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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the preliminary amendments filed 03/28/2023. The Claims 1-10 remain pending for consideration on the merits.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/28/2023 and 11/27/2024 was filed on or after the mailing date of the Application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the accommodation cavity in claim 7 and the circulation port in claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The application papers are objected to because they are not presented on paper with either 21.0 cm by 29.7 cm (DIN size A4) or 21.6 cm by 27.9 cm (8 1/2 by 11 inches), with each sheet including a top margin of at least 2.0 cm (3/4 inch), a left side margin of at least 2.5 cm (1 inch), a right side margin of at least 2.0 cm (3/4 inch), and a bottom margin of at least 2.0 cm (3/4 inch); as required by 37 CFR 1.52(a)(1)(ii). Reference is made to amended claims 1-9 and the abstract. Specifically, tracking lines to indicate changes do not comply with the margin requirements. Therefore, tracking lines should not be found within the margin.
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 7-8 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.
Regarding Claim 7, the recitation of “...wherein the valve body is provided with an accommodation cavity…,” renders the claim unclear. Specifically, the lack of clarity in the drawings and the lack of annotation in the specification does not provide a clear understanding as to which part of the invention Applicant refers to as the accommodation cavity. Therefore, the claim and all claims depending therefrom are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the purposes of examination, the accommodation cavity is broadly interpreted as – a cavity containing the valve head –
Regarding Claim 8, the recitation of “...wherein the valve body is provided with a circulation port…,” renders the claim unclear. Specifically, the lack of clarity in the drawings and the lack of annotation in the specification does not provide a clear understanding as to which part of the invention Applicant refers to as the circulation port. Therefore, the claim and all claims depending therefrom are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the purposes of examination the circulation port is interpreted as – an input of the valve –
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)(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 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhuang (CN 211488210 U).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhuang teaches a flow regulating valve [Figs. 1-2], comprising:
a valve body [Fig. 1], wherein the valve body is provided with a valve port [13], and an inner wall of the valve port is provided with a first conical surface [Fig. 1; apparent from inspection within nut 8]; and
a valve head [2], wherein an end of the valve head is provided with a fillet [¶ 0015; Fig. 1; apparent from inspection that valve 2 has greater diameter near the top with gradually reduced diameter towards the bottom end], the valve head is movably disposed in the valve body, to close or open the valve port [¶ 0015; gas flow increases when valve needle 2 moves upwards], and when the valve port is closed, the fillet-abuts against the first conical surface [¶ 0015; Fig. 1; apparent from inspection the end of head 2 contacts the conical surface within nut 8 when the valve controls the flow].
Regarding Claim 5, Zhuang teaches the flow regulating valve as claimed in claim 1 above and Zhuang teaches wherein the inner wall of the valve port [Fig. 1; areas within nut 8] is further provided with a second conical surface and an end with a smaller diameter of the second conical surface is connected with an end with a larger diameter of the first conical surface [Fig. 1; apparent from inspection that the conical section uses at least two conical surfaces abutting one another].
Regarding Claim 6, Zhuang teaches the flow regulating valve as claimed in claim 5 above and Zhuang teaches wherein an included angle between a generatrix of the first conical surface [Fig. 1; lower surface within area 8] and a radial plane of the valve body is a, and an included angle between a generatrix of the second conical surface [Fig. 1; upper surface within area 8] and the radial plane of the valve body is b, wherein a>b [Fig. 1; apparent from inspection that the lower conical surface (first surface) is steeper than the upper conical surface (second surface), therefore providing an angle ‘a’ being greater than an angle ‘b’].
Regarding Claim 7, Zhuang teaches the flow regulating valve as claimed in claim 1 above and Zhuang teaches wherein the valve body [Fig. 1] is provided with an accommodation cavity [Fig. 1; See 112(b) rejection above; the accommodation cavity is considered to be either the main cavity containing the majority of valve head 2 or the cavity in area 8 containing conical surfaces], the valve port is in communication with the accommodation cavity, and the valve head is movably disposed in the accommodation cavity [¶ 0015; Fig. 1; apparent from inspection; the needle moves up and down to adjust gap size].
Regarding Claim 8, Zhuang teaches the flow regulating valve as claimed in claim 1 above and Zhuang teaches wherein a side wall of the valve body [Fig. 1] is provided with a circulation port [12], and when the valve port is opened, the valve port is in communication with the circulation port [¶ 0015; Fig. 1].
Regarding Claim 9, Zhuang teaches the flow regulating valve as claimed in claim 1 above and Zhuang further teaches comprising:
a guide sleeve [1] disposed in the valve body, wherein the valve head [2] is movably disposed in the guide sleeve [¶ 0015; sleeve 1 and head 2 are connected by threaded transmission]; and
a drive part [3], wherein the drive part is in drive connection with the valve head to drive the valve head to move [¶ 0015; cap 3 adjusts the valve head needle 2 via threads and rotation].
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhuang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Le Jossec et al. (US 20160109027 A1, hereinafter “Le Jossec”).
Regarding Claim 2, Zhuang teaches the flow regulating valve as claimed in claim 1 above but Zhuang does not explicitly teach wherein a radius of the fillet is R,
mm ≤ R ≤ 1.0 mm.
However, Le Jossec teaches a valve seat and valve disc with cascaded geometries [Figs. 3-6] wherein Le Jossec further teaches that the technique utilizing cascaded geometry between the contact points of a valve and a valve seat provides the effect of reducing the normal thermal force of both parts and reduces problems associated with thermal pinching [¶ 0023-0024]. The technique functions by varying the end of the valve head [200] at increasing angles relative to the valve seat [Fig. 3; angles Alpha-Beta]. Le Jossec further discloses that this technique may be applied with furthering complexity of the valve or seat (i.e. increasing the geometric complexity would naturally approach the limit of a fillet) thereby improving stability of fluid flow [¶ 0026]. Thus, the radius of a fillet (i.e. degree of geometric intensity) is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is a valve head and seat configuration with reduced thermal pinching and increased stability of fluid flow.
Therefore, since the general condition of the claim is disclosed by the prior art reference, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide wherein the radius of the fillet is R, wherein 0.1 mm ≤ R ≤ 1.0 mm.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhuang and Le Jossec as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Straub (US 20110239991 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Zhuang, as modified, teaches the flow regulating valve as claimed in claim 2 above and while Zhuang teaches wherein an outer peripheral surface of the valve head is a cylindrical surface [Fig. 1; apparent that upper portion of valve 2 is cylindrical], Zhuang does not explicitly teach wherein an included angle between the cylindrical surface and the first conical surface is A, A ≤10°.
However, Straub teaches a fuel injector with a variable area poppet nozzle [Figs. 7-10] wherein a valve head [364] provides a substantially cylindrical shape [Figs. 7-10; upper portion of the valve] as well as a valve seat surface [356], wherein the angle lambda [angle between valve seat and valve head] may be relatively small such as 0.5-5° [¶ 0034-0036]. Straub further teaches that this relatively small angle between the valve components creates a sealing aperture that is robust and resistant to wear [¶ 0034-0036]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied a known technique to a known device (i.e. provide a relatively small incident angle between the valve head and seat) and that in combination, the technique would improve the known device in a similar manner, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. relatively small angles between valve components creates a sealing aperture that is robust and resistant to wear [¶ 0034-0036].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Zhuang to have wherein an included angle between the cylindrical surface and the first conical surface is A, wherein A ≤10°, in view of the teachings of Straub where applying a known technique to a known device with no change in their respective function would improve the known device in a similar manner and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. relatively small angles between valve components creates a sealing aperture that is robust and resistant to wear.
Claim(s) 4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhuang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakagawa (JP 2019044880 A).
PNG
media_image1.png
592
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Zhuang teaches the flow regulating valve as claimed in claim 1 above, but Zhuang does not explicitly teach wherein when the valve port is closed, a distance between an end with a larger diameter of the first conical surface and an end surface of the valve head is L, L≤2 mm.
However, Nakagawa teaches motor valve in a refrigeration system [Figs. 1-4] wherein a valve needle [5] may insert into a valve port [11], wherein said valve port contains a first conical seat surface [12] formed at the top of the valve port [¶ 0016]. Nakagawa teaches the first conical seat surface as having a length L, wherein L ≤ 0.1mm [¶ 0024]. Therefore, because the figure is drawn to scale, a simple extrapolation of the dimension ‘L’, shown in Annotated Fig. 4 above, shows that a distance between the end with the larger diameter of the conical surface and the end of the valve head is at most nine units of ‘L’. Therefore, assuming ‘L’ to be at its maximum range of 0.1 mm, the distance between the end with the larger diameter of the conical surface and the end of the valve head is at most 0.9 mm. Nakagawa further teaches that this valve configuration provides the benefit of minimal variation in valve pressure and increased operational stability [¶ 0025]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the valve head and seat as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the valve head and seat would perform the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing a valve configuration with the benefit of minimal variation in valve pressure and increased operational stability, thus improving the system [¶ 0025].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Zhuang to have wherein when the valve port is closed, a distance between an end with a larger diameter of the first conical surface and an end surface of the valve head is L, L≤2 mm, in view of the teachings of Nakagawa, where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing a valve configuration with the benefit of minimal variation in valve pressure and increased operational stability, thus improving the system.
Regarding Claim 10, Zhuang teaches the flow regulating valve as claimed in claim 1 above, however Zhuang does not explicitly teach wherein the flow regulating valve is an electronic expansion valve.
However, Nakagawa teaches motorized valve in a refrigeration system [Figs. 1-4] wherein a valve needle [5] may insert into a valve port [11] [¶ 0016]. Nakagawa further teaches that providing a motor operated valve produces the benefit of controlling the rate of refrigerant differently in different modes of operation (i.e. heating or cooling modes) [¶ 0015]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the electronic expansion valve as claimed by known methods/techniques and that in combination, the electronic expansion valve would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. a motor operated valve produces the benefit of controlling the rate of refrigerant differently in different modes of operation (i.e. heating or cooling modes) [¶ 0015].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Zhuang to have wherein the flow regulating valve is an electronic expansion valve, in view of the teachings of Nakagawa, where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. a motor operated valve produces the benefit of controlling the rate of refrigerant differently in different modes of operation (i.e. heating or cooling modes).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH S MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5102. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached on (571) 270-5054. 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.
/LARRY L FURDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/KEITH STANLEY MYERS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763