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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s cited CN 108343749, hereinafter Wang, in view of Weiss (US 3362680).
Regarding claim 1, Wang (FIG 8) discloses “An electric valve, comprising:
a valve seat (1, 61) and a valve needle (2/3), wherein the valve needle is mounted in the valve seat (see FIG);
a valve core (11), which is mounted at an end of the valve seat (see FIG), and the valve core forms a valve opening (for 2);
a driving assembly (coil that surrounds 6, understood to drive 5), which drives the valve needle (via displacement of 5) to axially move so as to open and close the valve opening (2 moves upward from FIG)…
an inner wall or an end face of the valve core forms a sealing face (abutment between 2 and 11 in FIG 8)…”
Wang is silent regarding “wherein the valve core is made of a non-metal material…and the sealing face and an outer wall face of the valve needle form a soft sealing structure.”
However, Weiss (FIGs 1-3) teaches a reciprocating lift valve analogous to Wang having “a valve core” 25, 28, the core having a polytetrafluoroethylene section 28 (Column 3 lines 28-31; PTFE understood in the art to be a “soft sealing” material) that forms a resilient abutment with a “valve needle” 24.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to modify the valve core of Wang with a resilient seal material as taught by Weiss, such that the combination teaches “wherein the valve core is made of a non-metal material…and the sealing face and an outer wall face of the valve needle form a soft sealing structure”, to provide a resilient valve material for an improved valve.
Regarding claim 2, Weiss as applied to claim 1 further teaches “wherein the valve core is made of polytetrafluoroethylene material (Column 3 lines 28-31).”
Regarding claim 3, Wang (FIG 8) discloses “wherein the valve seat (1, 61) is provided with a first mounting opening (opening in 61) and a second mounting opening (bottom opening of 1 where 11 resides) which are oppositely disposed along an axial direction (vertical in FIG) and a communication channel (side opening in 1 where side pipe resides) which radially penetrates through the valve seat (see FIG), the first mounting opening is located above the second mounting opening (see FIG), the communication channel is disposed on a side wall of the valve seat and located between the first mounting opening and the second mounting opening (see FIG), a cross-sectional area of the second mounting opening is larger than a cross-sectional area of the first mounting opening (bottom opening of 1 is slightly larger than the top opening of 61 edge), and an appearance of the second mounting opening is matched with an appearance of the valve core (1 receives 11, read on “matched with an appearance”), so that the valve core is mounted at the second mounting opening (see FIG).”
Regarding claim 4, Wang (FIG 8) discloses “wherein the valve seat is of an annular structure (hollow and cylindrical with top and bottom openings read as “annular”).”
Regarding claim 6, Wang (FIG 8) discloses “wherein a balance channel (bottom receptacle of 2, passes through 3) is disposed in the valve needle (2) to balance a pressure at two ends of the valve needle (understood to occur in a similar to the applicant), and a first sealing element (23) is disposed between the valve needle (2) and the valve seat (1) (see FIG).”
PNG
media_image1.png
568
720
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Wang (FIG 8, annotated 8x above) discloses “further comprising:
a spring sleeve (“screw rod”);
a spring (“spring”), a first end of the spring sleeve (bottom end) sleeves at an end part of the valve needle (3), and the spring is mounted in the spring sleeve (see FIG 8x);
a screw rod (“screw rod”) disposed at a second end of the spring sleeve (top end); and
a bearing (“bearing”), which sleeves at the screw rod and is located between the screw rod and the spring sleeve (see FIG 8x).”
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang/Weiss in view of Natho (US 2886283).
Regarding claim 5, Wang (FIG 8) discloses “wherein the sealing face is a conical face (see FIG 8), the valve core is provided with a first end (top end) and a second end (bottom end) which are opposite, the first end is located above the second end…”
Wang is silent regarding “and a flow area of the sealing face is gradually reduced along an extending direction from the first end to the second end.” Instead Wang has a shape that tapers outward from the middle towards both ends.
However, Natho (FIG 2) teaches a reciprocating lift valve analogous to Wang having a “valve core” 24 having a conical contact surface with an alternative shape that gradually decreases in diameter from a top end to a bottom end.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to modify the shape of the valve core interior of Wang/Weiss to be fully conic as taught by Natho, such that the combination teaches “and a flow area of the sealing face is gradually reduced along an extending direction from the first end to the second end”, as choosing an alternative shape to achieve the same expected result (conic sealing face between the needle and core) would be within routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang/Weiss in view of applicant’s cited JP 2007292336, hereinafter Yokota (see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 8, Wang (FIG 8) discloses “further comprising:
a valve core sleeve (pipe connected to bottom of 11)…”
Wang is silent regarding “at least part of the valve core sleeve is mounted in the second mounting opening, and the valve core sleeve is located at an end, far away from the valve needle, of the valve core.”
However, Yokota (FIG 2) teaches a reciprocating lift valve analogous to Wang having a “valve core” 20, 18, “valve seat” 11, and “valve core sleeve” 16, where the valve core and sleeve are located in a mounting opening 21 of the valve seat, and the sleeve is mounted such that the core is between the sleeve and a valve needle 31 (read on “the valve core sleeve is located at an end, far away from the valve needle, of the valve core”).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to modify the valve core/seat construction of Wang/Weiss such that “at least part of the valve core sleeve is mounted in the second mounting opening, and the valve core sleeve is located at an end, far away from the valve needle, of the valve core”, as taught by Yokota, to provide an assembly with more reinforcement between the components, as would be desirable to Wang.
Regarding claim 9, Yokota (FIG 2) as applied to claim 8 further teaches “wherein the valve core sleeve (16) comprises:
a main body portion (narrow top section), at least part of the main body portion is inserted into the second mounting opening (see FIG), and an end part of the main body portion (top end) abuts against an end part of the valve core (bottom of 20);
a locating portion (wider bottom section that bonds to 11), which is disposed to protrude out of an outer wall of the main body portion (where 16 is pointing), and the locating portion is configured for abutting (at welded section on outer wall of 16, bottom of 11) locating with an end part (welded bottom of 11) of the valve seat.”
Regarding claim 10, Yokota (FIG 2) as applied to claim 8 further teaches “wherein the locating portion (wide section of 16) is connected with the end part of the valve seat (11) through welding (translation paragraph 15)”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 11, closest art combination of record Wang/Weiss/Yokota is silent regarding “further comprising a mounting base body (100), wherein the mounting base body (100) is provided with a mounting channel, and the valve seat (10), the valve core (30) and the valve core sleeve (90) are all mounted in the mounting channel; wherein
a second sealing element (42) is disposed between the mounting base body (100) and the valve seat (10); and/or
a third sealing element (43) is disposed between the mounting base body (100) and the valve 11/13
core sleeve (90)” in the context of intervening claims.
While a valve cartridge inserted into a block housing is shown in applicant’s cited CN 206600517, it would not be obvious to modify Wang/Weiss/Yokota without undue hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Devices similar to the application are disclosed by Gonzalez (US 4377892), Blue (US 2040727), Doutt (US 20080087343), and Bell (US 20140264135).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK C WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)431-0767. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 PM.
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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached on 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.
/PATRICK C WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753