DETAILED ACTION
Non Final
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 (IDS) submitted on 10/29/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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 1-14 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.
The following Claims recite limitations which have insufficient antecedent basis. The Claims and respective limitations include the following: Claim 1, "the armature guide" in line 3; Claim 2, "the region" in line 2; Claim 8, "one or more of claims 1" in line 2; Claim 10, "A solenoid valve" and “a valve system” in line 1 (the claim re-introducing the same limitation, making it unclear if another limitation is required); Claim 11, "the compression position" in line 7. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 5 recites “fore resetting the magnetic armature”. It is unclear and/or uncertain (i.e. there appears to be a zone of uncertainty) from a reading of the claim as to what is intended by the term/phrase/idea and how such a term/phrase/idea should be interpreted. In other words, it is unclear what is actually being reset? In the interest of compact prosecution, the term/phrase will be given its broadest reasonable interpretation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 1-13 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moller (US 4417717) in view of Cooper (US 5941502);
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moller and Cooper as applied to claim 11 (as indefinitely understood) above, and further in view of Reuter (US 10641410).
Moller discloses in claim 1: (see at least annotated figure 1 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
732
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
An armature system (at 1002) for a solenoid valve (at 1000) with a magnetic core (3), a magnetic armature (7), and a tubular armature guide (6) for guiding the magnetic armature, wherein the armature guide is made of [a material], and the magnetic core is connected to the armature guide via a positive connection (deformation at 1004), characterized in that the positive connection is formed by a local deformation of the armature guide (into the annular crevasse of 3.) Moller does not disclose, although Cooper teaches: a thermoplastic armature guide (Col 3 ln 5-21, provided for example the purpose of low cost leak proof encapsulation of the solenoid coil.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide as taught in Cooper for that of Moller, a thermoplastic armature guide as taught in Cooper, and all provided for example the purpose of low cost leak proof encapsulation of the solenoid coil. Comment: where it is noted the phrase “formed by a local thermoplastic deformation” is considered a product by process phrase under MPEP 2113 I and adds no patentable weight thereto. Also, Moller teaches the local deformation, and the modification of Moller by Cooper maintains the deformation of the armature guide as taught by Moller.
Moller discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 2: The armature system according to claim 1, characterized in that the magnetic core, in the region of the positive connection with the armature guide, on its outer side that comes into contact with the armature guide, is provided with recesses (the recesses that receive 6 at 1004) for receiving plastic deformed by the thermoplastic deformation of the armature guide.
Moller discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 3: The armature system according to claim 2, characterized in that the recesses are formed by (the following considered alternative grouping under MPEP 2131) notches, grooves (1004 is an annular groove or depression), depressions, or the like.
Moller discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 4: The armature system according to claim 1, characterized in that the armature guide consists of a thermoplastic material (as modified for the reasons discussed above via Cooper.)
Moller discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 5: The armature system according to claim 1, characterized in that an armature spring (22) is provided for resetting the magnetic armature (to the closed position.)
Moller discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 6: The armature system according to claim 5, characterized in that the armature spring is supported at one end on the magnetic armature (at flange edge 1006) and at the other end on an abutment (at 1008 of the tube 6).
Moller discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 7: The armature system according to claim 6, characterized in that the armature spring is supported at one end on a flange-like extension (at 1006) of the magnetic armature, and the abutment is formed by a shoulder (at 1008 which is a bottom facing shoulder) formed inside (the circumference of…) the armature guide.
Moller discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 8: A valve system with a valve body (1) and an armature system (1002) according to one or more of claim 1 mounted in the valve body.
Moller discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 9: The valve system according to claim 8, characterized in that the armature system has an armature spring (22) for resetting the magnetic armature, the valve body is designed such that the armature system is guided axially displaceably in the valve body under compression of the armature spring during assembly (the spring is compressed when it and the armature guide are inserted into the body 1) , and the armature guide and the valve body are fixed to one another (at 1010) in a compression position of the armature spring, which corresponds to a desired opening pressure of the valve system (when the solenoid is not energized to open the valve, fluid pressure in inlet 2 if large enough based on the surface area of 1006 facing the opening of 2 with resultant force to bias the valve open when overcoming the spring force of 22, thus acting as a check or fluid pressure safety valve in the non electrically energized condition.)
Moller discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 10: A solenoid valve with a solenoid coil (9) and a valve system (id) according to claim 8.
Moller discloses in claim 11. (A device that results from) A method for producing a valve system (figure 1), characterized in that a magnetic armature (7) together with an armature spring (22) is inserted into an armature guide (6) made of [a material], the armature guide with the magnetic armature and the armature spring (i.e. the spring interposed between the armature at 1006 and the guide at 1008…) is then inserted into a valve body (1) under compression of the armature spring (the spring is compressed in the seated closed position to maintain the seal), the compression position of the armature spring, which corresponds to a desired opening pressure of the valve system (when the solenoid is not energized to open the valve, fluid pressure in inlet 2 if large enough based on the surface area of 1006 facing the opening of 2 with resultant force to bias the valve open when overcoming the spring force of 22, thus acting as a check or fluid pressure safety valve in the non electrically energized condition), is adjusted by relative displacement of the armature guide and the valve body, the armature guide and the valve body are fixed to one another in the compression position (as shown), which corresponds to the desired opening pressure of the valve system, at one end, facing away from the valve body, of the armature guide, a magnetic core (3) is inserted into the armature guide to a predetermined extent (as shown), and finally, the magnetic core and the armature guide are connected (as shown) to one another by local deformation (at 1004) of the armature guide;
Moller does not disclose, although Cooper teaches: a thermoplastic armature guide (Col 3 ln 5-21, provided for example the purpose of low cost leak proof encapsulation of the solenoid coil.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide as taught in Cooper for that of Moller, a thermoplastic armature guide as taught in Cooper, and all provided for example the purpose of low cost leak proof encapsulation of the solenoid coil. Comment: Moller teaches the local deformation, and the modification of Moller by Cooper maintains the deformation of the armature guide as taught by Moller.
Moller discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 12: The method according to claim 10, characterized in that the thermoplastic deformation is carried out by heating a joint and subsequent forming (i.e. via spin welding where the frictional heat welding that melts the parts together, and as discussed in Cooper as modified for the reasons discussed above.)
Moller discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 13: The method according to claim 10, characterized in that the thermoplastic deformation is carried out by an energy input via the magnetic core or an energy input via the armature guide in the region of the positive connection to be established or separate heating of the magnetic core and armature guide and subsequent joining (i.e. via spin welding where the frictional heat welding that melts the parts together, the rotational energy between the guide and the core providing for the friction between the two parts, and as discussed in Cooper as modified for the reasons discussed above.)
Moller discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 14: The method according to claim 11, characterized in that the fixation of the armature guide in the valve body is carried out by means of laser beam [spin] welding (of Moller/Cooper as modified for the reasons discussed above.) Moller/Cooper does not disclose: using laser welding, although Reuter teaches: connecting the parts using laser welding to create a sealed containment (Col 2 ln 65- Col 3 ln 10.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide in lieu of the spin welding of Moller/Cooper, to modify Moller/Cooper to use as taught in Reuter, laser welding, for the purpose of creating a sealed containment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W JELLETT, whose telephone number is 571-270-7497. 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. Ken 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.
/Matthew W Jellett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753