DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed 10/17/2025. Claims 6 and 7 are currently amended. Claims 10-12 have been canceled. Claims 13-15 are newly added. Presently, claims 1-9 and 13-15 are pending.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/17/2025 is acknowledged and has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 10/17/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a biasing member” in claim 7, line 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a biasing member” in line 8. The recitation of “a biasing member” is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. A review of the originally filed disclosure dated 10/17/2025 indicates that the recitation of “a biasing member” includes “an elastic member such as a coil spring” (see paragraph [0026], lines 7-8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a flange portion which annularly extends on an outer side than an end of the cylindrical portion on a side of the holding core” in lines 16-17.
It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of this limitation. It is unclear as to the feature of “extends on an outer side than an end of the cylindrical portion on a side of the holding core”, namely, the term “than”. From the figures, the flange (23c) of the rubber valve (23) extends from the cylindrical portion (23b) at a position of the cylindrical portion (23b) opposite the holding core (21). Should the term “than” be replaced with “opposite” or “distal”?
Clarification and appropriate correction is requested.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Knappmeier et al. (DE 102020123071 A1; see attached machine translation).
Claim(s) 1 and 7 will be treated as best understood in view of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above.
Regarding claim 1, the Knappmeier et al. reference discloses a rubber valve type of solenoid valve comprising:
a main body (14) having a rubber valve seating surface (34, which is a seating surface for the rubber valve 22) in which at least one flow channel is opened;
a rubber valve (22, the fifth full paragraph of page 4 of the machine translation) configured to be seated on the rubber valve seating surface of the main body (see figure 1 for the rubber valve 22 seating on the seating surface 34);
a holding core (see “holding core” in the annotated figure 1 below) having one end which holds the rubber valve;
a movable core (see “movable core” in the annotated figure 1 below) connected to the other end of the holding core; and
an electromagnetic force applying part (it is considered that the actuating mechanism 1 includes a coil 16 that provides an electromagnetic force) configured to apply an electromagnetic force (applied from the coil 16) to the movable core in order to move the movable core and the holding core with respect to the rubber valve seating surface of the main body such that the rubber valve is moved with respect to the rubber valve seating surface;
wherein
the rubber valve has: an opening closure surface portion (see “opening closure surface portion” in the annotated figure 1 below); a cylindrical portion (see “cylindrical portion” in the annotated figure 1 below) which extends from the opening closure surface portion towards the holding core; and a flange portion (see “flange portion” in the annotated figure 1 below) which annularly extends on an outer side [of the cylindrical portion opposite] an end of the cylindrical portion on a side of the holding core,
an outer circumferential area of the flange portion is fixed to the main body (it is considered that the outer circumferential area of the flange portion is held against the main body 14 by the element 20),
the opening closure surface portion is fixed to the holding core (the opening closure surface portion is held to the holding core by glue or a vulcanizing agent; see page 6, second full paragraph of the attached machine translation), and
the cylindrical portion is not fixed to the holding core and is capable of being deformed in an extended (considered the position depicted in figure 1) and shortened manner (considered the position depicted in figure 2) with respect to the holding core.
PNG
media_image1.png
1185
948
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 7, the Knappmeier et al. reference discloses wherein the electromagnetic force applying part is configured to apply the electromagnetic force to the movable core in order to move the movable core and the holding core in one direction (considered in the direction away from the rubber valve seating surface) with respect to the rubber valve seating surface of the main body such that the rubber valve is moved in the one direction with respect to the rubber valve seating surface,
a biasing member (it is considered that the spring 24 constitutes a biasing member) is further provided which is configured to apply a biasing force to the movable core in order to move the movable core and the holding core in the other direction (considered in the direction toward the rubber valve seating surface) with respect to the rubber valve seating surface of the main body such that the rubber valve is moved in the other direction with respect to the rubber valve seating surface, under a state wherein the electromagnetic force applying part is not applying the electromagnetic force to the movable core,
when the movable core and the holding core are moved in a direction approaching the rubber valve seating surface of the main body by the electromagnetic force or the biasing force, the cylindrical portion of the rubber valve is extended so that the rubber valve is seated on the rubber valve seating surface and the opening closure surface portion closes the opening (see the orientation of the cylindrical portion of the rubber valve 22 as depicted in figure 1 that the cylindrical portion is extended relative to the orientation of the cylindrical portion in the retracted position depicted in figure 2), and
when the movable core and the holding core are moved in a direction away from the rubber valve seating surface of the main body by the electromagnetic force or the biasing force, the cylindrical portion of the rubber valve is shortened so that the rubber valve further moves away from the rubber valve seating surface and the opening closure surface portion further opens the opening (see the orientation of the cylindrical portion of the rubber valve 22 as depicted in figure 2 that the cylindrical portion is retracted relative to the orientation of the cylindrical portion in the extended position depicted in figure 1).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knappmeier et al. (DE 102020123071 A1; see attached machine translation).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 will be treated as best understood in view of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above.
In regards to claim 8, the Knappmeier et al. reference discloses wherein a closing stroke of the cylindrical portion from an unloaded state of the cylindrical portion (see figure 7 for an unloaded state of the rubber valve 22) to a state in which the cylindrical portion is extended (considered the position depicted in figure 1) so that the rubber valve is seated on the rubber valve seating surface and the opening closure surface portion closes the opening (see figure 1), and
an opening stroke of the cylindrical portion from an unloaded state of the cylindrical portion (see figure 7 for an unloaded state of the rubber valve 22) to a state in which the cylindrical portion is shortened (see figure 2) so that the rubber valve further moves away from the rubber valve seating surface and the opening closure surface portion further opens the opening.
The Knappmeier et al. reference does not expressly disclose wherein the closing stroke and the opening stroke are within a range of 2:1 to 1:2.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to cause the device of the Knappmeier et al. reference to have the closing stroke and the opening stroke to be within a range of 2:1 to 1:2 since it has been held that “where the only different between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimension of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of the Knappmeier et al. reference would not operate differently with the claimed range of the closing stroke and opening stroke since the rubber valve of the Knappmeier et al. reference is intended to be extended into a position closing the opening through the rubber valve seating surface and to be shortened into a position away from the opening closure seating surface to permit a fluid flow through the opening of the rubber valve seating surface while having the range of the closing stroke and the opening stroke being within a range of 2:1 to 1:2 would adjust the opening amount (spacing of the opening closure seating portion and the rubber valve seating surface) of the opening that extends through the rubber valve seating surface to provide a desired flow rate through the solenoid valve.
In regards to claim 9, the Knappmeier et al. reference does not expressly disclose wherein the closing stroke and the opening stroke are within a range of 3:2 to 2:3.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to cause the device of the Knappmeier et al. reference to have the closing stroke and the opening stroke to be within a range of 3:2 to 2:3 since it has been held that “where the only different between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimension of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of the Knappmeier et al. reference would not operate differently with the claimed range of the closing stroke and opening stroke since the rubber valve of the Knappmeier et al. reference is intended to be extended into a position closing the opening through the rubber valve seating surface and to be shortened into a position away from the opening closure seating surface to permit a fluid flow through the opening of the rubber valve seating surface while having the range of the closing stroke and the opening stroke being within a range of 3:2 to 2:3 would adjust the opening amount (spacing of the opening closure seating portion and the rubber valve seating surface) of the opening that extends through the rubber valve seating surface to provide a desired flow rate through the solenoid valve.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knappmeier et al. (DE 102020123071 A1; see attached machine translation ) in view of Giese, deceased (US 4,044,998; herein “Giese”).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 6 and 13 will be treated as best understood in view of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above.
In regards to claim 2, the Knappmeier et al. reference discloses wherein the rubber valve (22) is fixed to at least a part of the holding core with a vulcanized adhesive (the opening closure surface portion is held to the holding core by glue or a vulcanizing agent; see page 6, second full paragraph of the attached machine translation) such that the opening closure surface covers the holding core.
The Knappmeier et al. reference does not disclose wherein the holding core has a truncated cone portion provided at the one end; a small diameter waisted portion provided adjacent to the truncated cone portion; and a large diameter columnar portion provided adjacent to the small diameter waisted portion and extending toward the movable core.
However, the Giese reference teaches a valve assembly having a movable membrane (36) that is supported on a holding core (48) and a movable core (44) wherein the holding core (48) includes a truncated cone portion (see “truncated cone portion” in the annotated figure 3 below) provided at one end; a small diameter waisted portion (see “small diameter waisted portion” in the annotated figure 3 below) provided adjacent to the truncate cone portion; and a large diameter columnar portion (see “large diameter columnar portion” in the annotated figure 3 below) provided adjacent to the small diameter waisted portion and extending toward the movable core wherein an opening closure surface portion covers the truncated cone portion in order to secure the membrane and the holding core (col. 4, lines 64-68).
PNG
media_image2.png
611
771
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The substitution of one known element (the holding core having a truncated cone portion, a small diameter waist portion and a large diameter columnar portion as shown in Giese) for another (the holding core as shown in Knappmeier et al.) would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art since the substitution of the shape of the holding core to include a truncated cone portion, a small diameter waist portion and a large diameter columnar portion as shown in Giese would have yielded predictable results, namely, a manner to secure the rubber valve to the holding core between a truncated cone portion and a large diameter columnar portion during movement of the rubber valve between a closed position and an open position of the Knappmeier et al. reference.
Therefore, it is considered that the combination of the Knappmeier et al. reference and the Giese reference discloses the use of vulcanized adhesive between the rubber valve and at least a part of the truncated cone portion of the holding core since the Knappmeier et al. reference discloses the rubber valve (Knappmeier et al.: 22) is fixed to at least a part of the holding core with a vulcanized adhesive (Knappmeier et al.: the opening closure surface portion is held to the holding core by glue or a vulcanizing agent; see page 6, second full paragraph of the attached machine translation).
In regards to claim 3, the Knappmeier et al. reference discloses wherein the rubber valve (22) is fixed to at least a part of the holding core with a vulcanized adhesive (the opening closure surface portion is held to the holding core by glue or a vulcanizing agent; see page 6, second full paragraph of the attached machine translation) such that the opening closure surface covers the holding core.
The Knappmeier et al. reference does not disclose wherein the holding core has a truncated cone portion provided at the one end; a small diameter waisted portion provided adjacent to the truncated cone portion; and a large diameter columnar portion provided adjacent to the small diameter waisted portion and extending toward the movable core.
However, the Giese reference teaches a valve assembly having a movable membrane (36) that is supported on a holding core (48) and a movable core (44) wherein the holding core (48) includes a truncated cone portion (see “truncated cone portion” in the annotated figure 3 below) provided at one end; a small diameter waisted portion (see “small diameter waisted portion” in the annotated figure 3 below) provided adjacent to the truncate cone portion; and a large diameter columnar portion (see “large diameter columnar portion” in the annotated figure 3 below) provided adjacent to the small diameter waisted portion and extending toward the movable core wherein an opening closure surface portion covers the truncated cone portion in order to secure the membrane and the holding core (col. 4, lines 64-68).
PNG
media_image2.png
611
771
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The substitution of one known element (the holding core having a truncated cone portion, a small diameter waist portion and a large diameter columnar portion as shown in Giese) for another (the holding core as shown in Knappmeier et al.) would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art since the substitution of the shape of the holding core to include a truncated cone portion, a small diameter waist portion and a large diameter columnar portion as shown in Giese would have yielded predictable results, namely, a manner to secure the rubber valve to the holding core between a truncated cone portion and a large diameter columnar portion during movement of the rubber valve between a closed position and an open position of the Knappmeier et al. reference.
Therefore, it is considered that the combination of the Knappmeier et al. reference and the Giese reference discloses the use of vulcanized adhesive between the rubber valve and at least a part of the truncated cone portion of the holding core and at least a part of the small diameter waisted portion since the Knappmeier et al. reference discloses the rubber valve (Knappmeier et al.: 22) is fixed to at least a part of the holding core with a vulcanized adhesive (Knappmeier et al.: the opening closure surface portion is held to the holding core by glue or a vulcanizing agent; see page 6, second full paragraph of the attached machine translation).
In regards to claim 6, the Knappmeier et al. reference of the combination of the Knappmeier et al. reference and the Giese reference discloses wherein a lubricant is provided between the large diameter columnar portion of the holding core and the cylindrical portion of the rubber valve (Knappmeier et al.: see the paragraph that spans pages 9-10 of the attached machine translation).
In regards to claim 13, the Knappmeier et al. reference of the combination of the Knappmeier et al. reference and the Giese reference discloses wherein a lubricant is provided between the large diameter columnar portion of the holding core and the cylindrical portion of the rubber valve (Knappmeier et al.: see the paragraph that spans pages 9-10 of the attached machine translation).
Claim(s) 4, 5, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knappmeier et al. (DE 102020123071 A1; see attached machine translation ) in view of Kawolics et al. (US 6,454,243).
Claim(s) 4, 5, 14 and 15 will be treated as best understood in view of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above.
In regards to claim 4, the Knappmeier et al. reference discloses wherein the rubber valve (22) is fixed to at least a part of the holding core with a vulcanized adhesive (the opening closure surface portion is held to the holding core by glue or a vulcanizing agent; see page 6, second full paragraph of the attached machine translation) such that the opening closure surface covers the holding core.
The Knappmeier et al. reference does not disclose wherein the holding core has a large diameter end portion provided at the one end; a small diameter waisted portion provided adjacent to the large diameter end portion; and a large diameter columnar portion provided adjacent to the small diameter waisted portion and extending toward the movable core.
However, the Kawolics et al. reference teaches a valve assembly having a movable membrane (34) that is supported on a holding core (considered the combination of 27, 28, 29) and a movable core (23) wherein the holding core includes a large diameter end portion (27) provided at one end; a small diameter waisted portion (28) provided adjacent to the truncate cone portion; and a large diameter columnar portion (29) provided adjacent to the small diameter waisted portion and extending toward the movable core (see col. 3, lines 29-39) wherein an opening closure surface portion covers the large diameter end portion in order to secure the membrane and the holding core (col. 3, lines 51-58).
The substitution of one known element (the holding core having a large diameter end portion, a small diameter waist portion and a large diameter columnar portion as shown in Kawolics et al.) for another (the holding core as shown in Knappmeier et al.) would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art since the substitution of the shape of the holding core to include a large diameter portion, a small diameter waist portion and a large diameter columnar portion as shown in Kawolics et al. would have yielded predictable results, namely, a manner to secure the rubber valve to the holding core between a large diameter end portion and a large diameter columnar portion during movement of the rubber valve between a closed position and an open position of the Knappmeier et al. reference.
Therefore, it is considered that the combination of the Knappmeier et al. reference and the Kawolics et al. reference discloses the use of vulcanized adhesive between the rubber valve and at least a part of the large diameter end portion of the holding core since the Knappmeier et al. reference discloses the rubber valve (Knappmeier et al.: 22) is fixed to at least a part of the holding core with a vulcanized adhesive (Knappmeier et al.: the opening closure surface portion is held to the holding core by glue or a vulcanizing agent; see page 6, second full paragraph of the attached machine translation).
In regards to claim 5, the Knappmeier et al. reference discloses wherein the rubber valve (22) is fixed to at least a part of the holding core with a vulcanized adhesive (the opening closure surface portion is held to the holding core by glue or a vulcanizing agent; see page 6, second full paragraph of the attached machine translation) such that the opening closure surface covers the holding core.
The Knappmeier et al. reference does not disclose wherein the holding core has a large diameter end portion provided at the one end; a small diameter waisted portion provided adjacent to the large diameter end portion; and a large diameter columnar portion provided adjacent to the small diameter waisted portion and extending toward the movable core.
However, the Kawolics et al. reference teaches a valve assembly having a movable membrane (34) that is supported on a holding core (considered the combination of 27, 28, 29) and a movable core (23) wherein the holding core includes a large diameter end portion (27) provided at one end; a small diameter waisted portion (28) provided adjacent to the truncate cone portion; and a large diameter columnar portion (29) provided adjacent to the small diameter waisted portion and extending toward the movable core (see col. 3, lines 29-39) wherein an opening closure surface portion covers the large diameter end portion in order to secure the membrane and the holding core (col. 3, lines 51-58).
The substitution of one known element (the holding core having a large diameter end portion, a small diameter waist portion and a large diameter columnar portion as shown in Kawolics et al.) for another (the holding core as shown in Knappmeier et al.) would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art since the substitution of the shape of the holding core to include a large diameter portion, a small diameter waist portion and a large diameter columnar portion as shown in Kawolics et al. would have yielded predictable results, namely, a manner to secure the rubber valve to the holding core between a large diameter end portion and a large diameter columnar portion during movement of the rubber valve between a closed position and an open position of the Knappmeier et al. reference.
Therefore, it is considered that the combination of the Knappmeier et al. reference and the Kawolics et al. reference discloses the use of vulcanized adhesive between the rubber valve and at least a part of the large diameter end portion and at least a part of the small diameter waisted portion of the holding core since the Knappmeier et al. reference discloses the rubber valve (Knappmeier et al.: 22) is fixed to at least a part of the holding core with a vulcanized adhesive (Knappmeier et al.: the opening closure surface portion is held to the holding core by glue or a vulcanizing agent; see page 6, second full paragraph of the attached machine translation).
In regards to claim 14, the Knappmeier et al. reference of the combination of the Knappmeier et al. reference and the Kawolics et al. reference discloses wherein a lubricant is provided between the large diameter columnar portion of the holding core and the cylindrical portion of the rubber valve (Knappmeier et al.: see the paragraph that spans pages 9-10 of the attached machine translation).
In regards to claim 15, the Knappmeier et al. reference of the combination of the Knappmeier et al. reference and the Kawolics et al. reference discloses wherein a lubricant is provided between the large diameter columnar portion of the holding core and the cylindrical portion of the rubber valve (Knappmeier et al.: see the paragraph that spans pages 9-10 of the attached machine translation).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ro (US 9,964,220), Herbert et al. (US 6,948,697), Kroll et al. (US 5,361,802), Gilchrist et al. (US 5,333,643), Hyde (US 4,720,076), Huley et al. (US 3,429,552), Chernak (US 3,426,798), Seltsam (US 3,081,063) and Evleth (US 2,216,292) disclose various valve assemblies including a diaphragm or a membrane that is secured to a holding core of an actuator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew J. Rost whose telephone number is (571) 272-. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/ANDREW J ROST/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/MICHAEL R REID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
