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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 17, 2026, has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 13 and 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:
Regarding claim 7, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious the stop valve, wherein the stop valve further comprises the combination of a third connecting pipe sleeved on a second end of the first connecting pipe, a fourth connecting pipe sleeved on a second end of the second connecting pipe; and a first valve cover covering the operating end of the valve tube, a second valve cover covering an end of the third connecting pipe and a third valve cover covering an end of the fourth connecting pipe, in combination with the remainder limitations of the claim and base claim.
Regarding claim 13, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious, as best understood, the machining method for machining the stop valve comprising: machining a plurality of flanging ports on a side wall of a stainless steel pipe by using a flanging machine, so as to machine the valve tube of the stop valve; performing cold heading and cutting machining on a stainless steel bar or the stainless steel pipe, so as to machine the sleeve ring of the stop valve; performing cold heading and cutting machining on the stainless steel bar, so as to machine the valve core of the stop valve; performing cutting machining on the stainless steel bar or the stainless steel pipe, so as to machine a pressing block of the stop valve; and performing stamping on a stainless steel plate or performing machining on the stainless steel bar, so as to machine the base of the stop valve, in combination with the limitations of the base claim.
Regarding claim 14, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious, as best understood, the assembly method for assembling the stop valve, wherein the assembly method comprises: S1, pressing the sleeve ring of the stop valve into the valve tube of the stop valve, correspondingly pressing a first connecting pipe, a second connecting pipe and an inflating valve of the stop valve into the first interface, the second interface and the air vent of the valve tube, and connecting the base of the stop valve with the valve tube by spot welding; S2, performing furnace brazing on an overall structure assembled in S1; S3, sleeving a first sealing gasket, a second sealing gasket and a sealing member of the stop valve on the valve core of the stop valve; S4, integrally loading a structure assembled in S3 into the valve tube; and S5, pressing a pressing block of the stop valve into the valve tube, and then connecting the pressing block and the valve tube by laser welding or argon arc welding, in combination with the limitations of the base claim.
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.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN110206907 (“Li”) in view of US5908044 (“Kearns”).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a stop valve, comprising:
a valve tube (mainly defined by housing of 11 and 21), wherein two ends of the valve tube are respectively an operating end (top end, relative to the orientation of fig. 2) and a plugging end (bottom end, relative to the orientation of fig. 2), a side wall of the valve tube is provided with a first interface (111) and a second interface (22), the first interface and the second interface both communicate with a cavity (interior cavity defined by 11 and 21) of the valve tube, the second interface is close to the plugging end relative to the first interface, and in the valve tube, a space (space of portion 21, disposed vertically below second interface 22; relative to the orientation of fig. 2) between a side wall (wall defining second interface 22) of the second interface on a side (bottom side of interface 22, relative to the orientation of fig. 2) facing the plugging end and the plugging end forms a buffer chamber;
a base (31), which is used for plugging an opening (bottom opening of buffer chamber 21, relative to the orientation of fig. 2) of the plugging end;
a sleeve ring (15), which is fixed in the cavity of the valve tube, wherein an outer wall (radially outer wall of sleeve ring 15) of the sleeve ring is in sealing fit with an inner wall (see assembly of fig. 1) of the valve tube, the sleeve ring is located between the first interface and the second interface, and the sleeve ring is provided with a valve port (port or through-bore extending through sleeve ring 15); and
a valve core (14), which is movably disposed in the cavity of the valve tube, so as to close or open the valve port, wherein the valve core is located on a side (top side, relative to the orientation of fig. 2) of the sleeve ring facing the operating end.
Li is silent to the valve tube and the base both being made of stainless steel.
However, Li is silent to the valve tube and the base both being made of stainless steel.
Kearns teaches a valve tube ("fitting body" 1) and a base ("end plug" 22) both made of stainless steel (see claim 10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the invention of Li by forming the valve tube and the base both from stainless steel, as taught by Kearns, because stainless steel is known for corrosion resistance and high mechanical strength.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Kearns, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US2784933 (“Newell”).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the combination of Li and Kearns discloses a pressing block (Li, 12), disposed in the cavity of the valve tube (Li, mainly defined by 11 and 21), an outer wall (Li, radially outer wall of member 12) of the pressing block is fixedly connected with the inner wall of the valve tube (Li, see assembly of fig. 1); and the sleeve ring (Li, 15) is made of stainless steel (Li, see English translation page 4).
However, the combination of Li and Kearns does not disclose an outer wall of the valve core provided with external threads, the valve core internally provided with an operation portion, the operation portion disposed on an end away from the valve port, the pressing block provided with internal threads, and the internal threads match the external threads; and
wherein a side of the pressing block that faces the valve port is provided with an annular groove, the stop valve further comprises a first sealing gasket, the first sealing gasket is sleeved on the valve core, and the first sealing gasket is in stop fit with a periphery of the annular groove.
Newell teaches (see fig. 4) a stop valve having a valve core (mainly defined by 250 and 254), wherein an outer wall (radially outer wall) of the valve core is provided with external threads (252), the valve core is internally provided (at a top end, relative to the orientation of fig. 4) with an operation portion (slot for screw driver; see by example element 61 in fig. 1),
a pressing block (238) provided with internal threads (240) which match the external threads; and
wherein a side (bottom side, relative to the orientation of fig. 1) of the pressing block that faces a valve port (222) is provided with an annular groove (groove formed by nonthreaded portion 242), the stop valve further comprises a first sealing gasket (262), the first sealing gasket is sleeved on the valve core (see fig. 4), and the first sealing gasket is in stop fit with a periphery of the annular groove (see specification col. 5, lines 66-75).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to further modify the combination of Li and Kearns by configuring the valve core internally provided with an operation portion, the outer wall of the valve core with external threads which engage internal threads of the pressing block, and further configuring the valve core to have a first sealing gasket sleeved thereon and engaging an annular groove of the pressing block, as taught by Newell, to prevent accidental actuation of the stop valve and improve sealing between the pressing block and the valve core.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Kearns, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR1020060129998 (“Lee”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Li and Kearns discloses the invention as claimed except for a side wall of the valve core provided with a first annular groove and a second annular groove, the stop valve further comprises a sealing member and a second sealing gasket, the sealing member is located in the first annular groove, the sealing member is in sealing fit with the inner wall of the valve tube, and the second sealing gasket is located in the second annular groove; and when the valve port is closed, the second sealing gasket abuts against a periphery of the valve port.
Lee teaches (see figs. 3 and 4) a stop valve comprising a valve tube (10) and a valve core (30) having a side wall (radially outer wall) provided with a first annular groove (groove(s) within which O-ring seal(s) 37 is disposed) and a second annular groove (groove within which seal 31 is disposed), a sealing member (37) and a second sealing gasket (31), wherein the sealing member is located in the first annular groove, the sealing member is in sealing fit with an inner wall (interior wall of valve tube 10; see figs. 3 and 4) of the valve tube, and the second sealing gasket is located in the second annular groove (see figs. 3 and 4); and when a valve port (port defined by the valve seat against which sealing gasket 31 abuts; see fig. 3) is closed, the second sealing gasket abuts against a periphery of the valve port (see fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to further modify the invention of Limann and Kearns by configuring the valve core to have a first annular groove and a second annular groove defined in a sidewall there, a sealing member is located in the first annular groove and sealing fit with the inner wall of the valve tube, and a second sealing gasket is located in the second annular groove and abutting against a periphery of the valve port in the closed position, as taught by Lee, to prevent fluid leakage between the valve core and the valve tube in both the closed and open positions.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Li, Kearns and Lee discloses the valve core (Lee, 30; see annotated fig. 3, below) comprises a first rod segment (Lee, small diameter portion of valve member 30 extending through valve seat), a second rod segment (Lee, large diameter portion defining grooves within which sealing members 31 and 37 are disposed) and a third rod segment (Lee, defined mainly by 35 and 36), which are connected in sequence, a diameter of the second rod segment is greater than a diameter of the first rod segment and a diameter (Lee, diameter of spindle portion 35) of the third rod segment (Lee, see cross-section of fig. 3), the diameter of the third rod segment is less than a diameter of the valve port (Li, valve port extending through sleeve ring 15; see also Lee, interaction between port of valve seat through which leftmost portion of valve closure 30 extends), and two ends of the second rod segment are respectively provided with the first annular groove and the second annular groove, an opening of the first annular groove faces the inner wall of the valve tube, and an opening of the second annular groove faces the sleeve ring (Li, 15; see also Lee fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
911
949
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Kearns and further in view of Lee, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of US1640527 (“Brown”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Li, Kearns and Lee discloses the sleeve ring (Li, 15) comprising a sleeve body (Li, 15), an outer wall of the sleeve body is connected with the inner wall of the valve tube (Li, mainly defined by 11 and 21), when the valve port (Li, port extending through sleeve ring 15) is closed, the second sealing gasket (Lee, 31) abuts against the valve port (Lee, see position of fig. 3).
The combination of Li, Kearns and Lee does not disclose the sleeve ring comprising an annular convex rib disposed on an end of the sleeve body, an outer diameter of the annular convex rib being less than an outer diameter of the sleeve body, and an opening of the annular convex rib forming the valve port; and when the valve port is closed, the second sealing gasket abuts against the annular convex rib.
However, Brown teaches a sleeve ring (20) comprising an annular convex rib (21) disposed on an end (end facing sealing gasket 22) of a sleeve body (20), an outer diameter (outer diameter of bent annular portion 21) of the annular convex rib being less than an outer diameter (outermost diameter of body 20) of the sleeve body, and an opening (opening extending through bent annular portion 21) of the annular convex rib forming a valve port (valve port regulated by sealing gasket 22); and when the valve port is closed, a sealing gasket (22) abuts against the annular convex rib.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to further modify the combination of Li, Kearns and Lee by configuring the sleeve ring with an annular convex rib disposed on an end of the sleeve body, an outer diameter of the annular convex rib being less than an outer diameter of the sleeve body, and an opening of the annular convex rib forming the valve port; and when the valve port is closed, the second sealing gasket abuts against the annular convex rib, as taught by Brown, to have a resilient seating interface.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Kearns, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US6269840 (“Beaver”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Li and Kearns discloses the stop valve as claimed except for the side wall of the valve tube further provided with an air vent, the air vent communicating with the cavity of the valve tube, the stop valve further comprising an air valve structure, and the air valve structure connected with the air vent.
Beaver teaches (see fig. 2) a stop valve (10) having a valve tube (12) with a side wall (radially outer wall of valve tube 12) provided with an air vent (42), the air vent communicates with a cavity (18) of the valve tube, the stop valve further comprising an air valve structure (40), and the air valve structure connected with the air vent (see fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to further modify the combination of Li and Kearns by configuring the side wall of the valve tube with an air vent which communicates with the cavity of the valve tube, and employing an air valve structure connected with the air vent, as taught by Beaver, to allow charging or evacuating of the fluid system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed March 17, 2026, have been fully considered.
With regards to the rejection of claim 1 over Veissmann in view of Kearns, Applicant’s amendment has overcome the rejection of record. However, the amended claims have necessitated new ground(s) of rejection rendering Applicant's arguments regarding the combination of Veissmann and Kearns, and further combinations thereof, moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. KR20150001265, US11931864 and US1465540 disclose a valve tube having a first interface, a second interface, an operating end and a plug end, the plug end having an end surface, which is offset from an exterior wall of the second interface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hailey K. Do whose direct telephone number is (571)270-3458 and direct fax number is (571)270-4458. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00AM-5:00PM ET) and Friday (8:00AM-12:00PM ET).
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, Kenneth Rinehart at 571-272-4881, or Craig M. Schneider at 571-272-3607. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAILEY K. DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753