DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, and 11-24 are pending for consideration following applicant’s amendment filed 6/24/2026.
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 .
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-8, and 11-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peras (US Patent 2,990,849).
Regarding Claim 1, Peras discloses a check valve, comprising: an upper housing 8 defining an inlet 21 of the check valve and including a core member (core member including seat 13, this element is included within the upper housing at least via portion 15 as shown in Figure 3); a plurality of filtering grooves 18 (two of the grooves 18 are relied upon and seen to be readable as “filtering grooves” because the size of the grooves inherently restrict debris of a particular size from flowing therethrough) extending longitudinally along an outer perimeter of the core member 13 (best shown in Figures 3 and 5, the grooves 18 extend along the outer perimeter of member 13); a lower housing 7 coupled to the upper housing 8 and defining an outlet of the check valve (at the upper end of 7 as shown in Figure 3); and a flexible valve member 1 mounted between the upper housing 8 and the lower housing 7 such that the flexible valve member 1 surrounds the plurality of filtering grooves 18 (as shown in Figure 3), wherein the flexible valve member 1 is movable relative to the core member to transition between an open state (shown on the right side of Figure 3; col. 3, lines 5-9), in which the flexible valve member 1 is configured to expand away from the core member 13 and permit fluid flow around the core member from the inlet to the outlet, and a closed state (shown on the left side of Figure 3; col. 3, lines 10-14), in which the flexible valve member is configured to compress around the core member 13 to limit the fluid flow between the inlet and the outlet, wherein, in the open state, the flexible valve member 1 is configured to transition between a low fluid flow state (because the valve member 1 is responsive to relative fluid pressures, it is seen that the valve member 1 expands slightly at low pressures and expands a greater extent at higher pressures; therefore, lower upstream pressures result in a low fluid flow state), in which the flexible valve member 1 is configured to permit the fluid flow via the plurality of filtering grooves (it is noted that two of the grooves 18 are readable on the recited plurality of filtering grooves; slight deformation of valve member 1 will permit fluid flow through these two grooves), and a high fluid flow state (upon greater deformation of valve member 1), in which the flexible valve member 1 is configured to permit the fluid flow to bypass the plurality of filtering grooves (it is noted that during a high fluid flow state some of the fluid will flow through the additional grooves 18 which are not relied upon as readable on the recited filtering grooves above; flow through the additional grooves 18 inherently bypasses the two grooves relied upon as readable on the recited filtering grooves).
Regarding Claim 4, Peras further discloses the flexible valve member 1 is stretched around the core member 13 of the upper housing 8 to shut off against the plurality of filtering grooves 18 (col. 3, lines 10-14).
Regarding Claim 6, Peras further discloses a sealing surface (at portion 14) is defined at a distal end of the core member (at the upper end as shown in Figure 3) of the upper housing (the upper housing including the core member as described above; the claim does not require these elements to be integrally formed).
Regarding Claim 7, Peras further discloses, wherein in the closed state (as shown on the left side of Figure 3), the flexible valve member 1 is configured to contact the sealing surface (at 14) to limit the fluid flow past the sealing surface.
Regarding Claim 8, Peras further discloses, wherein, when an upstream pressure is applied to the flexible valve member 1, the flexible valve member is configured to deflect away from the sealing surface to permit the fluid flow from the inlet to the outlet (as shown on the right side of Figure 3 as described above), when a downstream pressure is applied to the flexible valve member 1, the flexible valve member is configured to deflect towards the sealing surface to restrict the fluid flow from the outlet to the inlet (as shown on the left side of Figure 3 as described above).
Regarding Claim 11, Peras is seen as further disclosing a cavity (a cavity is formed by another of the plurality of grooves 18 not previously relied upon as readable on the “plurality of filtering grooves” is relied upon as forming a cavity) is defined by two semi-cylindrical components (i.e. the portions on either side of the cavity 18 form semi-cylindrical components as they extend to adjacent grooves 18) in an upper portion of the core member 13 (i.e. the portion above flange 12).
Regarding Claim 12, Peras further discloses the flexible valve member 1 is sized and shaped so as to flex or bend under fluid pressure (as shown between the left and right sides of Figure 3) to permit forward flow of the fluid in between the core member 13 and the flexible valve member 1 (as shown on the right side of Figure 3), and to limit fluid flow in a reverse direction (as shown on the left side of Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 13, Peras further discloses each filtering groove of the plurality of filtering grooves (i.e. two of the grooves 18 as described above) is configured to trap and limit downstream flow of grit or other undesirable particulate matter larger in size than each of the filtering grooves (this is inherently achieved by the structure of Peras; i.e. any particulate matter larger in size than the filtering grooves will necessarily be trapped and be prevented from passing downstream).
Regarding Claim 14, Peras discloses a check valve, comprising: an upper housing 8 defining an inlet 21 of the check valve and including a core member (core member including seat 13, this element is included within the upper housing at least via portion 15 as shown in Figure 3), a sealing surface (at portion 14) on a distal end of the core member (at the upper end as shown in Figure 3), and a plurality of filtering slots 18 (two of the slots 18 are relied upon and seen to be readable as “filtering slots” because the size of the slots inherently restrict debris of a particular size from flowing therethrough) extending longitudinally along an outer circumferential perimeter of the core member 13 (best shown in Figures 3 and 5, the slots 18 extend along the outer perimeter of member 13); a lower housing 7 axially coupled to the upper housing 8 and comprising an outlet of the check valve (at the upper end of 7 as shown in Figure 3); and a flexible valve member 1 mounted between the upper housing 8 and the lower housing 7, wherein the flexible valve member 1 is movable relative to the core member 13 between: a low fluid flow state (because the valve member 1 is responsive to relative fluid pressures, it is seen that the valve member 1 expands slightly at low pressures and expands a greater extent at higher pressures; therefore, lower upstream pressures result in a low fluid flow state), in which the flexible valve member 1 is configured to permit fluid flow between the inlet and the outlet and around the core member through the plurality of filtering slots (it is noted that two of the slots 18 are readable on the recited plurality of filtering slots; slight deformation of valve member 1 will permit fluid flow through these two slots), a high fluid flow state (upon greater deformation of valve member 1), in which the flexible valve member 1 is configured to permit the fluid flow between the inlet and the outlet through and around the plurality of filtering slots (it is noted that during a high fluid flow state some of the fluid will flow through the additional slots 18 which are not relied upon as readable on the recited filtering slots above; flow through the additional slots 18 is readable on the recited “around the plurality of filtering slots”), and a closed state (as shown on the left side of Figure 3), in which the flexible valve member 1 is configured to limit the fluid flow between the inlet and the outlet (col. 3, lines 10-14).
Regarding Claim 15, Peras further discloses the flexible valve member 1 is configured to deflect away from the sealing surface (at portion 14) in the low fluid flow state and the high fluid flow state (thereby allowing fluid flow as described above).
Regarding Claim 16, Peras further discloses, wherein, when an upstream pressure is applied to the flexible valve member 1, the flexible valve member is configured to deflect away from the sealing surface to permit the fluid flow from the inlet to the outlet (as shown on the right side of Figure 3 as described above), and when a downstream pressure is applied to the flexible valve member 1, the flexible valve member is configured to deflect towards the sealing surface to restrict the fluid flow from the outlet to the inlet (as shown on the left side of Figure 3 as described above).
Regarding Claim 17, when making and using the device of Peras, Peras necessarily discloses a method of using a check valve, comprising: axially coupling an upper housing 8 to a flexible valve member 1 and a lower housing 7 comprising an outlet (outlet at the upper end of 7 as shown in Figure 3), wherein the upper housing 8 defines an inlet 21 and includes a core member (core member including seat 13, this element is included within the upper housing at least via portion 15 as shown in Figure 3) and a plurality of filtering grooves 18 (two of the grooves 18 are relied upon and seen to be readable as “filtering grooves” because the size of the grooves inherently restrict debris of a particular size from flowing therethrough) extending longitudinally along an outer circumferential surface of the core member 13 (best shown in Figures 3 and 5, the grooves 18 extend along the outer circumferential surface of member 13); allowing fluid to flow through the inlet 21 towards the flexible valve member 1; in a low fluid flow state (because the valve member 1 is responsive to relative fluid pressures, it is seen that the valve member 1 expands slightly at low pressures and expands a greater extent at higher pressures; therefore, lower upstream pressures result in a low fluid flow state), allowing the fluid to flow around the core member 13 and through the plurality of grooves 18 towards the outlet; in a high fluid flow state (upon greater deformation of valve member 1), allowing the fluid to flow around the core member 13 towards the outlet (through at least the additional grooves 18); and in a closed state (as shown on the left side of Figure 3), limiting flow of fluid between the inlet and the outlet.
Regarding Claim 18, Peras further discloses, wherein allowing the fluid to flow around the core member 13 towards the outlet in the high flow state comprises causing the flexible valve member 1 to deflect away from a sealing surface (sealing surface at portion 14).
Regarding Claim 19, Peras further discloses, wherein allowing the fluid to flow through the plurality of grooves 18 towards the outlet in the low fluid flow state (as described above) comprises applying an upstream pressure to the flexible valve member 1 (col. 3, lines 5-9) and causing the flexible valve member 1 to deflect away from a sealing surface 14.
Regarding Claim 20, Peras further discloses, wherein limiting the flow of the fluid between the inlet and the outlet comprises applying a downstream pressure to the flexible valve member 1 and causing the flexible valve member to deflect towards a sealing surface (at portion 14) and restrict the flow of the fluid from the outlet to the inlet (during normal use of the device, reverse flow is encountered and the valve necessarily is configured such that the flexible valve member 1 deflects toward the sealing surface as shown on the left side of Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 21, Peras further discloses the plurality of filtering grooves 18 are disposed on an outer surface of the core member 13 (as described above).
Regarding Claim 22, Peras further discloses the check valve comprises a conical check valve (the check valve includes a frustoconical surface at 14; it is noted that applicant’s check valve only includes frustoconical surfaces rather than conical surfaces; i.e. applicant’s device does not include any surfaces forming a complete cone shape and instead includes tapered or frustoconical surfaces).
Regarding Claim 23, Peras further discloses each filtering groove 18 of the plurality of filtering grooves is parallel to adjacent filtering grooves (as shown in Figure 4 especially, it is noted that for the purpose of this claim at least 3 grooves 18 of Peras are relied upon as readable on the recited “plurality of filtering grooves”).
Regarding Claim 24, Peras further discloses the inlet 21 and the outlet (outlet at the upper end of 7 as shown in Figure 3) define a longitudinal axis of the core member (as shown in 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.
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peras (US Patent 2,990,849) in view of Floh et al. (US Patent 6,848,471).
Regarding Claim 5, Peras is silent on the material of the flexible valve member and therefore does not disclose the flexible valve member is made of silicon.
Floh teaches a check valve (abstract) in which a flexible valve member 26 is made of silicon (silicone is one of the possible materials as described in col. 9, lines 7-12 and therefore includes silicon).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Peras such that the flexible valve member is made of silicon as taught by Floh for the purpose of utilizing a readily available material known in the art to be suitable for use in flexible check valves.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 14, and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, applicant argues that Floh fails to teach the new limitations of the independent claims requiring a plurality of filtering grooves (or slots) extending longitudinally along an outer perimeter (or outer circumferential surface) of the core member. These arguments are moot because newly applied Peras teaches a plurality of filtering grooves (or slots) 18 extending longitudinally along an outer perimeter (or outer circumferential surface) of core member 13.
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 KEVIN MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-4pm.
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 supervisor, Craig Schneider can be reached on (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 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.
/KEVIN F MURPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights