DETAILED ACTION
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.
Specification
The abstract filed July 23, 2026, is acceptable.
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US11027716 (“Lee”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses (see fig. 4) a solenoid valve (400) installed in a valve block (401) for controlling flow between a first flow path (401A) and a second flow path (401B) of the valve block, comprising:
a seat member (460) having an orifice (460a) that fluidly connects the first flow path and the second flow path;
an armature (450) configured to selectively open and close the orifice through a forward (downward with bias of spring 440, relative to the orientation of fig. 4) and backward (upward against force of spring 440, relative to the orientation of fig. 4) movement so as to selectively form a main flow path (formed mainly by 401A, 460b, 460a and 401B) connecting the first flow path and the second flow path;
a magnet core (430; see specification col. 14, lines 30-33) configured to provide a driving force capable of causing movement of the armature for selective formation of the main flow path (via opening and closing flow through orifice 460a);
a filter member (480) installed so as to filter out impurities (via filter 480a) contained in oil flowing between the first flow path and the second flow path; and
a check valve structure (490) configured to form a unidirectional auxiliary flow path (via sealing lip 490a; see specification col. 14, lines 41-43) connecting the first flow path and the second flow path,
wherein the check valve structure comprises:
one or more oil passages (480b) provided in the filter member; and
a lip seal (490) disposed in a space connected to the oil passage, and
wherein the lip seal is disposed in a space (see fig. 4) between the filter member and the valve block (between a bottom of filter member 480, relative to the orientation of fig. 4, and a recess surface of the valve block 401) so as to be installed in a state supported by the filter member and the valve block (lip seal 490 is maintained in position by abutment with both the filter member 480 and an interior surface of valve block 401; see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses the filter member (480) comprises a lip seal support portion (bottom surface of filter member 480, relative to the orientation of fig. 4) for supporting the lip seal (490), and
wherein the lip seal is disposed in a space between the lip seal support portion and the valve block (see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses the first flow path (401A) is located near a side surface (radial surface) of the filter member (480) and the second flow path (401B) is located near a lower end (bottom end, relative to the orientation of fig. 4) of the filter member, and
wherein the lip seal (490) is configured to form a unidirectional auxiliary flow path (see flow “F” in fig. 4) leading from the first flow path to the second flow path.
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses the lip seal (490) is configured to be installed in a normal state or an upside-down state (see configuration of fig. 4) in a space (spaced defined between a bottom surface of filter member 480, relative to the orientation of fig. 4, and a recess bottom surface of valve block 401) between the filter member (480) and the valve block (401), so as to selectively form a unidirectional auxiliary flow path (see flow “F” in fig. 4) leading from the first flow path (401A) to the second flow path (401B) or a unidirectional auxiliary flow path leading from the second flow path to the first flow path.
Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses a solenoid valve installed in a valve block (401) to control flow between a first flow path (401A) and a second flow path (401B) of the valve block, comprising:
a seat member (460) having an orifice (460A) that can fluidly connect the first flow path and the second flow path;
an armature (450) configured to selectively open and close the orifice by a forward (downward, relative to the orientation of fig. 4) and backward (upward, relative to the orientation of fig. 4) movement so as to selectively form a main flow path (passing through 401A, 460A and 401B) connecting the first flow path and the second flow path;
a magnet core (430) that provides a driving force capable of causing the armature to move for selective formation of the main flow path;
a filter member (480) installed so as to filter out impurities contained in oil flowing between the first flow path and the second flow path; and
a lip seal (490) installed between the filter member and the valve block and configured to form a unidirectional auxiliary flow path (see flow “F”) connecting the first flow path and the second flow path.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of JP2016102563 (“Misuno”).
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses the second flow path (401B) is located near a lower end (bottom end, relative to the orientation of fig. 4) of the filter member (480) and the first flow path (401A) is located near a side surface (radial surface) of the filter member, and wherein the lip seal is configured to form a unidirectional auxiliary flow path leading from the first flow path to the second flow path.
Lee does not disclose the unidirectional auxiliary flow path leading from the lower end of the filter member towards a side surface of the filter member.
However, Misuno teaches a lip seal (230) which is reversibly installed (see figs. 10 and 12) within a solenoid valve.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the invention of Lee by installing the lip seal in reverse configuration, as taught by Misuno, to allow for different configurations of fluid flow through the solenoid valve.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7, 11 and 13 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious the solenoid valve, wherein the inclined protrusion is configured to come into contact with the lip seal support portion, in combination with the remainder limitations of the claim.
Claim 4 is allowable because it depends upon an allowable base claim.
Regarding claim 5, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious the solenoid valve, wherein the filter member comprises the lip seal support portion, a transverse extension portion extending transversely from one end of the lip seal support portion, a plurality of filter support portions connected to the transverse extension portion, and a filter fixed to the filter support portions, in combination with the remainder limitations of the claim.
Claims 6 and 7 are allowable because they depend upon an allowable base claim.
Regarding claim 11, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious the solenoid valve, wherein the inclined protrusion is configured to come into contact with the lip seal support portion, in combination with the remainder limitations of the claim.
Claim 13 is allowable because they depend on an allowable claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 23, 2026, have been fully considered.
With regards to the rejection of claim 1 over Lee, Applicant argues that Lee does not disclose “the lip disposed in a space ‘between the filter member and the valve block’”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. While the examiner agrees that the lip seal (490) is disposed radially between the seat member (460) and a radially inner surface of the valve block (401), the lip seal is disposed axially, relative to a longitudinal axis of orifice (460a), between the filter member (480) and an axial end surface of a recess of the valve block (401). For the reasons above, the rejection of claim 1, including dependents thereof, is maintained over Lee.
With regards to claims 3, 5 and 11, in light of the current amendments, these claims, including dependents thereof, are allowable.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Hailey K. Do whose direct telephone number is (571)270-3458 and direct fax number is (571)270-4458. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00AM-5:00PM ET) and Friday (8:00AM-12:00PM ET).
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) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors, Kenneth Rinehart at 571-272-4881, or Craig M. Schneider 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAILEY K. DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights