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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 16 March 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application, with Claims 5-6 and 16 currently withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 16 Sept 2025.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 14-15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bentz (US 10125892).
Regarding Claim 1, Bentz discloses a flow control system (abstract; Figures). The system comprising:
a check valve (Figure 2 which functions as a check valve to permit flow from 12 to 13 but prevent flow from 13 to 12 by interaction of ball 31 on seat 22) having a flow channel (from 12 to 13 within 14) extending from an inlet(12; Col 4, lines 33-38) to an outlet (13; Col 4, lines 33-38), the check valve having a valving mechanism (31) positioned between the inlet (12) and the outlet (13); and
a check valve inhibitor (41 and 42) positionable in proximity to the valving mechanism (Figure 2) to control the operation thereof (Col 4, lines 41-54), the check valve inhibitor (41 and 42) comprising a magnetic field generator (at least the electromagnet 42) capable of generating a magnetic field that is selectively operable on the valving mechanism (Col 4, lines 41-54), wherein the check valve inhibitor (41 and 42) can place the check valve in an uninhibited condition where flow in an inlet to outlet direction is allowed and flow in an outlet to inlet direction is blocked (an off state of the electromagnet 42), and wherein the check valve inhibitor can place the check valve in an inhibited condition where flow in the outlet to inlet direction is allowed (an on state of the electromagnet 42; Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 2, Bentz discloses wherein the check valve is an automatic check valve (the valve will actuate automatically via gravity as shown in Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 3, Bentz discloses wherein the check valve is placed in the inhibited condition by subjecting the valving mechanism to the magnetic field (Figure 3; an on state of the electromagnet 42; Col 4, lines 41-54).
Regarding Claim 4, Bentz discloses wherein the check valve inhibitor (41 and 42) comprises an inhibition actuator (at least the processor which supplies electricity to the electromagnet 42 discussed in Col 11, lines 63-66) that controls the selectively operable magnetic field in a manner that moves the check valve from the uninhibited condition to the inhibited condition (Col 4, lines 41-54).
Regarding Claim 14, Bentz discloses a check valve inhibitor for a flow control system (abstract; Figures). The check valve inhibitor comprising:
an attachment mechanism (11) adapted to allow the check valve inhibitor (42) to be attached to a check valve (at 14; Figure 2), the check valve having a flow channel extending from an inlet (12 to 23) to an outlet (at 23 and through 13 of the attachment mechanism), the check valve having a valving mechanism (31) positioned between the inlet and the outlet (Figure 2); and
a magnetic field generator (Col 11, lines 63-66) capable of generating a magnetic field that is selectively operable on the valving mechanism (via 42 seen in Figure 3),
wherein the check valve inhibitor (42) is adapted to control the operation of the check valve by being able to selectively place the check valve in an uninhibited condition where flow in an inlet to outlet direction is allowed and flow in an outlet to inlet direction is blocked (an off state of the electromagnet 42), and by being able to selectively place the check valve in an inhibited condition where flow in the outlet to inlet direction is allowed (an on state of the electromagnet 42; Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 15, Bentz discloses wherein the check valve inhibitor (41 and 42) comprises an inhibition actuator (at least the processor which supplies electricity to the electromagnet 42 discussed in Col 11, lines 63-66) that controls the selectively operable magnetic field in a manner that moves the check valve from the uninhibited condition to the inhibited condition (Col 4, lines 41-54).
Regarding Claim 20, Bentz discloses a method of controlling flow (Figures; abstract). The method comprising:
providing a check valve (Figure 2), the check valve having a flow channel extending from an inlet to an outlet (from 12 to 13 shown in Figure 2), the check valve having a valving mechanism (31) positioned between the inlet and the outlet (Figure 2);
positioning a check valve inhibitor (42) in proximity to the valving mechanism of the check valve (Figure 2), the check valve inhibitor comprising a magnetic field generator (at least the electromagnet 42); and
operating the magnetic field generator to control the operation of the check valve by selectively being able to place the check valve in an uninhibited condition where flow in an inlet to outlet direction is allowed and flow in an outlet to inlet direction is blocked (an off state of the electromagnet 42), and selectively being able to place the check valve in an inhibited condition where flow in the outlet to inlet direction is allowed (an on state of the electromagnet 42; Figure 3).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
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(s) 7-9, 13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bentz (US 10125892) in view of Johnson et al (US 5,540,249).
Regarding Claim 7, Bentz discloses wherein the check valve inhibitor (42) comprises an inhibition actuator (at least the processor which supplies electricity to the electromagnet 42 discussed in Col 11, lines 63-66) that controls the selectively operable magnetic field in a manner that moves the check valve from the uninhibited condition to the inhibited condition (Col 4, lines 41-54),
But fails to expressly disclose wherein the magnetic field generator is a permanent magnet, and wherein the inhibition actuator controls a position of the permanent magnet relative to the valving mechanism.
Johnson et al teach wherein the check valve inhibitor (14 and 13) that controls the selectively operable magnetic field in a manner that moves the check valve from the uninhibited condition to the inhibited condition (by lifting the stem 14), wherein the magnetic field generator (13) is a permanent magnet (Col 2, lines 38-44), and wherein the check valve inhibitor (14 and 13) controls the position of the permanent magnet relative to the valving mechanism (Figures 3-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inhibitor of Bentz with the permanent magnet as taught by Johnson et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (a permanent magnet that changes position to impart a magnetic field to a valve for the electromagnet of Bentz) to yield predictable results (to inhibit a check valve to allow fluid flow).
Regarding Claim 8, Bentz discloses wherein the check valve inhibitor (42) comprises an inhibition actuator (at least the processor which supplies electricity to the electromagnet 42 discussed in Col 11, lines 63-66) that controls the selectively operable magnetic field in a manner that moves the check valve from the uninhibited condition to the inhibited condition (Col 4, lines 41-54),
But fails to expressly disclose wherein the magnetic field generator is a permanent magnet, wherein the inhibition actuator controls a position of the permanent magnet relative to the valving mechanism, and wherein the check valve inhibitor comprises a housing attachable to the check valve, and wherein the permanent magnet is moveable within the housing.
Johnson et al disclose(s) wherein the check valve inhibitor (14 and 13) that controls the selectively operable magnetic field in a manner that moves the check valve from the uninhibited condition to the inhibited condition (by lifting the stem 14);
wherein the magnetic field generator (13) is a permanent magnet (Col 2, lines 38-44), and wherein the check valve inhibitor (14 and 13) controls the position of the permanent magnet relative to the valving mechanism (Figures 3-6);
wherein the check valve inhibitor (13 and 14) comprises a housing (9) attachable to the check valve (Figures 3-6), and wherein the permanent magnet (13) is moveable within the housing (Figures 3-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inhibitor of Bentz with the permanent magnet as taught by Johnson et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (a permanent magnet that changes position to impart a magnetic field to a valve for the electromagnet of Bentz) to yield predictable results (to inhibit a check valve to allow fluid flow).
Regarding Claim 9, Bentz discloses wherein the check valve inhibitor (42) comprises an inhibition actuator (at least the processor which supplies electricity to the electromagnet 42 discussed in Col 11, lines 63-66) that controls the selectively operable magnetic field (Col 4, lines 41-54),
But fails to expressly disclose adjusting a position of the magnetic field generator, wherein the magnetic field generator is positionable by the inhibition actuator in a first position to place the check valve in the uninhibited condition, and wherein the magnetic field generator is positionable by the inhibition actuator in a second position to place the check valve in the inhibited condition.
Johnson et al disclose(s) wherein the check valve inhibitor (13 and 14) controls the selectively operable magnetic field by adjusting the position of the magnetic field generator (Figures 3-6),
wherein the magnetic field generator is positionable in a first position to place the check valve in the uninhibited condition (Figure 6), and
wherein the magnetic field generator is positionable in a second position to place the check valve in the inhibited condition (Figure 3),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inhibitor of Bentz with the permanent magnet as taught by Johnson et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (a permanent magnet that changes position to impart a magnetic field to a valve for the electromagnet of Bentz) to yield predictable results (to inhibit a check valve to allow fluid flow).
Regarding Claim 13, Bentz discloses all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose wherein the inhibition actuator comprises a biasing mechanism that biases the magnetic field generator towards the first position or the second position.
Johnson et al teach(es) wherein the inhibition actuator (at least the processor which supplies electricity to the electromagnet 42 discussed in Col 11, lines 63-66 of Bentz) comprises a biasing mechanism (21 of Johnson et al) that biases the plunger mechanism so that the magnetic field generator is biased towards the first position or the second position (to the first position shown in Figure 6 of Johnson et al).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inhibitor of Bentz with the permanent magnet as taught by Johnson et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (a permanent magnet that changes position to impart a magnetic field to a valve for the electromagnet of Bentz) to yield predictable results (to provide for a fail safe or bias position of the plunger).
Regarding Claim 17, Bentz discloses wherein the check valve inhibitor (42) comprises an inhibition actuator (at least the processor which supplies electricity to the electromagnet 42 discussed in Col 11, lines 63-66) that controls the selectively operable magnetic field (Col 4, lines 41-54),
But fails to expressly disclose adjusting a position of the magnetic field generator, wherein the magnetic field generator is positionable by the inhibition actuator in a first position to place the check valve in the uninhibited condition, and wherein the magnetic field generator is positionable by the inhibition actuator in a second position to place the check valve in the inhibited condition.
Johnson et al disclose(s) wherein the check valve inhibitor (13 and 14) controls the selectively operable magnetic field by adjusting the position of the magnetic field generator (Figures 3-6),
wherein the magnetic field generator is positionable in a first position to place the check valve in the uninhibited condition (Figure 6), and
wherein the magnetic field generator is positionable in a second position to place the check valve in the inhibited condition (Figure 3),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inhibitor of Bentz with the permanent magnet as taught by Johnson et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (a permanent magnet that changes position to impart a magnetic field to a valve for the electromagnet of Bentz) to yield predictable results (to inhibit a check valve to allow fluid flow).
Claim(s) 10-11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bentz (US 10125892) in view of Johnson et al (US 5,540,249) in view of Shimizu (US 4,349,042).
Regarding Claim 10, Bentz, as modified by Johnson et al teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly teach wherein the inhibition actuator comprises a plunger mechanism and wherein the plunger mechanism comprises a plunger member adapted to move the magnetic field generator from the first position to the second position.
Shimizu teach wherein the inhibition actuator (16 of Shimizu) comprises a plunger mechanism (14 of both Johnson et al and Shimizu (Figures 4a and 4b of Shimizu)) and wherein the plunger mechanism (14 of both Johnson et al and Shimizu) comprises a plunger member (14) adapted to move the magnetic field generator from the first position to the second position (Figures 3-6 of Johnson et al).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the check valve inhibitor of Bentz as modified by Johnson et al with the inhibition actuator as taught by Shimizu for the advantage of allowing actuation and movement of the valve automatically in response to sensor or other signals, as taught by Shimizu (Col 5, lines 15-18).
Regarding Claim 11, Johnson et al teaches causing the plunger mechanism (14) to move the magnetic field generator to the first position or to the second position (Figures 3-6),
But fails to expressly disclose where the inhibition actuator comprises an electromechanical actuator, wherein the electromechanical actuator causes the plunger mechanism to move the magnetic field generator to the first position or to the second position in response to an electrical signal.
Shimizu teach(es) wherein the inhibition actuator comprises an electromechanical actuator (solenoid 16; Col 5, lines 15-18) and the electromechanical actuator (16) causes the plunger mechanism (14) to move in response to an electrical signal (Col 5, lines 12-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the check valve inhibitor of Bentz, as modified by Johnson et al with the inhibition actuator as taught by Shimizu for the advantage of allowing actuation and movement of the valve automatically in response to sensor or other signals, as taught by Shimizu (Col 5, lines 15-18).
Regarding Claim 18, Johnson et al teaches causing the plunger mechanism (14) to move the magnetic field generator to the first position or to the second position (Figures 3-6),
But fails to expressly disclose where the inhibition actuator comprises an electromechanical actuator, wherein the electromechanical actuator causes the plunger mechanism to move the magnetic field generator to the first position or to the second position in response to an electrical signal.
Shimizu teach(es) wherein the inhibition actuator comprises an electromechanical actuator (solenoid 16; Col 5, lines 15-18) and the electromechanical actuator (16) causes the plunger mechanism (14) to move in response to an electrical signal (Col 5, lines 12-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the check valve inhibitor of Bentz, as modified by Johnson et al with the inhibition actuator as taught by Shimizu for the advantage of allowing actuation and movement of the valve automatically in response to sensor or other signals, as taught by Shimizu (Col 5, lines 15-18).
Claim(s) 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bentz (US 10125892) in further view of Johnson et al (US 5,540,249) in further view of Shimizu (US 4,349,042) in further view of Zippe (US 4,750,705).
Regarding Claim 12, Bentz discloses all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where the inhibition actuator comprises a biasing mechanism that biases the plunger mechanism so that the magnetic field generator is biased towards the first position or the second position, and wherein the electromechanical actuator is capable of urging the plunger member against the bias from the biasing mechanism when the electromechanical actuator is activated.
Johnson et al teach wherein the inhibition actuator (16 of Shimizu) comprises a biasing mechanism (21 of Johnson et al) that biases the plunger mechanism so that the magnetic field generator is biased towards the first position or the second position (to the first position shown in Figure 6 of Johnson et al).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inhibitor of Bentz with the plunger as taught by Johnson et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (a permanent magnet that changes position to impart a magnetic field to a valve for the electromagnet of Bentz) to yield predictable results (to inhibit a check valve to allow fluid flow).
Zippe teach(es) wherein the inhibition actuator (20, 25 and 23) comprises a biasing mechanism (20) that biases the plunger mechanism so that the magnetic field generator is biased towards the first position or the second position (to the second position as taught at Col 3, lines 60-64), and
wherein the electromechanical actuator (solenoid 25) is capable of urging the plunger member (23) against the bias from the biasing mechanism when the electromechanical actuator is activated (Col 4, lines 7-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bentz, as modified by Johnson et al, as modified by Shimizu with the actuator as taught by Zippe for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (an actuator to hold a plunger) to yield predictable results (to secure a valve in an open position against the bias of a spring).
Regarding Claim 19, Bentz discloses all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where the inhibition actuator comprises a plunger mechanism adapted to move the magnetic field generator from the first position to the second position, wherein an electromechanical actuator causes the plunger mechanism to move the magnetic field generator to the first position or to the second position in response to an electrical signal, and wherein the inhibition actuator comprises a biasing mechanism that biases the plunger mechanism so that the magnetic field generator is biased towards the first position or the second position, and wherein the electromechanical actuator is capable of urging the plunger member against the bias from the biasing mechanism when the electromechanical actuator is activated.
Shimizu teach wherein the inhibition actuator (16 of Shimizu) comprises a plunger mechanism (14 of both Johnson et al and Shimizu (Figures 4a and 4b of Shimizu)) and wherein the plunger mechanism (14 of both Johnson et al and Shimizu) comprises a plunger member (14) adapted to move the magnetic field generator from the first position to the second position (Figures 3-6 of Johnson et al),
wherein the inhibition actuator comprises an electromechanical actuator (solenoid 16; Col 5, lines 15-18) and the electromechanical actuator (16) causes the plunger mechanism (14) to move in response to an electrical signal (Col 5, lines 12-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the check valve inhibitor of Bentz as modified by Johnson et al with the inhibition actuator as taught by Shimizu for the advantage of allowing actuation and movement of the valve automatically in response to sensor or other signals, as taught by Shimizu (Col 5, lines 15-18).
Zippe teach(es) wherein the inhibition actuator (20, 25 and 23) comprises a biasing mechanism (20) that biases the plunger mechanism so that the magnetic field generator is biased towards the first position or the second position (to the second position as taught at Col 3, lines 60-64), and
wherein the electromechanical actuator (solenoid 25) is capable of urging the plunger member (23) against the bias from the biasing mechanism when the electromechanical actuator is activated (Col 4, lines 7-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Johnson et al, as modified by Shimizu with the actuator as taught by Zippe for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (an actuator to hold a plunger) to yield predictable results (to secure a valve in an open position against the bias of a spring).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the rejection of record. However, a new ground of rejection is applied to the amended claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NICOLE GARDNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-4PM 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 supervisors, KENNETH RINEHART (571-272-4881) or CRAIG SCHNEIDER (571-272-3607) can be reached by telephone. 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.
/NICOLE GARDNER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights