DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment dated 6/17/2026. Claims 1, 19, and 20 are currently amended. Claims 2, 17 and 18 have been canceled. No claims are newly added. Presently, claims 1, 3-16, 19 and 20 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the Response to the Drawings Objections section on page 9 of the response dated 6/17/2026, with respect to the objection to the drawings presented in the Office action dated 4/7/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to the drawings presented in the Office action dated 4/7/2026 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see the Response to the Claim Objection section on page 9 of the response dated 6/17/2026, with respect to objection to claim 14 as presented in the Office action dated 4/7/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to the claims as presented in the Office action dated 4/7/2026 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see the Response to the 103 Rejections section on page 11 of the response dated 6/17/2026, with respect to the rejections are claims 1, 7, 8 and 10-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0042619 A1) in view of Seid et al. (US 6321767) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1, 7, 8 and 10-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0042619 A1) in view of Seid et al. (US 6321767) as provided in the Office action dated 4/7/2026 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0042619 A1) in view of Yamada et al. (US 6,619,324) on pages 11-14 of the response dated 6/17/2026.
Applicant argues that the seal of the Yamada et al. reference does not disclose or suggest using the seal to prevent ingestion of foreign substances from an external environment into a valve assembly (see section “c” on pages 11-12 of the response dated 6/17/2026).
However, the Yamada et al. reference teaches that “the ring shaped sealing member seals the radial hole” and “thereby obtaining an almost perfect seal even if the fluid contains filler materials which might obstruct a line contact seal” (see claim 1). Further, the Yamada et al. reference teaches that when pumping is done and the pressure through the valve nut (retainer) is removed, “the O-ring 6 closes the radial hole(s) 5b of the valve nut body 5 with elasticity” (col. 19, lines 24-28).
Therefore, when fluid pressure / fluid flow through the retainer (valve nut) is removed, the O-ring (6) seals the radial hole(s) (5b). It is considered that the sealing of the radial holes by the O-ring would prevent ingestion of foreign substances from an external environment into a valve assembly since the O-ring provides “an almost perfect seal” to the radial hole.
Further, applicant argues that the valve nut (retainer) of the Yamada et al. reference is not exposed to an external environment in the manner of Applicant’s retainer at the exhaust port of a magnetic latching valve and that the Yamada et al. reference does not operate in a bistable magnetic valve context where the seal must provide protection in two distinct commanded states.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
It is considered that the combination of the Bailey et al. reference and the Yamada et al. reference addresses applicant’s concerns and claim language relating to a retainer (Bailey et al.: 318; Yamada et al.: valve nut as depicted in figure 2A) that includes radial holes that are exposed to an external environment (Bailey et al.: considered the space surrounding the distal end of the valve assembly102; Yamada et al.: it is considered the space surrounding the seal 6 and the valve nut 5 constitutes an external environment since the external environment is not internal to the device 10) and wherein the valve assembly is a bistable magnetic latching valve (Bailey et al.: see at least paragraph [0058] for the armature 300 is “latched” to the pole piece 302 and further, the spring 322 provides a bias to move / hold the armature 300 in the proximal direction (see at least paragraph [0065])). Further, it is considered that the seal (Yamada et al.: 6) would provide protection to the retainer in the two distinct states including permitting the flow of fluid from the radial holes in the first position when the flow is intended to flow through the exhaust and sealing the radial holes in the second position when flow is not intended to flow through the exhaust.
Applicant argues the motivation provided to modify the Bailey et al. reference in view of the Yamada et al. reference as provided in the Office action dated 4/7/2026.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it is considered that the modification of the Bailey et al. reference in view of the Yamada et al. reference would provide additional control through the retainer in the exhaust port by means of a seal that provides an almost perfect seal when fluid flow through the retainer is not desired such as in the second position of the armature. Therefore, the seal (Yamada et al.: 6) as taught by the Yamada et al. reference would provide an additional seal for control of fluid through the radial holes in the retainer of the Bailey et al. reference.
Applicant argues that there are secondary considerations of nonobviousness support the patentability of the claimed invention. Applicant argues that a “long-felt but unsolved need in the art” existed. However, as noted in MPEP 2145, “in order for evidence of secondary considerations to be accorded substantial weight, there must be a nexus, i.e., a legally and factually sufficient connection or correspondence between the submitted evidence and the claimed invention. Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373, 2019 USPQ2d 483355 (Fed. Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 141 S.Ct. 373 (2020)”. It is unclear from the paragraphs cited from applicant’s specification regarding the “long-felt need” as to which claimed features satisfy the “long-felt need”. Therefore, applicant’s argument regarding the “long-felt but unsolved need in the art” argument is given little patentable weight.
It is considered that the combination of the Bailey et al. reference and the Yamada et al. reference addresses applicant’s concerns and claim language relating to a retainer (Bailey et al.: 318; Yamada et al.: valve nut as depicted in figure 2A) that includes radial holes that are exposed to an external environment (Bailey et al.: considered the space surrounding the distal end of the valve assembly102; Yamada et al.: it is considered the space surrounding the seal 6 and the valve nut 5 constitutes an external environment since the external environment is not internal to the device 10) and wherein the valve assembly is a bistable magnetic latching valve (Bailey et al.: see at least paragraph [0058] for the armature 300 is “latched” to the pole piece 302 and further, the spring 322 provides a bias to move / hold the armature 300 in the proximal direction (see at least paragraph [0065])). Further, it is considered that the seal (Yamada et al.: 6) would provide protection to the retainer in the two distinct states including permitting the flow of fluid from the radial holes in the first position when the flow is intended to flow through the exhaust and sealing the radial holes in the second position when flow is not intended to flow through the exhaust.
Therefore, when considered along with the modification of the Bailey et al. reference by the teachings of the Yamada et al. reference, it is considered that the claims unpatentable over the combination of the Bailey et al. reference and the Yamada et al. reference as provided below.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Since modified grounds of rejection were necessitated by applicant’s amendment, the instant Office action is made final.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 6/17/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 3-6, 9 and 15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “valve assembly of claim 2” in line 1. Claim 2 has been canceled in the amendment filed 6/17/2026. Therefore, it is considered that claim 3 is indefinite since claim 3 depends from a canceled claim. In the originally filed claims dated 10/9/2024, claim 3 depended from claim 2 which depended from claim 1. Therefore, claim 3 will be treated as if claim 3 depends from claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation of “wherein the retainer comprises: a groove in which the seal is mounted” in lines 1-2. Claim 9 depends from claim 8 which depends from claim 7 which depends from claim 1. Claim 1 recites the limitation of “wherein the retainer comprises: a groove in which the seal is mounted” in lines 9-10. Does the recitation of “a groove in which the seal is mounted” of claim 9 refer to the same structural element as the recitation of “a groove in which the seal is mounted” of claim 1? Does the recitation of “a grove in which the seal is mounted” of claim 9 refer to a different structural element than the recitation of “a groove in which the seal is mounted” of claim 1? It appears that the recitation of “a groove in which the seal is mounted” of claim 9 does refer to the same structural element as the recitation of “a groove in which the seal is mounted” of claim 1 and that the recitation of “a groove in which the seal is mounted” of claim 9 does not further limit the recitations of claim 1. Therefore, it appears that the recitation of “a groove in which the seal is mounted” of claim 9 should be removed from claim 9.
Claim 9 recites the limitation of “wherein the retainer comprises:” “a longitudinal channel” in lines 1-3. Claim 9 depends from claim 8 which depends from claim 7 which depends from claim 1. Claim 1 recites the limitation of “wherein the retainer comprises:” “a longitudinal channel” in lines 9-10. Does the recitation of “a longitudinal channel” of claim 9 refer to the same structural element as the recitation of “a longitudinal channel” of claim 1? Does the recitation of “a longitudinal channel” of claim 9 refer to a different structural element than the recitation of “a longitudinal channel” of claim 1? It appears that the recitation of “a longitudinal channel” of claim 9 does refer to the same structural element as the recitation of “a longitudinal channel” of claim 1 and that the recitation of “a longitudinal channel” of claim 9 does not further limit the recitations of claim 1. Therefore, it appears that the recitation of “a longitudinal channel” of claim 9 should be removed from claim 9.
Claim 9 recites the limitation of “wherein the retainer comprises:” “one or more radial holes fluidly coupling the longitudinal channel to the groove” in lines 1-6. Claim 9 depends from claim 8 which depends from claim 7 which depends from claim 1. Claim 1 recites the limitation of “wherein the retainer comprises:” “one or more radial holes fluidly coupling the longitudinal channel to the groove” in lines 9-11. Does the recitation of “one or more radial holes fluidly coupling the longitudinal channel to the groove” of claim 9 refer to the same structural element as the recitation of “one or more radial holes fluidly coupling the longitudinal channel to the groove” of claim 1? Does the recitation of “one or more radial holes fluidly coupling the longitudinal channel to the groove” of claim 9 refer to a different structural element than the recitation of “one or more radial holes fluidly coupling the longitudinal channel to the groove” of claim 1? It appears that the recitation of “one or more radial holes fluidly coupling the longitudinal channel to the groove” of claim 9 does refer to the same structural element as the recitation of “one or more radial holes fluidly coupling the longitudinal channel to the groove” of claim 1 and that the recitation of “one or more radial holes fluidly coupling the longitudinal channel to the groove” of claim 9 does not further limit the recitations of claim 1. Therefore, it appears that the recitation of “one or more radial holes fluidly coupling the longitudinal channel to the groove” of claim 9 should be removed from claim 9.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the particular position" in lines 1-2 and again in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 amended the recitation of “the particular position” in line 15 to be “a first position”. Therefore, it appears that the recitations of “the particular position” in lines 1-2 and again in line 3 should be “the first position” in order to maintain appropriate antecedent basis.
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 non-obviousness.
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) 1, 3-16, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0042619 A1) in view of Yamada et al. (US 6,619,324).
Claim(s) 3-6, 9 and 15 will be treated as best understood in view of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above.
Regarding claim 1, the Bailey et al. reference discloses a valve assembly (102) comprising:
a plurality of ports including an inlet port (106), an outlet port (108), and an exhaust port (116);
a solenoid coil (114; see also paragraph [0027]) configured as a housing having a cavity (considered the opening through the center of the solenoid coil 114) therein;
an armature (300) slidably accommodated in the cavity of the solenoid coil (see figure 3);
a magnet (308) fixedly disposed within the solenoid coil, wherein the magnet applies a magnetic force on the armature in a distal direction (see paragraph [0041]);
a spring (322) applying a biasing force on the armature in a proximal direction (in the direction toward the proximal end);
a retainer (318) mounted at the exhaust port (see at least figure 3); wherein the retainer (318) comprises a longitudinal channel (314) and one or more radial holes (considered the ends of the radial passage 316); and
wherein as a first signal having a first polarity energizes the solenoid coil, a solenoid force is applied to the armature in the proximal direction, wherein a combination of the biasing force of the spring and the solenoid force overcome the magnetic force, causing the armature to move axially in the proximal direction to a first position, thereby blocking fluid flow from the inlet port to the outlet port, while allowing fluid flow from the outlet port (see at least paragraph [0085]), through the retainer (to the external environment) and
wherein as a second signal having a second polarity, opposite the first polarity, energizes the solenoid coil, a respective solenoid force is applied to the armature in the distal direction, wherein a combination of the magnetic force and the respective solenoid force overcome the biasing force of the spring, causing the armature to move axially in the distal direction to a second position, thereby allowing fluid flow from the inlet port to the outlet port, while blocking fluid flow from the outlet port to the exhaust port (Bailey et al.: see at least claim 7).
The Bailey et al. reference does not disclose a seal mounted to the retainer; wherein the retainer comprises a groove in which the seal is mounted, and wherein the one or more radial holes fluidly coupling the longitudinal channel to the groove, such that when the first signal has the first polarity, the seal is expanded allowing fluid to flow around the seal to be vented to an external environment and wherein when the armature is in the second position, the seal seals against the one or more radial holes of the retainer, preventing ingestion of a foreign substance from the external environment into the valve assembly.
However, the Yamada et al. reference teaches a non-return valve having a retainer (5) having
a groove (Yamada et al.: 5d) in which the seal is mounted (Yamada et al.: see figure 2A);
a longitudinal channel (Yamada et al.: see “longitudinal channel” in the annotated figure 2A below) that is fluidly coupled to an outlet port (considered the right-hand port containing the threads as depicted in figure 2A), and
one or more radial holes (Yamada et al.: 5b) fluidly coupling the longitudinal channel to the groove (Yamada et al.: 5d; see figure 2A and figure 2B),
wherein, when fluid flows from the outlet port through the longitudinal channel, the fluid flow then flows through the one or more radial holes, expanding the seal and flowing around the seal radially outward to the external environment (Yamada et al.: see at least col 19, lines 12-28 for the operation of the retainer and the seal to permit or prevent a fluid flow through the longitudinal channel, through the one or more radial holes 5b, into the channel 5d and around the seal 6); and
wherein, when the fluid flow from the outlet port through the longitudinal channel is stopped, the seal seals against the one or more radial holes of the retainer, providing a seal for the radial holes that is an almost prefect seal (see col. 10, lines 25-29 and see also claim 1) which would prevent ingestion of a foreign substance from the external environment into the valve assembly.
PNG
media_image1.png
369
723
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to design the retainer of the Bailey et al. reference as the retainer having a seal, a groove in which the seal is mounted, and wherein the one or more radial holes fluidly coupling the longitudinal channel to the groove, such that when the first signal has the first polarity, the seal is expanded allowing fluid to flow around the seal to be vented to an external environment and wherein when the armature is in the second position, the seal seals against the one or more radial holes of the retainer, preventing ingestion of a foreign substance from the external environment into the valve assembly as taught by the Yamada et al. reference in order to provide additional control through the retainer in the exhaust port by means of a seal that provides an almost perfect seal when fluid flow through the retainer is not desired such as in the second position of the armature.
In regards to claim 3, the Yamada et al. reference of the combination of the Bailey et al. reference and the Yamada et al. reference discloses wherein the retainer comprises:
a proximal flange portion (Yamada et al.: see “proximal flange portion” in the annotated figure 2A above); and
a distal flange portion (Yamada et al.: see “distal flange portion” in the annotated figure 2A above) exposed to the external environment, wherein the proximal flange portion is axially spaced from the distal flange portion (Yamada et al.: the groove 5d and the seal 6 are located within the space between the proximal flange portion and the distal flange portion), and wherein the groove (Yamada et al.: 5d) in which the seal (Yamada et al.: 6) is mounted is formed between the proximal flange portion and the distal flange portion (Yamada et al.: see figure 2A) such that the seal is axially retained between the proximal flange portion and the distal flange portion (Yamada et al.: see col. 18, lines 44-59).
In regards to claim 4, the Yamada et al. reference of the combination of the Bailey et al. reference and the Yamada et al. reference discloses wherein the proximal flange portion and the distal flange portion are generally cylindrical in shape (Yamada et al.: see figure 1 and figure 2B for the proximal flange portion and the distal flange portion be generally cylindrical in shape), and wherein the proximal flange portion has a larger diameter compared to the distal flange portion (Yamada et al.: see figure 2A and figure 2B for the proximal flange portion having a larger diameter compared to the distal flange portion).
In regards to claim 5, the Yamada et al. reference of the combination of the Bailey et al. reference and the Yamada et al. reference discloses wherein the proximal flange portion has a conical cavity (Yamada et al.: see “conical cavity” in the annotated figure 2A above) that directs fluid received via the outlet port to the longitudinal channel (Yamada et al.: see figure 2A).
In regards to claim 6, the Yamada et al. reference of the combination of the Bailey et al. reference and the Yamada et al. reference discloses wherein the longitudinal channel is a blind channel (Yamada et al.: see “blind channel” in the annotate figure 2A above) that extends only partially within the distal flange portion (Yamada et al.: see figure 2A).
In regards to claim 7, the Bailey et al. reference of the combination of the Bailey et al. reference and the Yamada et al. reference discloses a proximal pole piece (Bailey et al.: 302) having a channel (Bailey et al.: 310) therein; and a distal pole piece (Bailey et al.: 304) having a respective channel (Bailey et al.: 314) therein, wherein the proximal pole piece and the distal pole piece are fixedly disposed within the solenoid coil (Bailey et al.: see figure 3), wherein the magnet (Bailey et al.: 308) is interposed between the proximal pole piece and the distal pole piece, and wherein the magnet is ring-shaped (Bailey et al.: see paragraph [0040]) and includes a hole (Bailey et al.: 312) that is aligned with the channel and the respective channel (Bailey et al.: see figure 3).
In regards to claim 8, the Bailey et al. reference of the combination of the Bailey et al. reference and the Yamada et al. reference discloses wherein the hole of the magnet, the channel of the proximal pole piece, and the respective channel of the distal pole piece form a fluid passage (Bailey et al.: see figure 3 for the fluid passage including the channel 310, the hole 312 and the respective channel 314) that fluidly couples an airgap (Bailey et al.: 306) formed between the armature and the proximal pole piece to a gap (Bailey et al.: 316) that separates the distal pole piece from the retainer disposed at the exhaust port.
In regards to claim 9, the Yamada et al. reference of the combination of the Bailey et al. reference and the Yamada et al. reference discloses wherein the retainer comprises:
[a groove (Yamada et al.: 5d) in which the seal is mounted (Yamada et al.: see figure 2A)];
[a longitudinal channel (Yamada et al.: see “longitudinal channel” in the annotated figure 2A above)];
a conical cavity (Yamada et al.: see “conical cavity” in the annotated figure 2A above) that directs fluid received via the outlet port to the longitudinal channel (Yamada et al.: see figure 2A)
[one or more radial holes (Yamada et al.: 5b) fluidly coupling the longitudinal channel to the groove (Yamada et al.: 5d; see figure 2A and figure 2B)], wherein fluid flows from the outlet port through the longitudinal channel, then through the one or more radial holes, expanding the seal and flowing around the seal radially outward to the external environment (Yamada et al.: see at least col 19, lines 12-28 for the operation of the retainer and the seal to permit or prevent a fluid flow through the longitudinal channel, through the one or more radial holes 5b, into the channel 5d and around the seal 6).
In regards to claim 10, the Bailey et al. reference of the combination of the Bailey et al. reference and the Yamada et al. reference discloses wherein the armature comprises one or more slots that allow fluid flow from the outlet port to the airgap (Bailey et al.: see paragraph [0069]).
In regards to claim 11, the Bailey et al. reference of the combination of the Bailey et al. reference and the Yamada et al. reference discloses wherein the magnet is axially-magnetized such that a north pole of the magnet is oriented in the distal direction toward the distal pole piece (Bailey et al.: see paragraph [0040]).
In regards to claim 12, the Bailey et al. reference of the combination of the Bailey et al. reference and the Yamada et al. reference discloses a manifold (Bailey et al.: 104), wherein the manifold includes the inlet port (Bailey et al.: 106) and the outlet port (Bailey et al.: 108), wherein the solenoid coil (Bailey et al.: 114) is coupled to the manifold, and wherein the solenoid coil includes the exhaust port (Bailey et al.: 116).
In regards to claim 13, the Bailey et al. reference of the combination of the Bailey et al. reference and the Yamada et al. reference discloses wherein the armature (Bailey et al.: 300) comprises a seal element (Bailey et al.: 606) within a proximal end of the armature, wherein the seal element is made of a flexible material such that when the armature is in the particular position, the seal element is compressed against an interior surface of the manifold and seals a channel that is fluidly coupled to the inlet port (Bailey et al.: see claim 3).
In regards to claim 14, the Bailey et al. reference of the combination of the Bailey et al. reference and the Yamada et al. reference discloses wherein the spring (Bailey et al.: 322) is a conical spring (Bailey et al.: see figure 3) having a largest-diameter coil resting against [and] an interior surface of the solenoid coil and a smallest-diameter coil resting against a flange formed at a proximal end of the armature (Bailey et al.: see claim 5).
In regards to claim 15, the Bailey et al. reference of the combination of the Bailey et al. reference and the Yamada et al. reference discloses wherein when the armature is in [the first position], the magnetic force of the magnet is smaller than the biasing force, and the armature remains in [the first position] upon removal of the signal (Bailey et al.: see at least claim 1, lines 23-26).
In regards to claim 16, the combination of the Bailey et al. reference and the Yamada et al. reference discloses wherein fluid expanding the seal and flowing around the seal to be vented to the external environment prevents ingestion of a foreign substance (it is considered that the seal 6 as taught by the Yamada et al. reference would block substances from moving from the external environment into the control valve).
In regards to claim 19, the Bailey et al. reference of the combination of the Bailey et al. reference and the Yamada et al. reference discloses wherein when the armature is in the second position, the magnetic force of the magnet is greater than the biasing force of the spring, and the armature remains in the second position upon removal of the second signal (Bailey et al.: see at least claim 7, lines 20-24).
In regards to claim 20, the Bailey et al. reference of the combination of the Bailey et al. reference and the Yamada et al. reference discloses a proximal pole piece (Bailey et al.: 302) having a channel (Bailey et al.: 310) therein; and
a distal pole piece (Bailey et al.: 304) having a respective channel (Bailey et al.: 314) therein, wherein the proximal pole piece and the distal pole piece are fixedly disposed within the solenoid coil (Bailey et al.: see at least figure 3), wherein the magnet (Bailey et al.: 308) is interposed between the proximal pole piece and the distal pole piece, wherein the magnet is ring-shaped (Bailey et al.: see paragraph [0040]) and includes a hole (Bailey et al.: 312) that is aligned with the channel and the respective channel (Bailey et al.: see figure 3), wherein the hole of the magnet, the channel of the proximal pole piece, and the respective channel of the distal pole piece form a fluid passage (Bailey et al.: see figure 3 for the fluid passage including the channel 310, the hole 312 and the respective channel 314) that fluidly couples an airgap (Bailey et al.: 306) formed between the armature and the proximal pole piece to a gap (Bailey et al.: 316) that separates the distal pole piece from the retainer disposed at the exhaust port, wherein the armature comprises a seal element (Bailey et al.: 344) within a distal end of the armature, wherein the seal element is made of a flexible material (Bailey et al.: see paragraph [0060]) such that when the armature is in the second position, the seal element is compressed against the proximal pole piece and seals the channel of the proximal pole piece, thereby blocking the fluid passage (Bailey et al.: see at least paragraph [0060]).
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 Andrew J. Rost whose telephone number is (571) 272-2711. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/ANDREW J ROST/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/MICHAEL R REID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights