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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 20 Jan 2026 has been entered.
Drawings
Specification
Claim Interpretation
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, line 21 “a length” should likely read “the length”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 8-11, 13-15, 17-19, 21-22 and 24-27 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the finned frustoconical inlet" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination “the finned frustoconical inlet” will be interpreted as “the finned frustoconical inlet end”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the frustoconical outlet end” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination “the frustoconical outlet end” will be interpreted as “the finned frustoconical tip at the outlet end”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the facility” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the finned frustoconical inlet" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination “the finned frustoconical inlet” will be interpreted as “the finned frustoconical inlet end”.
Claim 27 recites the limitation “the frustoconical outlet end” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination “the frustoconical outlet end” will be interpreted as “the finned frustoconical tip at the outlet end”.
Claims not specifically referenced are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-11, 13, 15, 21-22, and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink Jr (US 4,827,977) in view of Cheon et al (US 2009/0001720) in further view of Sato et al (US 8,109,290) in further view of Hogan (US 20090283157).
Regarding Claim 1, Fink Jr discloses a check valve (Figures 3-5; The recitation “for high flow medical gas applications” has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951). The valve comprising:
a valve body (generally the fitting 32) comprising a valve inlet (from the left as seen by 36 in Figure 3) and a valve outlet (out 7 by 36 to the right as seen in Figure 3), the valve body defining a flow channel from the valve inlet to the valve outlet (seen by the flow path 36 in Figure 3);
a movable plunger (40 generally) in the flow channel of the valve body (32), wherein the plunger (40) is constrained in the flow channel (Figure 5) between the valve inlet (from the left as seen by 36 in Figure 3) and the valve outlet (seen by the flow path 36 in Figure 3), the plunger comprising:
an inlet end (generally 41); and a frustoconical tip (at the right at 40 in Figures 3-5) at an outlet end (Figures 3-5), wherein the inlet end is positioned more closely to the valve inlet than the frustoconical outlet end is positioned to the valve inlet (Figures 3-5); and
wherein the outlet end is positioned more closely to the valve outlet than the inlet end is positioned to the valve outlet (Figure 3-5); and
an orifice cap (39) at the inlet end of the valve body (32),
but fails to expressly disclose a finned frustoconical inlet end defining one or more fins and a finned tip at an outlet end defining one or more fins wherein the one or more fins of the finned frustoconical tip at the outlet end of the plunger are disposed radially about the finned frustoconical tip at the outlet end and extend beyond the finned frustoconical tip toward the valve outlet, and wherein each of the one or more fins of the finned frustoconical inlet end of the plunger comprises an external edge extending parallel to a centerline of the plunger along a length of the finned frustoconical inlet end.
Cheon et al teach a valve with a movable plunger (Figure 2 at 10) with a finned inlet end (18) defining one or more fins (18; Figure 4) and a finned tip at an outlet end (between 13 to 19 of 25) defining one or more fins (19) wherein the one or more fins (19) of the finned frustoconical tip at the outlet end (from 13 to 25) of the plunger (10) are disposed radially about the finned frustoconical tip (Figure 4) at the outlet end (to the right as seen in Figure 2) and extend beyond the finned frustoconical tip (Figure 2) toward the valve outlet (to the right as seen in Figure 2).
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 plunger of Fink Jr with the plunger as taught by Cheon et al for the advantage of guiding and supporting the plunger within the housing, as taught by Cheon et al (¶ 27).
Sato et al teach a plunger (see Annotated Figure C) with a finned inlet end (see Annotated Figure C) wherein each of the one or more fins of the finned inlet end of the plunger comprises an external edge extending parallel to a centerline of the plunger along a length of the finned frustoconical inlet end (see Annotated Figure C and also Figures 8 and 9).
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 plunger of Fink Jr as modified by Cheon et al with the plunger as taught by Sato et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the fin shape of Sato et al with the plunger of Fink Jr) to yield predictable results (to streamline the flow of fluid through the valve).
Hogan teaches a plunger (40 generally in Figure 2) with a frustoconical inlet end (70).
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 inlet end of Fink Jr as modified by Cheon et al and Sato et al to be frustoconical since a change in shape of an element involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to allow smooth flow of fluid past the valve. Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality that having an inlet end being frustoconical, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
PNG
media_image1.png
762
773
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure A of Fink Jr
PNG
media_image2.png
1030
1161
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure B of Cheon et al
PNG
media_image3.png
634
751
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure C of Sato et al
Regarding Claim 2, Cheon et al teach where the one or more fins (18) of the finned frustoconical inlet end (to the left as seen in Figure 2) of the plunger are disposed radially about the finned frustoconical inlet end of the plunger (Figures 5 and 5A where Sato et al teach where the inlet is frustoconical, as discussed above) and Sato et al teach where each of the one or more fins comprises an internal edge (see Annotated Figure C) disposed along the length of the finned frustoconical inlet end (see Annotated Figure C).
Regarding Claim 3, Fink Jr discloses where the plunger (40) defines a beveled shoulder (the frustoconical surface where the seal 45 sits) positioned between the inlet end (41; where Cheon et al teach where the inlet end is finned frustoconical) and the frustoconical tip (40; where Cheon et al teach where tip is finned).
Regarding Claim 4, Fink Jr disclose where the plunger (40) further comprises an O-ring (45) positioned on and coaxial with a long axis of the plunger between the inlet end (41; where Cheon et al teach where the inlet end is finned frustoconical) and the frustoconical tip (40; where Cheon et al teach where tip is finned), and in which the O-ring seats against the outlet bevel (44) in the valve body when the check valve is closed (Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 8, Fink Jr disclose where the plunger (40) is constrained in the flow channel by the orifice cap (39; Figure 5) and by an outlet bevel (44) in the flow channel at the valve outlet (out 7 by 36 to the right as seen in Figure 3) of the valve body (32).
Regarding Claim 9, Fink Jr disclose where the orifice cap (39) defines a plurality of gas flow passages (Col 10, lines 7-9).
Regarding Claim 10, Fink Jr discloses a spring (43) disposed on the plunger (on portion 41; Figures 2-5) for closing the check valve to prevent reverse gas flow (Figures 4-5).
Regarding Claim 11, Fink Jr discloses where the spring (43) is positioned on the inlet end (41; where Cheon et al teach where the inlet end is finned frustoconical) of the plunger for urging the plunger (40 generally) toward the valve outlet (out 7 by 36 to the right as seen in Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 13, Fink Jr discloses a method of improving gas flow and avoiding pressure drop in a gas check valve (Figures 3-4; Col 1, line 19 disclose gasoline) comprising the steps of: directing an upstream gas flow (36) against a check valve plunger (40 generally) according to claim 1 (via 36; Figure 3; as discussed above).
Regarding Claim 15, Fink Jr discloses disconnecting a downstream fitting (4 generally) from the check valve (32 generally) that incorporates the check valve plunger (40 generally).
Regarding Claim 21, Cheon et al teach where the one or more fins of the finned inlet end (18; where Sato et al teaches the frustoconical inlet end) of the plunger (240 generally) comprise a plurality of fins (four shown in Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 22, Fink Jr discloses where the spring (43) is positioned between the orifice cap (39) and the inlet end (41; where Cheon et al teach where the inlet end is finned frustoconical).
Regarding Claim 24, Cheon et al teach were at least one of the one or more fins (18) of the finned inlet end (to the left as seen in the orientation of Figure 2) and at least one of the one or more fins of the finned frustoconical tip at the outlet end (19) of the plunger are axially aligned (all the 4 fins on the inlet and outlet ends are shown axially aligned in Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 25, Fink Jr discloses where the plunger further comprises a face (the face between 41 and 40 in Figure 1) between the inlet end (41; where Cheon et al teach where the inlet end is finned frustoconical) and the frustoconical tip at the outlet end (40; where Cheon et al teach where tip is finned) of the plunger (40) that is substantially perpendicular with respect to the flow channel of the valve body (Figure 1).
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink Jr (US 4,827,977) in view of Cheon et al (US 2009/0001720) in further view of Sato et al (US 8,109,290) in further view of Hogan (US 20090283157) in further view of Kohn et al (US 5,197,511).
Regarding Claim 14, Fink Jr discloses fixing the check valve in place in a network prior to directing the upstream gas flow against the plunger (Figure 4),
But fails to disclose where the network is a medical gas network.
Kohn et al teach a check valve (38, 40 and 42) where the check valve (38, 40 and 42) is in place in a medical gas network (Col 3, lines 39-46) prior to directing the upstream gas flow against the valve (Figure 2).
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 system of Fink Jr with the system as taught by Kohn et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the valve of Fink Jr with the medical gas system of Kohn et al) to yield predictable results (to control the passage of medical gas through the system).
Claims 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohn et al (US 5,197,511) in view of Fink Jr (US 4,827,977) in view of Cheon et al (US 2009/0001720) in further view of Sato et al (US 8,109,290) in further view of Hogan (US 20090283157).
Regarding Claim 17, Kohn et al disclose a medical gas delivery system (Figures 1-3; Col 1, lines 6-14). The system comprising:
a facility gas supply (from 46, 48 and 50);
a medical gas network (46, 48 and 50) between the gas supply (which supplies the fluids to 46, 48 and 50) and a medical room the facility (Figure 1);
a check valve (38, 40 and 42) at the medical room (Figure 1) and at which the medical gas network terminates (Figure 2); and a medical room outlet (200; Figure 2) downstream of the check valve controlled by the check valve (Figure 2),
but fails to expressly disclose where the check valve is the check valve according to Claim 1.
As discussed above Fink Jr, as modified by Cheon et al, Sato et al and Hogan, teach all essential elements of the check valve according to Claim 1.
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 system of Kohn et al with the check valve as taught by Fink Jr, as modified by Cheon et al, Sato et al and Hogan for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the valve of Fink Jr with the medical gas system of Kohn et al) to yield predictable results (to control the passage of medical gas through the system).
Regarding Claim 18, Kohn et al disclose a patient service module (150) downstream of the check valve (38, 40 and 423; Figure 2) and upstream of the medical room outlet (200) so that the check valve maintains necessary flow rates at standard pressure drops (by remaining open; Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 19, Kohn et al disclose where the medial gas network includes: a plurality of different medical gases (Col 3, lines 39-46 disclose at least medical air, oxygen and vacuum); a plurality of the check valves (38, 40 and 42); and a plurality of the medical room outlets (Figure 1 at least at 100, 101, 102, 103 and 104).
Claim 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink Jr (US 4,827,977) in view of Cheon et al (US 2009/0001720) in further view of Sato et al (US 8,109,290) in further view of Hogan (US 20090283157) in further view of Schaefer (US 3,811,470).
Regarding Claim 26, Cheon et al and Sato et al teach the one or more fins of the finned frustoconical tip at the outlet end (19 of Cheon et al) and the one or more fins of the finned frustoconical inlet end (14c of Sato et al) but fails to disclose where the fins are configured to reduce turbulence of high flow medical gas received by the check valve at the valve outlet and valve inlet, respectively.
Schaefer teaches a valve (Figure 1) with fins (14) where the fins are configured to reduce turbulence (Col 3, lines 53-56; The recitation of the actual fluid handled (high flow medical gas) has been given no patentable weight in the apparatus claims, MPEP 2115).
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 system of Fink Jr as modified by Cheon et al and Sato et al with the system as taught by Schaefer for the advantage of reducing turbulence, as taught by Schaefer (Col 3, lines 53-56)
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Fink Jr (US 4,827,977) in view of Cheon et al (US 2009/0001720) in further view of Sato et al (US 8,109,290) in further view of Hogan (US 20090283157).
Regarding Claim 27, Fink Jr discloses a check valve (Figures 3-5; The recitation “for high flow medical gas applications” has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951). The valve comprising:
a valve body (generally the fitting 32) comprising a valve inlet (from the left as seen by 36 in Figure 3) and a valve outlet (out 7 by 36 to the right as seen in Figure 3), the valve body defining a flow channel from the valve inlet to the valve outlet (seen by the flow path 36 in Figure 3);
a movable plunger (40 generally) in the flow channel of the valve body (32), wherein the plunger (40) is constrained in the flow channel (Figure 5) between the valve inlet (from the left as seen by 36 in Figure 3) and the valve outlet (seen by the flow path 36 in Figure 3), the plunger comprising:
an inlet end (generally 41); and a frustoconical tip (at the right at 40 in Figures 3-5) at an outlet end (Figures 3-5), wherein the inlet end is positioned more closely to the valve inlet than the frustoconical outlet end is positioned to the valve inlet (Figures 3-5); and
wherein the outlet end is positioned more closely to the valve outlet than the inlet end is positioned to the valve outlet (Figure 3-5); and
an orifice cap (39) at the inlet end of the valve body (32),
but fails to expressly disclose a finned frustoconical inlet end defining one or more fins and a finned tip at an outlet end defining one or more fins wherein the one or more fins of the finned frustoconical tip at the outlet end of the plunger are disposed radially about the finned frustoconical tip at the outlet end and extend beyond the finned frustoconical tip toward the valve outlet, wherein, in an open position, the check valve is configured to supply a gas flow rate of at least 3.5 standard cubic feet per minute with a pressure drop not exceeding 5 psi.
Cheon et al teach a valve with a movable plunger (Figure 2 at 10) with a finned inlet end (18) defining one or more fins (18; Figure 4) and a finned tip at an outlet end (between 13 to 19 of 25) defining one or more fins (19) wherein the one or more fins (19) of the finned frustoconical tip at the outlet end (from 13 to 25) of the plunger (10) are disposed radially about the finned frustoconical tip (Figure 4) at the outlet end (to the right as seen in Figure 2) and extend beyond the finned frustoconical tip (Figure 2) toward the valve outlet (to the right as seen in Figure 2).
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 plunger of Fink Jr with the plunger as taught by Cheon et al for the advantage of guiding and supporting the plunger within the housing, as taught by Cheon et al (¶ 27).
Sato et al teach a plunger (see Annotated Figure C) with a finned frustoconical inlet end (see Annotated Figure C).
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 plunger of Fink Jr as modified by Cheon et al with the plunger as taught by Sato et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the frustoconical inlet end of Sato et al with the plunger of Fink Jr) to yield predictable results (to streamline the flow of fluid through the valve).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify valve such that the check valve is configured to supply a gas flow rate of at least 3.5 standard cubic feet per minute with a pressure drop not exceeding 5 psi since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide an optimal fluid flow and pressure based on user defined criteria.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the rejection of record. However, a new ground of rejection is applied to the amended claims.
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