DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. In response to the amendment received on 11/10/25:
claims 1-8 are presently pending
claims 4-7 are withdrawn
the objection to the Specification is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the Specification
the rejections of claims 1-3 and 8 are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims
new grounds of rejection are presented herein
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by US Pat. No. 5,958,206 to Rothbauer et al., (hereinafter referred to as “ROTHBAUER”).
Regarding claim 1, ROTHBAUER teaches a valve block (see ROTHBAUER at Abstract and Fig. 1 teaching a valve body which would be capable of use with hydrogen gas; see also ROTHBAUER at col. 1 line 63-col. 2 line 7) comprising:
a valve block body of aluminum having an outer surface on which an aluminum anodizing treatment has been performed (see ROTHBAUER at col. 2 lines 26-44 teaching the workpiece being a valve body made of aluminum and treated with an anodizing process so as to apply an oxide coating to some parts and a protective cover to prevent anodization in the openings and channel holes; see also Fig. 1 depicting the anodizing bath with protective cover 4 over openings 6; see also ROTHBAUER at col. 3 lines 9-11 teaching the workpiece being a valve receiver and a monolithic block, i.e. a valve block); and
a flow channel formed in the valve block body (see ROTHBAUER at Fig. 1 depicting the channel formed in the workpiece 1 between openings 6 via channel hole 11),
the flow channel having a sealing face in an inner face (see ROTHBAUER at Fig. 1 depicting openings 6 for placement of the valves and having a sealing inner face as claimed; see also ROTHBAUER at col. 2 lines 34-37 and col. 3 lines 9-17),
the sealing face being a machined face on which an oxidized layer resulting from an anodizing treatment has not been formed (see ROTHBAUER at col. 2 lines 34-37 teaching the openings 6 being drilled, i.e. machined, and which are not to be anodized; see also ROTHBAUER at col. 2 lines 37-44 teaching the cover acting to dissipate the anodizing current so as to prevent the anodizing current from spreading through the channel holes 11).
Regarding claim 2, ROTHBAUER teaches a valve block (see ROTHBAUER at Abstract and Fig. 1 teaching a valve body which would be capable of use with hydrogen gas; see also ROTHBAUER at col. 1 line 63-col. 2 line 7) comprising:
a valve block body of aluminum having an outer surface on which an aluminum anodizing treatment has been performed (see ROTHBAUER at col. 2 lines 26-44 teaching the workpiece being a valve body made of aluminum and treated with an anodizing process so as to apply an oxide coating to some parts and a protective cover to prevent anodization in the openings and channel holes; see also Fig. 1 depicting the anodizing bath with protective cover 4 over openings 6; see also ROTHBAUER at col. 3 lines 9-11 teaching the workpiece being a valve receiver and a monolithic block, i.e. a valve block); and
a flow channel formed in the valve block body (see ROTHBAUER at Fig. 1 depicting the channel formed in the workpiece 1 between openings 6 via channel hole 11),
the flow channel having at least two channel sections (see ROTHBAUER at Fig. 1 depicting the two openings 6 formed in the workpiece 1),
the two channel section being arranged to intersect with each other in an intersection part (see ROTHBAUER at Fig. 1 depicting the two openings 6 arranged so as to be connected via channel hole 11 which intersects with both openings),
an inner face of the intersection part having a machined face on which an oxidized layer resulting from an anodizing treatment has not been formed (see ROTHBAUER at col. 2 lines 41-44 teaching the channel holes 11 being drilled, i.e. machined, and configured with the protective cover 4 so as to not allow the anodizing current through channel holes 11 which would result in the channel holes having at least a portion which does not having an oxidized layer resulting from the anodization as claimed).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROTHBAUER in view of US Pub. No. 2015/0137022 to Sugiyama et al., (hereinafter referred to as “SUGIYAMA”).
Regarding claims 3 and 8, while ROTHBAUER teaches the anodization of the aluminum valve block which would result in an oxidized layer being formed on the outer surface as claimed (see rejections of claims 1 and 2 under ROTHBAUER above; see also ROTHBAUER at Fig. 1 depicting the anodization system), ROTHBAUER fails to explicitly recite the thickness of the oxidized layer being as claimed.
However, as taught by ROTHBAUER, the anodically formed coating is recognized as providing for a protective barrier against corrosion and wear (see ROTHBAUER at Abstract). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the coating thickness would need to be sufficient to provide for the desired corrosion and wear resistance, while at the same time not having the coating thickness larger than necessary which would waste time and electricity. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized coating thickness to be a result effective variable and would have looked to optimize the coating thickness so as to provide sufficient corrosion and wear protection to the parts of the metal body to be anodized while at the same time not wasting time or energy by making the coating thicker than necessary. See MPEP §2144.05(II).
Furthermore, even though ROTHBAUER is silent as to the coating thickness, SUGIYAMA teaches anodization of a valve metal body in which the thickness of the oxide coating of the exterior surface is taught to be 8 microns or less (see SUGIYAMA at ¶24). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a thickness for the anodization coating on the exterior of a valve block could be within the thickness range as claimed. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have conducted the anodization process of ROTHBAUER so as to have a thickness of the anodic coating as taught by SUGIYAMA or, alternatively, to have arrived at the range as claimed through routine optimization.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pub. No. 2018/0372129 to Kato et al., teaching a pilot type solenoid valve
JP2001023908A to Koichi et al., teaching a vacuum processor (see attached machine translation)
US Pub. No. 2015/0255253 to Van Kappel et al., teaching a vacuum chamber element made of aluminum alloy
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 Bryan D. Ripa whose telephone number is (571)270-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:00PM ET.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/BRYAN D. RIPA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794