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 28 Feb 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-12 and 14 remain pending in the application. 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 1 Dec 2025.
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) 1, 3-7 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Fujikura Rubber Ltd (JP2001099350A; provided by Applicant on the IDS dated 27 Nov 2024) in view of Sullivan (US 3845784).
Regarding Claim 1, Fujikura Rubber Ltd disclose a check valve (Figures 1-2). The valve comprising:
a valve body (10 generally) and a piston unit (14 generally), wherein the valve body (10 generally) comprises a valve cavity (11c) and a valve port (the junction between 11a and 11b), the valve body (10 generally) is provided with an inlet (10a) and an outlet (10b), the valve port (the junction between 11a and 11b) is located between the inlet (10a) and the valve cavity (11c), the outlet (10b) is in communication with the valve cavity (11c), and the piston unit (14 generally) is capable of moving in the valve cavity along an axis of the valve body to open/close the valve port (Figures 1 and 2);
the valve cavity (11c) comprises a flaring portion (from 11b), and along the axis of the valve body, a flow area of a cross section of the flaring portion is greater than a flow area of a cross section of the valve port (the junction between 11a and 11b is the port and Figure 2 shows 11b to have a greater flow area);
the valve cavity further comprises a first cavity portion (at 11c), an inner wall of the flaring portion in a conical shape (at 11b; Figure 1), the flaring portion has a flaring port facing the outlet (at the transition of 11b and 11c shown in Figure 1),
a small diameter end of the flaring portion is connected to and in communication with the valve port (at the transition of 11a and 11b); the first cavity portion is connected to and in communication with a large diameter end of the flaring portion (at the transition of 11b and 11c),
along an axis of the valve cavity, a diameter of the first cavity portion is constant (from right to left as shown in Figure 1 of 11c);
the check valve (Figures 1-2) further comprises a locating member (12a), the locating member is fixedly arranged in the valve cavity (Figure 1),
but fails to expressly disclose a converging portion, and a second cavity portion which are sequentially connected to and in communication with the flaring portion, an inner wall of the converging portion in a conical shape; and the converging portion has a flaring port facing the inlet;
opposite ends of the first cavity portion are connected to and in communication with a large diameter end of the flaring portion and a large diameter end of the converging portion, respectively; a small diameter end of the converging portion is connected to and in communication with the second cavity portion;
along an axis of the valve cavity, a diameter of the second cavity portion is constant and smaller than the diameter of the first cavity portion;
the locating member is located between the outlet and the second cavity portion.
Sullivan teaches a valve (see Annotated Figure A), with a valve body (20 generally) and a valve cavity (the interior of body 20) where the valve cavity further comprises a first cavity portion (see Annotated Figure A), a converging portion (see Annotated Figure A), and a second cavity portion (see Annotated Figure A) which are sequentially connected to and in communication with the flaring portion (see Annotated Figure A), an inner wall of the flaring portion and an inner wall of the converging portion are both in a conical shape (see Annotated Figure A; Col 2, line 65 discloses where the flaring portion is conical and the Figures show where the converging portion is conical); the flaring portion (see Annotated Figure A) has a flaring port (see Annotated Figure A) facing the outlet (see Annotated Figure A), and the converging portion (see Annotated Figure A) has a flaring port (see Annotated Figure A) facing the inlet (see Annotated Figure A);
a small diameter end of the flaring portion (see Annotated Figure A) is connected to and in communication with the valve port (see Annotated Figure A); opposite ends of the first cavity portion are connected to and in communication with a large diameter end of the flaring portion (to the right of the flaring portion as seen in the orientation of Annotated Figure A) and a large diameter end of the converging portion (to the left of the converging portion as seen in the orientation of Annotated Figure A), respectively; a small diameter end of the converging portion is connected to and in communication with the second cavity portion (see Annotated Figure A);
along an axis of the valve cavity (from right to left as seen in the orientation of Annotated Figure A), a diameter of the first cavity portion is constant (see Annotated Figure A), and a diameter of the second cavity portion is constant (see Annotated Figure A);
the valve further comprises a locating member (31), the locating member is fixedly arranged in the valve cavity and located between the outlet (see Annotated Figure A) and the second cavity portion (see Annotated Figure A; with the locating member positioned within the second cavity portion, and therefore between the outlet and at least portion of the second cavity portion at the converging portion).
PNG
media_image1.png
807
1125
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure A – Sullivan
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 valve cavity of Fujikura Rubber Ltd with the valve cavity as taught by Sullivan for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the valve cavity shape of Sullivan with the check valve of Fujikura Rubber Ltd) to yield predictable results (to allow for flow through and around the check valve).
Fujikura Rubber Ltd as modified by Sullivan as discussed above still fail to expressly teach and the diameter of the second cavity portion is smaller than the diameter of the first cavity portion.
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 second cavity portion to have a diameter smaller than the diameter of the first cavity portion since a change in shape of an element involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to allow for attachment of a pipe or to a system, or use a locating member of a size that has a diameter smaller than the diameter of the first cavity portion. Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality that having a smaller diameter of the second cavity portion, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding Claim 3, Fujikura Rubber Ltd disclose wherein the check valve further comprising a guiding rod (12 generally), wherein the guiding rod is fixed in the valve cavity (via 13), the piston unit (14 generally) further comprises a piston rod (14a) and a sealing member (14d), one end of the piston rod is matched with the guiding rod (Figure 1 at the right end), and an other end of the piston rod is arranged towards the valve port (to the left as seen in Figure 1); the sealing member (14d) is installed on the other end of the piston rod towards the valve port (Figure 1), and the piston rod is capable of moving along the axis of the valve body by the guiding rod so as to drive the sealing member to open/close the valve port (Figures 1-2).
Regarding Claim 4, Fujikura Rubber Ltd disclose a flow area of a cross section of a portion of the valve cavity adjacent to the valve port and towards the outlet (generally at 11c) is greater than the flow area of the cross section of the valve port along the axis of the valve body (the junction between 11a and 11b).
Regarding Claim 5, Fujikura Rubber Ltd disclose where a diameter of the guiding rod (12 generally) is denoted as D (Figure 2), a length of the guiding rod (12) for effectively guiding the piston rod to move is denoted as H (Figure 2), and the diameter D of the guiding rod and the length H of the guiding rod for effectively guiding the piston rod to move satisfy the following relationship: 0.8 D ≤ H ≤ 3D (Figures 1-2).
Regarding Claim 6, Fujikura Rubber Ltd disclose a first stop portion (14b) and a second stop portion (14a just downstream of seal 14d) are provided on the other end of the piston rod towards the valve port (Figure 1), a groove (14c) is formed between the first stop portion and the second stop portion (Figure 2), and the groove is configured to accommodate the sealing member (14d; Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 7, Fujikura Rubber Ltd disclose where a maximum outer diameter of the first stop portion is defined as Di (14b), a maximum outer diameter of the second stop portion (14a just upstream of seal 14d) is defined as D2 (Figure 2), a maximum outer diameter of the sealing member is defined as D3 (14d), and the maximum outer diameter Di of the first stop portion, the maximum outer diameter D2 of the second stop portion and the maximum outer diameter D3 of the sealing member satisfy the following relationship: D3>D2>Di (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 9, Fujikura Rubber Ltd disclose where a first guiding hole (Figure 1 into which the guiding rod (12 generally) inserted) is formed in the end of the piston rod adjacent to the guiding rod (Figure 1), a second guiding hole is formed in an end of the guiding rod adjacent to the piston rod (into which the spring 16 is inserted), the first guiding hole is in communication with the second guiding hole (Figures 1-2), the check valve further comprises a resilient member (16), two ends of the resilient member are connected with the piston rod and the guiding rod respectively (Figure 1), and the resilient member is located in the first guiding hole and the second guiding hole at the same time (Figure 1); a diameter of the first guiding hole is defined as X (Figure 1), a diameter of the second guiding hole is defined as Y (Figure 1), a diameter of the resilient member is defined as Z (16 in Figure 1), and the diameter X of the first guiding hole, the diameter Y of the second guiding hole, and the diameter Z of the resilient member satisfy the following relationships: X >Y> Z (Figures 1-2).
Regarding Claim 10, Fujikura Rubber Ltd disclose where an end of the guiding rod away from the piston rod is provided with a balance hole (12e), one end of the balance hole is in communication with the second guiding hole (the interior of 12 generally), and an other end of the balance hole is in communication with the outlet (to 10b).
Regarding Claim 11, Fujikura Rubber Ltd disclose where the piston rod is further provided with a third guiding hole (the conical portion at the head of the piston rod in Figure 1), the third guiding hole is in communication with the first guiding hole (Figure 1), and the third guiding hole is located at an end of the first guiding hole away from the guiding rod (Figure 1);
a size of the third guiding hole is defined as W, and the diameter X of the first guiding hole, the diameter Z of the resilient member, and the size W of the third guiding hole satisfy the following relationship: Z <W< X (Figure 1).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Fujikura Rubber Ltd (JP2001099350A; provided by Applicant on the IDS dated 27 Nov 2024) in view of Sullivan (US 3845784) in further view of Mullaney III (US 3,548,868).
Regarding Claim 8, Fujikura Rubber Ltd disclose where the first stop portion (14b) comprises a first peripheral wall portion (Figure 1), the flaring portion comprises a second peripheral wall portion (11b), an included angle between an extension line of the first peripheral wall portion and the axis of the valve body is defined as α (Figure 1), an included angle between an extension line of the second peripheral wall portion and the axis of the valve body is defined as β (Figure 1), and the included angle a between the extension line of the first peripheral wall portion and the axis of the valve body and the included angle β between the extension line of the second peripheral wall portion and the axis of the valve body satisfy the following relationships:, 0<a<90, and 00< β < 90 (Figure 1), but fails to expressly disclose where α > β.
Mullaney III teach a check valve (Figure 1) with a first stop portion (41), a flaring portion (25), an included angle between an extension line of the first peripheral wall portion and the axis of the valve body is defined as α (Figure 1), an included angle between an extension line of the second peripheral wall portion and the axis of the valve body is defined as β (Figure 1) where α > β (Figure 1).
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 relationship between the flared portion surface and the stop portion to change, 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 angles of the components would not operate differently with the claimed dimensions since the elements function in the same manner as the inventor’s disclosed elements. 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 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Fujikura Rubber Ltd (JP2001099350A; provided by Applicant on the IDS dated 27 Nov 2024) in view of Sullivan (US 3845784) in further view of Becker (US 2,809,660).
Regarding Claim 12, Fujikura Rubber Ltd disclose where the locating member (12a) is arranged at an end of the guiding rod away from the piston rod (Figure 1), a through hole is formed in the locating member (12e), and along the axis of the valve body, a flow area of a cross section of the locating member is greater than or equal to the flow area of the cross section of the valve port (Figures 1-2), but fails to expressly disclose where the guiding rod is inserted into the through hole and fixedly connected with the locating member and along the axis of the valve body.
Becker teaches a check valve (Figures 1-4) with a valve body (10 generally) with a piston unit (16 generally), further comprising a guiding rod (15), and a locating member (26) with a through hole (Figure 4 through 26 where shank 29 is inserted) where the guiding rod (15) is inserted into the through hole (via 29) and fixedly connected with the locating member (Figure 4).
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 guiding rod and locating member of Fujikura Rubber Ltd to be separable as taught by Becker since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to allow for simplified repair or replacement of the separate components.
Regarding Claim 14, Fujikura Rubber Ltd disclose where the locating member comprises a stopper (12c) and a circlip (13), and the stopper is fixed between the guiding rod and the circlip (Figure 2).
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