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 5 May 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-12 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 5 Dec 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Svenson et al (US 3473561).
Regarding Claim 1, Svenson et al disclose a check valve (Figures 1-3) for a fluid circuit of a motor vehicle1. The check valve comprising:
a casing (body 11) delimiting an internal volume (12) provided with an inlet (14), an outlet (15) and defining a main axis X of flow of fluid between the inlet and the outlet through the casing (with fluid flow along the arrow 41; with the axis passing though the middle of 26 shown in Figure 3),
a membrane element (29), extending at least partially inside the internal volume of the casing (Figures 1-2),
wherein the membrane element (29) comprises a main body (28) and an elastically deformable free end portion (the end which contains the contact portion 73),
wherein the free end portion includes a contact portion (73) which is radially elastically deformable between a sealing position (Figure 2) wherein the contact portion contacts an internal wall of the internal volume and a fluid opening position wherein the fluid can flow from the inlet to the outlet around the free end portion of the membrane element (Col 3, line 66 – Col 4, line 5), and the free end portion is configured to deform radially between the sealing position and the fluid opening position to provide an opening path for the fluid (Col 3, line 66 – Col 4, line 5),
wherein the membrane element (29) axially has a decreasing cross section between a proximal end portion (at the outlet end 15) forming the contact portion and an opposite distal end portion (at 17), and
wherein the casing comprises on the inlet side an internal seat (17, 22 and 64) for receiving the distal end portion (Figure 1) and on the outlet side an axial extension pin (26) configured to extend inside the proximal end portion of the membrane element such that the main body of the membrane element is immobilized axially between the seat and the pin (Figure 1), and the main body of the membrane element is configured not to shift axially between the seat and the pin (Figure 1 by 27), and
wherein the free end portion of the membrane element is configured to not contact the seat (17, 22 and 64) or the pin (26) in either the sealing position or the fluid opening position (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 4, Svenson et al disclose wherein the proximal end portion of the membrane element is of hollow cross section to form a recess shaped to axially receive the pin giving a profile with a generally V-shaped longitudinal section (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 6, Svenson et al disclose wherein the membrane element (29) has a general bell shape which flares from the distal end portion to the proximal end portion (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 7, Svenson et al disclose wherein the pin (26) comprises a base made integrally with the internal wall of the internal volume of the casing (via 17 and 21), the base having a star-shaped configuration (Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 8, Svenson et al disclose wherein the seat (Figure 2 at 73) comprises a circumferential axial bearing surface and the distal end portion comprises an external peripheral shoulder which rests axially against the bearing surface (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 9, Svenson et al disclose wherein the seat comprises a plurality of axial ribs (22), projecting radially from an axial wall of the internal volume, each provided with a proximal end edge which together form a discontinuous circumferential bearing surface for the distal end portion of the membrane element (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 10, Svenson et al disclose wherein a distribution of the ribs is regular in a circumferential direction (Figure 3).
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) 2-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svenson et al (US 3473561) in view of Gaehwiler (US 5,375,621).
Regarding Claim 2, Svenson et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose wherein the casing comprises an inlet connector and an outlet connector configured to fit into each other by delimiting the internal volume of the casing, the inlet connector comprises the seat and the outlet connector comprises the pin.
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).
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 casing of Svenson et al with the casing as taught by Gaehwiler for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (a separable casing within a valve system) to yield predictable results (to allow separation of the check valve for maintenance or inspection).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided for wherein the casing comprises an inlet connector and an outlet connector configured to fit into each other, 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 access for maintenance or inspection.
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 5, Svenson et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where the distal end portion of the membrane element is of solid cross section, the distal end portion with an end tip with a generally conical shape.
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).
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 element of Svenson et al with the membrane element as taught by Gaehwiler for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (a solid conically shaped distal end of the membrane element of Gaehwiler within the membrane element of Svenson et al) to yield predictable results (to allow provide a shape to allow for fluid to easily pass across).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kia Motors (KR 100345545) in view of in view of Svenson et al (US 3473561).
Regarding Claim 12, Kia Motors discloses a spraying device (Figures) for distributing washing water2 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.
Svenson et al disclose a check valve (Figures 1-3) for a fluid circuit of a motor vehicle3. The check valve comprising:
a casing (body 11) delimiting an internal volume (12) provided with an inlet (14), an outlet (15) and defining a main axis X of flow of fluid between the inlet and the outlet through the casing (with fluid flow along the arrow 41; with the axis passing though the middle of 26 shown in Figure 3),
a membrane element (29), extending at least partially inside the internal volume of the casing (Figures 1-2),
wherein the membrane element (29) comprises a main body (28) and an elastically deformable free end portion (the end which contains the contact portion 73),
wherein the free end portion includes a contact portion (73) which is radially elastically deformable between a sealing position (Figure 2) wherein the contact portion contacts an internal wall of the internal volume and a fluid opening position wherein the fluid can flow from the inlet to the outlet around the free end portion of the membrane element (Col 3, line 66 – Col 4, line 5), and the free end portion is configured to deform radially between the sealing position and the fluid opening position to provide an opening path for the fluid (Col 3, line 66 – Col 4, line 5),
wherein the membrane element (29) axially has a decreasing cross section between a proximal end portion (at the outlet end 15) forming the contact portion and an opposite distal end portion (at 17), and
wherein the casing comprises on the inlet side an internal seat (17, 22 and 64) for receiving the distal end portion (Figure 1) and on the outlet side an axial extension pin (26) configured to extend inside the proximal end portion of the membrane element such that the main body of the membrane element is immobilized axially between the seat and the pin (Figure 1), and the main body of the membrane element is configured not to shift axially between the seat and the pin (Figure 1 by 27), and
wherein the free end portion of the membrane element is configured to not contact the seat (17, 22 and 64) or the pin (26) in either the sealing position or the fluid opening position (Figure 1).
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 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 amendment has overcome the rejection of record. However, a new ground of rejection is applied to the amended claims.
Applicant argues that Svenson fails to teach an internal seat for receiving the distal end portion of the membrane element and a casing that comprises an axial extension pin configured to extend inside the proximal end portion of a membrane element.
However, as discussed above, Svenson discloses wherein the casing comprises on the inlet side an internal seat (17, 22 and 64) for receiving the distal end portion (Figure 1) and on the outlet side an axial extension pin (26) configured to extend inside the proximal end portion of the membrane element such that the main body of the membrane element is immobilized axially between the seat and the pin (Figure 1), and the main body of the membrane element is configured not to shift axially between the seat and the pin (Figure 1 by 27). Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
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
1 The recitation “for a fluid circuit of a motor vehicle” has not been given patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
2 The recitation of the actual fluid handled (here, “washing water”) has been given no patentable weight in the apparatus claims, MPEP 2115.
3 The recitation “for a fluid circuit of a motor vehicle” has not been given patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
Prosecution Insights