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 .
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, 8, 10-12, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamasaki et al. (Yamasaki) (Patent/Publication Number 2016/0131212).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Yamasaki discloses a lock assembly (70, 72) defining an axial direction, a radial direction, and a circumferential direction, the lock assembly comprising: a motor housing (30, 31) (e.g. See Paragraphs [0046]); a motor rotor (33) rotatably provided within the motor housing, the motor rotor comprising a rotor surface (e.g. See Paragraphs [0046, 0056-0057]); a solenoid (73) coupled to the motor housing, the solenoid comprising a winding portion (77) extending into the motor housing toward the motor rotor (e.g. See Paragraphs [0060] The linear solenoid 73 includes a cylindrical case 74 having on its tail side an opening closed by an end plate 75 and on its head side an opening closed by a head cap 76. A coil 77 is incorporated inside of the case 74, and a plunger 79 is slidably incorporated inside of a cylindrical bobbin 78 supporting the inner diameter surface of the coil 77.) (e.g. See Paragraphs [0058-0060, 0066]); a solenoid armature (80) provided within the motor housing and comprising an armature contact surface, the solenoid armature being positioned between the motor rotor and the winding portion and being movable along the axial direction between a locked position and an unlocked position (e.g. See Paragraphs [0061] A magnetic attraction core 80 is incorporated in the case 74 so as to be axially opposed to the head cap 76. Pin holes 81 and 82 are coaxially formed in the magnetic attraction core 80 and the head cap 76, respectively. The locking pin 72, formed separately from the plunger 79, is inserted in the pin holes 81 and 82 such that the locking pin 72 is slidably supported and guided in the pin holes 81 and 82 at two axially separate portions thereof, respectively.) (e.g. See Paragraphs [0057-0064]); and a resilient member (84, 88) operably coupled between the solenoid and the solenoid armature, wherein the resilient member biases the solenoid armature toward the motor rotor (e.g. See Paragraphs [0062] A spring receiving space 83 is defined between the opposed surfaces of the head cap 76 and the magnetic attraction core 80. A return spring 84 incorporated in the spring receiving space 83 presses a snap ring 85 attached on the outer periphery of the locking pin 72, thereby biasing the locking pin 72 and the plunger 79 in the direction in which the locking pin 72 is disengaged.) (e.g. See Paragraphs [0058-0067, 0078-0082]).
Regarding claim 8, Yamasaki further discloses wherein the solenoid armature (80) is spaced apart from the winding portion along the axial direction by a predetermined air gap distance when in the locked position (e.g. See Paragraphs [0063] The bobbin 78, supporting the coil 77, is made of resin or copper. The plunger 79 and the magnetic attraction core 80 are each made of a ferromagnetic material such that magnetic circuits are formed, respectively, between the coil 77 and the plunger 79 and between the coil 77 and the magnetic attraction core 80.) (e.g. See Figure 4; Paragraphs [0062-0063, 0077-0081]).
Regarding claim 10, Yamasaki further discloses wherein the solenoid further comprises: a solenoid housing (74), wherein the winding portion extends from the solenoid housing along the axial direction, and wherein a diameter of the winding portion is less than a diameter of the solenoid housing such that the solenoid housing defines an axial housing face (e.g. See Figure 4; Paragraphs [0060, 0066-0069, 0087]).
Regarding claim 11, Yamasaki further discloses wherein the resilient member is a wave spring (84, 88) positioned around the winding portion along the circumferential direction, the wave spring being in contact with the axial housing face and a top of the solenoid armature (e.g. See Figure 4; Paragraphs [0060, 0066-0069, 0087]).
Regarding claim 12, Yamasaki further discloses wherein the motor housing comprises: at least one key protrusion (79) extending inward along the radial direction, the at least one key protrusion defining a linear lock face extending perpendicular to the radial direction and the axial direction, wherein the at least one key protrusion is positioned proximate the motor rotor (e.g. See Paragraphs [0062] A spring receiving space 83 is defined between the opposed surfaces of the head cap 76 and the magnetic attraction core 80. A return spring 84 incorporated in the spring receiving space 83 presses a snap ring 85 attached on the outer periphery of the locking pin 72, thereby biasing the locking pin 72 and the plunger 79 in the direction in which the locking pin 72 is disengaged.) (e.g. See Paragraphs [0061-0065]).
Regarding claim 16, Yamasaki further discloses wherein the resilient member (84, 88) is configured to maintain the solenoid armature in the locked position when the solenoid is inactive, and wherein the solenoid attracts the solenoid armature to the unlocked position against the resilient member when the solenoid is activated (e.g. See Paragraphs [0062-0067, 0082]).
Regarding claim 19, Yamasaki further discloses a deactivation signal to move the armature from the unlocked position to the locked position; ceasing the supply of the electrical current to the solenoid in response to receiving the deactivation signal; and moving the armature into contact with the motor rotor after ceasing the supply of the electrical current (e.g. See Paragraphs [0078-0084]).
Regarding claim 20, Yamasaki further discloses wherein the lock assembly further comprises a resilient member biasing the armature toward the motor rotor (e.g. See Paragraphs [0062-0067, 0082]).
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.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki et al. (Yamasaki) (Patent/Publication Number 2016/0131212) in view of design choice.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Yamasaki discloses all the claimed limitation as discussed above except the predetermined air gap distance is between 0.3 millimeters (mm) and 0.7 mm; and the unlocking level of the electrical current is between 200 milliamperes (mA) and 250 mA, and wherein the holding level of the electrical current is between 40 mA and 60 mA.
Regarding the specific range of the predetermined air gap distance; and the unlocking /holding level of the electrical current, it is the examiner’s position that a range between 0.3 millimeters (mm) and 0.7 mm of the predetermined air gap distance; and the electrical current is between 200 milliamperes (mA) and 250 mA of the unlocking level, and electrical current is between 40 mA and 60 mA of the holding level, would have been an obvious matter of design choice well within the level of ordinary skill in the art, depending on variables such as mass flow rate of the cooling gas around the motor, as well as the properties of materials for making the motor housing, the power of the electric motor, and the controlled temperature of the electric motor. Moreover, there is nothing in the record which establishes that the claimed parameters present a novel or unexpected result (See In re Kuhle, 562 F. 2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)).
Under some circumstances, however, changes such as these may impart patentability to a process if the particular ranges claimed produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art. In re Dreyfus, 22 CCPA (Patents) 830, 73 F.2d 931, 24 USPQ 52; In re Waite et al., 35 CCPA (Patents) 1117, 168 F.2d 104, 77 USPQ 586. Such ranges are termed "critical" ranges, and the applicant has the burden of proving such criticality. In re Swenson et al., 30 CCPA (Patents) 809, 132 F.2d 1020, 56 USPQ 372; In re Scherl, 33 CCPA (Patents) 1193, 156 F.2d 72, 70 USPQ 204. However, even though applicant's modification results in great improvement and utility over the prior art, it may still not be patentable if the modification was within the capabilities of one skilled in the art. In re Sola, 22 CCPA (Patents) 1313, 77 F.2d 627, 25 USPQ 433; In re Normann et al., 32 CCPA (Patents) 1248, 150 F.2d 627, 66 USPQ 308; In re Irmscher, 32 CCPA (Patents) 1259, 150 F.2d 705, 66 USPQ 314. More particularly, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Swain et al., 33 CCPA (Patents) 1250, 156 F.2d 239, 70 USPQ 412; Minnesota Mining and Mfg. Co. v. Coe, 69 App. D.C. 217, 99 F.2d 986, 38 USPQ 213; Allen et al. v. Coe, 77 App. D.C. 324, 135 F.2d 11, 57 USPQ 136.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki et al. (Yamasaki) (Patent/Publication Number 2016/0131212) in view of Yasui et al. (Yasui) (Patent/Publication Number 2016/0244035).
Regarding claim 15, Yamasaki discloses all the claimed limitation as discussed above except that the solenoid armature is formed from a cobalt-iron alloy.
Yasui teaches that it is conventional in the art, to use a solenoid armature (74) forming from a cobalt-iron alloy (e.g. See [0074] The locking pin 65 is connected to the end of the movable iron core 73 on the side of the open end of the solenoid case 70 so as to move together with the movable iron core 73. Thus, when the solenoid coil 71 is energized, the movable iron core 73 is attracted by the fixed iron core 74, and moved from the side of the closed end toward the open end, of the solenoid case 70, and with the movement of the movable iron core 73 in this direction, the locking pin 65 is advanced from the unlocking position toward the parking/locking position. .... ) (See Paragraphs [0073-0074]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to use the solenoid armature (74) forming from a cobalt-iron alloy of Yamasaki, as taught by Yasui for the purpose of generating an electromagnetic field to plunge the actuator of an electric actuator device, so as to reduce the temperature of the electric motor, and further improve the performance and the efficiency of the electric actuator device, since the use thereof would have been routinely practiced by those with ordinary skill in the art to maintain high purification efficiency of an electric solenoid system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7, and 13-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims; and also to overcome the claim objections set forth in this Office action, such as to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, 112 2nd paragraph, and double patenting.
Since allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant is encouraged to submit Final Formal Drawings (If Needed) in response to this Office action. The early submission of formal drawings will permit the Office to review the drawings for acceptability and to resolve any informalities remaining therein before the application is passed to issue. This will avoid possible delays in the issue process.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and consists of seven patents:
Saoyama et al. (Pat./Pub. No. US 2018/0017115), Karlsson et al. (Pat./Pub. No. US 2012/0283061), Kimes et al. (Pat./Pub. No. US 2018/0156332), Sasaki et al. (Pat./Pub. No. US 2023/0302622), Matsumoto et al. (Pat./Pub. No. US 2023/0344304), Kawai et al. (Pat./Pub. No. US 2023/0415309), and Cronin et al. (Pat./Pub. No. US 4488053), all discloses lock assembly for use with electric solenoid actuator.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner Binh Tran whose telephone number is (571) 272-4865. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors, Mark Laurenzi, can be reach on (571) 270-7878. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are (571) 273-8300 for regular communications and for After Final communications.
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.
Binh Q. Tran
/BINH Q TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3748
June 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights