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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of species I, Figs. 6-9, claims 1-5 and 8-18 in the reply filed on 2/28/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 6-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/28/25.
The examiner would also like to point out that the applicant did not supply any prior art other than what was cited in the search report. It would seem that there should be much more relevant prior art as pressure shutoff valves in pressure washers have been around a while.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because it is unclear and arbitrary as to what the “effective throttle gap” is. Also, the operation of the valve is not understood. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the effective throttle gap must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-5 and 8-19 (and claims 6-7 which are non-elected) 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. In claims 4-5 (and 6-7), the effective throttle gap is defined as having a first diameter and a second diameter, but a throttle gap is therefore the space (distance) between two cylindrical parts and cannot be defined as a diameter. This same problem is in claim 1 and the other claims as it is inherent to have a throttle gap between the valve housing and valve body (in valves that the valve moves in a housing) as otherwise the valve body would not be able to move. There must be at least some gap otherwise the valve body would not be able to move relative to the valve housing. The examiner also does not understand how the operation of the valve works.
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, 4-5, and 10-16, as understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lang US 4,413,472 (corresponds to GB 2054757 in the EPO search report).
Regarding claim 1, Lang discloses a pressure shutoff valve (4) for a pressure washer (intended use but not positively claimed but is capable of use in), the pressure shutoff valve comprising:
a valve housing having a valve seat (Fig. 1);
at least one inlet (13) for supplying a liquid;
at least one outlet (to tank 3) for removing the liquid;
a valve body (7) including a piston head (piston head on 7 as piston is different diameters) defining a longitudinal axis;
said valve body having a valve member assigned to said valve seat, wherein, in a first closed position of the pressure shutoff valve, said valve seat is closed by said valve member and a flow connection between said at least one inlet and said at least one outlet is interrupted;
said piston head having a circumferential outer surface (see Fig. 1 on 7);
wherein the pressure shutoff valve has an effective throttle gap (19) between said valve housing and said piston head where said circumferential outer surface is parallel to the longitudinal axis of said valve body;
said effective throttle gap having an overall length (a) as measured in a direction of the longitudinal axis of said valve body (see Fig. 1);
said effective throttle gap being part of said flow connection between said at least one inlet and said at least one outlet (see Fig. 1);
said valve body having a maximum diameter (d) extending radially with respect to the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 1); and,
said overall length (a) of said effective throttle gap being at least 50% of said maximum diameter (d) of said valve body in the first closed position of the pressure shutoff valve (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, wherein said effective throttle gap includes a first throttle gap having a first inner diameter (d1) and a second throttle gap having a second inner diameter (d2) (see Fig. 1, but not sure what this even is).
Regarding claim 5, wherein, between said first throttle gap and said second throttle gap, an overflow chamber is defined between said valve body and said valve housing (see Fig. 1, but not sure what this even is but there is a space between the first and second throttle gap so this is seen as an overflow chamber).
Regarding claim 10, a spring element 11 acting on said valve body; and, said spring element being configured to tension said valve body against said valve seat (at 9) of said valve housing.
Regarding claim 11, wherein the pressure shutoff valve has an open position, a second closed position, and an overpressure position; and, said at least one inlet and said at least one outlet are connected in terms of flow in said overpressure position (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, wherein the pressure shutoff valve is configured in such a manner that, in an event of overpressure at said at least one inlet of said valve housing, said valve body is pressed along the longitudinal axis in a direction away from said at least one inlet, as a result of which the pressure shutoff valve passes from said second closed position into said overpressure position (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, wherein the pressure shutoff valve has a maximum valve path (h) as measured in the direction of the longitudinal axis; said valve body covers said maximum valve path (h) from said first closed position as far as the overpressure position; and, said maximum valve path (h) of said valve body is smaller than said overall length (a) of said effective throttle gap (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, wherein said valve path (h) of said valve body corresponds at most to 90% of said overall length (a) of said effective throttle gap (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, wherein said valve path (h) of said valve body corresponds at most to 80% of said overall length (a) of said effective throttle gap (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, wherein said valve path (h) of said valve body corresponds at most to 75% of said overall length (a) of said effective throttle gap (see Fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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) 2-3, 5, 8-9, and 14-16, as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang US 4,413,472 (corresponds to GB 2054757 in the EPO search report).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Lang lacks measurements of said effective throttle gap having a gap height (e), as measured radially with respect to the longitudinal axis of said valve body which is at most 0.25 or 0.2 millimeters. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the effective throttle gap having a gap height (e), as measured radially with respect to the longitudinal axis of said valve body which is at most 0.25 or 0.2 millimeters as a matter of simple substitution of measurements and/or obvious to try these measurements of 0.25 or 0.2 millimeters with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, wherein, between said first throttle gap and said second throttle gap, Lang lacks an overflow chamber is defined between said valve body and said valve housing (see Fig. 1, but not sure what this even is). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make an overflow chamber, between said first throttle gap and said second throttle gap as a matter of simple substitution of an overflow chamber and/or obvious to try this with a reasonable expectation of success
Regarding claim 8, Lang lacks said valve body has a tapered section tapered in the direction of the longitudinal axis; and, said second throttle gap has an end which faces away from said first throttle gap and which is adjoined by said tapered section of said valve body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the valve body have a tapered section as cited as a matter of simple substitution of shapes and/or obvious to try this with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 9, Lang lacks said valve member of said valve body is conical in a direction of said valve seat of said valve housing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make said valve member of said valve body is conical in a direction of said valve seat of said valve housing as a matter of simple substitution of shapes and/or obvious to try this with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 14-16, Lang is seen to disclose said valve path (h) of said valve body corresponds at most to 90% or 80% or 75% of said overall length (a) of said effective throttle gap (see Fig. 1) but does not state it in the specification. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have said valve path (h) of said valve body corresponds at most to 90% or 80% or 75% of said overall length (a) of said effective throttle gap as a matter of simple substitution of measurements and/or obvious to try this with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 17 and 19, as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang US 4,413,472 (corresponds to GB 2054757 in the EPO search report) in view of Spittelmeister US 2016/0123480.
Regarding claims 17 and 19, Lang lacks at least one of said valve body and said valve housing are made of polyoxymethylene (POM) or a plastic. Spittelmeister discloses the housing parts made of polyoxymethylene [0039] which is a plastic. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the valve housing of Lang of polyoxymethylene as disclosed by Spittelmeister as a matter of simple substitution of materials and/or obvious to try that material as the valve housing with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 18, as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang US 4,413,472 (corresponds to GB 2054757 in the EPO search report) in view of Kaercher DE 19548497.
Regarding claim 18, Lang discloses a pressure shutoff valve (4) for a pressure washer (intended use but not positively claimed but is capable of use in), the pressure shutoff valve comprising:
a valve housing having a valve seat (Fig. 1);
at least one inlet (13) for supplying a liquid;
at least one outlet (to tank 3) for removing the liquid;
a valve body (7) defining a longitudinal axis;
said valve body including a piston head (piston head on 7 as piston is different diameters) having a valve member assigned to said valve seat, wherein, in a first closed position of the pressure shutoff valve, said valve seat is closed by said valve member and a flow connection between said at least one inlet and said at least one outlet is interrupted;
said piston head having a circumferential outer surface (see Fig. 1 on 7);
wherein the pressure shutoff valve has an effective throttle gap (19) between said valve housing and said piston head where said circumferential outer surface is parallel to the longitudinal axis of said valve body;
said effective throttle gap having an overall length (a) as measured in a direction of the longitudinal axis of said valve body (see Fig. 1);
said effective throttle gap being part of said flow connection between said at least one inlet and said at least one outlet (see Fig. 1);
said valve body having a maximum diameter (d) extending radially with respect to the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 1); and,
said overall length (a) of said effective throttle gap being at least 50% of said maximum diameter (d) of said valve body in the first closed position of the pressure shutoff valve (see Fig. 1) but lacks stating it is in a pressure washer. Kaercher discloses a pressure washer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the valve of Lang in the pressure washer of Kaercher as a matter of simple substitution and or obvious to try this with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner would like to note that the applicant did not define the effective throttle gap any more clearly as the applicant stated that would be done so the examiner just maintained all the rejections as they still apply. All that was amended in the independent claims was that the valve body has a piston head which Lang has. Applicant’s claims are so broad that all that is necessary is a gap between the valve housing and the piston head which Lang has (as well as pretty much every single other spool valve). Regarding applicant’s 102 and 103 arguments to Lang, the applicant argues flow but the flow as argued is not specific to the claims as there only needs to be flow in the valve which Lang has. The applicant is reminded again that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims is used for examining, but the applicant appears to focus on differences in the art that are not in the claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN BASTIANELLI whose telephone number is (571)272-4921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-4921 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.
/John Bastianelli/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
571-272-4921