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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 13 Nov 2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 10 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 7, line 2 “an internal wall” should likely read “the internal wall”.
In Claim 10, line 1 “the distribution” should likely read “a distribution”.
In Claim 10, line 2 “the circumferential direction” should likely read “a circumferential direction”.
In Claim 11, line 1 “each the inlet or the outlet connector” should likely read “each of the inlet connector or the outlet connector”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 /103
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.
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) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gaehwiler (US 5,375,621) in view of Svenson et al (US 3473561).
Regarding Claim 1, Gaehwiler disclose a check valve (Figures 1-10) for a fluid circuit of a motor vehicle (Col 1, lines 6-9). The valve comprising:
a casing (together 11 and 41) delimiting an internal volume (Figure 1 where valve 30 sits) provided with an inlet (40), an outlet (10) and defining a main axis X (17) of flow of fluid between the inlet and the outlet through the casing (shown by arrows 60),
a membrane element (30 generally), extending at least partially inside the internal volume of the casing (Figure 1),
wherein the membrane element (30 generally) comprises a main body (32) and an elastically deformable free end portion (31; Col 6, lines 40-42),
wherein the free end portion (31) includes a contact portion (shown in Figure 10 contacting the sealing edge at 51) which is radially elastically deformable between a sealing position (Figure 2) wherein the contact portion (shown in Figure 10 contacting the sealing edge at 51) contacts an internal wall (51) of the internal volume (within the casing) and a fluid opening position (Figure 1) wherein the fluid can flow from the inlet (40) to the outlet (10) around the free end portion of the membrane element (via flow 60 shown in Figure 1),
wherein the membrane element (30 generally) axially has a decreasing cross section between a proximal end portion (to the left as seen in Figure 1) forming the contact portion (shown in Figure 10 contacting the sealing edge at 51) and an opposite distal end portion (to 32 to the right as seen in Figure 1), and
wherein the casing (together 11 and 41) comprises on the inlet side (40) an internal seat (44) for receiving the distal end portion (Figure 1) and on the outlet side (10) an axial extension pin (14) configured to extend inside the proximal end portion of the membrane element (Figures 1-2) such that the membrane element (30 generally) is immobilized axially between the seat and the pin (Figures 1-2) and the free end portion of the membrane element is configured to not contract the seat (31 does not contact seat 44 in either the sealing position shown in Figure 2 because the free end portion 31 does not contact 44 or the fluid opening position because 31 does not contact 44 in Figure 1) or the pin (31 does not contact pin 14 in either the sealing position shown in Figure 2 because the free end portion 31 does not contact 14 or the fluid opening position because 31 does not contact 14 in Figure 1) in either the sealing position or the fluid opening position (Figures 1-2).
Alternatively, in the event the Applicant successfully argues that Gaehwiler fails to disclose the free end portion of the membrane element is configured to not contact the seat or the pin in either the sealing position or the fluid opening position, Svenson et al teach these limitations.
Svenson et al teach a check valve (Figures 1-2) and a casing (11 generally), a membrane element (29 generally), where the membrane element comprises a main body (28) and an elastically deformable free end portion (31; Col 3, lines 30-48), a seat (17 generally) and a pin (63) where the free end portion of the membrane element (31) is configured to not contact the seat or the pin in either the sealing position (Figure 1 with the free end supported with space between 35 and at least vanes 21, 22 and 24 and also not contacting the pin 63) or the fluid opening position (where free end portion 31 would be further separated from the vanes 21, 22 and 24 and also not contacting pin 63).
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 membrane of the check valve of Gaehwiler with the check valve as taught by Svenson et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the membrane of the check valve of Svenson et al within the check valve of Gaehwiler to yield predictable results (to block fluid flow).
Regarding Claim 2, Gaehwiler discloses where the casing (together 11 and 41) comprises an inlet connector (41) and an outlet connector (11) configured to fit into each other by delimiting the internal volume of the casing (Figures 1-2), the inlet connector (41) comprises the seat (44) and the outlet connector (11) comprises the pin (14).
Regarding Claim 3, Gaehwiler discloses where the seat (44) is integrated into the inlet connector (Figure 5) and the pin (14) is integrated into the outlet connector (Figure 3), each being made integrally by molding a plastic material (Col 6, lines 37-49 and Col 8, lines 44-49).
Regarding Claim 4, Gaehwiler discloses where the proximal end portion (to the left as seen in Figure 1) of the membrane element (30 generally) is of hollow cross section (Figure 4) to form a recess shaped to axially receive the pin (Figures 1-2; within 32) giving a profile with a generally V-shaped longitudinal section (Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 5, Gaehwiler discloses where the distal end portion (to the right as seen in Figure 1) of the membrane element (30 generally) is of solid cross section (at the distalmost portion at 33), the distal end portion with an end tip with a generally conical shape (Figure 4 at 33).
Regarding Claim 6, Gaehwiler discloses where the membrane element (30 generally) has a general bell shape (Figure 4) which flares from the distal end portion (to the right in Figure 1) to the proximal end portion (to the left in Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 7, Gaehwiler discloses where the pin (14) comprises a base (12 and 13) made integrally with an internal wall of the internal volume of the casing (Figure 7), the base having a star-shaped configuration (Figure 7).
Regarding Claim 8, Gaehwiler discloses where the seat (44) comprises a circumferential axial bearing surface (Figure 5 at least at 51) and the distal end portion (Figure 4) comprises an external peripheral shoulder (Figure 4) which rests axially against the bearing surface (Figures 1-2).
Regarding Claim 9, Gaehwiler discloses where the seat (44) comprises a plurality of axial ribs (43), projecting radially from an axial wall of the internal volume (Figure 5), each provided with a proximal end which together form a discontinuous circumferential bearing surface for the distal end portion of the membrane element (Figure 5 along 44).
Regarding Claim 10, Gaehwiler discloses where the distribution of the ribs (43 in Figure 6) is regular in the circumferential direction (Figure 6).
Regarding Claim 11, Gaehwiler discloses where each the inlet or the outlet connector (11 and 41) is made of a plastic material, by injection molding of the plastic material (Col 6, lines 37-49 and Col 8, lines 44-49).
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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kia Motors (KR 100345545) in view of Gaehwiler (US 5,375,621) in further view of in view of Svenson et al (US 3473561).
Regarding Claim 12, Kia Motors discloses a spraying device (Figures) for distributing washing water1 onto a glass surface of a motor vehicle (Figure 1 via 33) comprising a check valve (10), but fails to expressly disclose where the valve is according to claim 1.
Gaehwiler disclose a check valve (Figures 1-10) for a fluid circuit of a motor vehicle (Col 1, lines 6-9). The valve comprising:
a casing (together 11 and 41) delimiting an internal volume (Figure 1 where valve 30 sits) provided with an inlet (40), an outlet (10) and defining a main axis X (17) of flow of fluid between the inlet and the outlet through the casing (shown by arrows 60),
a membrane element (30 generally), extending at least partially inside the internal volume of the casing (Figure 1),
wherein the membrane element (30 generally) comprises a main body (32) and an elastically deformable free end portion (31; Col 6, lines 40-42),
wherein the free end portion (31) includes a contact portion (shown in Figure 10 contacting the sealing edge at 51) which is radially elastically deformable between a sealing position (Figure 2) wherein the contact portion (shown in Figure 10 contacting the sealing edge at 51) contacts an internal wall (51) of the internal volume (within the casing) and a fluid opening position (Figure 1) wherein the fluid can flow from the inlet (40) to the outlet (10) around the free end portion of the membrane element (via flow 60 shown in Figure 1),
wherein the membrane element (30 generally) axially has a decreasing cross section between a proximal end portion (to the left as seen in Figure 1) forming the contact portion (shown in Figure 10 contacting the sealing edge at 51) and an opposite distal end portion (to 32 to the right as seen in Figure 1), and
wherein the casing (together 11 and 41) comprises on the inlet side (40) an internal seat (44) for receiving the distal end portion (Figure 1) and on the outlet side (10) an axial extension pin (14) configured to extend inside the proximal end portion of the membrane element (Figures 1-2) such that the membrane element (30 generally) is immobilized axially between the seat and the pin (Figures 1-2) and the free end portion of the membrane element is configured to not contract the seat (31 does not contact seat 44 in either the sealing position shown in Figure 2 because the free end portion 31 does not contact 44 or the fluid opening position because 31 does not contact 44 in Figure 1) or the pin (31 does not contact pin 14 in either the sealing position shown in Figure 2 because the free end portion 31 does not contact 14 or the fluid opening position because 31 does not contact 14 in Figure 1) in either the sealing position or the fluid opening position (Figures 1-2).
Alternatively, in the event the Applicant successfully argues that Gaehwiler fails to disclose the free end portion of the membrane element is configured to not contact the seat or the pin in either the sealing position or the fluid opening position, Svenson et al teach these limitations.
Svenson et al teach a check valve (Figures 1-2) and a casing (11 generally), a membrane element (29 generally), where the membrane element comprises a main body (28) and an elastically deformable free end portion (31; Col 3, lines 30-48), a seat (17 generally) and a pin (63) where the free end portion of the membrane element (31) is configured to not contact the seat or the pin in either the sealing position (Figure 1 with the free end supported with space between 35 and at least vanes 21, 22 and 24 and also not contacting the pin 63) or the fluid opening position (where free end portion 31 would be further separated from the vanes 21, 22 and 24 and also not contacting pin 63).
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 membrane of the check valve of Gaehwiler with the check valve as taught by Svenson et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the membrane of the check valve of Svenson et al within the check valve of Gaehwiler to yield predictable results (to block fluid flow).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the check valve of Kia motors with a check valve as taught by Gaehwiler, as modified by Svenson et al, since they are considered art recognized equivalents in the art of the check valves that perform the same function of controlling a fluid flow in a single direction, and provide the advantage of providing a reliably functioning check valve under unfavorable conditions (Col 1, lines 22-24).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 Nov 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant amends Claim 1 to recite the limitations “the free end portion of the membrane element is configured to not contact the seat or the pin in either the sealing position or the fluid opening position” and argues that Gaehwiler seals the valve by contract with the seat 42 and therefore does not read on the limitations. However, as discussed above, since the seat is identified as element 44, the free end portion of the membrane element is configured to not contract the seat (31 does not contact seat 44 in either the sealing position shown in Figure 2 because the free end portion 31 does not contact 44 or the fluid opening position because 31 does not contact 44 in Figure 1) or the pin (31 does not contact pin 14 in either the sealing position shown in Figure 2 because the free end portion 31 does not contact 14 or the fluid opening position because 31 does not contact 14 in Figure 1) in either the sealing position or the fluid opening position (Figures 1-2).
However, in the alterative, Svenson et al teach a check valve (Figures 1-2) and a casing (11 generally), a membrane element (29 generally), where the membrane element comprises a main body (28) and an elastically deformable free end portion (31; Col 3, lines 30-48), a seat (17 generally) and a pin (63) where the free end portion of the membrane element (31) is configured to not contact the seat or the pin in either the sealing position (Figure 1 with the free end supported with space between 35 and at least vanes 21, 22 and 24 and also not contacting the pin 63) or the fluid opening position (where free end portion 31 would be further separated from the vanes 21, 22 and 24 and also not contacting pin 63).
Therefore, these arguments are unpersuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chen (US 20170198826) is directed to a membrane flow control valve
Lien (US 8281799) is directed to a membrane flow control valve
Winnard (US 3601151) is directed to a membrane check valve
Manska (US 4919167) is directed to a membrane check valve
Cummings (US 3022796) is directed to a membrane check valve
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
1 The recitation of the actual fluid handled (here, “washing water”) has been given no patentable weight in the apparatus claims, MPEP 2115.