DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed 1/13/2026. Claim 16 is currently amended. Claims 1-15 and 19 have been canceled. No claims are newly added. Presently, claims 16-18 and 20-36 are pending.
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 arguments filed 1/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the rejections of claims 16-18, 20-24, 27, 29-32, 34 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sandling (US 4410003) on pages 6-9 of the response dated 1/13/2026.
Applicant argues that the Sandling reference does not disclose or suggest “a second force path that is different from the first force path”. Applicant argues that the Sandling reference has only a single force path provided by the tightening of the screws (64) against the diaphragm (59).
However, it is considered that the Sandling reference discloses a pre-tensioning means (it is considered that the combination of the metal diaphragm 59, the electrostatic eliminator ring 60 and the cover plate 32 functions as a pre-tensioning means; see col. 4, lines 19-25) which loads the valve body along the actuating axis in the tapering direction, where the pre-tensioning means is arranged between the housing lid and the valve body.
Further, a first pre-tensioning force path (see “First Force Path” in the annotated figure 1 below) provides a load path to load the valve body (18) toward the guide shell (38) by the pressing of the screw (64) of the housing lid (32) to compress the metal diaphragm (59). It is considered that the movement /securement of the housing lid (32) and the screw (64) provides the force / load for the first pre-tensioning force path.
Additionally, a second pre-tensioning force path (see “Second Force Path” in the annotated figure 1 below) provides a load path to load the guide shell (38) to the valve housing by the pressing of the lower surface (see “Lower Surface” in the annotated figure 1 below) of the housing lid (32) to the metal diaphragm (59) and plastics diaphragm (58). It is considered that the movement / securement of the housing lid (32) to the valve housing (12) by the fasteners (26, 28) provides a force / pre-tensioning of the guide shell (38) to the valve housing(12).
PNG
media_image1.png
470
991
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it is considered that the second pre-tensioning force is different from the first pre-tensioning force path.
Applicant argues the rejections of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandling (US 4410003) in view of Passerell et al. (US 5149054) on page 9 of the response dated 1/13/2026.
Applicant argues that the Sandling reference teaches a lid arrangement that is intended to be removable and includes structure to facilitate removal of the lid wherein it would be improper to modify the Sandling reference in this way.
However, it is considered that the Passerell et al. reference teaches a valve assembly wherein the housing lid is joined with the main housing body with a catch or snap-fit (see at least col. 6, lines 11-23) in order to prevent removal of the valve body (60) once it is inserted into the accommodating space (see at least col. 6, lines 11-23).
It is considered that it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the connection (Sandling: the fasteners 26, 28) of the housing lid and the main housing body of the Sandling reference as a snap-fit connection as shown in the Passerell et al. reference to provide a firm connection between the housing lid and the main housing body that would prevent the removal of the valve body from the valve accommodating space while also removing the features of the connection in Sandling (Sandling: fasteners 26, 28) which can have issues when exposed to undesirable elements for prolonged time. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Since the grounds of rejection were previously presented, the instant Office action is made final.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-18 and 20-36 contain the following informalities:
Claim 16 recites the limitation “where the pre-tensioning means is arranged between the housing lid and the valve body arranged is” in lines 16-17. It appears that the recitation should be “where the pre-tensioning means is arranged between the housing lid and the valve body”.
Clarification and appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a pre-tensioning means” in line 17. The recitation of “a pre-tensioning means” is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph to be “a spring component” such as “a coil spring or a disk spring” as described in page 9, lines 16-18 of the substitute specification dated 11/9/2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 16-18, 20-24, 27, 29-32, 34 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sandling (US 4410003).
Regarding claim 16, the Sandling reference discloses a valve assembly (see figure 1) for influencing operating fluid flows, where the valve assembly comprises:
a valve housing (considered the combination of 10 and 32) with a main housing body (10) and a housing lid (32, 64) connected with the main housing body (it is considered that the housing lid 32 is connected to the main housing body 10 by the fasteners 26, 28), where in the valve housing there is configured a valve body accommodating space (it is considered that the space within the main housing body 10 that receives the valve body 18 constitutes the valve body accommodating space) which is enclosed by the main housing body and the housing lid (see figure 1),
a fluid line arrangement with at least two fluid lines (considered fluid lines through the extension pieces 12 and 14), which starting from the valve body accommodating space proceed in different spatial regions (see figure 1),
a valve body (18) configured as tapering along an actuating axis (see figure 1 for the valve body 18 being tapered along the actuating axis of the stem 20; further, the valve body 18 is described as being a frusto-conical plug, see col. 3, line 46), which is accommodated rotatably about the actuating axis in the valve body accommodating space between the at least two fluid lines of the fluid line arrangement proceeding in different spatial regions in such a way that through rotation of the valve body about the actuating axis a flow-connection state of the at least two fluid lines of the fluid line arrangement proceeding in different spatial regions with each other is modifiable (see figures 1), the valve body including an actuating section (considered the stem 20 extending through the lid 32; see figure 1), and
a pre-tensioning means (it is considered that the combination of the metal diaphragm 59, the electrostatic eliminator ring 60 and the cover plate 32 functions as a pre-tensioning means; see col. 4, lines 19-25) which loads the valve body along the actuating axis in the tapering direction, where the pre-tensioning means is arranged between the housing lid and the valve body arranged is,
wherein between the valve body and the main housing body there is arranged a guide shell (38) which surrounds the valve body (see figure 1, figure 6 and figure 7), where the valve body is loaded through the pre-tensioning means along a first pre-tensioning force path (it is considered that the movement of the screw 64 of the housing lid 32 to compress the metal diaphragm 59, the electrostatic eliminator ring 60, the metal thrust collar 62 and the plastics diaphragm 58 toward the shoulder 66 of the valve body 18 (see col. 4, lines 19-34) and wherein the valve body 18 is further pressed toward the guide shell 38 (see col. 4, lines 57-68) constitutes a first pre-tensioning force path) towards the guide shell, where the guide shell is loaded through the housing lid towards the main housing body along a second pre-tensioning force path (it is considered that the lower surface of the lid 32 that compresses the metal diaphragm 59 into the plastics diaphragm 58 which in turn transfers a force to the guide shell 38 into secured engagement with the valve housing defining a second pre-tensioning force path) different from the first pre-tensioning force path, and wherein the guide shell (38) is directly or indirectly in positive-locking engagement with the housing lid (32; it is considered that the fastener 26, 28 provides a positive-locking engagement between the guide shell 38, the main housing body 10 and the lid 32).
Regarding “for influencing operating fluid flows in a motorized vehicle”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of preforming the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In regards to claim 17, the Sandling reference discloses wherein the guide shell (38) is supported physically at the housing lid (32, 64) directly or indirectly under interposition of an intermediate component (it is considered that the plastics diaphragm 59 constitutes an intermediate component).
In regards to claim 18, the Sandling reference discloses wherein the guide shell (38) is directly or indirectly in abutting engagement with the housing lid (it is considered that the guide shell 38 is in abutting engagement with the housing lid 32 through the plastics diaphragm 59).
In regards to claim 20, the Sandling reference discloses wherein on the side of the guide shell (38) facing away from the valve body there is arrange additionally a shell gasket (80) in order to seal the regions formed by the guide shell of the at least two fluid lines of the fluid line arrangement (see figure 1 and figure 3) proceeding in different spatial regions against the main housing body (10), where the shell gasket is pressure-loaded under force mediation of the guide shell (see at least col. 4, lines 57-68).
In regards to claim 21, the Sandling reference discloses wherein the position of the housing lid (32, 64) relative to the main housing body (10) determines the pressure loading of a shell gasket (80) through the guide shell (32) (see at least col. 4, lines 57-68).
In regards to claim 22, the Sandling reference discloses wherein the axial position of the housing lid (32, 64) relative to the main housing body (10) determines the pressure loading of a shell gasket (80) through the guide shell (32) (see at least col. 4, lines 57-68).
In regards to claim 23, the Sandling reference discloses wherein the position of the housing lid (32, 64) relative to the main housing body (10) determines the loading of the valve body (18) through the pre-tensioning means towards the guide shell (it is considered that at least the movement of the screw 64 of the housing lid 32 adjusts the pre-tensioning on the valve body toward the guide shell; see col. 4, lines 19-34).
In regards to claim 24, the Sandling reference discloses wherein the axial position of the housing lid (32, 64) relative to the main housing body (10) determines the loading of the valve body (18) through the pre-tensioning means towards the guide shell (it is considered that at least the movement of the screw 64 of the housing lid 32 adjusts the pre-tensioning on the valve body toward the guide shell; see col. 4, lines 19-34).
In regards to claim 27, the Sandling reference discloses wherein the housing lid (32, 64) is joined with the main housing body (10) by positive locking (it is considered that the fastener 26, 28 constitutes a positive locking of the housing lid to the main housing body).
In regards to claim 29, the Sandling reference discloses wherein in the first pre-tensioning force path between the pre-tensioning means and the valve body there is arranged a bearing component (it is considered that the plastics diaphragm 58 constitutes a bearing component)
In regards to claim 30, the Sandling reference discloses wherein the bearing component (plastics diaphragm 58) is formed at least section-wise or completely from an elastomer (the plastics diaphragm 58 is made of a fluorocarbon material; see col. 4, lines 13-16).
In regards to claim 31, the Sandling reference discloses wherein between the valve body (10) and the guide shell (38) there is arranged an abutment component (82) immovably relative to the guide shell (it is considered that the abutment component of 82 are received within grooves of the guide shell 38).
In regards to claim 32, the Sandling reference discloses wherein at least one section of the main housing body (10) which encloses the valve body accommodating space is configured in one piece (see figure 1 and figure 2).
In regards to claim 34, the Sandling reference discloses wherein the main housing body (10) is formed from a section of a duct component (it is considered that the extension pieces 12, 14 are connected into a line to carry fluid; see col. 3, lines 40-44) in which fluid lines of the fluid line arrangement are configured (see figure 1).
In regards to claim 36, the Sandling reference discloses wherein the first pre-tensioning force path is greater than the second pre-tensioning force path (it is considered the that first pre-tensioning force path extends through more components than the second pre-tensioning force path and, therefore, it is considered that the first pre-tensioning force path is greater than the second pre-tensioning force path).
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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 25 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandling (US 4410003) in view of Sandling (US 4365646).
In regards to claim 25 and 26, the Sandling (‘003) reference discloses wherein the housing lid (32, 64) is connected to the main housing body (10).
The Sandling (‘003) reference does not expressly disclose wherein the housing lid is firmly bonded or welded to the main housing body.
However, the Sandling (‘646) reference teaches a valve housing with a main housing body (14) and a housing lid (it is considered that the combination of 61, 82, 98, 111 and 75 constitutes a housing lid to close the main housing body) connected with the main housing body (via welding; see at least col. 6, lines 59-61), where in the valve housing there is configured a valve body accommodating space (considered the space defined by the sidewall 17 of the main hosing body 14);
wherein the housing lid is firmly bonded by welding to the main housing body (see col. 6, lines 59-61).
The substitution of one known element (connecting the housing lid to the main housing body via bonding / welding as shown in Sandling (‘646)) for another (the connection between the housing lid and the main housing body as shown in Sandling (‘003)) would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art since the substitution of the connection of the housing lid and the main housing body of the Sandling (‘003) reference as a weld / bond as shown in Sandling (‘646) would have yielded predictable results, namely, a firm connection between the housing lid and the main housing body that would reduce the potential for inadvertent separation of the housing lid from the main housing body.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandling (US 3330296) in view of Passerell et al. (US 5149054).
In regards to claim 28, the Sandling reference discloses wherein the housing lid (32, 64) is connected to the main housing body (10).
The Sandling reference does not expressly disclose wherein the housing lid is joined with the main housing body with a catch or snap-fit.
However, the Passerell et al. reference teaches a valve assembly having a valve housing with a main housing body (12) and a housing lid (144) connected with the main housing body (via a snap-fit connection 146, 148; see at least col. 6, lines 11-23), where in the valve housing there is configured a valve body accommodating space (see figure 4);
wherein the housing lid is joined with the main housing body with a catch or snap-fit (see at least col. 6, lines 11-23) in order to prevent removal of the valve body (60) once it is inserted into the accommodating space (see at least col. 6, lines 11-23).
The substitution of one known element (connecting the housing lid to the main housing body via a snap-fit connection as shown in Passerell et al.) for another (the connection between the housing lid and the main housing body as shown in Sandling) would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art since the substitution of the connection of the housing lid and the main housing body of the Sandling reference as a snap-fit connection as shown in Passerell et al. would have yielded predictable results, namely, a firm connection between the housing lid and the main housing body that would prevent the removal of the valve body from the valve accommodating space.
Claim(s) 33 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandling (US 3330296) in view of Heinen (US 3011513).
In regards to claim 33, the Sandling reference does not disclose wherein a section of the main housing body which encloses the valve body accommodating space is configured in at least two parts.
However, the Heinen reference teaches a valve assembly having a valve housing (11, 13, 12) comprising a main housing body (11, 13) and a housing lid (12) which define a valve body accommodating space (16c) and wherein the main housing body is configured in at least two parts (11, 13).
The substitution of one known element (the main housing body being configured in at least two parts as shown in Heinen) for another (the main housing body being configured in one piece as shown in Sandling) would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art since the substitution of the main housing body of the Sandling reference being configured in at least two parts as shown in Heinen would have yielded predictable results, namely, a manner in which to access the valve body accommodating space opposite the housing lid.
In regards to claim 35, the combination of the Sandling reference and the Heinen reference discloses wherein the section of the main housing body which encloses the valve body accommodating space exhibits an upper shell (Heinen: 11) and a lower shell (Heinen: 13), where the housing lid (Heinen: 12) is part of the upper shell (Heinen: see figure 1).
Conclusion
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 Andrew J. Rost whose telephone number is (571) 272-2711. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 or Kenneth 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.
/ANDREW J ROST/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights