DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 12, 15, and 18 were filed with the amendment dated 07/16/2025. Claims 3, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 were canceled.
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 amendments and arguments, see amendments and remarks, filed 07/16/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claims as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2006/0214130 (“Tanikawa”) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new 35 USC 112 rejections are being made in view of the claim amendments.
The rejection is made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 07/16/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112a
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, -7, 9, 12, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 1, the phrase: “said annular valve chamber bottom surface has a circumferentially extending, first portion on the first opening side, that comes into close contact with a radially outer part of the lower end surface of the lower side seat, and a circumferentially extending second portion that comes into close contact with a radially inner part of the lower surface of the lower side seat” renders the claim noncompliant with the written description requirement. As written, the phrase requires that the first and second portions are in contact with the radially outer part and radially inner part of the lower side seat. However, there is no support for both the radially outer and inner parts of the lower side seat (25) being in contact with the annular valve chamber bottom surface (14). The specification is silent as to this feature. Furthermore, the drawings at Figure 5 clearly show only the radially inner portion of the lower end surface of the lower side seat (25) contacting the bottom surface. There is a gap between the radially outer portion of the lower end surface of the lower side seat (25) and the bottom surface (14). Did Applicant intend to claim that the radially inner portion of the lower end surface (left side of 25a) is in contact with the bottom surface and that the radially outer portion (right side of 25a) is not in contact with the bottom surface (14)?
With regard to claim 1, the phrase: “one of said circumferentially extending first and second portions is an upwardly protruding portion, a part of which is in opposed relation to a lower end of said axially extending portion of said inner disk, and spaced from, said lower end surface of said axially extending portion of said inner disk when said diaphragm is pressed downwardly by the press adapter, thereby forming a gap to accommodate a bulging portion of the lower side seat” renders the claim noncompliant with the written description requirement. The phrase states that both the first portion (on first opening side 15) and the second portion can both be an upwardly protruding portion. There is no support for such recitations. As shown in Fig. 5, only the portion adjacent the first opening side 15 has the protruding portion. Did Applicant intend to claim that the first portion adjacent the first opening side is an upwardly protruding portion?
Dependent claims 2, 4-7, 9, 12, 15, and 18 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112b
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, 2, 4, -7, 9, 12, 15, and 18 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.
With regard to claim 1, the phrase: “said annular valve chamber bottom surface has a circumferentially extending, first portion on the first opening side, that comes into close contact with a radially outer part of the lower end surface of the lower side seat, and a circumferentially extending second portion that comes into close contact with a radially inner part of the lower surface of the lower side seat” is confusing and, therefore, indefinite. It is not clear how the bottom surface first portion on the first opening side (15) can contact the radially outer part of the lower side seat (25a). Rather, the bottom surface first portion on the first opening side (15) would have to contact the radially inner part of the lower side seat. Furthermore, the second portion could not come into contact with the radially inner part of the lower side seat. As written, the second portion should be radially outward and, therefore, closer to the radially outer part of the lower side seat (25).
Dependent claims 2, 4-7, 9, 12, 15, and 18 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
For purposes of examination (and in reference to the above-mentioned 35 USC 112a rejections), the phrases of claim 1 are being construed as follows (and the examiner suggests amending the claim accordingly):
“said annular valve chamber bottom surface has a circumferentially extending[[,]] first portion on the first opening side, that comes into close contact with a radially [[outer]] inner part of the lower end surface of the lower side seat, and a circumferentially extending second portion that is radially outward from the circumferentially extending first portion that does not contact a radially outer part said first portion
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 JESSICA CAHILL whose telephone number is (571)270-5219. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 to 3:00.
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 571-272-60073607 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 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.
/JESSICA CAHILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753