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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is responsive to the amendment filed 11/26/2025. Applicant amended claims 1 – 2, 8 – 10, 12 – 13, 15 – 17, 19, and 22, cancelled claims 3, 7, 26 – 28, added claims 93 – 100; claims 1 – 2, 8 – 10, 12 – 13, 15 – 17, 19, 22 and 93 – 100 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant in the arguments filed 11/26/2025 addressed one of the references cited in 35 USC 102 (a)(1) rejection but failed to address the other reference – Japanese Patent Document JP H03107679 - that was cited in the rejection. Examiner respectfully maintains the amended claims read on the other reference.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 17 be found allowable, claim 100 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claim 1 – 2, 8 – 10, 12 - 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japanese Patent Document JP-H03107679.
Regarding claim 1, the Japanese Patent document discloses a fluid flow component (Fig. 1), the fluid flow component comprising: a housing (1, Fig. 1) comprising: an inlet (12, Fig. 1); an outlet (13, Fig. 1); a cavity (11, Fig. 1), a longitudinal axis extending along the cavity; a seat within the cavity; a first magnet (5, Fig. 1) comprising a first side and a second side positioned opposite the first side, the first side facing the seat; and a flow path extending from the inlet to the cavity and from the cavity to the outlet; and a closure member (2, Fig. 1) slidably movable within the cavity of the housing within a range of motion defined by a closed position and an open position of the closure member, the closure member being configured to engage the seat to prevent fluid flow through the flow path in a reverse direction when the closure member is in the closed position, the closure member comprising a second magnet (3, Fig. 1) motivated by the first magnet (5, Fig. 1) to bias the closure member toward the closed position, wherein the first magnet remains on the first side of the second magnet throughout the entire range of motion of the closure member (2, Fig. 1); and wherein a magnetic field biases the closure member (2, Fig. 1) into contact with the seat.
Regarding claim 2, the Japanese Patent document discloses the magnetic field is configured to repel the closure member (Abstract).
Regarding claim 8, the Japanese Patent document discloses the closure member comprises a cavity, and wherein the second magnet (3, Fig. 1) is located within.
Regarding claim 9, the Japanese Patent document discloses the closure member (2, Fig. 1) further comprises a sealing element (24, Fig. 1) which seals the cavity of the closure member.
Regarding claims 10 and 12, the Japanese Patent document discloses the cavity of the housing comprises an inner surface and the closure member comprises a plurality of protuberances – between the flow paths 23 shown in figure 2, the plurality of protuberances engaging the inner surface.
Regarding claim 13, the Japanese Patent document discloses the fluid flow component is free of mechanical biasing elements (Abstract).
Regarding claim 15, the Japanese Patent document discloses the closure member (2, Fig. 1) moves within the cavity of the housing (1, Fig. 1) in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis.
Regarding claim 93, the Japanese Patent document discloses the first magnet (5, Fig. 1) and the second magnet (3, Fig. 1) are positioned on the longitudinal axis.
Claims 1, 16 – 17, 19 and 100 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent to Hoppe et al. (9,080,686).
Regarding claim 1, Hoppe et al. disclose a fluid flow component (Fig. 1), the fluid flow component comprising: a housing (11, Fig. 1) comprising: an inlet (12, Fig. 1);an outlet (13, Fig. 1); a cavity (19, Fig. 1), a longitudinal axis extending along the cavity; a seat (14, Fig. 1) within the cavity; a first magnet (24, Fig. 1) comprising a first side and a second side positioned opposite the first side, the first side facing the seat; and a flow path extending from the inlet to the cavity and from the cavity to the outlet; and a closure member (15, Fig. 1) slidably movable within the cavity of the housing within a range of motion defined by a closed position and an open position of the closure member, the closure member being configured to engage the seat (14, Fig. 1) to prevent fluid flow through the flow path in a reverse direction when the closure member is in the closed position, the closure member comprising a second magnet (25, Fig. 1) motivated by the first magnet (5, Fig. 1) to bias the closure member toward the closed position, wherein the first magnet remains on the first side of the second magnet throughout the entire range of motion of the closure member (15, Fig. 1); and wherein a magnetic field biases the closure member (15, Fig. 1) into contact with the seat.
Regarding claim 16, Hoppe et al. disclose a stop member (21, Fig. 1, the stop member aligned with the longitudinal axis.
Regarding claims 17 and 100, Hoppe et al. disclose the stop member (21, Fig. 1) comprises the first magnet (24, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Hoppe et al. disclose the stop member (21, Fig. 1) limits motion of the closure member along the longitudinal axis (Col. 3, Lines 10 – 13).
Regarding claim 98, Hoppe et al. disclose the closure member does not extend through the stop (21, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 99, Hoppe et al. disclose the stop (21, Fig. 1) is sealingly (by means of element 22) engaged with the housing such that a gas flowing through the cavity when the closure member is in its open position does not flow past the stop.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WIPO Publication to Zhou et al. (WO 2012/003777).
Regarding claim 1, the WIPO Publication discloses a fluid flow component (Fig. 3), the fluid flow component comprising: a housing (200, Fig. 3) comprising: an inlet; an outlet; a cavity, a longitudinal axis extending along the cavity; a seat within the cavity; a first magnet (500, Fig. 3) comprising a first side and a second side positioned opposite the first side, the first side facing the seat; and a flow path extending from the inlet to the cavity and from the cavity to the outlet; and a closure member (100, Fig. 3) slidably movable within the cavity of the housing within a range of motion defined by a closed position and an open position of the closure member, the closure member being configured to engage the seat to prevent fluid flow through the flow path in a reverse direction when the closure member is in the closed position, the closure member comprising a second magnet (600, Fig. 3) motivated by the first magnet (500, Fig. 3) to bias the closure member toward the closed position, wherein the first magnet remains on the first side of the second magnet throughout the entire range of motion of the closure member (110, Fig. 3); and wherein a magnetic field biases the closure member (110, Fig. 3) into contact with the seat.
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 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WIPO Publication to Zhou et al. (WO 2012/003777) in view of US Patent Application Publication to Denoth (2024/0142018).
Regarding claim 22, the WIPO Publication does not disclose the housing comprising a first pocket, a second pocket, and a third pocket, wherein the first magnet is positioned within the first pocket, a third magnet within the second pocket, and a fourth magnet within the third pocket, wherein the closure member comprises a second magnet, wherein each of the first, second, third, and fourth magnets comprise a north pole and a south pole, each of the south poles of the first, second, third, and fourth magnets having the same orientation with respect to the longitudinal axis, and wherein the first, second, and third pockets are arranged at an equal distance from the longitudinal axis.
However, Denoth also teaching a magnetically biased check valve teaches several pockets in housing with plurality of magnets (5a, Fig. 3A) arranged equidistant from the longitudinal axis.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date of the application to have modified the valve disclosed by the WIPO document with plurality of magnets equidistant from the longitudinal axis taught by Denoth as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results
In the combination of the prior art elements, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected the valve with plurality of magnets equidistant from the longitudinal axis to maintain its respective property or function.
Claims 94 - 97 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent Document JP-H03107679 in view of US Patent Application Publication to Goepfert et al. (2010/0252769).
Regarding claim 94 – 97, Japanese Patent document discloses the cavity of the housing comprises an inner surface and the closure member comprises a plurality of protuberances – between the flow paths 23 shown in figure 2, the plurality of protuberances engaging the inner surface.
The Japanese Patent document does not disclose the first and second ring of protuberances.
However, Goepfert et al. teaching a method of identifying valve members used in valves with different characteristics by permanently marking the valve with grooves (16.1, 16.2, Fig. 3) of different sizes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date of the application to have modified valve element disclosed by the Japanese Patent document with the various grooves to identify the valve members taught by Goeppert et al. as a means of identifying the various valve members during the assembly process. Examiner further maintains the groove being wider than the thickness of the protuberances is one of the many variations of the groove sizes taught by Goepfert et al.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 UMASHANKAR VENKATESAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisors Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607 or Ken 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 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.
/UMASHANKAR VENKATESAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753