DETAILED ACTION
The RCE filed 24 August 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-21 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 24 August 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons in view of the newly cited prior art reference Yusko, Jr. et al. (US 4,899,783).
The applicant argues with respect to claim 1 on pgs. 9-11 of the Response that the prior art lacks a pinch bar that has a cross-section perpendicular and/or parallel to the conveyed direction, which tapers in the closing direction and thereby has a tapered shape, and the valve housing has a housing wall opposite to the pinch bar, which is adapted to the tapered shape of the pinch bar. However, Yusko discloses in Figs. 1-4 a pinch bar 96, 98 that has across-section perpendicular and/or parallel to the conveyed direction, which tapers in the closing direction (on tip 98) and thereby has a tapered shape, and wherein the valve housing has a housing wall opposite to the pinch bar 96, 98 (shown in the cross section of Fig. 2), which is adapted to the tapered shape of the pinch bar 96, 98 (because said housing wall is concaved with a cavity in which the pinch bar 96, 98 selectively moves inside).
The applicant argues with respect to claims 15 and 21 on pg. 11 of the Response that the prior art lacks the pinch valve comprising a single pinch bar and no other pinch bar. However, Yusko discloses in Figs. 1-4 a pinch valve with a single pinch bar 96, 98 that pinches the sleeve (C) against a wall of the valve housing (B), as discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6-12 are rejected (wherein claims 7-11 inherit their rejections due to their dependencies) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 6, it is unclear whether “a cross-section…” of the pinch bar introduced is different from the cross-section of the pinch bar introduced in claim 1. As understood, the cross-sections refer to the same cross-section. See also the 112(d) rejection below regarding claim 6.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the pressure in the valve housing" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As understood, the recitation refers to pressure in the valve housing that is adjusted by fluid supplied and/or exhausted through the opening in the valve housing.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 6 redundantly recites a limitation introduced in claim 1 of the pinch bar having a cross-section perpendicular and/or parallel to the conveyed direction that tapers in the closing direction. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 5-6, 12, 15, and 21 (as understood: 6 and 12) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yusko, Jr. et al. (US 4,899,783) in view of Kane et al. (US 3,695,576).
Regarding claim 1, Yusko discloses in Figs. 1-4 a pinch valve, comprising:
a valve housing (comprising body B and cap 130), wherein the valve housing has a valve inlet (on a first end of the passage through the body B that is contiguous with the passage 84 of a first one of the end member (E)) and a valve outlet (on a second end of the passage through the body B that is contiguous with the passage 84 of a second one of the end member (E)) and a sleeve (C) arranged between the valve inlet and the valve outlet,
wherein the sleeve (C) is connected to the valve inlet and the valve outlet and forms a valve channel, which valve channel can be flowed through in a conveyed direction by a conveyed medium,
wherein the pinch valve further has a pinch bar 96, 98, which moves in and against a closing direction between an open position and a closed position, wherein the pinch bar 96, 98 is in contact with the sleeve (C) at least in the closed position, such that the pinch bar 96, 98 exerts a closing force on the sleeve (C) in the closing direction, such that a channel cross-section of the valve channel perpendicular to the conveyed direction between the valve inlet and the valve outlet can be reduced and/or closed,
wherein the pinch bar 96, 98 exerts the closing force on the sleeve (C) from only one side in the closing direction,
wherein the pinch bar 96, 98 has across-section perpendicular and/or parallel to the conveyed direction, which tapers in the closing direction (on tip 98) and thereby has a tapered shape, and
wherein the valve housing has a housing wall opposite to the pinch bar 96, 98 (shown in the cross section of Fig. 2), which is adapted to the tapered shape of the pinch bar 96, 98 (because said housing wall is concaved with a cavity in which the pinch bar 96, 98 selectively moves inside).
Yusko lacks teaching that the sleeve has at least two material layers between which a first textile fabric is arranged.
Kane teaches in Figs. 1-3 the sleeve 1 has at least two material layers between which a first textile fabric (comprising either of fabric layers 29, 32, as disclosed in col. 7, lines 12 and 58-59) is arranged.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sleeve disclosed by Yusko to comprise two material layers between which a textile fabric is arranged to provide reinforcement, as Kane teaches (col. 6, lines 35-47).
Regarding claim 5, Kane teaches in Figs. 1-3 that the sleeve 1 comprises a minimum of a first material layer 27, a second material layer (comprising either of layers 30, 31) and a third material layer 33, and a second textile fabric 32, wherein the first textile fabric 29 is arranged between the second material layer 30/31 and third material layer 33 and the second textile fabric 32 is arranged between the first material layer 27 and second material layer 30/31.
Regarding claim 6, Yusko discloses in Figs. 1-4 that the pinch bar 96, 98 has a cross-section perpendicular and/or parallel to the conveyed direction, which tapers (on tip 98) in the closing direction.
Regarding claim 12, Yusko discloses in Figs. 1-4 a drive (comprising the fluid pressure actuated piston 122) to actuate the pinch bar 96, 98 in the closing direction is provided, wherein an opening 146 is provided in the valve housing (comprising cap 130), via which the pressure in the valve housing can be adjusted.
Regarding claim 15, Yusko and Kane teach a pinch valve, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Kane teaches in Figs. 1-3 that the process of producing the pinch valve includes producing the sleeve 1, which comprises the at least two material layers between which a first textile fabric is arranged, through a winding process (col. 7, line 27 – col. 8, line 22).
Regarding claim 21, Yusko and Kane teach a pinch valve, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Yusko discloses in Figs. 1-4 that the pinch valve further has only a single pinch bar 96, 98 and no other pinch bar.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yusko in view of Kane, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rubitschung (US 6,095,492).
Regarding claim 2, Yusko discloses a pinch valve, as previously discussed, but lacks a pinch valve sleeve pull open unit for the sleeve, wherein the valve housing is designed gas-tight, wherein the pinch valve sleeve pull open unit is designed in such a way, that the pinch valve sleeve pull open unit can generate a vacuum in the valve housing, so that the sleeve is pulled against a housing wall of the valve housing and the channel cross-section is enlarged.
Rubitschung teaches in Fig. 3 a pinch valve sleeve pull open unit (comprising vacuum pressure connection 209) for the sleeve 214, wherein the valve housing 211, 212, 216, 213, 213’ is designed gas-tight, wherein the pinch valve sleeve pull open unit is designed in such a way, that the pinch valve sleeve pull open unit can generate a vacuum in the valve housing 211, 212, 216, 213, 213’ (col. 5, lines 15-20), so that the sleeve 214 is pulled against a housing wall 211 of the valve housing 211, 212, 216, 213, 213’ and the channel cross-section is enlarged (inherently given that the connection 209 is capable of creating a vacuum in the space 210 between the sleeve 214 and housing wall 211).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve disclosed by Yusko to include a pull open unit capable of generating a vacuum in the valve housing (that can pull the sleeve against a housing wall and enlarge the channel cross-section) to produce a vacuum pressure outside of the sleeve so that a gas at reduced pressure can also flow through the sleeve without sucking the sleeve in on itself, as Rubitschung teaches (col. 5, lines 15-20).
Claims 7-9 (as understood: all) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yusko in view of Kane, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Sato et al. (US 2021/0215260).
Regarding claim 7, Yusko discloses a pinch bar that tapers in the direction of the closing direction, as previously discussed, but lacks teaching that the pinch bar at least partially has a triangular cross-section perpendicular and/or parallel to the conveyed direction at least in sections, wherein the triangular cross-section is orientated such that one contact tip of the three tips of the triangular cross-section points in the closing direction, wherein the contact tip is preferably rounded with a radius.
Sato teaches in Figs. 1-15 that the pinch bar 4 at least partially has a triangular cross-section perpendicular and/or parallel to the conveyed direction, wherein the triangular cross-section is orientated such that one contact tip of the three tips of the triangular cross-section points in the closing direction, (wherein the contact tip is preferably rounded with a radius, as shown in Fig. 6 and discussed in paragraph 45 and 50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the pinch bar in the combination of Yusko and Kane to have a triangular cross-section perpendicular and parallel to the conveyed direction and a rounded contact tip with a radius of curvature to minimize the amount of force required to close the sleeve without detracting from the durability of the sleeve, as taught by Sato (paragraph 56).
Regarding claim 8, Sato teaches in Figs. 1-15 wherein a radius Rp of the contact tip of the triangular cross-section parallel to the conveyed direction is a minimum of 2 mm and a maximum of 10 mm (paragraph 50). The recitation “that a radius Rs of the contact tip of the triangular cross-section perpendicular to the conveyed direction is a minimum of 5 mm and a maximum of 20 mm and/or” is not seen as positively reciting a limitation due to the recitation being recited as an alternative to other limitations because of the recitation of “and/or.”
Regarding claim 9, Sato teaches in Figs. 1-15 that an opening angle α at the contact tip of the triangular cross-section perpendicular to the conveyed direction is a minimum of 85o and a maximum of 95o and/or wherein an opening angle β at the contact tip of the triangular cross-section parallel to the conveyed direction is a minimum of 35o and a maximum of 65o (paragraph 52).
Claims 7 and 10-11 (alternatively: 7; as understood: all) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yusko in view of Kane, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Ziaylek, Jr. (US 4,467,997).
Regarding claim 7, Yusko discloses a pinch bar that tapers in the direction of the closing direction, as previously discussed, but lacks teaching that the pinch bar at least partially has a triangular cross-section perpendicular and/or parallel to the conveyed direction, wherein the triangular cross-section is orientated such that one contact tip of the three tips of the triangular cross-section points in the closing direction.
Ziaylek teaches in Figs. 1-9 a pinch bar 82 that at least partially has a triangular cross-section perpendicular and/or parallel to the conveyed direction at least in sections (Figs. 8-9 and col. 4, lines 41-54), wherein the triangular cross-section is orientated such that one contact tip 89 of the three tips of the triangular cross-section points in the closing direction (wherein the contact tip 89 is preferably rounded with a radius). The pinch bar 82 cooperates with a stationary jaw with a recess that corresponds to the shape of the pinch bar to provide quick closing of the sleeve and without damaging the sleeve (col. 5, lines 26-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the pinch bar in the combination of Yusko and Kane so that it at least partially has a triangular cross-section perpendicular and parallel to the conveyed direction, and wherein said cross-sections match the shape of a corresponding portion of the housing, so that the sleeve quickly closes and closes without being damaged, as Ziaylek teaches (col. 5, lines 26-36).
Regarding claim 10, Ziaylek teaches in Figs. 1-9 that the pinch bar 82 has a triangular cross-section perpendicular to and parallel to the conveyed direction (Figs. 8-9 and col. 4, lines 41-54), wherein the contact tip 89 of the triangular cross-section perpendicular to the conveyed direction has a radius Rs, wherein the contact tip 89 of the triangular cross-section parallel to the conveyed direction has a radius Rp, wherein Rs ≠ Rp (Figs. 8-9 and col. 4, lines 41-54).
Regarding claim 11, Ziaylek teaches in Figs. 1-9 that the pinch bar 82 has a triangular cross-section perpendicular to and parallel to the conveyed direction (Figs. 8-9 and col. 4, lines 41-54), wherein the contact tip 82 of the triangular cross-section perpendicular to the conveyed direction has an opening angle α, wherein the contact tip of the triangular cross-section parallel to the conveyed direction has an opening angle β, wherein α ≠ β (Figs. 8-9 and col. 4, lines 41-54).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yusko in view of Kane, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gallant (US 4,635,897).
Regarding claim 13, Yusko discloses a pinch bar as previously discussed, but lacks teach that at least some sections of the pinch bar have a coating which is arranged on a contact surface of the pinch bar, which contact surface comes into contact with the sleeve.
Gallant teaches in Figs. 1-4 that at least some sections of the pinch bar 8 have a coating which is arranged on a contact surface of the pinch bar 8, which contact surface comes into contact with the sleeve 7 (col. 3, lines 58-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pinch bar in the combination of Yusko and Kane to include a coating on a contact surface that comes into contact with the sleeve to minimize friction between the pinch bar and sleeve, as Gallant teaches (col. 3, lines 58-60), which one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize as minimizing/preventing abrasion and wear on the sleeve.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yusko in view of Kane, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Holland et al. (US 3,441,245).
Regarding claim 14, Yusko discloses in Figs. 1-4 that the valve housing (B) has a cavity between the valve inlet and the valve outlet in which the sleeve (C) is arranged, wherein the cavity is delimited by a housing wall. Yusko lacks teaching that the housing wall has a plurality of ribs.
Holland teaches in Figs. 13-18 that the valve housing 40 has a cavity between the valve inlet and the valve outlet in which the sleeve 41 is arranged, wherein the cavity is delimited by a housing wall, wherein the housing wall has a plurality of ribs 42, which ribs 42 extend perpendicular to the conveyed direction from the housing wall in the direction of the sleeve into the cavity, wherein a total length of the ribs 42 in the conveyed direction corresponds to a minimum of 35%.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve housing in the combination of Yusko and Kane to include ribs in the cavity along the length of the housing wall, as Holland teaches, to reduce the amount of material used in forming the housing because the ribs could be made in Kane by eliminating material along housing wall(s) along which the sleeve rests in the open position.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 16-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to disclose or render obvious, in combination with the other limitations recited in claims 3 and 16, the first textile fabric does not extend to the first end section.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Jonathan Waddy, whose telephone number is 571-270-3146. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (10:00AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881 or Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/J. W./
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KEVIN F MURPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
