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 Arguments
Applicant’s remarks are directed to newly presented claim limitations. It is noted that prior art Jeon (US 20170159834) is presented below that teaches a larger and smaller diameter bore where the larger part is supported by a step portion. The new limitations do not appear to render the claims allowable.
However, it is also noted that prior art Lee (US10767773) does appear to teach a step portion supporting the lower portion and different diameter bores as shown in figure 4 (marked up below). Since Lee specification does not provide specifics for the diameters of the bores, i.e. the terms larger/smaller and the figures would be relied upon, prior art Jeon is utilized to show a check valve in a modulator block wherein the bore has a larger and smaller diameter specifically stated in its specification.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Larger diameter bore)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Smaller diameter bore)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Step portion)]
PNG
media_image1.png
781
637
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 5, and any claims that depend therefrom, 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 5 recites a lower surface of the filter member; however, claim 3 from which claim 5 depends does not recite that the filter has an upper end, only that there is a filter. Thus, it is not clear how claim 5 can introduce a lower surface if there is only one surface in claim 3? Is it the lower part of the surface of claim 3? From the specification, it appears that there are upper and lower sections of filter medium.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 3 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US10767773) in view of Jeon (US 20170159834).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a check valve structure installed in a bore of a modulator block having an inflow path and an outflow path to control one-way flow of oil [Abstract]. Lee also teaches a filter member (1600) which is installed into the area of
the bore communicating with the inflow passage to filter out foreign substances [Col. 6, lines 15-19]. The other parts of the valve assembly taught in Lee including the valve housing (1100), plunger (1200), lip seal (1300), and spring retainer (1500) make up the corresponding structure of the valve assembly which is installed into the area of the bore communicating with the discharge passage [Col. 4, lines 48- 52].
While noted above in marked up figure 4 of Lee, Lee does appear based on the figures to teach a larger and smaller diameter bore; however, language is not found in the specification.
Additionally, Lee does not go into specifics as to how the filter member is set into the bore, i.e. press-fit. Please note this is a product-by-process limitation.
Since there are no particulars as to the sizing in the specification of Lee, it is noted that Jeon teaches a check valve for a modular block #10 [abstract] wherein the valve housing 110 is formed to be stepped to support a lower portion of the plunger 120. The valve housing 110 is divided into a first body 111 having a large diameter portion and a second body 112 having a small diameter portion smaller than the first body 111. Here, an inclined portion 113 (reads on stepped portion which supports the first body), which connects the first body 111 with the second body 112, has an inclined surface 113a in a tapered shape. In addition, the inclined portion 113 is formed between the inlet 115 and the outlets 116. (see fig. 3) [0031].
Jeon also teaches [0050] the plunger and a valve housing are manufactured by an injection method and a press method which are low cost processes, a manufacturing cost can be decreased in comparison to high cost processes such as a conventional molding and forging process.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date of the present invention to utilize a larger and smaller diameter bore with a supporting step portion in the device of Lee as taught by Jeon in order to provide a check valve having a simplified structure and manufactured with a low cost process so that a manufacturing cost thereof is decreased, and provided to be manufactured as a single finished assembly to ensure ease of operation thereof (see Jeon [0011]).
Additionally, the limitation that the filter member is press-fit is a product by process limitation and is given weight to the extent that the process defines structure. It is the examiner's position that Lee in view of Jeon teaches press-fitting is known (see Jeon [0050] and would create the same product as claimed.
Regarding claims 3 and 7, Lee teaches a filter #1600 having a plurality of mesh structures (see fig. 1, note each square shaped mesh structure, each is separated from each other by a solid line) that can be press fit into the bore as modified by Jeon above.
Regarding claim 8, Lee further teaches (Figure 1) a valve assembly comprising of valve housing (1100), spring retainer (1500) having discharge ports communicating with the discharge passage, the plunger (1200) serving as the opening/closing member,
and spring (1400).
Regarding claim 9, Lee further teaches (Figure 1) a cap (1700) to close an opening of the bore (Col. 6, lines 24-25).
Regarding claim 10, Lee further teaches (Figure 1) that the valve assembly, including the filter member, are designed to be assembled outside of the bore and then installed (Col. 6, lines 20-28). This means that the filter member is designed to link to the valve assembly.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Jeon, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Veit (U.S. Patent No. 8,448,659 B2).
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches elements of the current invention as stated above except wherein the first bore has a length longer than that of the filter member.
Veit teaches (Figure 3C) a check valve assembly wherein the filter member (134) is positioned within the passageway (104) near the inlet (106) (Col. 6, lines 60-65), with the passageway (104) of the cylindrical section (118) serving as the bore hole(s) within
which the filter is positioned. The portion of the passageway (104) relative to the filter member (134) is longer than the filter member which creates an internal flow path for the fluid to flow towards the check valve from the inlet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first bore hole longer than the filter member because Schulz teaches that pressure into the assembly is what lifts the piston (126) from the valve body seat (108) (Col. 7, lines 11-15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify the apparatus of Lee as discussed for claim 1 to make the first bore longer than the filter member based on the teachings of Veit with the reasonable expectation that this would facilitate the operation of the check valve by creating an internal flow path.
It should also be known that limitations relating to size and dimensions are held not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984); MPEP 2144.04 IV.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Jeon, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Schulz et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,458,942 B2).
Regarding claim 4, the modified apparatus of Lee as mapped for claim 3 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above except wherein the filter member is provided with a plurality of support portions protruding downwardly.
Schultz teaches (Figure 2) that the bottom of the filter member (5) is supported by multiple nubs (13) which protrude downwardly (Col. 3, lines 24-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this feature because Schulz teaches that nubs are one of the features that braces the filter element between the valve housing and the base of the valve holding bore by creating a space between the disk of the filter element and the base of the valve holding bore (Col. 2, lines 37-41; Claims). Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify the apparatus of Lee as discussed for claim 3 to include these nubs to create additional support for the filter member and therefore reduce damage caused by direct contact between the filter member and the base of the bore hole.
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches a filter with multiple mesh surfaces. Interpreting claim 5 as a filter having upper and lower stacked mesh portions on the same filter (although this is not what claim 5 recites, see 112b rejection above), it is noted that Schulz teaches (fig. 2) shaped filter element (5) which has an internal flow path and a fine filter fabric (10) which serves as mesh portions (Col. 2, lines 37-38). These mesh portions are stacked, i.e. upper and lower (Col. 2, lines 55-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include these features because Schulz teaches that this filter element filters foreign substance from oil as it flows from the valve housing.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Jeon, as applied to claim 3, and further in view of Chadwick (US 1,229,885)
Regarding claim 6, the modified apparatus of Lee as mapped for claim 3 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above except wherein at least one slit is provided on a top surface of the filter member in a radial direction to be connected to the internal flow path.
Chadwick teaches (Figure 7) a perforated cap (15) where the perforations serve as slits in radial directions at the top surface of the valve.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the radial slits on the top surface of the filter member because Chadwick teaches that these perforations allow for the flow of air (Page 1, line 96-101), which when applied to the filter member, would be useful to bleed air from the check valve. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify the apparatus of Lee as discussed for claim 3 to include radial slits to the top surface of
the filter member with the reasonable expectation that this would result in improved air-bleeding function of the check valve.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee’ (KR100863549, citing to translation) in view of Lee (U.S. Patent No. 10,767,773 B2) and Jeon (US 20170159834).
Regarding claim 11, Lee' teaches a method of assembly for a valve structure to a bore wherein the bore is divided into an upper bore communicating with the discharge passage and a lower bore communicating with the inflow passage wherein the upper bore corresponds to a larger diameter than the lower bore [Page 4, lines 178-182]. This description corresponds to the application language of the first bore and second bore having a diameter larger than that of the first bore. Lee' also teaches that the magnet core (27) and the orifice (25) are configured to be installed in the bore via press-fitting [Page 4, lines 185-188].
Lee' does not teach that the valve assembly is press-fitted into the second bore while press-fitting the filter member towards the first bore.
Lee teaches that the valve assembly is connected to the filter member prior to installation, meaning that the filter member is press-fitted into the first and second bore while the valve assembly is press-fitted into the second bore (Col. 4, lines 35-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to assemble the valve structure and the filter together outside of the bore prior to installation so that the installation direction of the assembly is selectively set according to the arrangement of the inlet and outlet paths formed in the modulator block (Col. 6, lines 29-33). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the method of assembly of Lee' to assemble the valve assembly and the filter member outside of the bore prior to installation with the reasonable expectation that this would result in high degree of freedom of design.
Additionally, Lee’ does not recite particulars as to the sizing in the specification of the bore.
However, Jeon teaches a check valve for a modular block #10 [abstract] wherein the valve housing 110 is formed to be stepped to support a lower portion of the plunger 120. The valve housing 110 is divided into a first body 111 having a large diameter portion and a second body 112 having a small diameter portion smaller than the first body 111. Here, an inclined portion 113 (reads on stepped portion which supports the first body), which connects the first body 111 with the second body 112, has an inclined surface 113a in a tapered shape. In addition, the inclined portion 113 is formed between the inlet 115 and the outlets 116. (see fig. 3) [0031].
Jeon also teaches [0050] the plunger and a valve housing are manufactured by an injection method and a press method which are low cost processes, a manufacturing cost can be decreased in comparison to high cost processes such as a conventional molding and forging process.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date of the present invention to utilize a larger and smaller diameter bore with a supporting step portion in the device of Lee’ as taught by Jeon in order to provide a check valve having a simplified structure and manufactured with a low cost process so that a manufacturing cost thereof is decreased, and provided to be manufactured as a single finished assembly to ensure ease of operation thereof (see Jeon [0011]).
Regarding claims 12 and 14, Lee’ does not specifically show space between the bottom of the first bore and the filter.
However, as shown in figure Lee (see fig. 4) space is provided between the bottom of the filter and the first bore. Thus the filter is shorter than the first bore since it does not touch the bottom and the filter and valve assembly are spaced apart.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to space the filter member apart from the bottom of the first bore at taught by Lee in order to allow fluid to flow.
Regarding claims 13 and 15, Lee’s does not specifically teach placing a lid.
However, Lee further teaches (Figure 1) that the installation process of the check valve ends with installing a cap (1700) to close an opening of the bore (Col. 6, lines 24-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the installation of a cap because Lee teaches that the cap closes the bore and ensures that any material doesn't enter or
exit through the top of the bore. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify the method of assembly of Lee' as discussed for claim 11 to include a step for installing a cap based on the teachings of Lee with the reasonable expectation that this would ensure material won't enter or exit through the top of the bore.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20230160486
US10723335
US2653792
US20170146140
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JENNIFER M DIETERLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7872. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:30-5:30 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 supervisor, Patricia Mallari can be reached at 571-272-4729. 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.
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights