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 .
Status of the claims
Claims 26-30, 32-33, 37-38 is/are amended. Currently claims 26-45 are pending in this application.
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, 41-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Sosulnikov et al (4063568).
Regarding claim 26, Sosulnikov discloses a three-way valve (Fig 3) comprising: a housing having three successive openings (A,B,C) 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 B,C, and a second chamber between the second and a third of the three successive openings B,A; a vent ball 7 and a corresponding vent ball seat adjacent the first chamber (between B and C); a supply ball 7 and a corresponding supply ball seat adjacent the second chamber (between A and B); and a separator pin 6 between, and configured to bear against, the vent ball 7 and the supply ball 7, 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 (normally closed position), in which the second opening B is in fluid communication with the first opening C, and an actuated position (solenoid excitation), in which the second opening B is in fluid communication with the third opening A, wherein the valve further comprises: a supplementary resilient element 13 for biasing the supply ball towards the supply ball seat, wherein the valve is configured such that when the valve is fluidically connected to a fluid source A, in the default position, fluid pressure seats the supply ball in the supply ball seat (col 4, line 20-30, normally closed valve), the supplementary resilient element 13 being configured to assist fluid pressure of a fluid source in fluid communication with the valve in returning the supply ball to the supply ball seat (when in normally closed position).
As to claims 41-44, an actuator is (1) coupled to the vent ball 7, the actuator is coupled to the vent ball 7 so that actuation of the actuator causes the vent ball 7, the separator pin 6, and the supply ball 7 to move so that the valve is reconfigured from the default position to the actuated position (open connection between A and B), wherein the actuator (1) is a solenoid 1 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 (17) configured to move upon energisation of the solenoid 1; a passage cavity (in 8) hosting between the plunger 17 and the vent ball 7; and a plunger pin 11 provided in said passage, one (lower) end of the plunger pin 11 configured to bear against the vent ball 7, and the other (upper) end of the plunger pin 11 configured to be moved by the plunger 17 when the solenoid is energized, so that upon energization 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, Sosulnikov 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 Sosulnikov is readable as a “damper”.
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 Sosulnikov et al (4063568).
As to claim 27, 28, Sosulnikov 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, Sosulnikov discloses spring 13 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, Sosulnikov discloses supply pressure applied from source (at A) 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 Sosulnikov et al (4063568) in view of Wynn (20060108006).
As to claim 37, Sosulnikov 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 Sosulnikov 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, Sosulnikov 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) 30-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sosulnikov et al (4063568) in view of Hoglund et al (20190264586)..
As to claim 30, 31, 34-36, Sosulnikov fails to disclose spring 13 as a coil spring. Hoglund, Fig. 4, teaches 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. Hoglund, Fig. 4, teaches resilient element is a coil spring 17 sized to receive a portion of the supply ball 22. Hoglund discloses a holder (top portion of housing) for retaining the coil spring 17, 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.
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 Sosulnikov with biasing mechanism as coil spring as described above as taught by Hoglund as an art-recognized functionally equivalent substitute ball biasing mechanism yielding predictable results of providing a biasing force on ball.
As to claim 32, Sosulnikov as modified (as shown by 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, Sosulnikov as modified fails to disclose the coil spring as a spring constant rate coil spring with spring constant of the claimed range. However, Official Notice is taken (now considered Applicant admitted prior art, since Applicant did not traverse the Official Notice of prior office action) 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 Sosulnikov as modified 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the rejection of record. However, a new ground of rejection is applied to the amended claims.
Sosulnikov is cited to show teaching of fluid pressure seats the supply ball in the supply ball seat in default position.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights