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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
The abstract exceeds the 150 word limit.
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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, 3-5, 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by JP2020133803 (“Iwasaki”).
Regarding claim 1, Iwasaki discloses a magnet valve for fluids, the magnet valve comprising:
a base body (“11”) which extends along a center axis (“A”);
an electromagnet arranged in the base body, wherein the electromagnet has a magnet core (“24”) fixed relative to the base body, a coil (“23”), which reaches around the fixed magnet core concentrically to the center axis, and a magnet plunger (“70”) which can move relative to the fixed magnet core, wherein the magnet plunger is arranged in a valve chamber (chamber defined by through hole 40a) of the magnet valve and is adapted to selectively open and close a first fluid path (path extending between supply port “pp” and control port “ap”) for the fluid between a first valve connector (at least partially defined by bottom sealing ring of valve body “40”, relative to the orientation of fig. 2) of the magnet valve and a second valve connector (at least partially defined by middle sealing ring of valve body “40”) of the magnet valve, wherein the valve chamber is arranged along the center axis on a first side (bottom side, relative to the orientation of fig. 2) of the magnet core;
at least one pressure sensor (“15”) arranged along the center axis on a second side (top side, relative to the orientation of fig. 2) of the magnet core, opposite the first side, at least in regions in the fixed magnet core, wherein the at least one pressure sensor is adapted to detect a pressure in the valve chamber (via channels “cp1”, “cp2”, “cp3” and “70a”), and
at least one pressure line (mainly defined by “cp1”, “cp2”, “cp3” and “mp”) arranged in the fixed magnet core (portion “cp2” is arranged in core “24”) and pressure-conductingly connecting the valve chamber to the at least one pressure sensor.
Regarding claim 3, Iwasaki discloses the at least one pressure line (mainly defined by “cp1”, “cp2”, “cp3” and “mp”) is arranged concentrically (portion “mp” is concentric to axis “A”) to the center axis (“A”).
Regarding claim 4, Iwasaki discloses the fixed magnet core (“11b”) comprises at least one sensor recess (recess within which sensor “15” is disposed), wherein the at least one pressure sensor (“15”) is arranged in the at least one sensor recess.
Regarding claim 5, Iwasaki discloses a downholder (“12”), wherein the downholder is adapted to hold down the at least one pressure sensor (“15”) in the sensor recess (see fig. 2), wherein the downholder is holding down the at least one pressure sensor in the sensor recess.
Regarding claim 7, Iwasaki discloses the at least one pressure sensor (“15”) comprises a communication module having a data interface (see English translation page 3), which is adapted to connect the at least one pressure sensor to an evaluation device (“controller”) so that the evaluation device receives data detected by the at least one pressure sensor.
Regarding claim 11, Iwasaki discloses a pressure line (mainly defined by “cp1”, “cp2” and “cp3”) of the at least one pressure line (mainly defined by “cp1”, “cp2” and “cp3”) comprises a first branch line (“cp3”) which:
is arranged transversely to the center axis (“A”) or
oblique to the center axis.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of CN110131462 (“Liu”).
Regarding claim 6, Iwasaki discloses the invention as claimed except for a sealing element is arranged between the at least one pressure sensor and the fixed magnet core such that the at least one pressure sensor is sealed with respect to a pressure outside the valve chamber.
However, Liu teaches a sealing element (“131” and/or “135”) arranged between a pressure sensor (“133”) and a sensor recess such that the pressure sensor is isolated from outside pressure.
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 Iwasaki by employing a sealing element between the at least one pressure sensor and the sensor recess of the fixed magnet core such that the at least one pressure sensor is sealed with respect to a pressure outside the valve chamber, as taught by Liu, to isolate the detected pressure from external pressures.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 8-10 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 2, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious the magnet valve, wherein the at least one pressure sensor is arranged with respect to the center axis radially offset to the pressure line, in combination with the limitations of the base claim.
Regarding claim 8, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious the magnet valve, wherein the magnet valve comprises a first pressure sensor and a second pressure sensor as the at least one pressure sensor, the first pressure sensor is pressure-conductingly connected to the valve chamber via a first pressure line of the at least one pressure line, and the second pressure sensor is pressure-conductingly connected to the valve chamber via a second pressure line of the at least one pressure line, in combination with the limitations of the base claim.
Claim 9 is allowable because it depends on an allowable claim.
Regarding claim 10, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious the magnet valve, wherein a pressure sensor of the at least one pressure sensor is arranged in the fixed magnet core such that an imaginary normal to a sensor surface of the at least one pressure sensor; is oriented transversely to the center axis, or parallel to the center axis, in combination with the limitations of the base claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US9377126, US12297926 and US10870320 discloses a magnet valve having a pressure sensor. US10591051 discloses a pressure sensor mounting structure.
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