DETAILED ACTION
The Response filed 27 February 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-21 are pending, with claim 21 being new.
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 filed 27 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons in view of the previously applied prior art references – Kane et al. (US 3,695,576), Jackson (US 3,724,807), and Rubitschung (US 6,095,492).
The applicant argues with respect to claims 1 and 15 on pgs. 13-16 that the prior art does not teach a pinch bar that exerts the closing force on the sleeve from only one side in the closing direction, because the prior art teaches two pinch bars that move toward each other to pinch the sleeve, like Kane teaches with two pinch bars 7 and Rubitschung teaches in Fig. 3 with two pinch bars 215, 215’. However, although the prior art teaches two bars, as the applicant points out, one of said bars is a single bar that exerts a closing force on the sleeve from only one side in the closing direction relative to said bar. The prior art just happens to also have a second pinch bar the moves in its own closing direction and providing its own closing force on the sleeve on a second side of the sleeve. Also, note that the claimed recitation of “a single bar” isn’t seen as excluding a plurality of bars because the language is simply seen as positively reciting one bar.
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.
Claims 1, 5-6, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kane et al. (US 3,695,576).
Regarding claim 1, Kane discloses in Figs. 1-3 a pinch valve, having comprising:
a valve housing (comprising body 4), wherein the valve housing has a valve inlet (comprising a first end of the two ends of the body 4 to which the flanges 22, 23 of the sleeve 1 are attached) and a valve outlet (comprising a second end of said two ends of the body 4) and a sleeve 1 arranged between the valve inlet and the valve outlet,
wherein the sleeve 1 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 (comprising either of the valve stems 7 and respective shoe 8), which moves in and against a closing direction between an open position and a closed position,
wherein the pinch bar is in contact with the sleeve 1 at least in the closed position, such that the pinch bar exerts a closing force on the sleeve 1 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 sleeve 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, and
wherein the pinch bar exerts the closing force on the sleeve from only one side in the closing direction.
Regarding claim 5, Kane discloses 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, Kane discloses in Figs. 1-3 that the pinch bar has a cross-section perpendicular and/or parallel to the conveyed direction, which tapers (on shoe portion 8) in the closing direction.
Regarding claim 12, Kane discloses in Figs. 1-3 a drive (comprising the fluid pressure actuated diaphragm 13) to actuate the pinch bar in the closing direction is provided, wherein an opening 12 is provided in the valve housing (comprising body 4 and casings 14, 15), via which the pressure in the valve housing can be adjusted.
Regarding claim 15, Kane discloses in Figs. 1-3 a process for the production of a pinch valve having the structures claimed in claim 1, which are discussed above in the rejection of claim 1 in view of Kane.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kane in view of Rubitschung (US 6,095,492).
Regarding claim 2, Kane 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 Kane 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kane in view of Sato et al. (US 2021/0215260).
Regarding claim 7, Kane discloses a pinch bar that taper 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 disclosed by 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) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kane in view of Ziaylek, Jr. (US 4,467,997).
Regarding claim 7, Kane discloses a pinch bar that taper 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 disclosed by 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 Kane in view of Gallant (US 4,635,897).
Regarding claim 13, Kane 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 disclosed by 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 Kane in view of Holland et al. (US 3,441,245).
Regarding claim 14, Kane discloses in Figs. 1-3 that the valve housing 4 has a cavity between the valve inlet and the valve outlet in which the sleeve 1 is arranged, wherein the cavity is delimited by a housing wall. Kane lacks teaching that the housing wall has a plurality of ribs. The recitation of “preferably a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 10 ribs, which ribs extend perpendicular to the conveyed direction from the housing wall in the direction of the sleeve into the cavity, wherein particularly preferably a total length of the ribs in the conveyed direction corresponds to a minimum of 35%, preferably a minimum of 40% of the total length of the cavity in the conveyed direction” is not seen as positively reciting a limitation due to indefinite language.
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 disclosed by 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.
Claims 1-2, 5, and 15 (alternatively: all; as understood: all) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson (US 3,724,807) in view of Rubitschung.
Regarding claim 1, Jackson discloses in Figs. 1-3 a pinch valve, having comprising:
wherein the sleeve 1 has at least two material layers (comprising any two of layers 7, 11, 8, 10) between which a first textile fabric (comprising at least one of fabric layers 8a, 9, 8b) is arranged.
Jackson lacks:
a valve housing, wherein the valve housing has a valve inlet and a valve outlet and a sleeve arranged between the valve inlet and the valve outlet,
wherein the sleeve 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, which moves in and against a closing direction between an open position and a closed position,
wherein the pinch bar is in contact with the sleeve at least in the closed position, such that the pinch bar exerts a closing force on the sleeve 1 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, and
wherein the pinch bar exerts the closing force on the sleeve from only one side in the closing direction.
Rubitschung teaches in Fig. 3 a pinch valve, having comprising:
a valve housing (comprising body portions 211, 212, 216, 213, 213’), wherein the valve housing has a valve inlet (comprising a first end of the two ends 212, 216) and a valve outlet (comprising a second end of said two ends 212, 216) and a sleeve 214 arranged between the valve inlet and the valve outlet, wherein the sleeve 214 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 (comprising either of the valve stems 215, 215’), which moves back and forth in a closing direction between an open position and a closed position,
wherein the pinch bar is in contact with the sleeve 214 at least in the closed position, such that the pinch bar exerts a closing force on the sleeve 214 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, and
wherein the pinch bar exerts the closing force on the sleeve 214 from only one side in the closing direction.
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 Jackson to include the valve housing and pinch bar taught by Rubitschung to provide support for the sleeve and selective actuation of the valve, as Rubitschung teaches, and because Jackson is silent with regard to such details of the valve.
Regarding claim 2, Jackson 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 Jackson 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).
Regarding claim 5, Jackson discloses in Figs. 1-3 that the sleeve 1 comprises a minimum of a first material layer 7, a second material layer (comprising the one layer of fabric layer 8a adjacent of one fabric layers 9 and between the first material 7 and the fabric layer 9) and a third material layer 10, and a second textile fabric (comprising one of fabric layers 8a), wherein the first textile fabric (comprising one of the fabric layers 9) is arranged between the second material layer (comprising one of fabric layers 8a) and third material layer 10 and the second textile fabric (comprising one of the fabric layers 8a) is arranged between the first material layer 7 and second material layer.
Regarding claim 15, Jackson and Rubitschung teach a process for the production of a pinch valve having the structures claimed in claim 1, which are discussed above in the rejection of claim 1 in view of Jackson and Rubitschung.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson in view of Rubitschung, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Apparate (DE 2406530).
Regarding claim 3, Jackson discloses in Figs. 1-3 that the sleeve 1 has a central section (excluding flanges 3, 4) and a first end section 3 and a second end section 4, which are arranged in tandem in the conveyed direction, wherein the first textile fabric 9 does not extend to the first end section 3.
Jackson and Rubitschung lack a clamping device with two clamping surfaces is provided, with which clamping device the sleeve is secured to the valve inlet and/or the valve outlet such that the first end section is clamped between the two clamping surfaces.
Apparate teaches in Figs. 3-4 a sleeve 13 that has a central section and a first end section and a second end section, which are arranged in tandem in the conveyed direction, wherein a clamping device (comprising end flanges 6, 21) with two clamping surfaces is provided, with which clamping device the sleeve 13 is secured to the valve inlet and/or the valve outlet such that the first end section is clamped between the two clamping surfaces.
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 in the combination of Jackson and Rubitschung to include a clamping device comprising conical sections that fit into the end sections of the sleeve to securely clamp the end sections of the sleeve with the valve housing, as Apparate teaches (paragraphs 36-37).
Regarding claim 4, Apparate teaches in Fig. 3 that the clamping device has a conical section 16, wherein the conical section 16 tapers toward the interior of the valve channel, wherein an outer surface of the conical section 16 forms a first of the two clamping surfaces, which first clamping surface forms an angle with the conveyed direction and wherein the conical section 16 is designed such that the conical section presses a wall of the sleeve against a second of the two clamping surfaces, which clamping surface is arranged in the valve housing. Apparate is silent with regard to the angle of the first clamping surface with the conveyed direction, including whether the angle is formed of a minimum of 10o and a maximum of 35o. However, Apparate shows in Fig. 3 that said angle of the first clamping surface is approximately equal to the angle 14 of a side of a sloped section 22 of the sleeve 13 opposite from clamping device, and said angle 14 on the sloped section 22 of the sleeve 13 is “approximately 15o” (paragraph 40), therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the angle of the first clamping surface with the conveyed direction be approximately 15o to match the slope of the end of the sleeve to be clamped to provide gentle clamping of the sleeve.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson in view of Rubitschung, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Apparate.
Regarding claim 16, Jackson in view of Rubitschung and Apparate teach the limitations recited, as discussed above with regard to the rejections of claims 3 and 4, which recite the same limitations introduced in claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, Jackson in view of Rubitschung and Apparate teach the limitations recited, as discussed above with regard to the rejection of claim 5 in view of Jackson and Rubitschung, which recite the same limitations introduced in claim 17
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 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 claim 18, the pinch bar has a triangular cross-section perpendicular and/or parallel to the conveyed direction.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights