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 .
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-13, 16-17, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Strickland (US 4,493,476 A, hereinafter Strickland).
With regards to claim 1, Strickland teaches a valve comprising a valve housing (11, 13) and a shut-off element (31-33) wherein the valve housing comprises a cavity for receiving the shut-off element (Fig. 3). Strickland teaches an inlet opening (83) and an outlet opening (42) for fluid flow into and out of the cavity (Fig. 3). Strickland teaches that the shut-off element comprises a guide body (slide) and is arranged linearly movable at least partially in the cavity of the valve housing between the inlet and the outlet (Fig. 3, col 5 ln 20-53). Strickland teaches that the shut-off element has at least one recess (75/55) for flow of the fluid from the inlet via the recess to the outlet (Fig. 3) in a given linear position. Strickland teaches that the slide also has a further recess (77) for flow of the fluid from the inlet via the further recess to the outlet in a different given linear position, the further recess being a prism-shaped aperture consistent with applicant’s specification in the guide body of the shut-off element. Strickland appears to show in Fig. 3 that in a further position in which recess (77) is aligned with inlet (83) not only would the outlet (42) be in fluid communication, but a further outlet (41) would be fluidically connected to the inlet via the further recess.
In the alternative, Strickland teaches that the particular location of the ports is immaterial so far as the invention is concerned, yet it is a feature that different ports can be connected to each other by channels formed on the slide rather than on exterior surfaces (col 4 ln 43-64) such that the mere rearrangement of the particular location of a port (inlet or outlet) to align with channels would involve only routine skill in the art.
Additionally, while Strickland is silent on the recess shape, making it a circumferential groove on the guide body with the groove being perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the guide body, would be a change of shape in combination with the rearrangement of the recess that has been held to be within the skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 2, the guide body is prism-shaped as discussed above.
With respect to claim 4, recess 55 is an aperture in the guide body.
With respect to claim 6, Figure 3 shows the angle between a longitudinal axis of the guide body and a longitudinal axis of the further recess to be 90°, either establishing the angle as a matter of fact, or suggesting the angle since the mere rearrangement of the angle between them would involve only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim, 7 the cavity can be said to have two sections that are prism-shaped with the shut-off element at least partially linearly movable therein as discussed above.
With respect to claims 8-10, the cavity can be said to have two sections that are prism-shaped that intersect at an angle between 30°-90 since because the sections are not well-defined in the claims, one can simply draw two intersecting lines at the claimed angles, take the prism-shaped areas around those respective lines as the two sections, and that such lines can be drawn to incorporate the inlet opening and outlet opening as claimed in claims 9-10.
With respect to claims 11-13, Strickland acknowledges the use of cylindrical slide members as a non-preferred embodiment in Column 1 Lines 16-31, and thus while non-preferred is still anticipatory (see MPEP 2123 II). Such a cylindrical slide member/shut-off element thus implies that the second substantially prism-shaped section is a cylindrical bore passing through the valve housing and serving as and thus coaxial with the guide body, wherein the bore forms a first and a second aperture on two opposite sides of the valve housing. Strickland further teaches in Column 5 Lines 60--68 that the linear movement is achieved by a fluid cylinder drive engaging from either end of the slide, thus including an end of the slide/shut-off element projecting from the second aperture.
With respect to claim 16, column 1 lines 1-2 disclose that a method for using the valve includes controlling fluid flow of fluids transported in the valve.
With respect to claim 17, the basic operation of the shut-off element is considered as regular oscillation for flushing a gap in the cavity between the valve housing and the guide body of the shut-off element.
With respect claims 24-25, the respective outlet openings as seen in Figure 3 are congruent with the respective base surfaces.
Claims 3 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strickland as applied to Claim 1 above, and in view of Ambrosina et al. (US 2015/0137017 A1, hereinafter Ambrosina).
With respect to Claims 3 and 23, Strickland teaches the apparatus as applied above but is silent whether the recess is a tapering in the guide body (understood to mean that the interior of the recess is tapered).
In analogous art pertaining to fluid flow systems, Ambrosina teaches in [0005]-[0010] that tapering in fluid pathways is known to provide a level of control over fluid flow.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention’s filing to include the known technique of tapering fluid paths in Strickland’s recess since such a combination would be an application of a known technique to known device meant to control fluid flow and ready for further improvement on that front to yield the predictable result of fluid-path-based fluid control via tapering and thus since as applied to Claim 1 the recess is a groove perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the guide body, the tapering would also be arranged perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis of the guide body.
Claims 14-15, 18-20, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strickland as applied to Claim 1 above, and in view of Bartel et al. (DE 10 2004 002 401 A1, hereinafter Bartel).
With respect to Claims 14-15, 18-20, and 26, Strickland teaches the apparatus as applied above but is silent on a separate start-up valve and thus also silent on ways of complementing and using a start-up valve.
In analogous art pertaining to fluid flow systems, Bretal teaches in the Abstract that it is known to use a startup valve before fluid flow is fully developed by using a startup valve to divert through a bypass that is eventually shut off via valve when ready for production mode, thus implying a startup valve cavity that is supplied from a further cavity via an inlet opening, wherein the startup valve cavity has a startup valve shutoff arranged movably in the startup valve cavity so that fluid can either flow or not flow through from a startup valve outlet opening to the main valve of the system by switching from a startup mode wherein the inlet opening is shut off with the shut-off element and the shut-off valve guide body release the start-up valve cavity, then switching to a production mode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention’s filing to include startup valves and associated methods in Strickland as claimed since such a combination would be an would be a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of incorporating startup equipment and methods to operate in production mode after operating in start-up mode.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strickland as applied to Claim 1 above, and in view of Retallick (US 3,146,795 A1, hereinafter Retallick).
With respect to Claim 21, Strickland teaches the apparatus as applied above, including that the valve system is useful for testing, but is silent on a sampling valve for opening and closing the further outlet being arranged at the further outlet opening.
In analogous art pertaining to valves, Retallick teaches a valve in Figure 2 that per Column 2 Lines 44-45 is useful for splitting out a sample from a main stream by capturing a discrete portion of material for sampling as described in Column 2 Lines 6-43.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention’s filing to include such a known sample valve at Strickland’s further outlet opening, particularly given Strickland’s interest in testing, since such a combination would be a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of being able to sample and test a discrete portion of a fluid sample.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: While a cylindrical guide body is well-known in the valve art, Strickland in Column 1 Lines 16-57 explicitly disparages the use of a cylindrical set-up and requires using square or rectangular channels to accommodate a valve slide of the respective corresponding shape.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims 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 RYAN M OCHYLSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7009. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
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 supervisor, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. 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.
/RYAN M OCHYLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights