DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 2 and 4-22 are pending, claims 10,13 and 18-22 have been withdrawn, and claim 3 has been cancelled.
This action is in response to the amendment filed 8/22/2025.
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 8/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the formatting of the specification, applicant may amend into the specification, title/subject headers as discussed below that will not add new matter to the invention. It is suggested to review US patents in the previously filed PTO892 form that show such an arrangement.
Applicant’s argument that the prior art does not suggest/disclose, “In fact, Leclerc does not disclose or suggest any elastic deformation of the valve closure or the like. To the contrary, as mentioned above, the teaching of Leclerc is directed to a solution to avoid any flexibility of the valve closure in the close state and to maintain the closure flat. This is achieved by providing said stiffening elements (reinforcing bars) at the closure. In view of the actual disclosure of Leclerc, the assumption of the Office appears to be contradicting Leclerc's direct teaching. Hence, the Offices opinion seems to be based on hindsight”, is not persuasive.
Although the device of Leclerc utilizes stiffening elements to assist in maintaining flatness of the valve closure, and therefore, “avoid any flexibility of the valve closure in the close state and to maintain the closure flat”, is not persuasive. The device of Leclerc, utilizes thin stainless steel material, and therefore is seen as “comprising”; that “the closure element is designed to be flexible” (para.0029, flap 40 is wound around coil 50, see also in the machine translation p.2, ln. 8, “valve 40 comprises stainless steel sheet 70”) “in such a way that a spatial expansion of the closure element in the closed position is variable in a direction parallel to the opening axis as a function of an applied differential pressure”. The thin stainless sheet material has material properties (see attached general information on stainless foil), as do metal materials, that have flexibility (elasticity), strength and elongation/ductility properties inherent to the metal itself. Therefore, as long as the differential pressures applied to the material do not exceed these values, e.g., not exceed/go beyond the 0.2% yield point offset for the maximum yield strength value, then, the closure element is designed to be flexible in a manner that would meet the limitations in the claim. If the 0.2% yield point were exceeded than the material would not be able to microscopically bend back to its original form and be permanently deformed. These type of considerations, material strength properties, for designing valves that have safety requirements, are old and well known in the art and take into account into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure.
Additionally, it is noted that in Leclerc, page 2, lines 22+, in the machine translation, “ In this position, the cylinders 76i are actuated to apply the frame 42 against the rear face of the valve 40 in order to thus apply the front face 74 of this valve, provided with its seal 80, against the seat of the valve, that is to say against the internal face of the wall 26. Under these conditions, parts 12 and 14 are isolated from each other, which allows, with the enclosure 16 remaining under vacuum, to place part 12 of the conduit 10 at atmospheric pressure or to give it a less significant vacuum”, and therefore, deformations occur due to the differences in pressure on both sides of the valve, and therefore, spatial expansion of the closure element in the closed position is variable in a direction parallel to the opening axis as a function of an applied differential pressure.
Since applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, this action is made Final.
Election/Restriction
Claims 18-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/18/2025. Additionally, claim 10 has been withdrawn being drawn to closure element is segmented, species III as shown in Figure 4a, and claim 13 has been withdrawn as being drawn to non-elected embodiment having a fourth sealing surface, species III, as shown in Figure 4a.
Applicant's election with traverse of group I, species I in the reply filed on 2/18/2025 has been acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Leclerc reference does not break unity. This was not found persuasive because Leclerc discloses that the valve 40 is a thin sheet of material (para.0011, see attached machine translation) that is rolled up around the spool 50 when being open, the thin sheet of material is designed to be flexible (para.0029, flap 40 is wound around coil 50) in such a way that a spatial expansion of the closure element in the closed position is variable in a direction parallel to the opening axis as a function of an applied differential pressure (para.0029,” In this position, the cylinders 76i are actuated to apply the frame 42 against the rear face of the valve 40 in order to thus apply the front face 74 of this valve, provided with its seal 80, against the seat of the valve, that is to say against the internal face of the wall 26. Under these conditions, parts 12 and 14 are isolated from each other, which allows, with the enclosure 16 remaining under vacuum, to place part 12 of the conduit 10 at atmospheric pressure or to give it a less significant vacuum”, deformations occur due to the differences in pressure on both sides of the valve, and therefore, spatial expansion of the closure element in the closed position is variable in a direction parallel to the opening axis as a function of an applied differential pressure. As the face of the valve touches the seal, the valve must further be pressed against the seal to effect proper squeeze on the seal, thereby further moving in a direction parallel to the opening in the closed position).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
Applicant’s cancellation of claim 3 overcomes the objection.
The drawings were received on 6/8/2023. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the previous rejection.
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 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) 1,2,4-9,12,14,16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Leclerc (WO 2007012783).
Regarding claim 1, Leclerc disclose a vacuum valve (see Fig. 1-6) for gas-tight closure of a first valve opening (12,14), for a vacuum transport system having a transport tube (at 10) for transporting an object (the fluid in 10) inside along the transport tube, comprising
- a valve seat (26,80) having the first valve opening defining an opening axis (at 54, see Fig. 1) and a first sealing surface (surface at 80),
- a closure element (40, flap) for the substantially gas-tight closure of the first valve opening with a second sealing surface (surface at 74, see Fig. 2) corresponding to the first sealing surface, and
- a drive unit (56,58,60,para.0029 in attached translation) for providing a movement of the closure element relative to the valve seat such that the closure element is adjustable from an open position, in which the closure element at least partially exposes the first valve opening, into a closed position, in which the closure element completely covers the first valve opening and back again, wherein the closure element is designed to be flexible (para.0029, flap 40 is wound around coil 50) in such a way that a spatial expansion of the closure element in the closed position is variable in a direction parallel to the opening axis as a function of an applied differential pressure (para.0029,” In this position, the cylinders 76i are actuated to apply the frame 42 against the rear face of the valve 40 in order to thus apply the front face 74 of this valve, provided with its seal 80, against the seat of the valve, that is to say against the internal face of the wall 26. Under these conditions, parts 12 and 14 are isolated from each other, which allows, with the enclosure 16 remaining under vacuum, to place part 12 of the conduit 10 at atmospheric pressure or to give it a less significant vacuum”, deformations occur due to the differences in pressure on both sides of the valve, and therefore, spatial expansion of the closure element in the closed position is variable in a direction parallel to the opening axis as a function of an applied differential pressure).
PNG
media_image1.png
543
1155
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Leclerc disclose the opening axis is such that the first sealing surface (at 80) faces in a direction parallel to the opening axis and the first sealing surface extends orthogonally to the opening axis (as shown in figure 1 in as much as applicant’s device).
Regarding claim 4, Leclerc disclose a surface profile or a surface size of the closure element is variable as a function of an applied differential pressure (para.0029,” In this position, the cylinders 76i are actuated to apply the frame 42 against the rear face of the valve 40 in order to thus apply the front face 74 of this valve, provided with its seal 80, against the seat of the valve, that is to say against the internal face of the wall 26. Under these conditions, parts 12 and 14 are isolated from each other, which allows, with the enclosure 16 remaining under vacuum, to place part 12 of the conduit 10 at atmospheric pressure or to give it a less significant vacuum”, deformations occur due to the differences in pressure on both sides of the valve, and therefore, spatial expansion of the closure element in the closed position is variable in a direction parallel to the opening axis as a function of an applied differential pressure. As the face of the valve touches the seal, the valve must further be pressed against the seal to effect proper squeeze on the seal, thereby further moving in a direction parallel to the opening in the closed position, therefore, a surface profile of the closure element is variable as a function of an applied differential pressure).
Regarding claim 5, Leclerc disclose an extension direction of the closure element in the open position is different from an extension direction of the closure element in the closed position (in the open position the extension direction is upwards, whereas in the closed position the extension direction is downwards).
Regarding claim 6, Leclerc disclose the extension direction of the closure element changes (from upwards to downwards and changes from being more opened or closed to less opened or closed) during an adjustment from the open position to the closed position (in the open position the extension direction is upwards, whereas in the closed position the extension direction is downwards).
Regarding claim 7, Leclerc disclose an orientation of the second sealing surface changes upon movement from the open position to the closed position or from the closed position to the open position, wherein the second sealing surface is substantially in a plane in the closed position and is curved (as shown in figures 1,2, the second sealing surfaces rolls around the spool 50 and therefore changes upon movement, and also shown in Figure 1 is curved as it wraps around the spool 50) or “spiral in the open position (this portion of the limitation is considered as a non-elected embodiment)”.
Regarding claim 8, Leclerc disclose that the closure element is designed to be rolled up (para.0023,0029).
Regarding claim 9, Leclerc disclose the closure element (40) is curtain-like or designed in the manner of roller shutter (see Fig.1, para.0023,0029).
Regarding claim 12, Leclerc disclose the closure element comprises a flexible and gas-tight shut-off component (the sheet material 40 is flexible and seals with a vacuum and therefore gas-tight).
Regarding claim 14, Leclerc disclose the vacuum valve comprises an actuator (60,58,64, para.0024) and the actuator is coupled to the valve seat (as shown in Figures 1,3) and/or to the first sealing surface such that the actuator provides a controlled mobility of the first sealing surface in a direction parallel to the opening axis.
Regarding claim 16, Leclerc disclose the first and/or the second sealing surface (at 80) comprises a sealing material (“sealing gasket 80, para.0026) and a gas-tight closure of the valve opening may be provided by means of contacting the sealing material through the first and the second sealing surface (para.0026,0029).
Regarding claim 17, Leclerc disclose the first sealing surface surrounds the first valve opening (as shown in Figures 1 and 3).
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.
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leclerc (WO 2007012783) in view of Okumura et al. (US 6955338).
Regarding claim 11, Leclerc is silent in having the closure element comprises a textile-based and/or fabric-like material.
Okumura et al. teaches the use of a textile-based and/or fabric-like material (film member 13, material being PET/PPS film col. 9, lns. 67, which is considered as being a textile based and/or fabric-like material).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a film material as taught by Okumura et al. for the material in the closure member of Leclerc, in order to have a closure member that does not require large tensile and tear strength against sliding friction to thereby reduce production costs (Okumura et al., col.9,lns 50-col.10,lns 3), and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is 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. None of the prior art of record discloses or renders as obvious, “the first sealing surface is moved in the direction of the closure element and is pressed in the direction of the second sealing surface” in combination with the rest of the limitations in claim 15.
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 Craig Price, whose telephone number is (571)272-2712 or via facsimile (571)273-2712. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:00AM-4:30PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3607, 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 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.
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 Form at;
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/CRAIG J PRICE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753