DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 11 are pending, claims 3 and 5-10 have been cancelled.
This is in response to the amendment filed 4/23/2026.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages filed 4/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1,2 and 4 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered, however are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments on page 3 of the response, that the Janesky reference is not from the same field of endeavor and not pertinent to the problem faces by inventors, and therefore, there is no motivation for one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of the references, is not persuasive.
MPEP § 2141.01(a) states that in order for a reference to be used in an obviousness rejection, it must be analogous art to the claimed invention. A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention when it is either from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, or is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. A reference is “reasonably pertinent” when it “logically commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).
"Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of the invention and addressed by the patent [or application at issue] can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed. " KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). This does not require that the reference be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, in light of the Supreme Court's instruction that "[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one." Id. at 417, 82 USPQ2d 1396.
Rather, a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if:
(1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem);
or
(2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
The condition for a reference to be from the same field of endeavor is not a comparison of the two references being in the same field of endeavor, but rather, the reference being reasonably pertinent to the problem being faced by the inventor.
In response to applicant's argument that Janesky is non-analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. MPEP 2141.01(a) revised 8/2017, See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212. Applicant argues that the requirement to prove art to be analogous, is two-fold, however, as discussed in MPEP 2141.01(a), this requirement requires only one or the other condition to be met, “a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned”.
The specification in paragraph 0054 discloses;
“[0054] Although the thickness of the partition 221 forming the flow path 220 may be increased to obtain the internal rigidity of the valve 200, if the thickness of the partition 221 is increased, the width of the flow path 220 may become smaller. Therefore, the heat interference prevention part 230 has a plurality of ribs 231 extending therein, and the ribs 231 connect the partitions 221 of different flow paths 220 to form a support structure, so that heat exchange between the cooling media circulating through the respective flow paths 220 may be minimized by the heat interference prevention part 230, and the overall rigidity of the valve 200 may be secured, thereby improving durability”, and therefore, since Janesky provides zigzag shape between partitions that provide strength and rigidity, which applicant is concerned with, Janesky is considered as being analogous art.
Applicant’s argument that the combination of Jennings with Jalensky does not provide, the limitation for “wherein the heat interference prevention part includes the connecting shaft at a center portion thereof and the connecting shaft is disposed to be spaced apart from the partitions and the rib in the empty space” (as shown below the limitations are met in as much as applicant’s device discloses these features), is not persuasive. Therefore, the rejections will be maintained, as best understood due to the 112 rejections.
PNG
media_image1.png
674
1265
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Since applicant’s amendments necessitated the new grounds for rejection, this action has been made Final.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I in the reply filed on 6/6/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 6-10 were 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, it is noted that these claims are now cancelled. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/6/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 17, “and between”, should be changed to - -and the rib extends between - -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “wherein the heat interference prevention part includes the connecting shaft at a center portion thereof and the connecting shaft is disposed to be spaced apart from the partitions and the rib in the empty space”, which is unclear as to;
1) the limitation “thereof”, what structure is this intended to define;
2) the limitation, “the connecting shaft is disposed to be spaced apart from the partitions”, how is the shaft spaced apart from the partitions (see applicant’s amended Figure below), where partition 221 is directly connected to the shaft 310.
PNG
media_image2.png
523
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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(s) 1, 2, 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jennings (US 3166098) in view of Janesky (US 6742758). The claims are being rejected as best understood based on the 112 rejections above.
Regarding claim 1, Jennings discloses a heat interference prevention valve (figures 1-7) comprising:
a plurality of circulation holes (20) disposed along an outer surface of the valve so as to be spaced apart from each other;
a plurality of flow paths (28,32) extending inside the valve and configured to lead to at least two or more circulation holes so that a cooling medium circulates through the circulation holes; and
a heat interference prevention part (in figure 6, the wedge-shaped space between the flow paths) disposed between the plurality of flow paths to isolate the respective flow paths,
wherein the heat interference prevention part has a connecting shaft (50, see Fig. 7) connected to a center of the valve,
wherein the heat interference prevention part has an empty space between partitions that form the flow paths (the empty space as shown in Fig. 6, as shown in Figures 6 and 7),
and wherein the empty space, is between the connecting shaft and an internal surface of the heat interference prevention part (as shown in Figures 6 and 7),
wherein the heat interference prevention part includes the connecting shaft at a center portion thereof and the connecting shaft is disposed to be spaced apart from the partitions and the rib in the empty space (as shown below the limitations are met in as much as applicant’s device discloses these features).
PNG
media_image1.png
674
1265
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
285
643
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Jennings is silent to having the heat interference prevention part has a rib extending across the valve and connected to the partitions, and wherein the rib extends in the empty space, between the connecting shaft and an internal surface of the heat interference prevention part, and between internal surfaces of the partitions in a zigzag shape.
Janesky teaches the use of a rib (25, see Fig. 2) extending across and connected to the partitions (21,23), and wherein the rib extends in the empty space, and between internal surfaces of the partitions in a zigzag shape (as shown in Fig. 2, col. 3, lns. 25-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the ribs in an empty space as taught by Janesky in the device of Jennings to have the heat interference prevention part has a rib extending across the valve and connected to the partitions, and wherein the rib extends in the empty space, between the connecting shaft and an internal surface of the heat interference prevention part, and between internal surfaces of the partitions in a zigzag shape, in order to provide structural strength and rigidity to the valve (Janesky, col.2, lns 50-col.3, lns.35), when the valve is made of plastic.
Additionally, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the valve made from a resin plastic material, 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. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). The use of changing from metal material to plastic is old and well known in the art to take advantage of higher volume manufacturing that reduces the overall cost of the components.
Regarding claim 2, Jennings discloses the heat interference prevention part extends from an inner surface of the valve between the circulation holes toward a center of the valve so as to be disposed between the respective flow paths, and is formed to become narrower in its width toward the inner side.
PNG
media_image4.png
569
592
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Jennings discloses the heat interference prevention part is filled with a material (the space is considered as being filled with air, where, air is considered a material because it is composed of matter and has mass and volume.) with low thermal conductivity (air is generally considered to be a poor conductor of heat).
PNG
media_image5.png
554
1205
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Janesky teaches the use of ribs (25, see Fig. 2) that is/are provided in plural.
PNG
media_image6.png
733
806
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 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