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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 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.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the rejection of record. However, a new ground of rejection is applied to the amended claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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, 3-6, 8-9, 11, 18, and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rich (U.S. Patent No. 10,914,148).
Regarding claim 1, Rich discloses a check valve (Figs. 1-11b) comprising a valve housing (Fig. 4) having a first port (cited below) and a second port (cited below) connected to a valve chamber (104), a valve seat (105) having a valve seat axis (Fig. 4) and being arranged between the first port (cited below) and the valve chamber (104), and a valve element (103) movably arranged (Fig. 4) within the valve chamber (104) between the valve seat (105) and a stop face (102 or 300) opposite the valve seat (105), wherein the valve housing (Fig. 4) comprises a first part (cited below) having the first port (cited below) and a second part (cited below) having the second port (cited below) and being connected to the first part (Fig. 4), wherein the second port (cited below) opens into the stop face (102) by means of an array of holes (101 or 301) and wherein the array of holes (101) is located (Fig. 4) between the second port (cited below) and the stop face (102), wherein a cross-sectional area (Figs. 4 & 7) of the array of holes (101) is larger (Fig. 4) than the largest cross section (Fig. 4) of the valve element (103), wherein the cross-sectional area (Figs. 4 & 7) of the array of holes (101) is larger than a cross section (Fig. 4) of the second port (cited below), and wherein the array of holes (101) is formed in the second part (cited below), wherein the valve seat (105) is formed in the first part (cited below), and wherein the first part (cited below) and the second part (cited below) are the only two parts (Fig. 4) necessary to form the valve chamber (104) and contain the valve element (103).
PNG
media_image1.png
1055
1045
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Rich discloses the check valve (Figs. 1-11b), wherein the valve element (103) is movable perpendicular to the valve seat axis (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Rich discloses the check valve (Figs. 1-11b), wherein the stop face (300) is a plane face (Fig. 7, Column 4 lines 39-47).
Regarding claim 5, Rich discloses the check valve (Figs. 1-11b), wherein the stop face (102) is in form of a bowl (Fig. 4, Column 4 lines 23-38).
Regarding claim 6, Rich discloses the check valve (Figs. 1-11b), wherein the stop face (102) is part of an end face (Fig. 4) of the second part (cited above).
Regarding claim 8, Rich discloses the check valve (Figs. 1-11b), wherein at least some of the holes (301) are arranged on a circle (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 9, Rich discloses the check valve (Figs. 1-11b), wherein the circle (Fig. 7) has a center (Figs. 4 & 7) that coincides with the valve seat axis (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, Rich discloses the check valve (Figs. 1-11b), wherein the valve element (103) is in form of a ball (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 18, Rich discloses the check valve (Figs. 1-11b), wherein the stop face (300) is a plane face (Fig. 7, Column 4 lines 39-47).
Regarding claim 20, Rich discloses the check valve (Figs. 1-11b), wherein the stop face (102) is in form of a bowl (Fig. 4, Column 4 lines 23-38).
Regarding claim 21, Rich discloses the check valve (Figs. 1-11b), wherein the holes (101 or 301) are formed as cylindrical bores (Figs. 4 & 7) having a diameter (Fig. 4) which is smaller than the largest cross section (Fig. 4) of the valve element (103).
Regarding claim 22, Rich discloses a check valve (Figs. 1-11b) for a hydraulic Gerotor or Geroler machine (intended use), the check valve comprising a valve housing (Fig. 4) having a first port (cited above) and a second port (cited above) connected to a valve chamber (104), a valve seat (105) having a valve seat axis (Fig. 4) and being arranged between the first port (cited above) and the valve chamber (104), and a valve element (103) movably arranged within the valve chamber (104) between the valve seat (105) and a stop face (102 or 300) opposite (Fig. 4) the valve seat (105), wherein the valve housing (Fig. 4) comprises a first part (cited above) having the first port (cited above) and a second part (cited above) having the second port (cited above) and being connected (Fig. 4) to the first part (cited above), wherein the second port (cited above) opens into the stop face (102) by means of an array of holes (101 or 301), wherein the stop face (102) is part of an end face (Fig. 4) of the second part (cited above), wherein the end face (Fig. 4) of the second part (cited above) is the face which contacts the first part (cited above) of the valve housing (Fig. 4) and wherein the holes (101 or 301) are machined into the stop face (102 or 300), wherein the valve element (103) is in the form of a ball (Fig. 4) so that a diameter (Fig. 4) of the valve element (103) defines the cross section area of the valve element (103) and wherein the holes (101 or 301) are in the form of cylinder bores (Fig. 7) having a diameter (Figs. 4 & 7) which is smaller than the diameter (Fig. 4) of the ball-shaped valve element (103), wherein the holes (101) at least partly overlap the cross section (Fig. 4) of the second port (cited above), wherein the check valve consists of only three parts: the first part (cited above), the second part (cited above), and the valve element (103), wherein the array (101 or 301) covers an area which is larger than a cross section (Fig. 4) of the second port (cited above), and wherein the valve element (103) is not guided within the valve chamber (104) and is movable perpendicular to the valve seat axis (Fig. 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rich (U.S. Patent No. 10,914,148).
Regarding claim 7, Rich discloses the essential features of the claimed invention but lack disclosure wherein the holes cover at least 60% of the stop face.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the holes to cover at least 60% of the stop face of Rich, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentable distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the stop face of Rich could potentially already have 60% covered by the holes and would not operate differently with the claimed holes dimensions since the holes of the stop face of Rich function in a similar manner as the inventor’s disclosed holes to enable fluid flow past the ball. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A): Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.").
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rich (U.S. Patent No. 10,914,148) in view of Harris (U.S. Patent No. 3,970,106).
Regarding claim 12, Rich discloses the check valve (Figs. 1-11b), wherein a sealing (inherent sealed connection to enable proper function) is arranged between the first part (cited above) and the second part (cited above), but lacks detailed disclose of the sealing between the first part and the second part.
Harris teaches a check valve (Figs. 1-6) having a first part (14) and second part (36) connected to form a valve housing, and a sealing (52) arranged between the first (14) and the second part (36).
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 of Rich, with a sealing as taught by Harris, for the advantage of sealing between the parts and preventing any leakage (Column 3 lines32-42).
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roos (Pub. No. US 2020/0340462) in view of Rich (U.S. Patent No. 10,914,148).
Regarding claim 13, Roos discloses a hydraulic gerotor or geroler machine (paragraph 31), comprising a check valve (12) but lacks disclosure of the check valve of claim 1.
Rich teaches the check valve of claim 1 as rejected above.
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 of Roos with a check valve as taught by Rich since they are considered art recognized equivalents in the art of check valves, that perform the same function of enabling fluid in a single direction, and for providing the advantage of compensating for uneven fluid pressure and allowing fluids to be evenly applied around the ball (Column 4 lines 23-47).
Regarding claim 14, Roos discloses the hydraulic gerotor or geroler machine (Figs. 1-4) wherein the machine comprises a machine housing (5, 6, 7, and 8), wherein a part (5) of the machine housing (Fig. 1) forms a part (5) of the valve housing (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 15, Roos discloses the hydraulic gerotor or geroler machine (Figs. 1-4) wherein the part (5) of the machine housing (Fig. 1) forms the first part of the valve housing (Fig. 4).
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 Reinaldo Sanchez-Medina, telephone number 571-270-5168, fax number 571-270-6168. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (7:30AM-4:00PM 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 can be reached by phone. Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 or 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.
/REINALDO SANCHEZ-MEDINA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights