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
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/29/2026 has been entered. Applicant amended claim 1; claims 1, 6 – 14 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/9/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues while the present application is concerned with long-term sealing reliability, the primary reference Chinese Patent document to Kuo (CN 111750124) “addresses a completely different problem”. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant. Primary reference is cited for the disclosure in the reference and not the problem it solves. Examiner maintains 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 further asserts “Kou teaches that the "scraping valve seat portion" can be "subjected to R-rounding or C-chamfering" (Kou, [0034], Claim 6)”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kuo with reference to figure 4 discloses, “body 20 of the conical surface of the position P1 and the chamfer angle of the falling valve seat part 50 of the curved surface contact, the conical sealing part 21 and the sliding of the valve seat part 50 starts from the site P1, the sliding continues until the sealing point P2 of the conical surface of the first sheet body 20, at the sealing point P2, the descending of the first sheet body 20 is stopped, based on the sealing of the first sheet body 20 of the falling valve seat part is finished, changing into the full-closed state of the valve shown in FIG. 3. Thus, due to the closing valve, the conical sealing part of the sheet body and the cutting valve seat part generate sliding, so the conical sealing part when closing the valve each time the surface is swept by sliding”. No scrapping of valve seat portion is described, merely the conical surface of 30 comes in contact with the rounded of chamfered valve seat as it moves in the longitudinal direction.
Applicant argues the cited references are entirely different fields and concludes person of ordinary skill in the art has no reason “starting from Kou's deposit-scraping diaphragm valve and seeking to solve the problem of its own seal's long-term wear, would rely on Schabert's teachings about high-pressure steam flow control”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner maintains the secondary reference is also in the fluid control field. The teaching – creating a venturi for increasing fluid – of the secondary reference would necessarily accelerate the flow of fluid at the valve seat thereby flushing away any residue in the valve seat which is the problem being addressed in the primary reference.
The valve member taught by the secondary reference has a rounded corner close to the first communicating port thereby reading on the claimed subject matter. Based on the foregoing the rejection of claims based on the previous references is maintained.
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
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