DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1,2 and 4 are pending, claims 3,5-10 have been cancelled.
This is in response to the amendment filed 1/7/2026.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/7/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages filed 1/7/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1,2 and 4 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Janesky. Janesky provides zigzag shape between partitions that provide strength and rigidity, which applicant is concerned with.
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 rejection, this action has been made Non-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 Claims 6-10 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim, it is noted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.
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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jennings (US 3166098) in view of Janesky (US 6742758).
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).
PNG
media_image1.png
1138
952
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
285
643
media_image2.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, when the valve is made of plastic (Janesky, col.2, lns 50-col.3, lns.35).
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_image3.png
569
592
media_image3.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_image4.png
554
1205
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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