DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 4/7/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection. Therefore, the examiner is re-opening and sending out a second non-final action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 10-11, 13-15, and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Flocchini (U.S Patent 4,498,419) and further in view of Pereira et al. (U.S Patent 5,850,845).
Regarding claim 10, Flocchini teaches a method for selectively conducting at least a first fluid and a second fluid using a safety valve (valve A, figs 1-3) (abstract) having at least a first port (20), a second port (bottom of valve A, outflow conduit 24), and a third port (32/36), the method comprising: with a piston (valve head member 44) in a first position (fig 5; col 4 lines 53-58), conducting the first fluid between the first port and the second port (claim 1 and col 4 lines 53-58); and with the piston in a second position (fig 6; col 4 line 65 – col 5 line 5 and col 5 lines 29-42), conducting the second fluid between the third port and the first port (claim 1, col 4 line 65 – col 5 line 5 and col 5 lines 29-42).
Flocchini teaches moving the piston to the second position, but fails to specifically teach moving the piston to the second position in response to applying compressed air. However, Pereira also teaches a method for operating a valve for backwashing a milking system (abstract) wherein it is known to move the piston to the second position in response to applying compressed air (col 2 lines 60-65) in order to achieve the predictable result of moving the piston. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Flocchini such that it moves the piston to the second position in response to applying compressed air as taught by Pereira in order to achieve the predictable result of moving the piston.
Regarding claim 11, the present combination of Flocchini and Pereira teaches further comprising moving the piston to the first position in response to a force provided by a spring (70) (fig 4; col 4 lines 29-43 of Flocchini).
Regarding claim 13, the present combination of Flocchini and Pereira teaches with the piston in the first position (fig 5; claim 1 and col 4 lines 53-58 of Flocchini), preventing the second fluid from passing between the third port and the first port (claim 1 and col 4 lines 53-58 of Flocchini).
Regarding claim 14, the present combination of Flocchini and Pereira teaches with the piston in the second position (fig 6; claim 1, col 4 line 65 – col 5 line 5 and col 5 lines 29-42 of Flocchini), preventing the first fluid from passing between the first port and the second port (claim 1, col 4 line 65 – col 5 line 5 and col 5 lines 29-42 of Flocchini).
Regarding claim 15, the present combination of Flocchini and Pereira teaches wherein preventing the first fluid from passing between the first port and the second port is carried out by a first seal (42A) and a second seal (42B) spaced apart from each other (col 3 lines 61-68 and col 5 lines 6-28 of Flocchini), and wherein the method further comprises venting a region within the safety valve between the first seal and the second seal to an environment of the safety valve (col 5 lines 6-28 of Flocchini).
Regarding claim 20, the present combination of Flocchini and Pereira teaches further comprising: receiving, by the first port, the first fluid from a milker unit (80) (col 3 lines 49-56 Flocchini); providing, by the second port, the first fluid to a milk collecting tank (30) (col 3 lines 57-60 Flocchini); receiving, by the third port (36), the second fluid from a backflush supply (81) (col 5 lines 43-55 Flocchini); and providing, by the first port (20/37), the second fluid to the milker unit (col 5 lines 43-55 Flocchini).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-19 are 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:
The closest prior art of record is Flocchini (U.S Patent 4,498,419) and Pereira et al. (U.S Patent 5,850,845).
Flocchini and Pereira teach the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above and Flocchini teaches wherein the safety valve further includes a fourth port and a fifth port as recited in claim However, the prior art fails to teach wherein the method further comprises: with a second piston in a first position, enabling a third fluid to pass between the fourth port and the fifth port; and with the second piston in a second position, disabling the third fluid from passing between the fourth port and the fifth port as recited in claim 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRADHUMAN PARIHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-1633. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached on 571-272-1344. 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.
/P.P/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights