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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is responsive to the amendment filed 5/13/2026. Applicant made no amendment to the claims 1, 6 – 14 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant regarding the limitation “first communicating port has a circumferential edge with a first chamfered slope or a rounded curved surface” argues the secondary reference US Patent to Schabert et al. (4,238,290) "the valve disk 22 may be armored throughout its outer rim 23, and the angles of inclination of the rim 23 of the valve disk, which is conical, and the valve seat 24”and concludes “Schabert's valve seat is described as a cooperating surface without any rounded or chamfered edge at the communicating port”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Schabert et al. teach “angles of inclination of the rim 23 of the valve disk, which is conical, and the valve seat 24 with, for instance, 60° and 90° are chosen so that for an aperture cross section of about 15% of the line cross section, an expanding Venturi tube results in the region 25” (Col. 3, Lines 53 – 57). Clearly, Schabert et al. teach “angles of inclination of the rim 23 of the valve disk, which is conical, and the valve seat 24 with, for instance 60° and 90°”, thereby teaching the “valve seat” having a (chamfered) slope of 60°. Examiner further maintains figure 2 clearly shows two different angles of the valve seat.
Regarding Applicant’s argument “Schabert's angular relationship is designed to create a Venturi effect that accelerates fluid flow” and “[t]he subject matter of claim 1 recites guided, buffered movement for wear compensation and explicitly avoids flow acceleration, the fact that Applicant uses the claimed subject matter for a different purpose does not alter the conclusion that its use in a prior art device would be prima facie obvious from the purpose disclosed in the reference.
Applicant argues “Schabert uses a rigid, armored metal valve disk designed for metal-to- metal sealing under high-pressure steam conditions”. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Examiner maintains the primary reference discloses a diaphragm with a conical blocking projection and the teaching being adapted from the secondary reference is the angles of the seat. Examiner maintains the combination reads on all the limitations of the claimed subject matter.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the claimed subject matter addresses unique challenges of electrolyte containing impurities) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Based on the foregoing the rejection of claims 1, 6 -14 are maintained and THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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.
Claims 1, 6, 10 - 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese Patent Document to Kou (CN 111750124) in view of US Patent to Schabert et al. (4,238,290).
Regarding claim 1, Kou discloses a valve body (3, Fig. 1), having a valve cavity (25, Fig. 1), and a first flow passage (1, Fig. 1) and a second flow passage (2, Fig. 1) both in communication with the valve cavity, the first flow passage running through an inner wall of the valve cavity and forming a first communicating port; and a diaphragm (22, Fig. 1) disposed in the valve cavity and having a blocking projection (20, Fig. 2) on a side facing toward the first communicating port; wherein, the blocking projection has a first conical surface (20, Fig. 2) as a peripheral surface thereof, and includes a radial dimension that gradually increases from an end close to the first communicating port to an end away from the first communicating port, and the first communicating port has a circumferential edge (50, Fig. 2) with a first chamfered slope or a rounded curved surface, and the diaphragm can is adapted to be controlled to drive the blocking projection to move until the first conical surface abuts against the first chamfered slope or the rounded curved surface.
Kuo discloses radial dimension of the end of the blocking projection close to the first communicating port is greater than that of the first communicating port.
Kuo does not disclose the first angle is greater than the second angle.
However, Schabert et al. teaching a valve actuated by a piston actuator discloses the first angle (24, Fig. 2) is greater than the second angle (23, Fig.2). Further Schabert et al. teach a rounded corner that transitions to the first angle (24, Fig. 2) at the end of the blocking projection close to the first communicating port (2, Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date of the application to have modified the valve disclosed by Kuo with the teaching of Schabert et al. to create a venturi effect for increasing flow.
Regarding claim 6, Kuo discloses the inner wall of the valve cavity comprises a second conical surface (25, Fig. 2) disposed around the first communicating port, and the second conical surface is flared in a direction from the first communicating port to the diaphragm; and the second communicating port – for flow path 2 - is opened on the second conical surface for communication between the valve cavity and the second flow passage (2, Fig. 2), and is positioned below the first communicating port.
Regarding claims 10 - 12, Kuo discloses driving mechanism (4, Fig. 1) comprising a piston (10, Fig. 1), connecting member (10, Fig. 1) and an elastic member (12, Fig. 1). The housing (6, Fig. 1) is mounted on the valve body (3, Fig. 1) and has a piston chamber (13, Fig. 1), the piston (10, Fig. 1) is movably disposed in the piston chamber so as to divide the piston chamber into a first chamber close to the diaphragm (22, Fig. 1) and a second chamber away from the diaphragm, and the connecting member (10a, Fig. 1) is connected between the diaphragm and the piston; the first chamber is configured to be controllably inflated or deflated, and the elastic member (12, Fig. 1) is disposed within the second chamber and abuts against the piston to provide an elastic force that causes the piston to have a tendency to move close to the diaphragm. Kuo also discloses an assembling block (5, Fig. 1) between the valve body and the housing.
Regarding claim 13, examiner is interpreting the element 7 in Fig. 1 disclosed by Kuo to be part of the assembly block.
Claims 7 - 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese Patent Document to Kou (CN 111750124) in view of US Patent to Schabert et al. (4,238,290) and in further view of US Patent to Brendtschneider et al. (3,204,930).
Regarding claims 7 – 9, Kuo does not disclose the diversion surface.
However, the claimed diversion surface is well-known in the art as taught by Brendtschneider et al. by Brendtschneider et al. teach a curved inner surface with slope and camber (Fig. 2) at the outlet of a valve member.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date of the application to have modified the valve disclosed by Kuo with the outlet structure taught by Brendtschneider et al. as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
In the combination of the prior art elements, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected the assembly to function as intended.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese Patent Document to Kou (CN 111750124) in view of US Patent to Schabert et al. (4,238,290) and in further view of Korean Patent Document to Masamura et al. (KR 20090009706).
Regarding claim 14, Kuo does not disclose a vent hole in the fourth chamber.
However, examiner maintains the chamber needs to be vented to prevent pressurization of the chamber due to movement of the diaphragm. Masamura et al. teach a vent port – shown in figure 1 in element 90 above diaphragm 63 - for the fourth chamber.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date of the application to have modified valve disclosed by Kuo with the vent hole taught by Masamura et al. as a means of preventing pressure build up due to the movement of the diaphragm during operation.
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 UMASHANKAR VENKATESAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisors Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607 or Ken 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.
/UMASHANKAR VENKATESAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights