DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-2, 5-6, and 8-19 are pending. Claims 3-4 and 7 have been cancelled.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
The different structures lack different cross hatching. See CFR 1.84(h)(3).
The lines of the reference numbers in Fig. 5b do not appear to be pointing to the respective structures of the reference numbers, such as the disable shaft 1050 and the second spring 1025 appearing to both point to a wall of the threaded stopper 1006.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 1021 (Fig. 6).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8-11, 15-17, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 12, “pent” should be deleted.
In claim 8, last line, “ducts is aligned” should be changed to --ducts are aligned--.
In claim 9, last line, “ducts is aligned” should be changed to --ducts are aligned--.
In claim 10, last line, “ducts is aligned” should be changed to --ducts are aligned--.
In claim 11, last line, “ducts is aligned” should be changed to --ducts are aligned--.
In claim 15, lines 3-4, “ducts series” should be changed to --series of ducts--.
In claim 16, lines 3-4, “ducts series” should be changed to --series of ducts--.
In claim 17, lines 3-4, “ducts series” should be changed to --series of ducts--.
In claim 19, line 1, “claim 18, at least one groove” should be changed to --claim 18, wherein the at least one groove-- (i.e. add “wherein the” before “at least one groove).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, and 8-19 are rejected (wherein claims 2, 5-6, 8-14, and 18-19 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 1, last line, it is unclear whether the closed state introduced in reference to the intermediary stage is different from the closed state introduced in reference to the first stage. As understood, the closed states refer to the same closed state of the valve, so the latter recitation of “a closed state,” in the last line, should be changed to --the closed state--.
In claims 15-17, the last two lines of each claim, it is unclear how the at least one O-ring is “for sealing in between the disable mechanism duct and the control shaft duct.” In other words, it is unclear how an O-ring seals between the two ducts that provides fluid communication between them. As understood, the recitation is meant to recite the at least one O-ring is for sealing between the disable mechanism and the control shaft.
In claim 16, line 8, it is unclear whether “a disable spring” is different from the “resilient means” introduced in claim 12, which is for urging the broader “disable mechanism” against the control shaft, similar to the disable spring introduced in claim 16. As understood, the recitations refer to the same structure, and the relationship between them should be clarified.
In claim 17, line 9, it is unclear whether “at least one O-ring” is different from the “sealing means” introduced in claim 13, which is for sealing between the broader “disable mechanism” and the control shaft, similar to the at least one O-ring introduced in claim 17. As understood, the recitations refer to the same structure, and the relationship between them should be clarified.
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 1-2, 5-6, and 8-11 (as understood: all) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iwabuchi et al. (US 2005/0121634).
Regarding claim 1, Iwabuchi discloses in Figs. 4-5 a normally closed valve comprising:
a seat 20, 23 that has a fluid inlet 21 and a fluid outlet 22;
a diaphragm 24, an external handle 42 and an internal safety mechanism operationally (comprising a pneumatic disable mechanism 44 and a control shaft 43, 41) coupled to the external handle 42 and the diaphragm 24;
wherein the valve is configured to allow forcing the handle 42 in a first direction, thereby moving the internal safety mechanism through at least a first stage (corresponding to the valve being closed by a biasing force and alternatively because of venting for pressurized fluid therein, as shown in Figs. 5) and subsequently a second stage (corresponding to the valve being opened by allowing pressurized fluid therein, as shown in Fig. 4);
wherein
during the first stage (Fig. 5):
the diaphragm 24 is pressed onto the seat 20, 23,
flow of pressurized air through the internal safety mechanism is blocked, and air in the valve is vented,
causing the valve to be and remain in a closed state;
during the second stage (Fig. 4):
flow of pressurized air through the internal safety mechanism is allowed, the pressurized air after passing therethrough, acting against the pressing of the diaphragm 24 onto the seat 20, 23,
and a venting of air is reduced,
causing the valve to be and remain in an open state,
wherein the valve is further configured to allow moving the internal safety mechanism through an intermediary stage (comprising the intermediary position of the handle between supply pressurized fluid in Fig. 5 and venting pressurized fluid in Fig. 4, such as when the valve is initially in a closed state and the handle is moved to start supplying pressurized fluid), and wherein during the intermediary stage, the valve is in a closed state.
Regarding claim 2, Iwabuchi discloses in Figs. 4-5 that the valve is further configured to allow forcing the handle 42 in a second direction opposite to the first direction, thereby moving the internal safety mechanism through at least the second stage and subsequently the first stage.
Regarding claims 5-6, Iwabuchi discloses in Figs. 4-5 that there is a piston (comprising any of pistons 51a-c) mechanically coupling the internal safety mechanism to the diaphragm 24; wherein during the first stage (Fig. 5) the internal safety mechanism pushes the piston against the diaphragm 24 (via the venting of pressurized fluid below the piston allowing the biasing spring 39 to bias piston to close the diaphragm 24, like the applicant’s device).
Regarding claims 8-11, Iwabuchi discloses in Figs. 4-5 the internal safety mechanism comprising: a pneumatic disable mechanism 44, a control shaft 43, 41, and a series of ducts extending through the disable mechanism 44 and the control shaft 43, 41; wherein the moving of the internal safety mechanism comprises moving the control shaft 43, 41 relative to the disable mechanism 44; during the second stage (Fig. 4) the series of ducts is aligned.
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 12-14 (as understood: all) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwabuchi in view of Leinen (US 5,287,889).
Regarding claims 12-14, Iwabuchi discloses an internal safety mechanism comprising a disable mechanism and a control shaft, as previously discussed, but lacks a resilient means for urging the disable mechanism against the control shaft and sealing means for sealing in between the disable mechanism and the control shaft.
Leinen discloses in Fig. 1 a ball valve comprising a ball-shaped valve member 12, like the ball-shaped portion of the control shaft disclosed by Iwabuchi. The flow path in the valve member 12 is selectively placed in communication with flow paths in the housing, and sealing in between the housing and ball-shaped valve member 12 is provided by a spring biased seat member 70’, biased toward the ball-shaped valve member 12 by a resilient means 72’ and sealed against the ball-shaped valve member 12 by a sealing means 26. The seat member 70’ is analogous to the disable mechanism disclosed by Iwabuchi.
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 internal safety mechanism disclosed by Iwabuchi to have the disable mechanism be like the ball valve seat member taught by Leinen, in which the disable mechanism is biased by a resilient means toward the ball-shaped valve member and a sealing means is disposed in between the disable mechanism and the ball-shaped valve member. The seat member taught by Leinen ensures sealing against the rotating control shaft, regardless of wear, due to the resilient means, and the separate sealing means allows for cheap and simply replacements in the event of wear or damage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and any claim objections, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 15-17, the valve further comprising a threaded stopper, the stopper comprising a stopper duct and a housing chamber, the stopper duct extending through a wall of the housing chamber and being a member of the ducts series; wherein the disable mechanism is situated within the housing chamber; the disable mechanism comprising: a disable shaft comprising a disable mechanism duct; a disable spring for urging the disable shaft against the control shaft, and at least one O-ring for sealing in between the disable mechanism duct and the control shaft duct when the disable mechanism duct and the control shaft duct are aligned.
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
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753