DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Heinan (US 2,609,174).
As to claim 1, Heinan teaches a shut-off nozzle (plug valve) with a nozzle body (15) and a horizontal internal flow path (horizontally in Fig. 4) through which an injection material could be passed in an injection direction. Heinan teaches a valve insertion hole opened from a lateral surface of the nozzle body (hole in 15 where 50 is located) and a rotary valve (30-33, 36, 50) inserted into the valve insertion hole. Heinan further teaches a reinforcement member (12) inserted into the valve insertion hole. Heinan’s rotary valve (30-33, 36, 50) includes a cylindrical portion (portion of Fig. 2 that rotates within 18) fitted into the valve insertion hole (see Fig. 2) and an operation shaft (31) portion having a diameter smaller than that of the cylindrical portion. When Heinan’s operational shaft is rotated, the through hole (Fig. 1, B or 36) is aligned with the internal flow path (Fig. 4) or closed (Fig. 2) depending on the position. Heinan’s reinforcement member (12) includes a cylindrical reinforcement portion in which a shaft hole is opened (where 31 is positioned). Heinan’s cylindrical reinforcement portion (where 31 is positioned) is inserted into the valve insertion hole (hole in 15 where 50 is located) and is disposed closer to an opening side of the valve insertion hole than the cylindrical portion of the rotary valve (Heinan’s reinforcement member clamps the cylindrical portion in place). Heinan’s operation shaft portion (31) penetrates the shaft hole and is exposed to the outside (31 extends above 12).
Regarding the amended features, Heinan teaches an outer diameter of the cylindrical reinforcement portion (12) being an integral flange that is larger than an outer diameter of the cylindrical portion (portion of Fig. 2 that rotates within 18). The cylindrical reinforcement portion is fitted into the valve insertion hole with no gap depicted by Heinan.
As to claim 3, Heinan teaches the cylindrical reinforcement portion (12) having an integral flange. Bolts (22) are inserted into bolt holes in the flange.
As to claim 4, Heinan teaches the valve insertion hole (hole in 15 where 50 is located) penetrates the nozzle body (15) and the rotary valve has shaft portions at both ends of the cylindrical portion. Heinan teaches two reinforcement members (12, 11) are provided in the nozzle body with respective cylindrical reinforcement portions sandwiching the cylindrical portion (portion of Fig. 2 that rotates within 18) from both sides (as shown in Fig. 1).
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.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Heinan (US 2,609,174) in view of Hughes (US 4,055,324) and Deane (US 3,730,161). Heinan teaches the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2).
As to claim 5, Heinan is silent to the metal O-ring provided on a sliding surface on which the cylindrical portion and the cylindrical reinforcement portion slide against each other.
Hughes teaches a similar configuration where an O-ring (46) is provided between an equivalent cylindrical reinforcement portion (27) and a rotating/sliding cylindrical portion (12) in a valve. It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this feature from Hughes into Heinan because Heinan teaches a rotary valve member and Hughes provides the use of a known technique to improve a similar device by providing (additional) sealing means between similar surfaces in a rotary valve. Heinan provides a base device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. However, Hughes provides a comparable device improved in the same way using an O-ring between the rotating parts. One could have applied the known improvement technique in the same way to the Heinan device to provide the predictable result of improved or additional sealing between the similar Heinan parts.
Heinan and Hughes are silent to a metal O-ring. However, Deane teaches that metal sealing rings (8) can be used between a rotor and its casing. In the combination, one would have recognized that in providing the Hughes O-ring configuration to the Heinan sliding surface between the cylindrical portion and the cylindrical reinforcement portion, it would have also been obvious to use a metal O-ring in place of those already used by Hughes. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Deane metal into the combination of Heinan and Hughes because this is the simple substitution of one known seal material for another which obtains predictable results. The prior art of Heinan teaches a device which differed from the prior art by the use of a metal sealing ring when the prior art (Hughes) taught an unknown or different sealing material. However, Deane teaches that metal sealing rings and their function (sealing a valve) were known in the prior art. One could have substituted one material for another to provide another seal material in the Heinan valve.
As to claims 6 and 7, in the combination above, Hughes already provides an O-ring (46) equal to or smaller than a valve insertion hole (17). Hughes also provides a circular groove (where 46 sits) on the sliding surface of the equivalent of the cylindrical reinforcement portion (27). The depiction of the Hughes valve suggests that the distance between the O-ring and the valve insertion hole is smaller (they are depicted in contact) than the distance between the O-ring and the shaft hole (where 22 sits).
Claims 8 and 10-11, 15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Weatherall (US 20050161847) in view of Heinan (US 2,609,174).
As to claim 8, Weatherall teaches an injection molding machine comprising an injection device (Fig. 2, especially items 5-7) configured to inject polymer, a mold clamping device configured to clamp a mold ([0006], clamp unit), and a shut-off nozzle (16) at a tip end of a heating cylinder ([0051], heater bands) of the injection device (Fig. 2).
Weatherall depicts (Fig. 2) a shut-off nozzle similar to Fig. 2 in the instant application, but is silent to the claimed structure of the shut-off nozzle.
Heinan teaches a shut-off nozzle (plug valve) with a nozzle body (15) and a horizontal internal flow path (horizontally in Fig. 4) through which an injection material could be passed in an injection direction. Heinan teaches a valve insertion hole opened from a lateral surface of the nozzle body (hole in 15 where 50 is located) and a rotary valve (30-33, 36, 50) inserted into the valve insertion hole. Heinan further teaches a reinforcement member (12) inserted into the valve insertion hole. Heinan’s rotary valve (30-33, 36, 50) includes a cylindrical portion (portion of Fig. 2 that rotates within 18) fitted into the valve insertion hole (see Fig. 2) and an operation shaft (31) portion having a diameter smaller than that of the cylindrical portion. When Heinan’s operational shaft is rotated, the through hole (Fig. 1, B or 36) is aligned with the internal flow path (Fig. 4) or closed (Fig. 2) depending on the position. Heinan’s reinforcement member (12) includes a cylindrical reinforcement portion in which a shaft hole is opened (where 31 is positioned). Heinan’s cylindrical reinforcement portion (where 31 is positioned) is inserted into the valve insertion hole (hole in 15 where 50 is located) and is disposed closer to an opening side of the valve insertion hole than the cylindrical portion of the rotary valve (Heinan’s reinforcement member clamps the cylindrical portion in place). Heinan’s operation shaft portion (31) penetrates the shaft hole and is exposed to the outside (31 extends above 12).
Regarding the amended features, Heinan teaches an outer diameter of the cylindrical reinforcement portion (12) being an integral flange that is larger than an outer diameter of the cylindrical portion (portion of Fig. 2 that rotates within 18). The cylindrical reinforcement portion is fitted into the valve insertion hole with no gap depicted by Heinan.
As to claim 10, Heinan teaches the cylindrical reinforcement portion (12) having an integral flange. Bolts (22) are inserted into bolt holes in the flange.
As to claim 11, Heinan teaches the valve insertion hole (hole in 15 where 50 is located) penetrates the nozzle body (15) and the rotary valve has shaft portions at both ends of the cylindrical portion. Heinan teaches two reinforcement members (12, 11) are provided in the nozzle body with respective cylindrical reinforcement portions sandwiching the cylindrical portion (portion of Fig. 2 that rotates within 18) from both sides (as shown in Fig. 1).
As to claim 15, Weatherall teaches an injection molding machine comprising an injection device (Fig. 2, especially items 5-7) configured to inject polymer, a mold clamping device configured to clamp a mold ([0006], clamp unit), and a shut-off nozzle (16) at a tip end of a heating cylinder ([0051], heater bands) of the injection device (Fig. 2).
Weatherall depicts (Fig. 2) a shut-off nozzle similar to Fig. 2 in the instant application, but is silent to the claimed structure of the shut-off nozzle.
Heinan teaches a shut-off nozzle (plug valve) with a nozzle body (15) and a horizontal internal flow path (horizontally in Fig. 4) through which an injection material could be passed in an injection direction. Heinan teaches a valve insertion hole opened from a lateral surface of the nozzle body (hole in 15 where 50 is located) and a rotary valve (30-33, 36, 50) inserted into the valve insertion hole. Heinan further teaches a reinforcement member (12) inserted into the valve insertion hole. Heinan’s rotary valve (30-33, 36, 50) includes a cylindrical portion (portion of Fig. 2 that rotates within 18) fitted into the valve insertion hole (see Fig. 2) and an operation shaft (31) portion having a diameter smaller than that of the cylindrical portion. When Heinan’s operational shaft is rotated, the through hole (Fig. 1, B or 36) is aligned with the internal flow path (Fig. 4) or closed (Fig. 2) depending on the position. Heinan’s reinforcement member (12) includes a cylindrical reinforcement portion in which a shaft hole is opened (where 31 is positioned). Heinan’s cylindrical reinforcement portion (where 31 is positioned) is inserted into the valve insertion hole (hole in 15 where 50 is located) and is disposed closer to an opening side of the valve insertion hole than the cylindrical portion of the rotary valve (Heinan’s reinforcement member clamps the cylindrical portion in place). Heinan’s operation shaft portion (31) penetrates the shaft hole and is exposed to the outside (31 extends above 12).
Regarding the amended features, Heinan teaches an outer diameter of the cylindrical reinforcement portion (12) being an integral flange that is larger than an outer diameter of the cylindrical portion (portion of Fig. 2 that rotates within 18). The cylindrical reinforcement portion is fitted into the valve insertion hole with no gap depicted by Heinan.
As to claim 17, Heinan teaches the cylindrical reinforcement portion (12) having an integral flange. Bolts (22) are inserted into bolt holes in the flange.
As to claim 18, Heinan teaches the valve insertion hole (hole in 15 where 50 is located) penetrates the nozzle body (15) and the rotary valve has shaft portions at both ends of the cylindrical portion. Heinan teaches two reinforcement members (12, 11) are provided in the nozzle body with respective cylindrical reinforcement portions sandwiching the cylindrical portion (portion of Fig. 2 that rotates within 18) from both sides (as shown in Fig. 1).
Claims 12-14 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Weatherall (US 20050161847) in view of Heinan (US 2,609,174) and further in view of Hughes (US 4,055,324) and Deane (US 3,730,161). Weatherall and Heinan teach the subject matter of claim 8 and 15 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 12, Heinan teaches the overall valve configuration above, but Weatherall and Heinan are silent to the metal O-ring provided on a sliding surface on which the cylindrical portion and the cylindrical reinforcement portion slide against each other.
Hughes teaches a similar configuration where an O-ring (46) is provided between an equivalent cylindrical reinforcement portion (27) and a rotating/sliding cylindrical portion (12) in a valve. It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this feature from Hughes into the Weatherall/Heinan apparatus because Heinan teaches a rotary valve member and Hughes provides the use of a known technique to improve a similar device by providing (additional) sealing means between similar surfaces in a rotary valve. Heinan provides a base device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. However, Hughes provides a comparable device improved in the same way using an O-ring between the rotating parts. One could have applied the known improvement technique in the same way to the Heinan device to provide the predictable result of improved or additional sealing between the similar Heinan parts.
Weatherall/Heinan and Hughes are silent to a metal O-ring. However, Deane teaches that metal sealing rings (8) can be used between a rotor and its casing. In the combination, one would have recognized that in providing the Hughes O-ring configuration to the Heinan sliding surface between the cylindrical portion and the cylindrical reinforcement portion, it would have also been obvious to use a metal O-ring in place of those already used by Hughes. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Deane metal into the apparatus of Weatherall, Heinan and Hughes because this is the simple substitution of one known seal material for another which obtains predictable results. The prior art of Heinan teaches a device which differed from the prior art by the use of a metal sealing ring when the prior art (Hughes) taught an unknown or different sealing material. However, Deane teaches that metal sealing rings and their function (sealing a valve) were known in the prior art. One could have substituted one material for another to provide another seal material in the Heinan valve.
As to claims 13 and 14, in the combination above, Hughes already provides an O-ring (46) equal to or smaller than a valve insertion hole (17). Hughes also provides a circular groove (where 46 sits) on the sliding surface of the equivalent of the cylindrical reinforcement portion (27). The depiction of the Hughes valve suggests that the distance between the O-ring and the valve insertion hole is smaller (they are depicted in contact) than the distance between the O-ring and the shaft hole (where 22 sits).
As to claim 19, Heinan teaches the overall valve configuration above, but Weatherall and Heinan are silent to the metal O-ring provided on a sliding surface on which the cylindrical portion and the cylindrical reinforcement portion slide against each other.
Hughes teaches a similar configuration where an O-ring (46) is provided between an equivalent cylindrical reinforcement portion (27) and a rotating/sliding cylindrical portion (12) in a valve. It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this feature from Hughes into the Weatherall/Heinan apparatus because Heinan teaches a rotary valve member and Hughes provides the use of a known technique to improve a similar device by providing (additional) sealing means between similar surfaces in a rotary valve. Heinan provides a base device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. However, Hughes provides a comparable device improved in the same way using an O-ring between the rotating parts. One could have applied the known improvement technique in the same way to the Heinan device to provide the predictable result of improved or additional sealing between the similar Heinan parts.
Weatherall/Heinan and Hughes are silent to a metal O-ring. However, Deane teaches that metal sealing rings (8) can be used between a rotor and its casing. In the combination, one would have recognized that in providing the Hughes O-ring configuration to the Heinan sliding surface between the cylindrical portion and the cylindrical reinforcement portion, it would have also been obvious to use a metal O-ring in place of those already used by Hughes. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Deane metal into the apparatus of Weatherall, Heinan and Hughes because this is the simple substitution of one known seal material for another which obtains predictable results. The prior art of Heinan teaches a device which differed from the prior art by the use of a metal sealing ring when the prior art (Hughes) taught an unknown or different sealing material. However, Deane teaches that metal sealing rings and their function (sealing a valve) were known in the prior art. One could have substituted one material for another to provide another seal material in the Heinan valve.
As to claims 20 and 21, in the combination above, Hughes already provides an O-ring (46) equal to or smaller than a valve insertion hole (17). Hughes also provides a circular groove (where 46 sits) on the sliding surface of the equivalent of the cylindrical reinforcement portion (27). The depiction of the Hughes valve suggests that the distance between the O-ring and the valve insertion hole is smaller (they are depicted in contact) than the distance between the O-ring and the shaft hole (where 22 sits).
Examiner Comment
JP02-002114 (cited on the PCT/JP2022/033149 Search Report) is similar to Heinan (US 2,609,174) and JP02-002114 is likely interchangeable for Heinan in the rejections above. Additional rejections over JP02-002114 would be cumulative over those above but should be considered when amending the instant claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The arguments appear to be on the grounds that there is no structure in Heinan that meets the reinforcement member including a cylindrical reinforcement portion that (1) is fitted into the valve insertion hole with substantially no gap and (2) has an outer diameter larger than the cylindrical portion of the rotary valve fitted into the valve insertion hole. Applicant seems to admit that Heinan’s member 12 has an integral flange but it is not fitted into the plug opening, and the outer diameter of the flange thus cannot properly be equated with the claimed cylindrical reinforcement portion (fitted in the valve insertion hole with substantially no gap)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown below, with rectangles showing the pertinent portions of Heinen and the instant invention, Heinen’s cylindrical reinforcement portion is larger than an outer diameter of the cylindrical portion. Heinen’s cylindrical reinforcement portion is fitted into the valve insertion hole with substantially no gap. While the ratios and proportions are depicted differently, the Examiner maintains the view that these features are met by Heinen.
PNG
media_image1.png
320
459
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
400
360
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Heinen Fig. 1
Instant Fig. 4
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the revised 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 MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 pm.
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 supervisor, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights