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.
Status of Claims
The following action is in response to the applicant’s Amendment dated 8/19/2026, that was in response to the Office action dated 5/8/2026. Claims 1-18 are pending, claim(s) 1 has/have been amended, while claim(s) 2-18 are presented as previously claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The reasons for the applicant’s remarks not being persuasive are given below.
Examiner acknowledges that Chien does not the diaphragm is above the two chambers and appreciates Applicant’s reproduced image provided in the response dated 8/19/2026. The examiner, however, does not agree that the secondary, specifically Sneh does not show this feature. The claim requires two chambers, however, does not limit what type of chamber. Sneh, will show that this features is obvious.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-13, 15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chien et al [20200072384], further in view of Sneh [20070187634].
With respect to claim 1, Chien discloses: A fluidic valve comprising: a valve housing (9, 91, 93) and a displaceable piston (953) disposed in the valve housing [paragraph 0038], the piston being movable with respect to a valve seat (915, 9131) of the valve housing in such a manner as to shut off two chambers (937, 911/912) of the valve from each other [paragraph 0029, with reference to “The gas chamber is separated by the piston 953 portion to form an upper gas chamber and a lower gas chamber.”], a piston guide element (9134), a piston sealing element (933, 9133) realized between the piston and the piston guide element and configured to seal the two chambers [paragraph 0030], wherein the piston sealing element includes a diaphragm (92) realizing a sealing element of the piston sealing element [see FIGs 6A-6D, paragraph 0029-0037].
Chien further discloses:
{cl. 2} The fluidic valve according to claim 1, wherein the sealing element of the piston sealing element is elastic [paragraph 0093].
{cl. 3} The fluidic valve according to claim 1, wherein the sealing element of the piston sealing element is configured to be deformable during a movement of the piston [paragraph 0048].
{cl. 4} The fluidic valve according to claim 1, wherein the sealing element of the piston sealing element is dimensioned to be circular-ring-shaped and/or disc-shaped [see FIG 3C, paragraph 0028].
{cl. 5} The fluidic valve according to claim 1, wherein the sealing element of the piston sealing element is clamped and/or positively fixed to the piston and/or to the valve housing [paragraph 0031 with reference to “The outer edge of the bottom portion of the upper valve body 93 is fitted with the tightening portion 934, which is used to tighten the peripheral portion 921 of the diaphragm 92;”].
Chien discloses the invention as substantially claimed, however does not show certain arrangements of the diaphragm and two chambers and operational parameters as claimed.
Sneh makes up for these deficiencies by teaching:
{cl. 1, cont’d} wherein the piston sealing element includes a diaphragm (108( realizing a sealing element (122) of the piston sealing element (126), wherein each of the two chambers (107, 104, 106) is located below the diaphragm [see FIG 1a, paragraph 0030, 0073].
{cl. 8} The fluidic valve according to claim 1, comprising a line (116) is assigned to a chamber of the two chambers, said line connecting two active spaces of the piston permanently, the active spaces being realized in such a manner as to relieve the piston from pressure [paragraph 0030, 0074].
{cl. 9} The fluidic valve according to claim 1, wherein the valve is realized with a piston stroke of at least 1 mm, or at least 2 mm, or at least 3mm, or at least 4 mm [paragraph 0088].
{cl. 10} The fluidic valve according to claim 1, wherein the valve is realized to be useable for a pressure > 1 bar,> 2 bar, or > 3 bar: or > 4 bar [paragraph 0089].
{cl. 11} The fluidic valve according to claim 1, wherein the valve is realized to be useable for a pressure <=1 bar, <= 2 bar, <=3 bar, 4 or <=5 bar [paragraph 0089].
{cl. 12} The fluidic valve according to claim 1, wherein the valve is a directly controlled magnetic valve, the piston being actuable actuatable by means of an electromagnet [paragraph 0010].
{cl. 13} The fluidic valve according to claim 1, wherein the valve is configured to implement at least 100 switching cycles/minute, or at least 200 switching cycles/minute, or at least 300 switching cycles/minute, or at least 400 switching cycles/minute, or at least 100 switching cycles/minute [paragraph 0090].
{cl. 15} A fuel metering unit, comprising at least one valve, according to claim 1 [see abstract].
With respect to claim 17, Chien discloses: A method for operating a furnace that contains at least one metering unit including at least one fluidic valve in a valve housing, the method comprising: moving a piston (953) of the at least one fluidic valve with respect to a valve seat to shut off two chambers (937, 911/912) of the valve from one another [paragraph 0029], wherein the two chambers are being sealed with a piston sealing element (933, 9133) that includes a sealing element of the piston sealing element and that is realized between the piston and a piston guide element, wherein the sealing element of the piston sealing element is realized by a diaphragm (92) of the piston sealing element, and deforming the diaphragm during said moving [see FIGs 6A-6D, paragraph 0029-0037].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the valve of Chien with the teachings of Sneh because Sneh provides a valve with operational capabilities for withstanding undesirable conditions.
Claim(s) 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chien et al [20200072384], in view of Sneh [20070187634], further in view of Maeyama [4406618].
With respect to claims 16 and 18, Chien discloses the invention as substantially claimed, however is silent to the furnace and use of hydrogen.
Maeyama makes up for these deficiencies by teaching:
{cl. 16} A furnace, a burning kiln, a tunnel furnace or the like having at least one fuel metering unit according to claim 15 [col 5, line 66-col 6, line 22].
{cl. 18} The method for operating a furnace according to claim 17, further comprising: metering hydrogen of the at least one metering unit of the furnace [col 5, line 66-col 6, line 22].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to modify the invention of Chien with the teachings of Maeyama because Maeyama provides a known application of a fuel supply valve the effectively provides a supply for desired combustion output.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The requirement of claim 6-7 and 14 would not have been found obvious over the prior art of Chien and Sneh in light of the claim amendment; locating the chambers below the diaphragm would not allow for the space in Chien in view of Sneh to accommodate the sealing arrangement as further claimed because one of the chambers in Sneh is the diaphragm chamber where the seals are above the chamber.
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 AVINASH A SAVANI whose telephone number is (571)270-3762. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. 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.
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
9/11/2026
Prosecution Insights