DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
This action is in response to the amendment filed 12/22/2025.
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 pages filed 12/22/2025, with respect to the pending claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of the previous pending claims have been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection for claim 1,2,20 and 14 are made in view of Lay (US 6302132) and Vu et al. (US 694318). Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 14 has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Since applicant’s arguments and amendments necessitated the new grounds for rejections, this action has been made Final.
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election of Species I, claims 1,2,10 and 14 are readable on the elected species in the reply filed on 15 September 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.03(a)).
2. Claims 3-9,11-13 and 15-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/15/2025.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be amended in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(b) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. Any amendment of inventorship must be accompanied by a request under 37 CFR 1.48(b) and by the fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Specification
The correction to the abstract of the disclosure is accepted and the amendment has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 4/15/2024. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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(s) 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Lay (US 6302132).
Regarding claim 1, Lay discloses a valve (100,fig.1,14) comprising :
a valve body (130) including an inlet (at P1), an outlet (at P3) and a mounting surface (the horizontal surface of 135 in fig. 1, shown also in Fig. 2,14), the inlet and the outlet being arranged along a first axis (A-A);
a first valve actuator (180,188) connected to the valve body;
a plurality of mounting holes (192 as shown in figure 13) formed in the mounting surface; and wherein the plurality of mounting holes (the two holes 192 to the farther end side of the body) lie on a single axis that is parallel to and offset relative to from a second axis passing through a center of the mounting surface, the second axis being perpendicular to the first axis (as seen below in amended figure 13).
PNG
media_image1.png
654
1429
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
647
1486
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Lay discloses a mounting bracket (182) including a first set of mounting holes (184) configured to align with the plurality of mounting holes on the mounting surface of the valve body.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Vu et al. (US 6394138).
Regarding claim 14, Vu et al. disclose a valve (250,204, see Fig. 12) comprising: a valve body (204) including an inlet 212, an outlet 210 and a mounting surface (the bottom surface of 204); a mounting bracket 218 consisting a single alignment pin (226, col.11,lns. 39-44 “single pin…”) for the valve;
a plurality of mounting holes (the six holes of around 212) formed in the mounting surface; and a single alignment hole (the hole on the bottom 204 to mate with single pin 226) arranged in an asymmetric position on the mounting surface (this is considered to be asymmetric since the mating passage for the single pin 226 is being shown closer to the hole 210 of the outlet opening) to receive the single alignment pin.
PNG
media_image3.png
830
900
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
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) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lay 132 in view of Ohmi et al. (US 5983933).
Regarding claim 2, Lay disclose the valve body is arranged in a first mounting orientation (as shown above in figures 1,14), the plurality of mounting holes orient the valve body in a first position relative to mounting holes in a mounting bracket (182), the valve body is capable of being arranged in a second mounting orientation that is rotated 180 degrees relative to the first position (the valve body can be rotated as such causing the mounting holes to be arranged in an opposite manner when rotated), although is silent to having that when the valve body is arranged in a second mounting orientation that is rotated 180 degrees relative to the first position, the plurality of mounting holes cause the valve body to have a second position, relative to the mounting holes in the mounting bracket, that is displaced by a predetermined distance greater than zero relative to the first position.
Ohmi et al. teach the use of bracket (108, see Fig. 4) having a plurality of valves (31,32,33), where the valves 31 and 33 are cable of being arranged in a second mounting orientation (valve 31 at location of valve 33 and valve 33 at location of 31 rotated 180 degrees) that is rotated 180 degrees relative to the first position, the plurality of mounting holes cause the valve body to have a second position, relative to the mounting holes in the mounting bracket, that is displaced by a predetermined distance greater than zero relative to the first position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a bracket as taught by Ohmi et al. into the device of Lay to have the valve body being arranged in a second mounting orientation that is rotated 180 degrees relative to the first position, the plurality of mounting holes cause the valve body to have a second position, relative to the mounting holes in the mounting bracket, that is displaced by a predetermined distance greater than zero relative to the first position, in order to permit a plurality of valves to be arranged in an organized manner, and to permit ease of re-installation of the same type of valve in a different location during maintenance/service repair of the valves.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 Craig Price, whose telephone number is (571)272-2712 or via facsimile (571)273-2712. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:00AM-4:30PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3607, 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.
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 Form at;
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/CRAIG J PRICE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights