DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the initial filing dated 10/11/2024. Claims 1-13 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/11/2024 is acknowledged and has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 10/11/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-13 contain the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites the limitation “preferably solenoid valve” in line 1. It appears that this limitation should be “preferably a solenoid valve”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the end stop,,” in line 12. It appears that this limitation should be “the end stop,”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “valve according to one of claims 5,” in line 1. It appears that this limitation should be “valve according to claim 5,”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “valve according to one of claim 1,” in line 1. It appears that this limitation should be “valve according to claim 1,”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “valve according to one of claim 8,” in line 1. It appears that this limitation should be “valve according to claim 8,”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “damping element” in claim 1, line 6, “compensating element” in claim 4, lines 1-2, “damping element” in claim 5, line 8 and “compensating element” in claim 5, lines 12-13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “damping element” in line 6. The recitation of “damping element” is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. A review of the originally filed disclosure dated 10/11/2024 indicates that the recitation of “damping element” includes “a material that is softer than the piston 3, in order to effectively mitigate an impact of the movable piston” (see paragraph [0051] and wherein the “damping element” is received within the channel in the piston (see paragraph [0052]).
Claim 4 recites the limitation “compensating element” in lines 1-2. The recitation of “compensating element” is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. A review of the originally filed disclosure dated 10/11/2024 indicates that the recitation of “compensating element” includes a portion of the piston or the sealing seat or the end stop that partially bridges the annular gap (see element 9 in figure 4 and figure 5.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “means of a clamping force” in line 5. The recitation of “means of a clamping force” is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. A review of the originally filed disclosure dated 10/11/2024 indicates that the recitation of “means of a clamping force element” includes “a spring element, preferably a helical spring” (see at least the originally filed claim 10).
Claim 5 recites the limitation “means of an electromagnetic drive” in lines 6-7. The recitation of “means of an electromagnetic drive” is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. A review of the originally filed disclosure dated 10/11/2024 indicates that the recitation of “means of an electromagnetic drive” includes “a coil 4” (see at least paragraph [0054]).
Claim 5 recites the limitation “damping element” in line 8. The recitation of “damping element” is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. A review of the originally filed disclosure dated 10/11/2024 indicates that the recitation of “damping element” includes “a material that is softer than the piston 3, in order to effectively mitigate an impact of the movable piston” (see paragraph [0051] and wherein the “damping element” is received within the channel in the piston (see paragraph [0052]).
Claim 5 recites the limitation “compensating element” in lines 12-13. The recitation of “compensating element” is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. A review of the originally filed disclosure dated 10/11/2024 indicates that the recitation of “compensating element” includes a portion of the piston or the sealing seat or the end stop that partially bridges the annular gap (see element 9 in figure 4 and figure 5.
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 1-13 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 1 recites the limitation “preferably a solenoid valve” in line 1. It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claim since the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “preferably a vehicle seat” in line 3. It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claim since the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “preferably respectively associated end-face region of the piston” in lines 2-3. It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claim since the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “preferably to form an annular gap spacing the piston” in lines 3-4. It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claim since the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “preferably in a closed position” in line 4. It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claim since the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “preferably in an open position” in line 5. It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claim since the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a preferably electromagnetic drive” in lines 1-2. It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claim since the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “preferably by the clamping force” in line 3. It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claim since the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a sealing seat” in line 4. Claim 3 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 recites the limitation “a sealing seat” in line 5. Does the recitation of “a sealing seat” in claim 3 refer to the same limitation as the recitation of “a sealing seat” in claim 1? Does the recitation of “a sealing seat” in claim 3 refer to a different limitation than the recitation of “a sealing seat” in claim 1? It appears that the recitation of “a sealing seat” in claim 3 refers to the same limitation as the recitation of “a sealing seat” in claim 1 and that the recitation of “a sealing seat” in claim 3 should be “the sealing seat”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “preferably [a] solenoid valve” in line 1. It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claim since the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “preferably a vehicle seat” in line 3. It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claim since the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a closed position” in line 11. Claim 5 recites the limitation “a closed position” in line 5. Does the recitation of “a closed position” in line 11 refer to the same limitation as the recitation of a closed position” in line 5? Does the recitation of “a closed position” in line 11 refer to a different limitation than the recitation of “a closed position” in line 5? It appears that the recitation of “a closed position” in line 11 refers to the same limitation as the recitation of “a closed position” in line 5 and that the recitation of “a closed position” in line 11 should be “the closed position”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the preferably associated end-face region of the piston” in lines 15-16. It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claim since the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the preferably associated compensating element” in lines 16-17. It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claim since the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the protruding portion(s) " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a preferably elastically hardened and initially shapeless material” in lines 1-2. It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claim since the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the same material" in lines 4, 6-7, and 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a clamping force” in line 1. Claim 10 depends from claim 5. Claim 5 recites the limitation “a clamping force” in line 5. Does the recitation of “a clamping force” in claim 10 refer to the same limitation as the recitation of “a clamping force” in claim 5? Does the recitation of “a clamping force” in claim 10 refer to a different limitation than the recitation of “a clamping force” in claim 5? It appears that the recitation of “a clamping force” in claim 10 refers to the same limitation as the recitation of “a clamping force” in claim 5 and that the recitation of “a clamping force” in claim 10 should be “the clamping force”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “preferably a helical spring” in line 2. It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claim since the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “preferably completely filling the channel” in line 6. It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claim since the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “preferably both” in line 2. It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claim since the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “preferably both” in line 2. It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claim since the term “preferably” 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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jabcon (US 6405757).
Claim(s) 1-13 will be treated as best understood in view of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above.
Regarding claim 1, the Jabcon reference discloses a solenoid valve (10) which comprises at least one fluid actuator (it is considered that the operation of the solenoid valve 10 controls a fluid flow through the housing element 13), the valve comprising:
a base body (it is considered that the combination of 13, 13e and 12 constitutes a base body) with a linearly movable piston (26), which is reversibly displaceable in the direction of a sealing seat (108) and in the direction of an end stop (24), wherein the piston has at least one damping element (it is considered that the elastomeric material 66 constitutes a damping element) provided for mitigating its impact on the end stop or/and on the sealing seat (see figure 5), and the piston has a channel (64) extending through it between two end-face regions of the piston (see figure 5), wherein the damping element is arranged within this channel (see figure 5).
Regarding the recitations of “for a seat comfort system preferably a vehicle seat comfort system” and “preferably a vehicle seat, which is equipped with such a comfort system”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of preforming the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In regards to claim 2, the Jabcon reference discloses at least one end-side portion of the damping element (66) that protrudes relative to the preferably respectively associated end-face region of the piston (at 68 and 70) that forms an annular gap (it is considered that the spacing surrounding the piston within the base body constitutes an annular gap) from the sealing seat (108) in the closed position (see the position depicted in figure 5) and away from the end stop (24) in the open position (considered when the piston is translated in the vertical position from the positioned depicted in figure 5 in which the end-face region 70 is in contact with the seat of the end stop 24).
In regards to claim 3, the Jabcon reference discloses wherein the piston is reversibly displaceable by an electromagnetic drive (based on the operation of the solenoid coil 22) against a clamping force (considered the force provided by the spring 44) in the direction of the end stop for reaching an open position and wherein the clamping force biases the piston in the direction of [the] sealing seat (108) for reaching a closed position.
In regards to claim 4, the Jabcon reference discloses at least one compensating element (it is considered that the extensions 92 of the element 56 constitutes at least one compensating element) structured to partially bridge the annular gap, such that, with respect to a longitudinal direction of the piston (26), a length of a portion (considered the length that each of the end face regions 68 and 70 extends from the associated end faces of the piston 26) of the damping element protruding relative to the in particular associated end-face region of the piston is less than a width (considered the length extensions of the of the portions 92 away from the surface on which the seat 108 is located) of the in particular associated compensating element.
In regards to claim 12, the Jabcon reference discloses wherein the channel widens toward at least one, preferably both, end-face region(s) of the piston (see figure 5).
Regarding claim 5, the Jabcon reference discloses a solenoid valve (10) which preferably comprises at least one fluid actuator (it is considered that the operation of the solenoid valve 10 controls a fluid flow through the housing element 13), the valve comprising:
a base body (it is considered that the combination of 13, 13e and 12 constitutes a base body) with a linearly movable piston (26), which is reversibly displaceable by means of a clamping force (it is considered that the spring 44 provides the clamping force) into a closed position pressing the piston against a sealing seat (108) and, for reaching an open position, by means of an electromagnetic drive (it is considered that the solenoid coil 22 constitutes an electromagnetic drive) against the clamping force in the direction of an end stop (24), wherein the piston has at least one damping element (it is considered that the elastomeric material 66 constitutes a damping element) provided for mitigating its impact on the end stop or/and on the sealing seat, which damping element protrudes relative to an end-face region (at 68 and 70) of the piston to form an annular gap (it is considered that the spacing surrounding the piston within the base body constitutes an annular gap) spacing the piston in [the] closed position away from the sealing seat or/and in its open position away from the end stop, further comprising at least one compensating element (it is considered that the extensions 92 of the element 56 constitutes at least one compensating element) designed to partially bridge the annular gap, such that, with respect to a longitudinal direction of the piston (26), a length of a portion (considered the length that each of the end face regions 68 and 70 extends from the associated end faces of the piston 26) of the damping element protruding relative to the preferably associated end-face region of the piston is less than a width (considered the length extensions of the of the portions 92 away from the surface on which the seat 108 is located) of the preferably associated compensating element.
In regards to claim 6, the Jabcon reference discloses wherein at least part of the compensating element(s) is/are arranged or formed on the sealing seat (on the element 56 that forms the sealing seat 108).
In regards to claim 7, the Jabcon reference discloses wherein the damping element (66) is arranged or formed within the piston (within the channel 64 of the piston 26), wherein the protruding portion(s) of the damping element is/are located outside the piston (see figure 5).
In regards to claim 8, the Jabcon reference discloses wherein the damping element (66) is made of a preferably elastically hardened and initially shapeless material and is introduced into a channel (64) of the piston (see at least col. 7, lines 22-43).
In regards to claim 9, the Jabcon reference discloses wherein the compensating element(s) is a one piece component of the sealing seat (element 92 is on the element 56 that forms the sealing seat 108) and made of the same material (see at least figure 5).
In regards to claim 10, the Jabcon reference discloses [the] clamping force acting on the piston is generated by a spring element (44), preferably a helical spring (see figure 5).
In regards to claim 11, the Jabcon reference discloses wherein the piston has a channel (64) extending through the piston between its two end-face regions, wherein the damping element (66) is arranged within this channel (see figure 5).
In regards to claim 13, the Jabcon reference discloses wherein the channel widens toward at least one, preferably both, end-face region(s) of the piston (see figure 5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Weiss et al. (US 6684896), Tackett et al. (US 6065734), Sausner et al. (US 5467961), Numoto et al. (US 5246199), Larner (US 3977436), Ellison (US 3670274), Weinberg (US 3379214), Foley et al. (US 3215902), Bremner et al. (US 3203447), Adams et al. (US 3172637), Mastra (US 3013768), and Brenner et al. (US 20070069172), disclose various valve assemblies having a linearly translatable piston having a damping element provided in the piston.
Douglas (US 3861646) discloses a method of making a piston element of a valve having an inserted material within the piston element.
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
/CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753