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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendment dated 4/16/2026. Claims 1-2, 4-10, and 12-22 are pending. Claims 15-22 are newly presented. Any new ground(s) of rejection below have been made due to applicant’s amendment. This action is Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 103 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoppe et al. (U.S. 9,080,686) in view of Duraisamy et al. (U.S. 9,194,352) and Kumar (U.S. 11,204,103).
Hoppe discloses a valve assembly, comprising a valve chamber (within 11); accesses to the valve chamber (12 and the bottommost part of 13 leading out), the accesses including a first access (12 or the bottommost part of 13) and a second access (the other of 12 and the bottommost part of 13); a movable sealing body assembly (15) comprising at least one sealing portion (16), wherein at least a portion of the sealing body assembly is magnetic (18 and/or 25, see col. 3, ll. 21 and col 3, ll. 40), and wherein at least a portion of the sealing body assembly comprising the at least one sealing portion is located within the valve chamber (fig. 1); at least one sealing surface (the surface of 14), wherein each of the at least one sealing surface is configured to complement one of the at least one sealing portion, and wherein each sealing surface comprises an orifice (the uppermost part of 13 leading into the valve chamber) fluidly connected to one of the accesses (fluidly connected to the access at the bottommost part of 13 leading out, and in the same manner as the applicant has a single fluid line at 121 that is comprised of one of the accesses and the orifice); and a force unit (23 and/or 24) configured to exert a magnetic force on the magnetic portion of the movable sealing body assembly (col. 3, ll. 48-54), the force unit including at least one magnet or at least one solenoid (23 and/or 24), wherein the valve assembly is configured to assume at least two configurations (col. 3, ll. 14-25), wherein in a first configuration, the first access is sealed, wherein in a second configuration, the first access is fluidly connected to the second access (col. 3, ll. 14-25).
Hoppe does not appear to disclose wherein a hardness of the at least one sealing portion is different to a hardness of the at least one sealing surface, wherein the sealing surface and the sealing portion configured to complement said sealing surface are calibrated with respect to each other to form an accurately fitting sealing contour, wherein the sealing contour is formed by plastic deformation of at least one of the sealing surface or the sealing portion.
Duraisamy teaches it was known to have a valve with a harder valve head and a seat of a softer material (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve head and seat of Hoppe such that the hardness of the valve head (sealing portion) being different (harder) than a hardness of the valve seat (sealing surface, softer) as taught by Duraisamy to prevent damage to the valve (see abstract of Duraisamy) and improve sealing.
Kumar teaches it was known in the art to have a valve seat that is calibrated to the shape of a valve head such that they form an accurately fitting contour (see figs. 2A and 2B, notice the complementary shape for the ball 22 and the seat 50) with the seat sealing surface being formed by plastic deformation (col. 6, ll. 50-53).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the engagement of the sealing portion and sealing surface of Hoppe such that the sealing portion compliments the sealing surface and the sealing contour being formed by plastic deformation of at least one of the sealing surface or the sealing portion as taught by Kumar in order to provide an improved sealing between the valve head and valve seat as Hoppe desires to provide a closing contact between the valve head and seat in order to stop flow (see col. 2, ll. 60-65) and Kumar provides for a coined seat that exhibits no leakage or leakage well within acceptable limits (col. 5, ll. 40-44).
Regarding claim 2, Hoppe as modified further discloses wherein the sealing surface and the sealing portion configured to complement said sealing surface are configured to form a leak-tight sealing interface when pressed together, which seals the orifice comprised by the sealing surface (col. 2, ll. 60-65).
Regarding claim 4, Hoppe as modified further discloses wherein the force unit is configured to press the sealing portion against the complementary sealing surface by exerting the force on the magnetic portion (24 acts on 25 to bias the valve closed, see col. 3, ll. 48-54).
Regarding claim 5, Hoppe as modified discloses the claimed invention but and further discloses wherein the force unit is configured to move the sealing body assembly and/or to actively change the configuration assumed by the valve assembly by exerting the force on the magnetic portion at least for any differential pressure between any of the accesses to the valve chamber (at least is operational and actively changing the configuration from the first configuration to the second configuration (opened and closed) for the given pressure within the system as it is functioning while there is a fluid pressure throughout the assembly, see col. 3, ll. 48-54).
Hoppe does not appear to disclose the differential pressure not exceeding a differential pressure threshold that is at least 250 bar.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Hoppe such that the force unit is able to move the sealing body assembly or actively change the configuration assumed by exerting the force on the magnetic portion at least for any differential pressure between any of the accesses to the valve chamber that does not exceed a differential pressure threshold that is at least 250 bar as an obvious matter of design choice, see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and as there is no demonstrated criticality to the 250 bar in the applicant’s disclosure.
Regarding claim 8, Hoppe as modified further discloses wherein the movable sealing body assembly is not firmly attached to any other portion of the valve assembly (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Hoppe as modified discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose the differential pressure threshold being at least 100 bar.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Hoppe such that the force unit is able to move the sealing body assembly or actively change the configuration assumed by exerting the force on the magnetic portion at least for any differential pressure between any of the accesses to the valve chamber that does not exceed a differential pressure threshold that is at least 100 bar as an obvious matter of design choice, see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and as there is no demonstrated criticality to the 100 bar in the applicant’s disclosure.
Regarding claim 14, Hoppe as modified discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose the differential pressure threshold being at least 50 bar.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Hoppe such that the force unit is able to move the sealing body assembly or actively change the configuration assumed by exerting the force on the magnetic portion at least for any differential pressure between any of the accesses to the valve chamber that does not exceed a differential pressure threshold that is at least 50 bar as an obvious matter of design choice, see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and as there is no demonstrated criticality to the 50 bar in the applicant’s disclosure.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-10, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yajima (U.S. 5,807,085) in view of Duraisamy and Kumar.
Yajima discloses a valve assembly, comprising a valve chamber (33a and/or 33b); accesses to the valve chamber (32 and 32, see fig. 6a), the accesses including a first access (one of 32) and a second access (the other of 32); a movable sealing body assembly (37, 38, 41) comprising at least one sealing portion (37), wherein at least a portion of the sealing body assembly is magnetic (41), and wherein at least a portion of the sealing body assembly comprising the at least one sealing portion is located within the valve chamber (fig. 3, fig. 6a); at least one sealing surface (the surface of 36b that contacts 37), wherein each of the at least one sealing surface is configured to complement one of the at least one sealing portion (fig. 6a), and wherein each sealing surface comprises an orifice (the opening within 36b, see fig. 6a) fluidly connected to one of the accesses; and a force unit (42a, 42b, including 43a, 44a, 43b, 44b, alternatively 65) configured to exert a magnetic force on the magnetic portion of the movable sealing body assembly (col. 7, ll. 18-29), the force unit including at least one magnet or at least one solenoid (42a, 42b, including 43a, 44a, 43b, 44b, alternatively 65), wherein the valve assembly is configured to assume at least two configurations, wherein in a first configuration, the first access is sealed, wherein in a second configuration, the first access is fluidly connected to the second access (col. 7, ll. 18-29).
Yajima does not appear to disclose wherein a hardness of the at least one sealing portion is different to a hardness of the at least one sealing surface, wherein the sealing surface and the sealing portion configured to complement said sealing surface are calibrated with respect to each other to form an accurately fitting sealing contour, wherein the sealing contour is formed by plastic deformation of at least one of the sealing surface or the sealing portion.
Duraisamy teaches it was known to have a valve with a harder valve head and a seat of a softer material (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve head and seat of Yajima such that the hardness of the valve head (sealing portion) being different (harder) than a hardness of the valve seat (sealing surface, softer) as taught by Duraisamy to prevent damage to the valve (see abstract of Duraisamy) and improve sealing.
Kumar teaches it was known in the art to have a valve seat that is calibrated to the shape of a valve head such that they form an accurately fitting contour (see figs. 2A and 2B, notice the complementary shape for the ball 22 and the seat 50) with the seat sealing surface being formed by plastic deformation (col. 6, ll. 50-53).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the engagement of the sealing portion and sealing surface of Hoppe such that the sealing portion compliments the sealing surface and the sealing contour being formed by plastic deformation of at least one of the sealing surface or the sealing portion as taught by Kumar in order to provide an improved sealing between the valve head and valve seat as Hoppe desires to provide a closing contact between the valve head and seat in order to stop flow (see col. 2, ll. 60-65) and Kumar provides for a coined seat that exhibits no leakage or leakage well within acceptable limits (col. 5, ll. 40-44).
Regarding claim 2, Yajima as modified further discloses wherein the sealing surface and the sealing portion configured to complement said sealing surface are configured to form a leak-tight sealing interface when pressed together, which seals the orifice comprised by the sealing surface (when closed, see col. 7, ll. 18-25).
Regarding claim 4, Yajima as modified further discloses wherein the force unit is configured to press the sealing portion against the complementary sealing surface by exerting the force on the magnetic portion (col. 7, ll. 18-25, also fig. 6a).
Regarding claim 5, Yajima as modified discloses the claimed invention but and further discloses wherein the force unit is configured to move the sealing body assembly and/or to actively change the configuration assumed by the valve assembly by exerting the force on the magnetic portion at least for any differential pressure between any of the accesses to the valve chamber (at least is operational and actively changing the configuration from the first configuration to the second configuration (opened and closed) for the given pressure within the system as it is functioning while there is a fluid pressure throughout the assembly, see col. 7, ll. 18-29).
Yajima does not appear to disclose the differential pressure not exceeding a differential pressure threshold that is at least 250 bar.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Yajima such that the force unit is able to move the sealing body assembly or actively change the configuration assumed by exerting the force on the magnetic portion at least for any differential pressure between any of the accesses to the valve chamber that does not exceed a differential pressure threshold that is at least 250 bar as an obvious matter of design choice, see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and as there is no demonstrated criticality to the 250 bar in the applicant’s disclosure.
Regarding claim 6, Yajima as modified further discloses wherein the force unit comprises at least one permanent magnet (43a, 43b, 44a, 44b) and an actuator (47a, 47b, 46a, 46b, etc.) configured to provide a rotational or linear motion, wherein the actuator is configured to provide a linear or rotational displacement to the at least one permanent magnet connected thereto (linear displacement, see col. 7, ll. 18-42).
Regarding claim 7, Yajima as modified further discloses wherein the force unit comprises at least one solenoid (in the alternative interpretation for claim 1 above, element 65, which in the embodiment shown in fig. 12, 65 is a solenoid coil, see col. 10, ll. 63-65, see also col. 13, ll. 1-4).
Regarding claim 8, Yajima as modified further discloses wherein the movable sealing body assembly is not firmly attached to any other portion of the valve assembly (fig. 6a).
Regarding claim 9, Yajima discloses a pump system configured to provide a flow of fluid, wherein the system comprises at least one pump unit (within pump housing 11b, including 27, 28, 12, etc.); an inlet valve (34 and associated components) configured to control a fluid flow at an inlet (flow in hose 30a) of at least one of the at least one pump unit; and an outlet valve (35 and associated components) configured to control a fluid flow at an outlet (flow out hose 30b) of at least one of the at least one pump unit, wherein at least one of the inlet valve and the outlet valve is a valve assembly according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 10, Yajima further discloses wherein the pump system is configured for reversing the flow through the pump system to purge the system (as the assembly is the same as that claimed by the applicant, it is understood that flow is capable of or configured to flow through the pump system in either direction).
Regarding claim 13, Yajima as modified discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose the differential pressure threshold being at least 100 bar.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Yajima such that the force unit is able to move the sealing body assembly or actively change the configuration assumed by exerting the force on the magnetic portion at least for any differential pressure between any of the accesses to the valve chamber that does not exceed a differential pressure threshold that is at least 100 bar as an obvious matter of design choice, see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and as there is no demonstrated criticality to the 100 bar in the applicant’s disclosure.
Regarding claim 14, Yajima as modified discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose the differential pressure threshold being at least 50 bar.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Yajima such that the force unit is able to move the sealing body assembly or actively change the configuration assumed by exerting the force on the magnetic portion at least for any differential pressure between any of the accesses to the valve chamber that does not exceed a differential pressure threshold that is at least 50 bar as an obvious matter of design choice, see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and as there is no demonstrated criticality to the 50 bar in the applicant’s disclosure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 15-22 are allowed.
Newly added claims 15-22 depend from previously allowed claim 12 and thus are also allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MICHAEL R REID whose telephone number is (313)446-4859. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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 can be reached by phone. Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607, or Ken 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.
/MICHAEL R REID/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights