DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment dated 9/8/2025. Claims 1, 3, 5 and 9-12 are currently amended. Claims 2 and 8 have been canceled. No claims are newly added. Presently, claims 1, 3-7 and 9-15 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the Rejection of Claim 9 Under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) section on pages 8-9 of the response dated 9/8/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagahama (US 20150316156) 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 the newly proposed combination of the Nagahama reference (US 20150316156) and the Shih reference (US 9874283).
It is considered that the Shih reference addresses applicant’s concerns and claim language relating to the newly added features of providing a circumferential sealing ring (42) arranged on the front side of the cylindrical, resilient base member (from the base member of the seal 40) such that the circumferential sealing ring extends radially outward (see figure3).
Further, it is considered that the circumferential sealing ring would “extend radially outwardly from the outer side of the base member further than each of the plurality of first sealing [portions]” since the circumferential sealing ring (Shih: 42) extends beyond the opening in the valve housing (Shih:11) in which the base member of the seal (Shih: 40) is received. It is considered that the circumferential sealing ring (Shih: 42) would extend beyond the extension of the plurality of first sealing [portions] (Nagahama: 33a, 33b, 33c, 33d).
Applicant’s arguments, see the Rejection of Claims 1-2 and 12-15 Under 35 U.S.C. 103 section on pages 9-11 of the response dated 9/8/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2 and 12-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagahama (US 20150316156) in view of Gray (US 11454330) 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 the newly proposed combination of the Nagahama reference (US 20150316156) and the Shih reference (US 9874283).
It is considered that the Shih reference addresses applicant’s concerns and claim language relating to the newly added features of a circumferential sealing ring (42) arranged on the front side of the cylindrical, resilient base member (from the base member of the seal 40) such that the circumferential sealing ring extends radially outward (see figure3).
Further, it is considered that the circumferential sealing ring would “extend radially outwardly from the outer side of the base member further than each of the plurality of first sealing [portions]” since the circumferential sealing ring (Shih: 42) extends beyond the opening in the valve housing (Shih:11) in which the base member of the seal (Shih: 40) is received. It is considered that the circumferential sealing ring (Shih: 42) would extend beyond the extension of the plurality of first sealing [portions] (Nagahama: 33a, 33b, 33c, 33d).
Applicant argues that if the Shih reference were combined with Nagahama and Gray that there is nothing in the proposed combination of these references that would teach the pressing portion (Shih: 42) extending radially outwardly further than the ribs (Nagahama: 33a-33d).
However, as noted above, it is considered that the circumferential sealing ring (Shih: 42) would “extend radially outwardly from the outer side of the base member further than each of the plurality of first sealing [portions]” since the circumferential sealing ring (Shih: 42) extends beyond the opening in the valve housing (Shih:11) in which the base member of the seal (Shih: 40) is received. It is considered that the circumferential sealing ring (Shih: 42) would extend beyond the extension of the plurality of first sealing [portions] (Nagahama: 33a, 33b, 33c, 33d) since the plurality of first sealing [portions] are received within the opening in the valve housing in which the base member of the seal is received. Therefore, it is considered that the combination of the Nagahama reference and the Shih reference would provide “a circumferential sealing ring arranged on a front side of the base member such that the circumferential sealing ring extends radially outwardly from the outer side of the base member further than each of the plurality of first sealing [portions] and which, during use of the seal, is arranged between the valve housing and a cover of the fluid valve”.
Applicant’s arguments, see the Rejection of Claims 3-5 Under 35 U.S.C. 103 section on pages 11-12 of the response dated 9/8/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 3-5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagahama (US 20150316156) in view of Gray (US 11454330) and in view of Pezzarossi (US 4628962) 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 the newly proposed combination of the Nagahama reference (US 20150316156) and the Shih reference (US 9874283) and further in view of Pezzarossi (US 4628962).
It is considered that the teachings of the Shih reference and combination of the Nagahama reference and the Shih reference, as provided below, addresses applicant’s concerns and claim language relating to the newly added features of independent claim 1 (see remarks above with respect to the arguments directed to claim 1).
Applicant’s arguments, see the Rejection of Claim 6 Under 35 U.S.C. 103 section on pages 13-14 of the response dated 9/8/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagahama (US 20150316156) in view of Gray (US 11454330) in view of Pezzarossi (US 4628962) and in view of Witkowski (US 20140048734) 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 the newly proposed combination of the Nagahama reference (US 20150316156) and the Shih reference (US 9874283) in view of Pezzarossi (US 4628962) and further in view of Witkowski (US 20140048734).
It is considered that the teachings of the Shih reference and combination of the Nagahama reference and the Shih reference, as provided below, addresses applicant’s concerns and claim language relating to the newly added features of independent claim 1 (see remarks above with respect to the arguments directed to claim 1).
Applicant’s arguments, see the Rejection of Claim 7 Under 35 U.S.C. 103 section on pages 14-15 of the response dated 9/8/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagahama (US 20150316156) in view of Gray (US 11454330) and in view of Hamer (US 3072379) 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 the newly proposed combination of the Nagahama reference (US 20150316156) and the Shih reference (US 9874283) and further in view of Hamer (US 3072379).
It is considered that the teachings of the Shih reference and combination of the Nagahama reference and the Shih reference, as provided below, addresses applicant’s concerns and claim language relating to the newly added features of independent claim 1 (see remarks above with respect to the arguments directed to claim 1).
Applicant’s arguments, see the Rejection of Claims 10-11 Under 35 U.S.C. 103 section on pages 16-17 of the response dated 9/8/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 10-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagahama (US 20150316156) in view of Gray (US 11454330) 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 the newly proposed combination of the Nagahama reference (US 20150316156) and the Shih reference (US 9874283).
It is considered that the Shih reference addresses applicant’s concerns and claim language relating to the newly added features of a circumferential sealing ring (42) arranged on the front side of the cylindrical, resilient base member (from the base member of the seal 40) such that the circumferential sealing ring extends radially outward (see figure3).
Further, it is considered that the circumferential sealing ring would “extend radially outwardly from the outer side of the base member further than each of the plurality of first sealing [portions]” since the circumferential sealing ring (Shih: 42) extends beyond the opening in the valve housing (Shih:11) in which the base member of the seal (Shih: 40) is received. It is considered that the circumferential sealing ring (Shih: 42) would extend beyond the extension of the plurality of first sealing [portions] (Nagahama: 33a, 33b, 33c, 33d).
Applicant argues that if the Shih reference were combined with Nagahama and Gray that there is nothing in the proposed combination of these references that would teach the pressing portion (Shih: 42) extending radially outwardly further than the ribs (Nagahama: 33a-33d).
However, as noted above, it is considered that the circumferential sealing ring (Shih: 42) would “extend radially outwardly from the outer side of the base member further than each of the plurality of first sealing [portions]” since the circumferential sealing ring (Shih: 42) extends beyond the opening in the valve housing (Shih:11) in which the base member of the seal (Shih: 40) is received. It is considered that the circumferential sealing ring (Shih: 42) would extend beyond the extension of the plurality of first sealing [portions] (Nagahama: 33a, 33b, 33c, 33d) since the plurality of first sealing [portions] are received within the opening in the valve housing in which the base member of the seal is received. Therefore, it is considered that the combination of the Nagahama reference and the Shih reference would provide “a circumferential sealing ring arranged on a front side of the base member such that the circumferential sealing ring extends radially outwardly from the outer side of the base member further than each of the plurality of first sealing [portions] and which, during use of the seal, is arranged between the valve housing and a cover of the fluid valve”.
Since new grounds of rejection were necessitated by applicant’s amendment, the instant Office action is made final.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 5/16/2024. These drawings are accepted.
The amendments to the claims provided in the amendment dated 9/8/2025 overcome the drawing objections noted in the Office action dated 6/12/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections of claims 1-8 and 10-15 as being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as provided in the Office action dated 6/12/2025 have been overcome by applicant’s amendment.
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 1, 3-7 and 9-15 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 1 recites the limitation "the plurality of first sealing protrusions" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation of “a plurality of first sealing portions” in line 5. Does the recitation of “the plurality of first sealing protrusions” in line 19 refer to the same structural limitation as the recitation of “a plurality of first sealing portions” in line 5? Does the recitation of “the plurality of first sealing protrusions” in line 19 refer to a different structural limitation than the recitation of “a plurality of first sealing portions” in line 5? It appears that the recitation of “the plurality of first sealing protrusions” in line 19 refers to the same structural limitation as the recitation of “a plurality of first sealing portions” in line 5. Further, it appears that the recitation of “the plurality of first sealing protrusions” in line 19 should be “the plurality of first sealing portions”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the plurality of first sealing protrusions" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 further recites the limitation of “a plurality of first sealing portions” in line 6. Does the recitation of “the plurality of first sealing protrusions” in line 11 refer to the same structural limitation as the recitation of “a plurality of first sealing portions” in line 6? Does the recitation of “the plurality of first sealing protrusions” in line 11 refer to a different structural limitation than the recitation of “a plurality of first sealing portions” in line 6? It appears that the recitation of “the plurality of first sealing protrusions” in line 11 refers to the same structural limitation as the recitation of “a plurality of first sealing portions” in line 6. Further, it appears that the recitation of “the plurality of first sealing protrusions” in line 11 should be “the plurality of first sealing portions”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the plurality of first sealing protrusions" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 further recites the limitation of “a plurality of first sealing portions” in line 5. Does the recitation of “the plurality of first sealing protrusions” in line 19 refer to the same structural limitation as the recitation of “a plurality of first sealing portions” in line 5? Does the recitation of “the plurality of first sealing protrusions” in line 19 refer to a different structural limitation than the recitation of “a plurality of first sealing portions” in line 5? It appears that the recitation of “the plurality of first sealing protrusions” in line 19 refers to the same structural limitation as the recitation of “a plurality of first sealing portions” in line 5. Further, it appears that the recitation of “the plurality of first sealing protrusions” in line 19 should be “the plurality of first sealing portions”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 non-obviousness.
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 and 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagahama (US 20150316156) in view of Shih (US 9874283).
Claim(s) 1 and 9-15 will be treated as best understood in view of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above.
Regarding claim 1, the Nagahama reference discloses a seal for use in a fluid valve (1), or multi-path fluid valve (1; see figure 1), having:
a cylindrical, resilient base member (30);
a plurality of sealing openings (31a, 31b, 31c, 31d) being part of the base member;
a plurality of first sealing portions (33a, 33b, 33c, 33d) which are arranged at an outer side of the base member (30) for sealing abutment against a valve housing (10) of the fluid valve, each of the plurality of first sealing portions are arranged circumferentially around a respective sealing opening (31a, 31b, 31c, 31d; see figure 5) of the base member;
a plurality of second sealing portions (32a, 32b, 32c, 32d), which are arranged at an inner side of the base member (see figure 5), for sealing abutment against an adjustable valve body (42) of the fluid valve, each of the plurality of second sealing portions are arranged circumferentially around the respective sealing opening of the base member (31a, 31b, 31c, 31d).
The Nagahama reference does not disclose a circumferential sealing ring arranged on a front side of the base member such that the circumferential sealing ring extends radially outwardly from the outer side of the base member further than each of the plurality of first sealing [portions] and which, during use of the seal, is arranged between the valve housing and a cover of the fluid valve.
However, the Shih reference teaches a valve assembly having a valve housing (11), a seal (40) and an adjustable valve body (21) received within the cylindrical sealing member. The Shih reference further teaches wherein the seal (40) includes a circumferential sealing ring (42) on a front side and wherein when the seal is inserted into the valve housing, the circumferential sealing ring is positioned on a front side of the valve housing (see figure 3) between the valve housing and a cover (12, 50) in order to provide a pressing portion to ensure a leak-proof seal on the end of the seal (40) (see col. 3, line 64 to col. 4, line 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the seal of the Nagahama reference with a circumferential sealing ring arranged on a front side of the base member such that the circumferential sealing ring extends radially outwardly from the outer side of the base member and which, during use of the seal, is arranged between the valve housing and a cover of the fluid valve as taught by the Shih reference in order to provide additional sealing between the valve housing and the base member to provide a leak-proof seal.
Further, it is considered that the circumferential sealing ring would “extend radially outwardly from the outer side of the base member further than each of the plurality of first sealing [portions]” since the circumferential sealing ring (Shih: 42) extends beyond the opening in the valve housing (Shih:11) in which the base member of the seal (Shih: 40) is received. It is considered that the circumferential sealing ring (Shih: 42) would extend beyond the extension of the plurality of first sealing [portions] (Nagahama: 33a, 33b, 33c, 33d).
Regarding claim 9, the Nagahama reference discloses the structure wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would perform the method of making and/or using a fluid valve, or multi-path fluid valve, having:
providing a valve housing (10) having a plurality of valve housing openings (13a, 13b, 13c, 13d);
providing a seal with a cylindrical, resilient base member (30) having a plurality of sealing openings (31a, 31b, 31c, 31d);
providing a plurality of first sealing portions (33a, 33b, 33c, 33d) arranged on a front end of the cylindrical, resilient base member (30);
providing an adjustable valve body (42);
inserting the seal into the valve housing in such a manner that a respective one of the plurality of valve housing openings overlaps with a respective one of the plurality of sealing openings (see figure 5); and
inserting the adjustable valve body into the base member (see figure 5 for the valve body 42 being inserted into the base member (30).
The Nagahama reference does not disclose providing a circumferential sealing ring arranged on the front side of the base member such that the circumferential sealing ring extends radially outwardly from the outer side of the base member further than each of the plurality of first sealing [portions].
However, the Shih reference teaches a valve assembly having a valve housing (11), a seal (40) and an adjustable valve body (21) received within the cylindrical sealing member. The Shih reference further teaches wherein the seal (40) includes a circumferential sealing ring (42) on a front side and wherein when the seal is inserted into the valve housing, the circumferential sealing ring is positioned on a front side of the valve housing (see figure 3) between the valve housing and a cover (12, 50) in order to provide a pressing portion to ensure a leak-proof seal on the end of the seal (40) (see col. 3, line 64 to col. 4, line 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the seal of the Nagahama reference with a circumferential sealing ring arranged on a front side of the base member such that the circumferential sealing ring extends radially outwardly from the outer side of the base member as taught by the Shih reference in order to provide additional sealing between the valve housing and the base member to provide a leak-proof seal.
Further, it is considered that the circumferential sealing ring would “extend radially outwardly from the outer side of the base member further than each of the plurality of first sealing [portions]” since the circumferential sealing ring (Shih: 42) extends beyond the opening in the valve housing (Shih:11) in which the base member of the seal (Shih: 40) is received. It is considered that the circumferential sealing ring (Shih: 42) would extend beyond the extension of the plurality of first sealing [portions] (Nagahama: 33a, 33b, 33c, 33d).
In regards to claim 10, the combination of the Nagahama reference and the Shih reference discloses wherein a cylindrical valve housing (Nagahama: it is considered that the opening that receives the seal 30 and the valve body 42 is cylindrical) is provided;
Inserting the seal into the valve housing in such a manner that the circumferential sealing ring is positioned on a front side of the valve housing (Shih: see figure 3 for the circumferential sealing ring 42 being positioned on a front side of the valve housing 11 when installed).
In regards to claim 11, the combination of the Nagahama reference and the Shih reference discloses wherein the steps include:
providing a cover (Shih: 12, 50) of the fluid valve;
arranging the cover in such a manner on the front side of the valve housing that the circumferential sealing ring is arranged between the cover and the front side of the valve housing (Shih: see figure 3); and
securing the cover (Shih: 12, 50)to the valve housing (Shih: the cover is secured by the fasteners as depicted in figure 3).
Regarding claim 12, the Nagahama reference discloses a fluid valve comprising:
at least one seal further comprising:
a cylindrical, resilient base member (30);
a plurality of sealing openings (31a, 31b, 31c, 31d) being part of the base member;
a plurality of first sealing portions (33a, 33b, 33c, 33d) which are arranged at an outer side of the base member (30) for sealing abutment against a valve housing (10) of the fluid valve, each of the plurality of first sealing portions are arranged circumferentially around a respective sealing opening (31a, 31b, 31c, 31d) of the base member;
a plurality of second sealing portions (32a, 32b, 32c, 32d), which are arranged at an inner side of the base member (30), for sealing abutment against an adjustable valve body (42) of the fluid valve, each of the plurality of second sealing portion are arranged circumferentially around [the] respective sealing opening (31a, 31b, 31c, 31d) of the base member;
a cover (17a);
a plurality of the valve housing openings (12a, 12b, 12c, 12d) formed as part of the valve housing; and
wherein the adjustable valve body (42) which seals a respective fluid path between a respective valve housing opening and [the] respective valve body opening of an internal fluid channel of the valve body (see figures 5-16).
The Nagahama reference does not disclose a circumferential sealing ring arranged on a front side of the base member such that the circumferential sealing ring extends radially outwardly from the outer side of the base member further than each of the plurality of first sealing [portions] and which, during use of the seal, is arranged between the valve housing and a cover of the fluid valve.
However, the Shih reference teaches a valve assembly having a valve housing (11), a seal (40) and an adjustable valve body (21) received within the cylindrical sealing member. The Shih reference further teaches wherein the seal (40) includes a circumferential sealing ring (42) on a front side and wherein when the seal is inserted into the valve housing, the circumferential sealing ring is positioned on a front side of the valve housing (see figure 3) between the valve housing and a cover (12, 50) in order to provide a pressing portion to ensure a leak-proof seal on the end of the seal (40) (see col. 3, line 64 to col. 4, line 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the seal of the Nagahama reference with a circumferential sealing ring arranged on a front side of the base member such that the circumferential sealing ring extends radially outwardly from the outer side of the base member and which, during use of the seal, is arranged between the valve housing and a cover of the fluid valve as taught by the Shih reference in order to provide additional sealing between the valve housing and the base member to provide a leak-proof seal.
Further, it is considered that the circumferential sealing ring would “extend radially outwardly from the outer side of the base member further than each of the plurality of first sealing [portions]” since the circumferential sealing ring (Shih: 42) extends beyond the opening in the valve housing (Shih:11) in which the base member of the seal (Shih: 40) is received. It is considered that the circumferential sealing ring (Shih: 42) would extend beyond the extension of the plurality of first sealing [portions] (Nagahama: 33a, 33b, 33c, 33d).
In regards to claim 13, the Nagahama reference of the combination of the Nagahama reference and the Shih reference discloses wherein the fluid valve is a multi-path fluid valve (Nagahama: see figure 5-16).
In regards to claim 14, the Nagahama reference of the combination of the Nagahama reference and the Shih reference discloses wherein the fluid valve for controlling water (Nagahama: see at least paragraph [0006]).
In regards to claim 15, the Nagahama reference of the combination of the Nagahama reference and the Shih reference discloses wherein the fluid valve for controlling water (Nagahama: see at least paragraph [0006]).
It is considered that the fluid valve of the combination of the Nagahama reference and the Shih reference are capable of being used in a vehicle and that the recitation of “of a vehicle” is a recitation of the intended use of the fluid valve.
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagahama (US 20150316156) in view of Shih (US 9874283), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pezzarossi (US 4628962).
Claim(s) 3-5 will be treated as best understood in view of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above.
In regards to claim 3, the Nagahama reference of the combination of the Nagahama reference in view of the Shih reference does not disclose wherein each of the plurality of second sealing portions further comprising:
a plurality of sealing lips which extend radially inwardly from the base member.
However, the Pezzarossi reference teaches a valve assembly having a valve housing (11), a cylindrical sealing member (19) and a rotatable valve body (21) received within the cylindrical sealing member. Further, the Pezzarossi reference teaches wherein the cylindrical sealing member (19) includes a plurality of second sealing portions (111, 113; see figure 4 and figure 8) wherein the plurality of second sealing portions include a plurality of sealing lips (it is considered that the adjacent projections 111 that are located on the left-hand side of the opening 107 as depicted in figure 4 constitute a plurality of sealing lips) which extend radially inward from the base member (19) in order to reduce frictional resistance between the sealing member and the rotatable valve body (col. 5, lines 45-49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to design the second sealing portions of the Nagahama reference of the combination of the Nagahama reference and the Shih reference as a plurality of sealing lips which extend radially inward from the base member and which are in contact with the rotatable valve member during use of the seal as taught by the Pezzarossi reference in order to additionally reduce frictional resistance between the sealing member and the rotatably valve body.
In regards to claim 4, the combination of the Nagahama reference, the Shih reference and the Pezzarossi reference discloses further comprising:
at least one pair of sealing portions (Nagahama: at least 33a, 32a) further comprising one of the plurality of first sealing portions (Nagahama: at least 33a) and one of the plurality of second sealing portions (Nagahama: at least 32a);
wherein the at least one pair of sealing portions are provided to seal, during use of the seal, a respective fluid path (Nagahama: considered the flow path through port 12a, 31a and 43a and into the center of the valve body 42) between a respective valve housing opening of the valve housing and the valve body opening of the internal fluid channel of the valve body.
In regards to claim 5, the combination of the Nagahama reference, the Shih reference and the Pezzarossi reference further comprising at least two pairs of sealing portions are arranged with spacing from each other in an axial direction of the base member (Pezzarossi: it is considered that the sealing portions 111 are arranged with spacing from each other in an axial direction as depicted in figure 4).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagahama (US 20150316156) in view of Shih (US 9874283) in view of Pezzarossi (US 4628962), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Witkowski et al. (US 20140048734).
Claim(s) 6 will be treated as best understood in view of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above.
In regards to claim 6, the Nagahama reference or the combination of the Nagahama reference, the Shih reference and the Pezzarossi reference does not disclose wherein the inner side of the base member further comprising at least one bellows-like portion, or bellows portion, which extends in the axial direction of the base member and which bears against the base member, depending on the position of the valve body.
However, the Witkowski et al. reference teaches a valve assembly having a valve housing (20), a base member (considered the combination of 14, 16, 40 and 42 in figure 5) and a rotatable valve body (18) received within the cylindrical sealing member. Further, the Witkowski et al. reference teaches wherein the base member comprises a bellows-like portion (40, 42) which extends in the axial direction of the base member (see figure 5) and which bears against the base member (see figure 4) wherein the bellows-like portions provide a tensioning to the base member portions (14, 16) so that a seal is provided between the base member and the valve body in low pressure conditions (see paragraph [0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to design the base member of the Nagahama reference of the combination of the Nagahama reference, the Shih reference and the Pezzarossi reference as having a bellows-like portion which extends in the axial direction of the base member and which bears against the base member as taught by the Witkowski et al. reference in order to a tensioning to the base member so that a seal is provided between the base member and the valve body in low pressure conditions.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagahama (US 20150316156) in view of Shih (US 9874283), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hamer (US 3072379).
Claim(s) 7 will be treated as best understood in view of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above.
In regards to claim 7, the combination of the Nagahama reference and the Shih reference does not disclose wherein the first sealing portions further comprising:
a plurality of sealing lips which extend radially outwardly away from the base member and which are in contact with the valve housing during use of the seal.
However, the Hamer reference teaches a valve assembly having a valve housing (A), a seal having a base member (24) and a rotatable valve body (C) received within the cylindrical sealing member. Further, the Hamer reference teaches wherein the base member includes a plurality of first sealing portions (44) which are formed as a plurality of sealing lips (see figure 9) which are in contact with the valve housing during use of the seal in order to provide a pressure sealing engagement (col. 4, lines 17-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to design the first sealing portions of the Nagahama reference of the combination of the Nagahama reference and the Shih reference as a plurality of sealing lips which extend radially outwardly away from the base member and which are in contact with the valve housing during use of the seal as taught by the Hamer reference in order to provide an enhanced pressure sealing engagement to reduce potential leakages.
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 Andrew J. Rost whose telephone number is (571) 272-2711. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00 am to 5:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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 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.
/ANDREW J ROST/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753