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 .
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.
Claims 1-10, 12, 14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANO (US 2019/0219246) in view of Sanford (US 6,055,931).
Regarding claim 1. YANO discloses a housing (101, see Fig. 1, Para. 0029) for an electronic element (bulb (102, see Fig. 1, Para. 0029), the housing comprising: a wall (housing 101 wall, see Fig. 1, 0032) separating an exterior space outside the housing and an inner space inside the housing (see Fig. 1), the wall forming an outer surface (attachment surface 101P, see Fig. 1, Para. 0032) towards the exterior space and an opposite inner surface towards the inner space and comprising an opening (101K, see Fig. 1, Para. 0033 and 0057) between the exterior space and the inner space, and an elastically deformable sealing valve (ventilation member 1 that includes a sealing member 30, see Figs. 1 and 2B, Para. 0033, 0057, and 0061) configured to be removably inserted in the opening to close the opening (see Para. 0057), wherein the sealing valve comprises an insert part (e.g. portion of the valve that is extending vertically down through the opening, see Figs. 2C and 5, Para. 0058, 0060) for insertion into the opening and a support part (the horizontal portion of the sealing member 30, see Figs. 1, 2C, and 4A) for arrangement against the outer surface of the wall, the sealing valve forming a path (a ventilation path 13, see Fig. 2C, Para. 0038 and 0041) from an inlet opening (e.g. ventilation path portion 133, see Para. 0040) to an outlet opening (131, see Fig. 2C, Para. 0046-0047), the path extending in a longitudinal direction, the inlet opening being formed in the support part and the outlet opening being formed in the insert part, and wherein the support part comprises a first surface part for arrangement against the outer surface of the wall, and wherein the insert part comprises a second surface part for arrangement against the inner surface of the wall (see Figs. 2C and 4A), the first and second surface parts forming a groove (housing facing portion 33, see Fig. 2C, Para. 0058 and 0060) extending circumferentially along an outer surface of the sealing valve transverse to the longitudinal direction, an edge portion of the wall being arranged in the groove, when the sealing valve is inserting in the opening (see Figs. 2C and 4A).
However, YANO fails to disclose or fairly suggest that the sealing valve is formed from one piece.
YANO further discloses an alternative embodiment teaching a ventilation member (401, see Figs. 9A and 9B, see Para. 0164-0166) that is formed a single unitary piece.
Sanford teaches a sealing valve (70, see Fig. 4) that is formed from one piece (see Col.3; lines 12-18) for insertion through the wall (12, see Fig. 1, Col. 1; lines 46-49, Col. 3; lines 1-30).
Therefore, in view of YANO’s alternative embodiment and Sanford, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the sealing valve as single, unitary piece in order to achieve cost-efficient manufacturability, as suggested by Sanford. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings to reduce cost and simplify the manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 2. YANO further discloses the opening (101K, see Fig. 1, Para. 0033 and 0057) is substantially circular, and wherein a cross-sectional shape of the groove substantially matches a shape of the opening.
Regarding claim 3. YANO further discloses the wall is substantially planar or substantially convex towards the exterior space (see Figs. 1 and 4A).
Regarding claim 4. YANO further discloses the support part (the horizontal portion of the sealing member 30, see Figs. 1, 2C, and 4A) has a height being defined as a dimension in the longitudinal direction, the height being lower along an outer circumference of the support part than at the inlet opening (see Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 5. YANO further discloses the height tapers down from the inlet opening towards the outer circumference (see Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 6. YANO further discloses an upper surface of the support part forms a substantially convex surface facing away from the wall (see Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 7. The teachings of YANO have been discussed above.
However, YANO is silent with respect to the height along the outer circumference is less than 2 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify YANO by adjusting the shape of the valve so that the height along the outer circumference is less than 2 mm, as claimed, in order to achieve the desired configuration, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 8. YANO further discloses height along the outer circumference is 1/5 or less than a distance between the first and second surface parts (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9. YANO further discloses an outer cross-sectional size of the insert part transverse to the longitudinal direction is larger at the second surface part than at an opposite distal end of the insert part (see Fig. 2C).
Regarding claim 10. The teachings of YANO have been discussed above.
However, YANO is silent with respect to a size of the inlet opening transverse to the longitudinal direction is 1 mm or less.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify YANO by adjusting the shape of the valve so that the size of the inlet opening transverse to the longitudinal direction is less than 1 mm, as claimed, in order to achieve the desired configuration, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 12. The teachings of YANO have been discussed above.
However, YANO is silent with respect to a size of the outlet opening transverse to the longitudinal direction is in a range of 1.0-3.0 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify YANO by adjusting the shape of the valve so that the size of the outlet opening transverse to the longitudinal direction is in a range of 1.0-3.0 mm, as claimed, in order to achieve the desired configuration, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 14. YANO further discloses a cross-sectional size of the path tapers down along the longitudinal direction of the support part (see Fig. 2C).
Regarding claim 16. The teachings of YANO have been discussed above.
However, YANO is silent with respect to a size of the insert part in the longitudinal direction is at least twice a size of the support part in the longitudinal direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify YANO by adjusting the shape of the valve so that size of the insert part in the longitudinal direction is at least twice a size of the support part in the longitudinal direction, as claimed, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that the disclosed device would perform equally well shaped as disclosed by YANO.
Regarding claim 18. YANO further discloses the housing forms part of a light fixture (vehicle lamp 100, see Fig. 1, Para. 0029).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANO in view of in view of Sanford and further in view of Olechowski et al. (US 2003/0029890).
Regarding claim 11. The teachings of YANO have been discussed above.
However, YANO is silent with respect to the inlet opening is expandable from a closed configuration to an open configuration by deformation of the support part.
Sanford further teaches the sealing valve (70, see Fig. 4) includes a vent passage (78) extending from the outer portion inwardly through the inner portion with an inlet opening with a first diameter (80) and a second diameter (82) inwardly thereof and larger than the first diameter (see Col. 3; lines 8-30).
Olechowski et al. teaches a valve member (31) that is retained within the closure body (30) by means of an outer retaining ring (40) and an inner retaining ring (42); wherein the valve member (31, see Fig. 7) includes a deformable portion (support portion 100) extending between a mounting portion (90) and a spout (78) and the valve member (31) moves open and closed configuration (see Para. 0086) by holding the container (with the closure mounted thereon) in an inverted orientation so that the fluent material within the container is squeezed and pressurized against the closed valve member (31, see Figs. 4, 5, and 16).
Therefore, in view of Olechowski et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify YANO by forming the support part to be deformable so that the inlet opening can expandable from a closed configuration to an open configuration thereby facilitating the dispensing of various fluent products, including liquids, gases, powders and particulates, as suggested by Olechowski et al., since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, forming the valve with deformable portion would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANO in view of Sanford and further in view of DeGuiseppi (US 5,522,769).
Regarding claim 13. The teachings of YANO have been discussed above.
However, YANO is silent with respect to a cross-sectional size of the path is substantially uniform along the longitudinal direction of the insert part.
Sanford further teaches the sealing valve (70, see Fig. 4) includes a vent passage (78) extending from the outer portion inwardly through the inner portion with an inlet opening with a first diameter (80; see Col. 3; lines 8-30) wherein a cross-sectional size of the path is substantially uniform along the longitudinal direction of the insert part (see Figs. 4-6).
DeGuiseppi teaches a valve that include a path (passageway 21) with a cross-sectional size that is substantially uniform along the longitudinal direction of an insert part (see Fig. 1, Col. 3; lines 49-60).
Therefore, in view of Sanford and DeGuiseppi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify YANO by forming the path to have a cross-sectional size that is substantially uniform along the longitudinal direction of an insert part as suggested by DeGuiseppi as a matter of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions,
Regarding claim 15. The teachings of YANO have been discussed above.
However, YANO is silent with respect to a cross-sectional size of the support part along the first surface part is in a range of 1.5-2.5 times a cross-sectional size of the insert part at a distal end.
Sanford further teaches as shown in figures 4, 5, and 6 with a cross-sectional size of the support part (top portion including flange 72) along the first surface part is in a range of 1.5-2.5 times a cross-sectional size of the insert part at a distal end.
As shown in the figure Fig. 1, DeGuiseppi teaches the valve includes a support part; wherein a cross-sectional size of the support part along a first surface part is in a range of 1.5-2.5 times a cross-sectional size of the insert part at a distal end.
Therefore, in view of Sanford and DeGuiseppi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify YANO by modifying the shape of the valve to have a support part in a range of 1.5-2.5 times a cross-sectional size of the insert part at a distal end, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that the disclosed device would perform equally well shaped as disclosed by YANO.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANO in view of Sanford and further in view of Thornton et al. (US 6,524,361).
Regarding claim 17. YANO further discloses a ventilation membrane (20, see Fig. 1) is a membrane in which plural holes that allow passage of gas and prevent passage of a liquid are formed; wherein the support body (10) is made of the thermoplastic resin (see Fig. 1, Para. 0051).
However, YANO is silent with respect to the sealing valve is formed by a material being hydrophobic.
Thornton et al. teaches a gas filter assembly (10) that include a filter member (20, Figs. 2-6) a thin disc shaped micro-porous material that has oleophobic and hydrophobic properties or qualities, thus allowing smaller gaseous molecules, such as hydrogen, to pass therethrough while simultaneously prohibiting larger liquid molecules, such as water from passing therethrough.
Therefore, in view of Thornton et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify YANO by forming the valve from a hydrophobic material so that the valve has an ability to allow allowing smaller gaseous molecules and prohibiting larger liquid molecules, such as water from passing therethrough, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-18 have been considered but are moot because, as a new ground of rejection is being applied in response to the applicant's amendment to the claims.
In response to applicant's arguments that “YANO does not disclose that the sealing membrane forms the path from the inlet opening to the outlet opening, as amended claim 1 also expressly requires,” Applicant is respectfully reminded that, while it might be evident, by comparing the patented structure of YANO with the instant specification and drawings, that applicant' s invention is different from the Prior Art made of record, that is not the test for patentability. Rather, it is the language of the claims what defines the meets and bounds of the instant invention. In this case, YANO discloses an alternative embodiment teaching a ventilation member (401, see Figs. 9A and 9B, see Para. 0164-0166) that is formed a single unitary piece. As shown Fig. 9B, the ventilation member includes a sealing membrane forms a continuous path between an inlet opening and an outlet opening (see Fig. 9A). Sanford further teaches a sealing valve (70, see Fig. 4) formed from a single piece (see Col.3; lines 12-18) for insertion through the wall (12, see Fig. 1, Col. 1; lines 46-49, Col. 3; lines 1-30). Sanford additionally discloses that the sealing membrane forms the path from the inlet opening (78, see Fig. 4) to the outlet opening.
Accordingly, in view of YANO’s alternative embodiment and Sanford, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the sealing valve as single, unitary piece such that the sealing membrane forms the path from the inlet opening to the outlet opening. Such a modification would have been motivated by a desire to achieve cost efficient manufacturability and reduce cost.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art taken as a whole does not show nor suggest “the sealing valve is inserting in the opening, the method comprising the steps of: providing a mold and an ejector punch, injecting a valve material into the mold to form the sealing valve, setting the sealing valve, and removing the sealing valve from the mold by use of the ejector punch” as required by the claim and there is no motivation absent the applicant’s own disclosure, to modify the YANO reference in the manner required by the claim.
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 Tsion Tumebo whose telephone number is 571-270-1668. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am to 4:00 pm, Monday thru Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached on (571)272-7044. 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.
/TSION TUMEBO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875