter of the supply ball and diameter formed by the resilient tips, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 32, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoglund et al (20190264586).
Regarding claim 32, Hoglund shows, fig 4, diameter of the supply ball 22 larger than an internal diameter of the coil spring 17 but fails to disclose claimed range of ratio of supply ball diameter and the internal diameter of the coil spring. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to employ device with claimed range of ratio of supply ball diameter and the internal diameter of the coil spring since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
As to claim 33, Hoglund fails to disclose the coil spring 17 as a spring constant rate coil spring with spring constant of the claimed range. However, Official Notice is taken that using constant rate coil spring, for the purpose of providing a predictable biasing force are widely known and notoriously old in the art. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to employ constant rate coil spring in the device of Hoglund for the purpose of providing a predictable biasing force as is widely known and notoriously old in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to employ device with claimed range of spring constant since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Atif Chaudry at phone number 571-270-3768. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881, or Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ATIF H CHAUDRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753