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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) dated 2/21/2024 and 3/17/2025 have been received and considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 9, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, lines 1-2, “any one of claims 1 to 3” should be removed.
Claim 9, lines 1-2, “any one of claims 1 to 3” should be removed.
Claim 12, line 2, “any one of claims 1 to 11” should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 4-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4-8 of copending Application No. 18/687,327 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while instant claim 1 recites a fluid control assembly with accommodation chamber, communication port, connecting member, valve core, sidewall, first through fifth ports, and four operating modes with specific port connections for each operating mode, the combination of claims 1 and 4-8 of the ‘327 application similarly recite a fluid control assembly with accommodation chamber, communication port, connecting member, valve core, sidewall, first through fifth ports, and four operating modes with the specific port connections for each operating mode as claimed in instant claim 1. Claim 1 of the ‘327 application recites additional features such as a seal. Thus, it is apparent that instant claim 1 is encompassed by the combination of claims 1 and 4-8 of the ‘327 application.
Claim 4 of the instant application is seen to be further met by claims 4 and 6 of the ‘327 application.
Claim 5 of the instant application is seen to be met by claim 7 of the ‘327 application.
Claims 6 and 7 of the instant application are seen to be met by claim 8 of the ‘327 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 4-7 would be allowable if the above double-patenting rejection is overcome.
Claims 2-3 and 8-14 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art alone or in combination is not seen to disclose or teach the applicant’s claimed invention, including, and in combination with other recited limitations, the fluid control assembly with communication port, connecting member, valve core, and the communication port located in the side wall, the valve core being rotatable, and the communication port totaling five ports (first through fifth) with the first through fifth ports arranged at intervals in a circumferential direction of the valve core with the four operating modes comprised of: a first operating mode, in which the valve core is located at a first position, wherein the valve core communicates the first port with the fifth port, and communicates the second port with the third port, a second operating mode, in which the valve core is located at a second position, wherein the valve core communicates the first port with the fourth port, and communicates the second port with the third port, a third operating mode, in which the valve core is located at a third position, wherein the valve core communicates the first port with the second port, and communicates the third port with the fifth port, and a fourth operating mode, in which the valve core is located at a fourth position, wherein the valve core communicates the first port with the second port, and communicates the third port with the fourth port.
The closest prior art of record includes the following:
CN112879601 (supplied by the applicant in the IDS dated 3/17/2025, with machine translation attached herewith) discloses a five port multi-way valve with six different operating modes. While two operating modes could arguably be equivalent to the applicant’s first two operating modes described in claim 1 (the first and second modes of the ‘601 reference described in paragraphs 67-68), there are not two additional operating modes with the ports in fluid communication as described by applicant’s claimed third and fourth operating modes. It further is not seen to be obvious to modify the ‘601 reference to have these modes as that would change the principle operation and also the implicit structure of the ports that are required in order to perform the different operating modes.
CN112128410 (supplied by the applicant in the IDS dated 2/21/2024) discloses a multi-way valve but does not have five ports and thus does not have the four described operating modes.
Ledvora et al. (U.S. 2018/0292016) discloses a five port multi-way valve but similarly does not have the four operating modes as claimed by the applicant.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jeong et al. (U.S. 11,448,334) discloses a 6-way valve for a vehicle cooling system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R REID whose telephone number is (313)446-4859. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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 can be reached by phone. 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.
/MICHAEL R REID/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753