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 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 § 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 1, 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US9535429 (“Marty”) in view of US2011/0174416 (“Hubsch”).
Regarding claim 1, Marty discloses a switching device that can be provided in a thermal management circuit and that can switch a flow path of a medium flowing through the thermal management circuit, the switching device comprising:
at least one spool (“16”);
a case (“12”) that houses the at least one spool; and
a seal material (“18”, “24a” and/or “24b”) provided between the at least one spool and the case, wherein
a part (“31”, “33” and/or “58”) of the flow path (with flow exiting through outlet “60”) is formed in the case,
the at least one spool includes a hollow spool (“16”) formed in a hollow shape (see hollow cavities “51” and “53”),
the hollow spool has at least one opening (“26”, “28”, “50” and/or “52”) that causes a space (“51” and/or “53”) inside the hollow spool to communicate with a space (“31”, “33” and/or “58”) outside the hollow spool, and
the seal material is provided between an outer circumferential surface (radially outer surface) of the hollow spool and the case (see fig. 1).
Marty is silent to the hollow spool being made of a synthetic resin.
However, Hubsch teaches a hollow spool (“144” or “146”) made of a synthetic resin (see specification paragraph [0042]).
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 Marty by forming the hollow spool from a synthetic resin, as taught by Hubsch, to have a lightweight hollow spool with sufficient durability, and since 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 use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 2, Marty discloses the at least one opening (“26”, “28”, “50” and/or “52”) includes a first opening (“50”) and a second opening (“52”) formed at positions spaced apart from each other (see fig. 1) in an axial direction (direction of longitudinal axis of hollow spool “16”) of the hollow spool (“16”),
the second opening includes an adjustment portion (tapered portion of opening “52”; see figs. 2-5), and
a dimension (width of opened portion of second opening “52” along a circumference of the hollow spool “16”) of the adjustment portion in a circumferential direction of the hollow spool gradually decreases with increasing proximity to the first opening (see fig. 2) in the axial direction.
Regarding claim 6, Marty discloses the case (“12”) includes a surrounding portion (radially inner surface of case “12”) that is in close contact with the seal material (“18”, “24a” and/or “24b”) and that allows the hollow spool (“16”) to move along an axial direction (direction along longitudinal axis of hollow spool “16”) of the hollow spool, and
the surrounding portion leads to the flow path (via fluid chamber(s) “31”, “33” and/or “58”).
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2024/0159322 (“Ma”) in view of Hubsch.
Regarding claim 1, Ma discloses (see fig. 9) a switching device that can be provided in a thermal management circuit and that can switch a flow path of a medium flowing through the thermal management circuit, the switching device comprising:
at least one spool (“8” and/or “12”);
a case (“3” and/or “9”) that houses the at least one spool; and
a seal material (“sealing elements” of inner and/or outer rings of grilles “27”; see specification paragraph [0080]) provided between the at least one spool and the case, wherein
a part (“6”, “7”, “13” and/or “14”) of the flow path (flow path extending between water inlet “4” and water outlet “5”) is formed in the case,
the at least one spool includes a hollow spool (“8”) and formed in a hollow shape (see fig. 11),
the hollow spool has at least one opening (“28”) that causes a space (“18” and/or “19”) inside the hollow spool to communicate with a space (space(s) formed by ports “6”, “7”, “13” and/or “14”) outside the hollow spool, and
the seal material is provided between an outer circumferential surface (radially outer surface) of the hollow spool and the case (see fig. 9 and specification paragraph [0080]).
Ma is silent to the hollow spool being made of a synthetic resin.
However, Hubsch teaches a hollow spool (“144” or “146”) made of a synthetic resin (see specification paragraph [0042]).
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 Ma by forming the hollow spool from a synthetic resin, as taught by Hubsch, to have a lightweight hollow spool with sufficient durability, and since 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 use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 3, Ma discloses at least one actuator (mainly defined by “39” and/or “40”) that drives the at least one spool (“8” and/or “12”); and
a housing (housing defined by “3”, “9” and cover of drive devices “25” and “26”) that houses the at least one actuator, wherein
the at least one spool includes another valve spool (“12”) different from the hollow spool (see figs. 11 and 13),
the at least one actuator includes
a hollow spool actuator (“39”) that can drive the hollow spool along an axial direction (direction of longitudinal axis of hollow spool “8”) of the hollow spool, and
another actuator (“40”) that can drive the other valve spool along an axial direction (direction of longitudinal axis of the other spool “12”) of the other valve spool, and
the housing houses the hollow spool actuator and the other actuator (see fig. 9) such that the axial direction of the hollow spool and the axial direction of the other valve spool are parallel to each other.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious the switching device, further comprising a substrate on which the hollow spool actuator and the other actuator are mounted, wherein the housing includes an actuator housing portion that houses the hollow spool actuator and the other actuator, and a substrate housing portion that is adjacent to the actuator housing portion and that houses the substrate, in further combination with the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim(s).
Regarding claim 5, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious the switching device, wherein the hollow spool actuator includes a rod that extends in a direction parallel to the axial direction of the hollow spool and that is connected to the hollow spool, the other actuator includes another rod that extends in a direction parallel to the axial direction of the other valve spool and that is connected to the other valve spool, the hollow spool is connected to the rod so as to be movable with respect to the rod in a direction orthogonal to an axial direction of the rod, and the other valve spool is connected to the other rod so as to be movable with respect to the other rod in a direction orthogonal to an axial direction of the other rod, in further combination with the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US8302631 and US10249315 disclose a manifold having a plurality of spool valves. US12181054 discloses a spool valve connected to a valve stem via a retaining pin.
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