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 statements (IDS’s) submitted on 01/17/2025 and 06/27/2025 are 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.
It is noted that upon review, no claim terminology was determined to be of sufficient means plus function nonce/style language so as to invoke 35 USC 112 6th paragraph. Any generic terms appeared to be sufficiently modified by their either prepository terms, modifiers or use in the art to take any generic terms out of potential scope of 112 6th. It is noted that during prosecution the claim language may change and thus there is no final disposition on such interpretation until time as the claims may issue.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zahe (US 10626892.)
Zahe discloses in claim 1: An electromagnetic proportional valve (100 figure 1), comprising: a valve unit (at 102/104) including a spool (at 120) movable in an axial direction, the valve unit controlling a control pressure (via port/chamber 114 and holes 115A,B; Col 4 ln 35-42) to a controlled object (actuator valve 620 figure 6, where 100A,B are embodiments of valve 100 figure 1 per Col 14 ln 62 – Col 16 ln 42) by moving the spool; a solenoid coil (136); a drive member (at 140/158/170) moving in the axial direction in response to application of electric current to the solenoid coil to drive the spool (Col 6 ln 53-65); and a pin (at 174) capable of driving the spool in the axial direction in response to an external force (manual override Col 14 ln 6-23), wherein, in response to the pin moving into a first moving range, the spool is driven to output the control pressure (providing a first moving force to the pin to connect holes 117 and 115 and fluidly connect pump port 116 to control port 114), and wherein, in response to the pin moving further into a second moving range from the first moving range, the spool is further driven to discharge the control pressure (providing a second lesser moving force to the pin to connect holes 115 and 111 and fluidly connect tank port 112 to control port 114.)
Zahe discloses in claim 2: The electromagnetic proportional valve of claim 1, wherein the valve unit further includes a spring (at 126) that biases the spool in a direction (to the left) opposite to a direction (to the right) in which the spool is driven by movement of the pin, wherein when the pin is situated in the first moving range (connecting 116 and 114), a reaction force (i.e. fluid pressure) is applied to the spool by the control pressure (i.e. the force applied at surface 406 figure 4 and 5 from the pump pressure via 116 and 117), and wherein when the pin is released from the external force, the pin is pushed back together with the drive member by the spring (to the position in figure 1.)
Zahe discloses in claim 3: The electromagnetic proportional valve of claim 1, wherein the valve unit further includes: a drain chamber (112) from which the control pressure is dischargeable; and a discharge passage (129) connectible to the drain chamber, wherein when the pin is situated in the second moving range (connecting 114 to 112), the discharge passage is connected to the drain chamber, and wherein when the pin is situated outside of the second moving range, the discharge passage is disconnected from the drain chamber.
Zahe discloses in claim 4: The electromagnetic proportional valve of claim 1, wherein the valve unit further includes: a pressure chamber (at 116) to which the control pressure is supplied from a pump (as discussed above); and a control pressure passage (via 114) through which the control pressure is outputted to the controlled object (actuator as discussed above), wherein the spool is driven by movement of the drive member in response to the application of the electric current to the solenoid coil (as discussed towards the right) to output the control pressure from the pressure chamber to the control pressure passage (i.e. to connect 116 to 114), and wherein the spool is driven by movement of the drive member in response to the pin moving (i.e. manual movement) into the first moving range to output the control pressure from the pressure chamber to the control pressure passage (i.e. to connect 116 to 114.)
Zahe discloses in claim 5: The electromagnetic proportional valve of claim 1, wherein the controlled object is a directional control valve device (hydraulic actuator valve 620) that switches supply and discharge of hydraulic fluid supplied to an actuator (actuator 603 figure 6.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Haynes (US 5485869) discloses manual overrides for hydraulic solenoid valves; Loup (US 4574843) discloses a manual over ride for an electromagnetic proportional solenoid valve for hydraulic fluid control including supply, actuator device and tank ports.
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