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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments directed to the rejection of Claim 1 filed 26 Feb 2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Non-Final Rejection of 26 Feb 2026 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as discussed below.
Applicant additionally argues that Holsman’s cited recess is not a recess, but instead is a slot. However, the slot 25 is a recess as it is an open side in the valve element support. Therefore forming a recessed area of the valve element support. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
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) 1-4, 7, 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akaike (AU 2013297717) in view of Emunds (DE 43 42 577) in further view of Holsman (US 0995005).
Regarding Claim 1, Akaike discloses a check-valve (Figures 2a and 2b). The check valve comprising:
a housing (3) having an inlet (12), an outlet (to the left as seen in Figure 2a), a fluid flow path between the inlet and the outlet (shown in the arrows of Figure 5b) and a valve seat (13) in the fluid flow path, the valve seat having a valve seat axis (at least along the centerline of the valve seat; Figure 2a), a valve element (20), a valve element support (40; Figures 4a, 4b and 4c) arranged in the housing and supporting the valve element (Figures 2a and 2b), wherein a section of the fluid flow path is formed between the housing and the valve element support (Figure 5b) and the valve element is movable between a position in which the valve element rests against the valve seat (Figure 2a) and a position in which the valve element contacts the valve element support (Figure 2b), wherein the valve element support comprises at least one recess (44a in Figure 2b) formed in a sidewall of the valve element support (42; Figures 1 and 2) having an open side to the section of the fluid flow path (44a in Figure 2b) and connecting the section of the fluid flow path to a space between the valve element and the valve element support (to C as shown in Figure 2b; Figure 6),
but fails to expressly disclose wherein the recess has having an open side along an entire length of the at least one recess and a bottom of the at least one recess is formed on a circumferential outer surface of the valve support element and runs parallel to the valve seat axis.
Edmunds teaches a check valve (Figure 1) with a housing (31 generally), a valve element (60) and a valve element support (37) wherein a bottom of the at least one recess (44) is formed on a circumferential outer surface of the valve support element (Figure 1) and runs parallel to the valve seat axis (Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Akaike to incorporate the teachings of Edmunds to provide for wherein a bottom of the at least one recess is formed on a circumferential outer surface of the valve support element and runs parallel to the valve seat axis. Doing so would be combining prior art elements according to known methods (the valve support attachment structure of Akaike with the recess of Edmunds) to yield predictable results (to allow a fluid channel along the fluid flow path in the direction of the fluid flow path).
Holsman teaches a check valve (Figure 1) with a housing (17 generally), a valve element (26 generally) and a valve element support (Figure 3) with a recess (28) wherein the recess has having an open side along an entire length of the at least one recess (Figures 2 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the recess of Akaike, as modified by Edmunds with the open side as taught by Holsman for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the open sided recess with the valve support structure of Akaike, as modified by Edmunds) to yield predictable results (to allow fluid flow through the recess, while reducing the material amount, thereby decreasing manufacturing cost).
Regarding Claim 2, Akaike discloses where the valve element and the valve element support form a chamber when the valve element rests against the valve element support (C in Figure 2b), wherein the chamber is connected to the section of the fluid flow path via the at least one recess (Figure 6).
Regarding Claim 3, Akaike discloses where the valve element is concave on a side facing the valve element support (at the transition of the spring seat at the top of 21b to 21a).
Regarding Claim 4, Akaike discloses where the valve element is flat or concave at a side facing away from the valve element support (Figures 2a and 2b show a flat upstream face of the valve element).
Regarding Claim 7, Akaike disclose where the valve element support is made of a plastic material (polyoxymethylene is disclosed at paragraph 31).
Regarding Claim 9, Akaike disclose where the valve element support (40) comprises a plurality of arms connecting the valve element support to the housing (43).
Regarding Claim 16, Akaike discloses where the valve element moves only along the valve seat axis (Figures 2a and 2b).
Claim(s) 5-6 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akaike (AU 2013297717) in view of Emunds (DE 43 42 577) in further view of Holsman (US 0995005) in further view of Vogt (US 7,588,047).
Regarding Claim 5, Akaike discloses where the valve element (20) comprises a stem (22) which is guided in the valve element support (within 42a), but fails to expressly disclose wherein a bushing of a material different from a material of the valve element support forms a guide of the stem.
Vogt teach a check valve (Figure 1) with a valve element (3), a stem (15) and a valve element support (4 generally) wherein a bushing (32) of a material different from a material of the valve element support forms a guide of the stem (Col 5, lines 27-30 teach PTFE for the bushing and Col 7, lines 25-31 teach either aluminum or steel for the valve element support).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Akaike to incorporate the teachings of Vogt and provide for wherein a bushing of a material different from the material of the valve element support forms a guide of the stem. Doing so would improve the sliding properties of the stem, thereby reducing friction and wear, as taught by Vogt (Col 5, lines 26-30).
Regarding Claim 6, Akaike discloses where a spring (30) is arranged around the stem (22) and the valve element support comprises a bore accommodating the stem (42a), a groove surrounding the bore (where the spring 30 rests), and a wall between the bore and the groove (42c), wherein part of the spring is arranged in the groove (Figure 2a).
Regarding Claim 10, Akaike, as modified by Emunds and Holsman teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above except for wherein the housing comprises a first housing part and a second housing part, wherein a radial outer end of the plurality of arms is arranged between the first housing part and the second housing part.
Vogt teaches a check valve (Figure 1) with a first housing part (the bottom portion of 1 as seen in Figure 1) and a second housing part (the top portion of 1 as seen in Figure 1), wherein a radial outer end of the arms (end 16 of arms 13; Figures 1 and 2) is arranged between the first housing part and the second housing part (Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Akaike to incorporate the teachings of Vogt to provide for wherein the housing comprises a first housing part and a second housing part, wherein a radial outer end of the arms is arranged between the first housing part and the second housing part. Doing so would be combining prior art elements according to known methods (the valve support attachment structure of Vogt with the valve of Akaike) to yield predictable results (to allow for an easily disassembled valve, to allow for replacement of part or maintenance of the system).
Regarding Claim 11, Akaike as modified by Emunds and Holsman teach all essential elements of the current invention but is moot to where the plurality of arms are connected by a ring.
Vogt teaches a valve element support (2 generally) with arms (13), where the arms are connected by a ring (16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Akaike to incorporate the teachings of Vogt to provide for where the arms are connected by a ring. Doing so would be combining prior art elements according to known methods (the valve support attachment structure of Vogt with the valve of Akaike) to yield predictable results (to allow for an easily disassembled valve, to allow for replacement of part or maintenance of the system and provide stability for the arms in the downstream direction of the valve).
Regarding Claim 12, Vogt teaches where the housing comprises a first housing part (the bottom portion of 1 as seen in Figure 1) and a second housing part (the top portion of 1 as seen in Figure 1), wherein the ring (16) is clamped between a step in the first housing part and the second housing part (Figure 1).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Akaike (AU 2013297717) in view of Emunds (DE 43 42 577) in further view of Holsman (US 0995005).
Regarding Claim 8, Akaike discloses all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but is moot to where the recess has a curved shape.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide for where the recess has a curved shape, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). Providing a curved shape would allow for a more laminar flow entering the chamber between the valve element and the valve element support.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akaike (AU 2013297717) in view of Emunds (DE 43 42 577) in further view of Holsman (US 0995005) in further view of Vogt (US 7,588,047) in further view of Boehringer (US 4,172,469).
Regarding Claim 13, Akaike, as modified by Vogt, teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but is moot to where the ring bears a sealing ring.
Boehringer teaches a check valve (Figure 1) with a ring (13 generally) bearing a sealing ring (37; where the ring bears the ring via the compression of the ring with the body 11 and body 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Akaike, as modified by Vogt to incorporate the teachings of Boehringer to provide for where the ring bears a sealing ring. Doing so would be combining prior art elements according to known methods (the valve support attachment structure of Akaike, as modified by Vogt with the sealing ring of Boehringer) to yield predictable results (to allow a fluid tight connection between the interior and exterior of the check valve apparatus, thereby preventing leaks).
Regarding Claim 14, Boehringer teaches where the housing (10 and 11) comprises a first housing part (10) and a second housing part (11), where the second housing part comprises a circumferential protrusion (the proximal left end of the body 11 that does not contain threads as shown in Figure 1) inserted into a radial gap between the ring and the first housing part (between 13 and 10) and compressing the sealing ring (37 in Figure 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE GARDNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-4PM EST.
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 (571-272-4881) or CRAIG SCHNEIDER (571-272-3607) can be reached by telephone. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICOLE GARDNER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights