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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12 Jan 2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The Examiner notes that US Patent 961,466 and US Patent 657,059 listed by Applicant on the IDS dated 12 Jan 2025 under Non-Patent Literature with no copy provided were considered and re-cited on the PTO-892 attached with this Action.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶ 20 “.The following” should likely read “The following”.
In ¶ 36 “t10he” should likely read “the”.
¶ 37 appears to be empty.
In ¶ 38 “illustrate” should likely read “illustrated”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a plurality of locking features in claims 1 and 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The Specification describes the locking features as: having one or more locking features (e.g., through-holes, detents, or apertures) (¶ 26)
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, line 8 “a corresponding flow configurations” should likely read “a corresponding flow configuration”.
In Claim 2, line 1 “the locking features” should likely read “the plurality of locking features”.
In Claim 11, line 4 “a valve” should likely read “the valve”.
In Claim 12, line 1 “the locking features” should likely read “the plurality of locking features”.
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 4-6 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 4 recites the limitation "at least three rotational orientations" in line 2. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if these are different than or the same as “corresponding rotational orientations” from Claim 1, line 7. For purposes of examination, they will be interpreted as being the same such that each of the at least three locking features corresponds to a rotational orientation of the corresponding rotational orientations.
Claims not specifically referenced are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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) 1-4, 7-9, 11-12, 15-16, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scaramucci et al (US 2017/0348810) in view of Hughes et al (US 4093178).
Regarding Claim 1, Scaramucci et al disclose a control assembly for a valve (Figure 1 generally). The assembly comprising:
a handle (19) configured to rotate a valve member of the valve to control flow of fluid through the valve (¶ 21), the handle including a grip portion (the portion extending out of bracket 70 as seen in Figure 1); and
a guide body (72 generally) including a mounting surface (the top surface shown in Figure 9A through which apertures 112 and 109a/b are formed), a central aperture (112), and a plurality of locking features (109a and 109b; ¶ 37), each of the plurality of locking features being spaced apart from a center of the central aperture by a first distance (Figure 9A), each of the plurality of locking features arranged to releasably secure the handle at corresponding rotational orientations (via lock as disclosed in ¶ 37), each rotational orientation associated with a corresponding flow configurations for the valve (¶ 37 discloses a fully open position and a fully closed position), the mounting surface being secured to a first structure (at least to 92 Figure 2),
but fails to expressly disclose the handle including a locking member, each of the plurality of locking features arranged to engage the locking member to releasably secure the handle at corresponding rotational orientations.
Hughes et al teach a valve (Figures 1-4; abstract) with a handle (42), the handle (42) including a locking member (72), each of the plurality of locking features (68 on plate 60) arranged to engage the locking member to releasably secure the handle at corresponding rotational orientations (Col 3, lines 7-17).
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 system of Scaramucci et al with the locking member as taught by Hughes et al for the advantage of providing locking adjustment to compensate for wear between the valve member and the seat, as taught by Hughes et al (Col 1, lines 48-52).
Regarding Claim 2, Hughes et al teach where the locking features (68) include holes (Figure 1) arranged to receive the locking member (Figures 1-2).
Regarding Claim 3, Hughes et al teach were the locking member (72) is a spring-biased plunger (Figure 2 with spring 74).
Regarding Claim 4, Hughes et al teach where the plurality of locking features (38) includes at least three locking features (at least 4 shown in Figure 1) corresponding to at least three rotational orientations of the valve (Col 3, lines 7-17).
Regarding Claim 7, Scaramucci et al disclose where the guide body (72 generally) comprises a sheet metal member (the cross-hatching of Figure 3 discloses a metal part (see MPEP 608.02(IX) in the shape of a sheet or plate).
Regarding Claim 8, Scaramucci et al disclose where the guide body (72 generally) includes a first planar portion (72) and a second planar portion (116 in Figure 9A), wherein the plurality of locking features and the central aperture are defined in the first planar portion (112, 109a and 109b on 72 in Figure 9a), wherein the second planar portion (116) is angled relative to the first planar portion (Figure 9A).
Regarding Claim 9, Scaramucci et al disclose where the first structure (92) includes a sheet metal mounting bracket (the cross-hatching of Figure 3 discloses a metal part (see MPEP 608.02(IX) in the shape of a sheet or plate).
Regarding Claim 11, Scaramucci et al disclose a method of retrofitting a valve (Figure 2; abstract). The method comprising:
providing a guide body (72 generally) including a central aperture (112 in Figure 9A) and a plurality of locking features (109a and 109b), each of the plurality of locking features corresponding to a rotational orientation of a valve (¶ 37); receiving at least a portion of a valve through the central aperture (15 in Figures 2-3); securing the guide body to a first bracket (to 92 via at least stem 15), the first bracket being secured to a structure (17 via 84); and securing a handle (19) to the valve (Figure 2), the handle including an aperture (21), and a grip portion (the free end of 19) and being configured to rotate a valve member of the valve to control flow of fluid through the valve (¶ 37), wherein an axis of rotation of the handle extends through the aperture and the central aperture (Figure 3),
but fails to expressly disclose the handle including a locking member and the locking member is configured to engage the locking features to releasably secure the handle in a rotational orientation corresponding to a given locking feature.
Hughes et al teach a valve (Figures 1-4; abstract) with a handle (42), the handle (42) including a locking member (72), and the locking member is configured to engage the locking features (68 on plate 60) to releasably secure the handle in a rotational orientation corresponding to a given locking feature (Col 3, lines 7-17).
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 system of Scaramucci et al with the locking member as taught by Hughes et al for the advantage of providing locking adjustment to compensate for wear between the valve member and the seat, as taught by Hughes et al (Col 1, lines 48-52).
Regarding Claim 12, Scaramucci et al disclose where the locking features (109a and 109b) include holes in the guide body that are arranged with a predetermined angular spacing relative to each other (best seen in Figure 9A).
Regarding Claim 15, Scaramucci et al disclose securing the guide body (72 generally) to a second bracket (84).
Regarding Claim 16, Scaramucci et al disclose the guide body (72 generally) and the first bracket (92) comprise sheet metal members (the cross-hatching of Figure 3 discloses a metal part (see MPEP 608.02(IX) in the shape of a sheet or plate).
Regarding Claim 18, Scaramucci et al disclose a control assembly for a rotatable device (Figures 1-3). The control assembly comprising:
a handle (19) configured to be manually rotatable to selectively align the rotatable device in any of a plurality of orientations (¶ 37 discloses a fully open position and a fully closed position); and a guide body (72 generally) that is secured relative to the handle and includes an array of locking holes (109a and 109b secured as shown in Figures 2-3), wherein the guide body (72) is secured to a first structure (160 generally), the first structure not including the rotatable device (Figure 2),
but fails to expressly disclose the handle including a biased locking member, the array of locking holes arranged to receive the biased locking member to releasably secure the rotatable device in any of the plurality of orientations.
Hughes et al teach a valve (Figures 1-4; abstract) with a handle (42), the handle (42) including a biased locking member (72 by spring 74), each of the array of locking features (68 on plate 60) arranged to engage the locking member to releasably secure the handle at corresponding rotational orientations (Col 3, lines 7-17).
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 system of Scaramucci et al with the locking member as taught by Hughes et al for the advantage of providing locking adjustment to compensate for wear between the valve member and the seat, as taught by Hughes et al (Col 1, lines 48-52).
Regarding Claim 20, Scaramucci et al disclose where the guide body (72 generally) comprises a sheet metal member (the cross-hatching of Figure 3 discloses a metal part (see MPEP 608.02(IX) in the shape of a sheet or plate) including a first planar portion (bottom 110) and a second planar portion (116), the first planar portion being positioned at an angle relative to the second planar portion (Figure 9A).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scaramucci et al (US 2017/0348810) in view of Hughes et al (US 4093178) in further view of Vargas et al (US 9625164).
Regarding Claim 10, Scaramucci et al, as modified by Hughes et al, teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly teach where the sheet metal mounting bracket is secured to a rail of an enclosure.
Vargas et al teach a valve (Figure 1; on lines 104 and 106) with a mounting bracket (202; where Hughes et al teach the sheet metal mounting bracket as discussed above) secured to a rail (206) of an enclosure (112).
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 system of Scaramucci et al, as modified by Hughes et al with the system as taught by Vargas et al for the advantage of securing the valves onto a larger assembly, and thereby disincentive workers to improperly handle the assembly, as taught by Vargas et al (Col 3, line 65 – Col 4, line 11).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Scaramucci et al (US 2017/0348810) in view of Hughes et al (US 4093178).
Regarding Claim 13, Scaramucci et al disclose a first of the holes is spaced from a second of the holes by 90 degrees (109a and 109b shown in Figure 9A) but fails to expressly disclose where the second of the holes is spaced from a third of the holes by 90 degrees, relative to the axis of rotation.
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 holes to include a third hole since a mere duplication of essential working part of device involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to allow the valve to be locked in more positions.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scaramucci et al (US 2017/0348810) in view of Hughes et al (US 4093178) in further view of McCoy et al (US 2012/0037826)
Regarding Claim 14, Scaramucci et al, as modified by Hughes et al, teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly teach securing the handle to the valve includes inserting a fastener through the aperture and a corresponding aperture of the valve.
McCoy et al teach a valve (Figure 5 with valve 40) with a handle (60) and securing the handle (60) to the valve (40) includes inserting a fastener (70) through the aperture (68) and a corresponding aperture of the valve (56).
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 system of Scaramucci et al, as modified by Hughes et al, with the system as taught by McCoy et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements (the fastener attachment of the handle of McCoy et al with the system of Scaramucci et al) according to known methods to yield predictable results (to secure a handle to a rotating valve).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scaramucci et al (US 2017/0348810) in view of Hughes et al (US 4093178) in further view of Gorad et al (US 12181172).
Regarding Claim 19, Scaramucci et al discloses where the first structure (160 generally) includes a first bracket (92),
but fails to expressly disclose the first bracket being mounted to a horizontal frame member of a rack.
Gorad et al teach a valve (175 in Figure 5) with a bracket (182) where the bracket is mounted to a horizontal frame member (180) of a rack (178).
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 system of Scaramucci et al, as modified by Hughes et al, with the system as taught by Gorad et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements (the valve of Scaramucci et al with the bracket of Gorad et al) according to known methods to yield predictable results (to secure a valve to a valve system).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 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 17 is 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.
Conclusion
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