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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 04/20/2026. As directed by the amendment- claim 7 is amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 04/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-14, 17, 20-24 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Schnelker et al. (U.S. 2013/0284960).
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) 1-14, 17, and 20-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schnelker et al. (U.S. 2013/0284960) in view of Weiss et al. (U.S. 2001/0037832).
PNG
media_image1.png
780
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 from Schnelker.
Regarding claims 1-5 and 8-11, Schnelker discloses a valve comprising: a valve body (5, 22) having a port section (22) and a coil support section (5) extending along a longitudinal axis (see Figure 1); a plunger (4, 10) slideably coupled with a first end of a bore of the valve body (5, 22) and extending at least partially through the coil support section (5); a cap (see annotated figure above) in the port section (22) of the valve body (5, 22) at a first end of the valve body 5, 22 (see paragraph 0013; see Figure 1); and a stop (3, 11) in a second end of the bore of the valve body (5, 22) at a second end of the valve body (5, 22), opposite the first end of the valve body 5, 22 (see Figure 1); wherein the stop (3, 11) comprises a shaft (see annotated figure above) that extends from a flange (see annotated figure above); wherein the shaft (see annotated figure above) is at least partially disposed within the second end of the bore of the valve body (5, 22) and the flange (see annotated figure above) is disposed outside the bore of the valve body 5, 22 (see Figure 1); and wherein the stop (3, 11) is configured to prevent fluid flow through the second end of the bore (see Figure 1).
Schnelker fails to disclose the cap and stop being press-fit; wherein at least one of the cap and the stop includes an annular barb sealingly coupled to the valve body; wherein the cap includes the barb; wherein the barb extends around a perimeter of the cap; and wherein the barb is configured to resist pressure within the valve body to hold the cap in place relative to the valve body; wherein the barb is integral with the cap and is configured to fluidically seal the cap to the valve body; wherein the barb and the cap are metal and the valve body is a resilient material; and wherein the barb is configured to deform the valve body thereby sealing the cap to the valve body; wherein the stop includes the barb; wherein the barb extends around a perimeter of the stop; and wherein the barb is configured to resist pressure within the valve body to hold the stop in place relative to the valve body; wherein the barb is integral with the stop and is configured to fluidically seal the stop to the valve body; wherein the barb and the stop are metal and the valve body is a resilient material; and wherein the barb is configured to deform the valve body thereby sealing the stop to the valve body.
Weiss teaches a valve manifold wherein a fitting (440) is press-fit and includes an annular barb (448) that sealingly mates with a valve body (see paragraph 0081); wherein the fitting includes the barb 448; wherein the barb (448) extends around a perimeter of the fitting (see Figure 45); and wherein the barb (448) is configured to resist pressure within the valve body to hold the fitting (440) in place relative to the valve body; wherein the barb (448) is integral with the fitting (440) and is configured to fluidically seal the fitting (440) to the valve body (see paragraph 0081); wherein the barb (448) and the fitting (440) are metal and the valve body is a resilient material (see paragraphs 0077, 0081, and 0082); and wherein the barb (448) is configured to deform the valve body thereby sealing the fitting (440) to the valve body (see paragraph 0081).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Schnelker to provide the cap and stop being press-fit; wherein at least one of the cap and the stop includes an annular barb that sealingly mates with the valve body; wherein the cap includes the barb; wherein the barb extends around a perimeter of the cap; and wherein the barb is configured to resist pressure within the valve body to hold the cap in place relative to the valve body; wherein the barb is integral with the cap and is configured to fluidically seal the cap to the valve body; wherein the barb and the cap are metal and the valve body is a resilient material; and wherein the barb is configured to deform the valve body thereby sealing the cap to the valve body; wherein the stop includes the barb; wherein the barb extends around a perimeter of the stop; and wherein the barb is configured to resist pressure within the valve body to hold the stop in place relative to the valve body; wherein the barb is integral with the stop and is configured to fluidically seal the stop to the valve body; wherein the barb and the stop are metal and the valve body is a resilient material; and wherein the barb is configured to deform the valve body thereby sealing the stop to the valve body. Doing so would provide a fluid tight seal without the need for additional seals (see paragraph 0081), as recognized by Weiss.
Please note that the combination teaches the addition of a barb to both the cap and the stop, as the barb would provide the benefit of a fluid tight seal without the need for additional seals to both the cap and the stop.
Regarding claim 7, Schnelker as modified teaches the invention as essentially claimed and further teaches wherein the cap (see annotated figure above) includes a valve seat (see annotated figure above) configured to be selectively engaged by a poppet (16) mounted to the plunger (4, 10) to selectively open and close a flow path through the port section (22) of the valve body (5, 22), wherein the cap (see annotated figure above) has a first terminal end that faces the poppet (16) and a second terminal end longitudinally opposite the first terminal end, wherein the valve seat (see annotated figure above) surrounds a first opening (see annotated figure above) in the first terminal end of the cap (see annotated figure above), and wherein the cap (see annotated figure above) further includes a second opening (see annotated figure above) disposed in the second terminal end of the cap (see annotated figure above) and in fluid communication with the first opening (see annotated figure above).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Schnelker discloses a valve comprising: a valve body (5, 22) having a port section (22) and a coil support section (5) extending along a longitudinal axis (see Figure 1); a plunger (4, 10) slideably coupled with a first end of a bore of the valve body (5, 22) and extending at least partially through the coil support section (5); a cap (see annotated figure above) in the port section (22) of the valve body (5, 22) at a first end of the valve body 5, 22 (see paragraph 0013; see Figure 1); and a stop (3, 11) in a second end of the bore of the valve body (5, 22) at a second end of the valve body (5, 22), opposite the first end of the valve body 5, 22 (see Figure 1); wherein the stop (3, 11) comprises a shaft (see annotated figure above) that extends from a flange (see annotated figure above); wherein the shaft (see annotated figure above) is at least partially disposed within the second end of the bore of the valve body (5, 22) and the flange (see annotated figure above) is disposed outside the bore of the valve body 5, 22 (see Figure 1); and wherein the stop (3, 11) is configured to prevent fluid flow through the second end of the bore (see Figure 1).
Schnelker fails to disclose the cap and stop being press-fit; wherein at least one of the cap and the stop includes an annular barb that sealingly mates with the valve body; wherein the cap includes at least two annular barbs that extend around a perimeter of the cap; and wherein the barbs are configured to resist pressure within the valve body to hold the cap in place relative to the valve body.
Weiss teaches a valve manifold wherein a port nipple (204) is press-fit and includes an annular barb (208) that sealingly mates with a valve body 218 (see paragraphs 0022 and 0075); wherein the port nipple (204) includes at least two annular barbs (208) that extend around a perimeter of the port nipple 204 (see Figure 18); and wherein the barbs (208) are configured to resist pressure within the valve body (218) to hold the port nipple (204) in place relative to the valve body 218 (see paragraph 0022).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Schnelker to provide the cap and stop being press-fit; wherein at least one of the cap and the stop includes an annular barb that sealingly mates with the valve body; wherein the cap includes at least two annular barbs that extend around a perimeter of the cap; and wherein the barbs are configured to resist pressure within the valve body to hold the cap in place relative to the valve body. Doing so would provide a fluid tight seal without the need for additional seals (see paragraph 0022), as recognized by Weiss.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Schnelker discloses a valve comprising: a valve body (5, 22) having a port section (22) and a coil support section (5) extending along a longitudinal axis (see Figure 1); a plunger (4, 10) slideably coupled with a first end of a bore of the valve body (5, 22) and extending at least partially through the coil support section (5); a cap (see annotated figure above) in the port section (22) of the valve body (5, 22) at a first end of the valve body 5, 22 (see paragraph 0013; see Figure 1); and a stop (3, 11) in a second end of the bore of the valve body (5, 22) at a second end of the valve body (5, 22), opposite the first end of the valve body 5, 22 (see Figure 1); wherein the stop (3, 11) comprises a shaft (see annotated figure above) that extends from a flange (see annotated figure above); wherein the shaft (see annotated figure above) is at least partially disposed within the second end of the bore of the valve body (5, 22) and the flange (see annotated figure above) is disposed outside the bore of the valve body 5, 22 (see Figure 1); and wherein the stop (3, 11) is configured to prevent fluid flow through the second end of the bore (see Figure 1).
Schnelker fails to disclose the cap and stop being press-fit; wherein at least one of the cap and the stop includes an annular barb that sealingly mates with the valve body; wherein the stop includes at least two annular barbs that extend around a perimeter of the stop; and wherein the barbs are configured to resist pressure within the valve body to hold the stop in place relative to the valve body.
Weiss teaches a valve manifold wherein a port nipple (204) is press-fit and includes an annular barb (208) that sealingly mates with a valve body 218 (see paragraphs 0022 and 0075); wherein the port nipple (204) includes at least two annular barbs (208) that extend around a perimeter of the port nipple 204 (see Figure 18); and wherein the barbs (208) are configured to resist pressure within the valve body (218) to hold the port nipple (204) in place relative to the valve body 218 (see paragraph 0022).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Schnelker to provide the cap and stop being press-fit; wherein at least one of the cap and the stop includes an annular barb that sealingly mates with the valve body; wherein the stop includes at least two annular barbs that extend around a perimeter of the cap; and wherein the barbs are configured to resist pressure within the valve body to hold the stop in place relative to the valve body. Doing so would provide a fluid tight seal without the need for additional seals (see paragraph 0022), as recognized by Weiss.
Regarding claim 13, Schnelker as modified teaches the invention as essentially claimed and further teaches wherein the stop (3, 11) is configured to limit movement of the plunger (4, 10) in a direction away from the cap (see annotated figure above; see paragraph 0016).
Regarding claims 14, 17, and 20, Schnelker discloses a valve comprising: a valve body (5, 22) having a port section (22) and a coil support section (5) extending along a longitudinal axis (see Figure 1); a plunger (4, 10) slideably coupled with a first end of the bore of the valve body (5, 22) and extending at least partially through the coil support section 5 (see Figure 1); a cap (see annotated figure above) in the port section (22) of the valve body (5, 22) at a first end of the valve body (5, 22), wherein the cap (see annotated figure above) includes a valve seat (see annotated figure above) configured to be selectively engaged by a poppet (16) coupled to the plunger (4, 10) to selectively open and close a flow path through the port section (22) of the valve body 5, 22 (see paragraph 0013; see Figure 1); and a unitary stop (3) in a second end of the bore of the valve body (5, 22) at a second end of the valve body (5, 22), opposite the first end of the valve body (5, 22), wherein the stop (3) is configured to limit movement of the plunger (4, 10) in a direction away from the cap (see annotated figure above; see paragraph 0016); wherein the stop (3) comprises a shaft (see annotated figure above) that extends from a flange (see annotated figure above); wherein the shaft (see annotated figure above) is at least partially disposed within the second end of the bore of the valve body (5, 22) and the flange (see annotated figure above) is disposed outside the bore of the valve body 5, 22 (see Figure 1); and wherein the stop (3) is configured to prevent fluid flow through the second end of the bore (see Figure 1).
Schnelker fails to disclose the cap and stop being press-fit; wherein the cap includes a first annular barb extending around a perimeter of the cap and sealingly coupled to an interior surface of the port section; wherein the stop includes a second annular barb extending around a perimeter of the stop; wherein the first barb is metal and the valve body is a resilient material; and wherein the first barb is configured to deform the valve body thereby sealing the cap to the valve body; wherein the barb is metal and the valve body is a resilient material; and wherein the second barb is configured to deform the valve body thereby sealing the stop to the valve body.
Weiss teaches a valve manifold wherein a fitting (440) is press-fit and includes an annular barb (448) that sealingly mates with a valve body (see paragraph 0081); wherein the fitting includes the barb 448; wherein the barb (448) extends around a perimeter of the fitting (see Figure 45); and wherein the barb (448) is configured to resist pressure within the valve body to hold the fitting (440) in place relative to the valve body; wherein the barb (448) and the fitting (440) are integrally formed of metal and the valve body is a resilient material (see paragraphs 0077, 0081, and 0082); and wherein the barb (448) is configured to deform the valve body thereby sealing the fitting (440) to the valve body (see paragraph 0081).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Schnelker to provide the cap and stop being press-fit; wherein the cap includes a first annular barb extending around a perimeter of the cap and sealingly coupled to an interior surface of the port section; wherein the stop includes a second annular barb extending around a perimeter of the stop; wherein the first barb is metal and the valve body is a resilient material; and wherein the first barb is configured to deform the valve body thereby sealing the cap to the valve body; wherein the barb is metal and the valve body is a resilient material; and wherein the second barb is configured to deform the valve body thereby sealing the stop to the valve body. Doing so would provide a fluid tight seal without the need for additional seals (see paragraph 0081), as recognized by Weiss.
Please note that the combination teaches the addition of a barb to both the cap and the stop, as the barb would provide the benefit of a fluid tight seal without the need for additional seals to both the cap and the stop.
Regarding claim 21, Schnelker as modified teaches the invention as essentially claimed and further teaches wherein the stop (3, 11) is unitary and portless (see Figure 1).
Please note that the definition of unitary is “forming a unit”, which can be made of different parts, and is different than being monolithic.
Regarding claim 22, Schnelker as modified teaches the invention as essentially claimed and further teaches wherein the flange (see annotated figure above) of the stop (3) has a radially outermost boundary, wherein the radially outermost boundary comprises a flat side (see annotated figure above) of the flange (see annotated figure above), and wherein the flat side (see annotated figure above) of the flange (see annotated figure above) is configured to be disposed adjacent to a flat surface (see annotated figure above) of the valve body 5, 22 (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 23, Schnelker as modified teaches the invention as essentially claimed and further teaches an outer shell (2) coupled to the valve body (5, 22), wherein the outer shell (2) encloses at least the coil support section (5) and the stop 3, 11 (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 24, Schnelker as modified teaches the invention as essentially claimed and further teaches wherein the outer shell (2) comprises an interior surface that abuts an end surface of the stop (3, 11) on a side of the flange (see annotated figure above) opposite the shaft (see annotated figure above (see Figure 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY E CARY whose telephone number is (571)272-9427. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-5:30pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at (571)-272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881.. 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.
/KELSEY E CARY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights