DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10-14 are currently amended. It appears that no new matter has been entered.
The amendments to the claims have overcome the 35 USC 112 second paragraph rejections. Those rejections are withdrawn.
The amendments to the claims have required further search and/or consideration and adjustment to the rejections to meet the amended and clarified claim limitations.
Applicant remarks are well taken but not persuasive. The remarks essentially amount to an argument against the combination of the primary reference Moller and secondary teaching Cooper as a non-obvious combination. Considering that Moller teaches the shape or deformation/connection, and that Cooper teaches the material with the intrinsic property of “thermoplastic deformation” the remarks are narrowly tailored interpretation of the claim language and not commensurate in scope therewith (see page 5 last paragraph to page 6 first paragraph of the response filed on 4/20/2026.) The office must treat the claim language under a broad reasonable interpretation of the claim limitations and in context with the written description and art as applied.
So 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, as previously indicated, the secondary reference Cooper teaches the thermoplastic material conformable to the shape of Moller for the purposes (i.e. rationale that underpins the combination) of providing for example, such a low cost leak proof encapsulation of the solenoid coil.
It is noted that the amendments to the claims have required adjustment of the obviousness rejection below, but it is respectfully noted that the basic thrust and/or reasons for combination remain the same and not considered new grounds of rejection for appeal purposes. This action must be made Final.
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 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 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moller and Cooper as applied to claim 11 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 at a connection region (positive deformation connection region at 1004), wherein the tubular the armature guide has been deformed locally by deformation at the connection region to form the positive connection (into the annular crevasse of 3 as discussed and shown.) Moller does not disclose, although Cooper teaches: a thermoplastic armature guide with a locally formed thermoplastic deformation (Col 3 ln 5-21, where it is noted that a thermoplastic, a.ka. thermos-softening plastic, is any plastic polymer material that becomes pliable or moldable at a certain elevated temperature and solidifies upon cooling, and thus all provided for example the purpose of low cost leak proof encapsulation of the solenoid coil and for example the ease of moldability and formation during the thermo-elevated temperature raising of the plastic polymer and softening thereof with resultant cooling fixed solidification of the thermoplastic material to form the shape and/or connection.)
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, with a locally formed thermoplastic deformation for that of Moller, where such a thermoplastic, a.ka. thermo-softening plastic, via its plastic polymer material will become pliable or moldable at an elevated temperature so as to then solidify upon cooling, and thus all provided for the purpose of for example, low cost leak proof encapsulation of the solenoid coil and further example, the ease of moldability and formation during thermo-elevated temperature raising of such a plastic polymer and resultant softening to form during cooling, a fixed solidification of the thermoplastic material into the desired shape and/or connection as taught n Cooper for that of Moller, and all especially consider that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended us as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
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 a 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) or depressions.
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 including a valve body (1) and the armature system (1002) according to claim 1.
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 including the armature system according to Claim 1 and a solenoid coil (9) .
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), 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), 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, where it is noted that a thermoplastic, a.ka. thermos-softening plastic, is any plastic polymer material that becomes pliable or moldable at a certain elevated temperature and solidifies upon cooling, and thus all provided for example the purpose of low cost leak proof encapsulation of the solenoid coil and for example the ease of moldability and formation during the thermo-elevated temperature raising of the plastic polymer and softening thereof with resultant cooling fixed solidification of the thermoplastic material to form the shape and/or connection.)
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, with a locally formed thermoplastic deformation for that of Moller, where such a thermoplastic, a.ka. thermo-softening plastic, via its plastic polymer material will become pliable or moldable at an elevated temperature so as to then solidify upon cooling, and thus all provided for the purpose of for example, low cost leak proof encapsulation of the solenoid coil and further example, the ease of moldability and formation during thermo-elevated temperature raising of such a plastic polymer and resultant softening to form during cooling, a fixed solidification of the thermoplastic material into the desired shape and/or connection as taught n Cooper for that of Moller, and all especially consider that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended us as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Moller discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 12: The method according to claim 11, 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 11, 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 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.
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 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
Prosecution Insights