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 25 Nov 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-12 and 14-16 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 24 Sept 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein the multiple valve bodies each include a lever arm pivotally mounted to the housing, the lever arm including first and second ends opposite one another, the first end engaging the cam profile, and the second end supporting a seal configured to move between the open and closed positions in response to the cam profile” from Claim 14, along with the “wherein the disc is a first disc, the cam profile is a first cam profile, and comprising a second disc having a second cam profile, the multiple valve bodies operatively connected to the first and second cam profiles to be selectively movable between open and closed positions in response thereto, wherein the first and second discs are respectively driven by first and second drive lugs” from Claim 1, from which Claim 14 depends must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, line 14 “between open and closed positions” should likely read “between the open and closed positions”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitations “wherein the multiple valve bodies each include a lever arm pivotally mounted to the housing, the lever arm including first and second ends opposite one another, the first end engaging the cam profile, and the second end supporting a seal configured to move between the open and closed positions in response to the cam profile”. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear how the lever arm operates and functions with the first and second discs with first and second cam profiles recited in independent Claim 1. This limitation lacks support in the application as originally filed and therefore is being treated as new matter.
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 11 and 14 are rejected 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the opening" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitations “wherein the multiple valve bodies each include a lever arm pivotally mounted to the housing, the lever arm including first and second ends opposite one another, the first end engaging the cam profile, and the second end supporting a seal configured to move between the open and closed positions in response to the cam profile”. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear how the lever arm operates and functions with the first and second discs with first and second cam profiles recited in independent Claim 1. Therefore, this limitation is unclear.
Additionally, the limitations of Claim 14 lack antecedent basis within the specification.
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, 3-4, 9-10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gould et al (US 4570663).
Regarding Claim 1, Gould et al disclose a distributor valve1 (Figures 6-12) for a vehicle cooling system2. The valve comprising:
a housing (3) providing multiple ports (via 10) in fluid communication with a cavity (within the housing);
a disc (71 generally) arranged within the cavity (Figure 6) and configured to be rotatable about an axis (about 52), the disc (71 generally) including a cam profile (Figures 7 and 12; Col 7, lines 7-14);
multiple valve bodies (56) operatively interconnected to the cam profile (Figure 6; Col 7, lines 15-23), each of the multiple valve bodies provided at corresponding one of the multiple ports (Figure 6 at 10) and configured to be selectively movable between open and closed positions in response to the cam profile (Col 7, lines 15-23), wherein any of the multiple ports having its respective valve body in the open position being in fluid communication with the cavity (Col 7, lines 7-14), and any of the multiple ports having its respective valve body in the closed position being fluidly blocked from the cavity (Col 7, lines 15-23);
and wherein the disc is a first disc (Figure 7), the cam profile is a first cam profile (Figure 7), and comprising a second disc (53) having a second cam profile (Col 7, lines 7-14), the multiple valve bodies operatively connected to the first and second cam profiles to be selectively movable between open and closed positions in response thereto (Figure 7; Col 7, lines 7-23), wherein the first and second discs are respectively driven by first (79) and second (80) drive lugs (Figure 7).
Regarding Claim 3, Gould et al disclose where the cam profile (of disc 71 shown in Figure 12) is configured to slideably engage the valve body (Figure 6), the cam profile includes at least one peak (71-A) and at least one valley (75) interconnected by a ramped surface (74).
Regarding Claim 4, Gould et al disclose where the at least one valley (75) corresponds to the open position (Figure 6; Col 7, lines 24-30), and the at least one peak corresponds to the closed position (Figure 6; Col 7, lines 24-30).
Regarding Claim 9, Gould et al disclose where one of the disc and the housing includes a pilot (the housing provides a pilot as shown in Figure 9 on hosing part 6 into which shaft 52 is inserted), and the other of the disc and the housing includes a collar (73 in Figure 6, located on the disc) that is nested with the pilot to provide a bearing (Figure 6).
Regarding Claim 10, Gould et al disclose wherein the first (79) and second (80) drive lugs are concentric with one another (Figures 6-7).
Regarding Claim 16, Gould et al disclose where the first (79) and second (80) drive lugs are connected to a common actuator (Figure 6 to the impeller).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gould et al (US 4570663) in view of Carson et al (US 3040777).
Regarding Claim 2, Gould et al disclose the valve comprising an actuator (the impeller shown in Figure 6) and a gear train (27 generally in Figure 6), the actuator mounted to the housing (Figure 6) and coupled to the disc via the gear train (Figure 6), but fails to expressly disclose where the actuator includes a motor.
Carson et al teach a fluid rotary valve (Figure 1) with an actuator where the actuator includes a motor (Col 7, lines 7-16).
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 actuator of Gould et al with the motor as taught by Carson et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the motor of Carson et al, where Carson et al recognize that a motor or turbine may be utilized for the turbine of Gould et al) to yield predictable results (to power the rotary/distribution valve).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gould et al (US 4570663) in view of Brown, Jr (US 2575940).
Regarding Claim 11, Gould et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose a seal arranged in the opening between one of the first and second drive lugs and the housing.
Brown Jr teaches a disc (20) with a drive lug (7), a housing (17) and an actuator (41) with a seal (22) arranged in the opening between the drive lug (7) and the housing (17).
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 drive lug of Gould et al with the seal as taught by Brown Jr for the advantage of keeping the interaction between the drive lug and the housing watertight, as taught by Brown Jr (Col 2, lines 28-30).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Gould et al (US 4570663).
Regarding Claim 12, Gould et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly teach where at least one of the multiple ports is provided without a valve body.
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 a port without a valve body, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to allow unrestricted flow of fluid from between two or more ports.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the rejection of record. However, a new ground of rejection is applied to the amended claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 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.
Claim 14 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, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 15 is allowed.
Claim 15 is indicated as allowed for claiming, along with the entirety of the claim limitations, “a spring arranged between the housing and the first end and configured to bias the lever arm into engagement with the cam profile”. This limitation is neither anticipated by, nor rendered obvious over, the prior art of record.
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
/REINALDO SANCHEZ-MEDINA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
1 The recitation of the actual fluid handled (here: coolant) has been given no patentable weight in the apparatus claims, MPEP 2115.
2 The recitation “for a vehicle cooling system” 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).