DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-17 and 33-47 are pending and claims 18-32 have been cancelled.
This action is in response to the amendment filed 8/26/2026.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that claim 7 should be reinstated, is not persuasive, since Figure 12 shows the spring 12008 as not having any part in the cavity of sleeve 12004, and for those reasons the withdrawal of claim 7 will be maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Since applicant’s amendments necessitated the new grounds for rejections, this action has been made Non-Final.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, species III, figures 11-17 in the reply filed on 9/24/2024 has been acknowledged in prior actions.
Claim 7 is now withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claim 7 being drawn to Figure 2 as stated in applicant’s arguments dated 2/2/2026, and shown in Figure 2, the spring 2004 only partly within the sleeve 2000 cavity, applicant elected species III, figures 11-17 in the reply filed on 9/24/2024. Applicant’s argument that claim 7 should be reinstated, is not persuasive, since Figure 12 shows the spring 12008 as not having any part the cavity of sleeve 12004, and for those reasons the withdrawal of claim 7 will be maintained.
Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/24/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/26/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the final action on 5/26/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-6,10,12-15, 33,35-39,41,43-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Steinwand (US 4314580).
Regarding claim 1, Steinwand discloses a valve (10, shown in Fig. 1-5), comprising: a body (11,21) including a body cavity (the space within 11,21);
a sleeve (23) including a sleeve cavity (the space within 23) and being disposable within the body cavity such that the sleeve and any structure (orings 24) integral with the sleeve are disposed entirely within the body cavity, and
a rod (33,35) movably disposable within the sleeve cavity and configured to form a fluid-tight seal between the body cavity and the sleeve cavity while the rod is in a closed position (see Fig. 3) and to allow a fluid to flow from the body cavity to the sleeve cavity while the rod is in an open position (col.2, lns. 54-62).
PNG
media_image1.png
417
1060
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Steinwand discloses the body is configured for attachment to a structure (13, see Fig. 1) having a fluid supply (col.1, lns. 6-12, col.2, lns. 13-21).
Regarding claim 3, Steinwand discloses the body includes a flange (14) configured for attachment to a structure (13) having a fluid supply (col.1, lns. 6-12, col.2, lns. 13-21).
Regarding claim 4, Steinwand discloses the body includes an inlet (at 16) configured for coupling to a fluid supply and in fluid communication with the body cavity (col.2, lns. 31-21).
Regarding claim 5, Steinwand discloses the body cavity includes an inner cavity wall (the inner wall of 11); and the sleeve includes an outer sleeve wall (the wall at the outer surface of 21) and is configured to form a fluid-tight seal (col.2, lns. 57-62, “O rings 24 prevent the flow of water from liner 23 into housing 11”) between the inner cavity wall and the outer sleeve wall.
Regarding claim 6, Steinwand discloses the body cavity includes an inner cavity wall (the wall within 11); wherein the sleeve includes an outer sleeve wall (the wall at the outer surface of 21); and at least one sleeve sealing ring (24) disposable around the outer sleeve wall (see Fig. 3 above) and configured to form a fluid-tight seal between the inner cavity wall and the outer sleeve wall (col.2, lns. 57-62, “O rings 24 prevent the flow of water from liner 23 into housing 11”).
Regarding claim 10, Steinwand discloses a valve (10,see Fig. 1-5), comprising: a body (11,16) including a body cavity (the space within 11,16); a sleeve (23) including a sleeve cavity (the space within 23), and removably disposable entirely within the body cavity (as shown in Fig. 3); a rod (33,34) movably disposable within the sleeve cavity and configured to form a fluid-tight seal (with seal 37) between the body cavity and the sleeve cavity while the rod is in a closed position (see Fig. 3) and to allow a fluid to flow from the body cavity to the sleeve cavity while the rod is in an open position (col.2, lns. 54-62); and a wedge (the right end of the body from 16 to 17, being considered as a wedge in the broadest reasonable interpretation) of non-uniform thickness disposable around an outside of the body (the wall thickness at 17 is thicker than the wall thickness at 21, the non-uniform thickness as shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
417
1060
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Steinwand discloses a rod sealing ring (washer 37) disposable around the rod and configured to form the fluid-tight seal between the body cavity and the sleeve cavity while the rod is in a closed position (see Fig. 3, col.2, lns. 54-62).
Regarding claim 13, Steinwand discloses the sleeve cavity includes an inner wall (the inner wall of 23); and a rod sealing ring (washer 37) disposable around the rod and configured to form the fluid-tight seal with the inner wall of the sleeve cavity while the rod is in a closed position (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Steinwand discloses the sleeve has a sleeve end (the right end region 16 having 43); and a rod sealing ring (washer 37) disposable around the rod and configured to form the fluid-tight seal with the sleeve end while the rod is in a closed position (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15, Steinwand discloses the rod includes a seat (at the inner surface of 33 that washer 37 abuts); and a sealing ring (washer 37) disposable in the seat (the sealing ring is in the seat as it is within the inner diameter of the seat as shown in Fig. 3) and configured to form the fluid-tight seal between the body cavity and the sleeve cavity while the rod is in a closed position (see Fig. 3).
Regarding method claims 33,35-39,41,43-46, the device shown by Steinwand will perform the methods as recited in claims 33,35-39,41,43-46, during normal operational use of the device.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Steinwand (US 4314580) in view of Sammons (US 1268160).
Regarding claim 9, Steinwand discloses all of the features of the claimed invention although is silent to having the body cavity includes body-cavity threads; and the sleeve includes sleeve threads that are configured to secure the sleeve within the body cavity by engaging the body-cavity threads.
Sammons discloses the body cavity includes body-cavity threads (the female threads of 21 that mate with the male threads of sleeve 18); and the sleeve includes sleeve threads that are configured to secure the sleeve within the body cavity by engaging the body-cavity threads (As shown in Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
200
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 threaded connection, as taught by Sammons, into one of the body, sleeve of Steinwand, to have the body cavity includes body-cavity threads; and the sleeve includes sleeve threads that are configured to secure the sleeve within the body cavity by engaging the body-cavity threads, since it has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component (one connection joint for another) or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Claim(s) 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinwand ‘580 in view of Walcome (WO 2018136563).
Regarding claim 11, Steinwand discloses all of the features of the claimed invention although is silent to having that the at least one of the body, sleeve, or rod are formed from a polymer.
Walcome discloses at least one of the body, sleeve, or rod are formed from a polymer (para.00065).
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 polymer material in the body, sleeve or rod, as taught by Walcome, into one of the body, sleeve or rod components of Sammons, to have at least one of the body, sleeve, or rod are formed from a polymer, in order to utilize a polymer material which will permit the use of a molding process to manufacture the components to take advantage of a lower cost saving process when the volumes of sales become much larger, as is old and well known in the art. Additionally, a change of material is obvious, 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.
Regarding claim 16, Steinwand discloses all of the features of the claimed invention although is silent to having an anti-siphon assembly in fluid communication with at least one of the body cavity or the sleeve cavity.
Walcome discloses an anti-siphon assembly (20) in fluid communication with at least one of the body cavity or the sleeve cavity (see Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ an anti-siphon assembly, as taught by Walcome, into the device of Steinwand, to have an anti-siphon assembly in fluid communication with at least one of the body cavity or the sleeve cavity, in order to prevent water from entering the water supply and distribution system via the water valve and to allow water to drain while the valve is closed (Walcome ‘563, para.00031).
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinwand ‘580 in view of Jonatta (US 9581261).
Regarding claim 40, Steinwand discloses all of the features of the claimed invention, although is silent to having the step of removing a spring from the body cavity.
Jonatta teaches the use of a spring 83 in a body cavity (20, figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a spring, as taught by Jonatta, into the device of Steinwand, to have a spring in a valve cavity, in order to permit the handwheel to be operated (by hand) to control the operation (opening and closing) of the inner valve (Jonatta, col.4, lns. 46-53).
Regarding method claim 40, the device shown by Steinwand when combined with Jonatta will perform the methods as recited in claim 40, during normal operational use of the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 17 are allowed.
None of the prior art of record discloses or renders as obvious, “a faceplate configured for attachment to the flange and to hold the sleeve inside of the body cavity while the faceplate is attached to the flange” in combination with the rest of the limitations in claim 8.
None of the prior art of record discloses or renders as obvious, “a rod movably disposable within the sleeve cavity and configured to form a fluid-tight seal between the body cavity and the sleeve cavity while the rod is in a closed position and to allow a fluid to flow from the body cavity to the sleeve cavity while the rod is in an open position; and a faceplate attachable to the body, having a receptacle in fluid communication with at least one of the body cavity or the sleeve cavity, and including at least one protrusion each configured to engage a respective one of at least one groove of a valve-opening-and-fluid-dispensing device”, in combination with the rest of the limitations in claim 17.
Claims 34 and 42 are allowed.
None of the prior art of record discloses or renders as obvious, “after detaching the faceplate, removing a valve sleeve from a body cavity of the valve body while the valve body is attached to a structure and is coupled to a fluid supply”, in combination with the rest of the limitations in claim 34, and “attaching a valve faceplate to the valve body after inserting the valve sleeve and valve rod into the body cavity of the valve body”, in combination with the rest of the limitations in 42 claim.
Claim 47 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 step of “inserting a spring into the body cavity before inserting the valve sleeve and the valve rod into the body cavity”, in combination for the claim of which it depends.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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
Prosecution Insights