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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) was/were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) was/were considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Fig. 4(a) - numbers 1 and 7 are not associated with a lead line;
Fig. 4(a) - element 8 is directed to the incorrect element;
Fig. 5(a) - lead lines related to elements 1 and 7 are not connected to any element;
Fig. 5(b) - lead lines related to elements 1 and 7 are connected to the same element. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-5 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, “a noise damper(7) which includes a molding (8)”. It is unclear and indefinite whether the molding is regarded as the damper or the molding is a distinct component of the damper. For purposes of examination, the office regards the molding and damper as being the same element.
The term “effectively” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “effectively” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination, the office regards any attenuation of vibration and sound emissions as being “effectively”.
In regards to claim 3, it is unclear and indefinite whether the fitting process is a singular process or a plurality of processes.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims not specifically recited are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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) 1-5, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barker (U.S. Patent 3,470,892).
In regards to claim 1, Barker discloses a noise damper integrated solenoid valve (Fig. 1) comprises of: a plunger (17); a coil (3); a fixed core (11); a plurality of electrical connections (29); a housing assembly (6); and a spring (26); wherein: said housing assembly (6) includes said coil (3) wounded around said fixed core (11), when electrically energized produces a magnetic field which energizes said plunger (17) that is attached to said spring (26) moves in a linear motion to open and close said solenoid valve; and said plunger (17) is fitted with a noise damper (25) which includes a molding to prevent direct contact between metal surface of said plunger (17) and said fixed core (11) to effectively attenuate the vibrations and sound emissions.
In regards to claims 2 and 5, said noise damper (25) is made of material which includes but not limited to plastic, rubber or combination of plastic and rubber. See col. 6, lines 10-13, which disclose that ring 25 is fabricated from rubber. See also col. 6, lines 26-42.
In regards to claim 3, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product in the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113).
In regards to claim 4, the office notes that ring 25 is formed to operate within the system in which it is assembled. Accordingly, it is the office’s position that ring 25 is “customizable shape and size.” Additionally, the office notes that flexible plastic and rubber materials are known to be customizable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to R.K. Arundale whose telephone number is 571-270-3453. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881, and 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 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.
/ROBERT K ARUNDALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights