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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ amendments have been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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(s) 1-7, 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (CN 210218782), hereinafter referred to as Ma, in view of Jan (CZ 124195), hereinafter referred to as Jan.
Re claim 1 and 10, Ma teaches a valve including:
a valve body (e.g. abstract, “valve shell”) having:
at least two inlets (e.g. 21 and 22; abstract, “a valve shell provided with a hot water inlet, a cold water inlet and a mixed water outlet”); and
an outlet (e.g. abstract, “a mixed water outlet”) configured to be in fluid communication with the at least two inlets (see e.g. Fig. 3);
an adjusting portion (e.g. 710) associated with the valve body, the adjusting portion providing a stop structure (e.g. 9);
a piston (e.g. 3) in fluid communication with the at least two inlets and the outlet (e.g. abstract, “the piston can move in the valve shell and is used for adjusting the sizes of the hot water inlet and the cold water inlet”);
a thermostatic element (e.g. 4) configured to assist with moving the piston in response to engaging with the stop structure, the piston being configured to regulate fluid flow from the at least two inlets to the outlet (e.g. claim 9); and
a return spring (61) configured to assist with biasing the thermostatic element (e.g. Fig 3); and
a mixing part (e.g. part defining 24) provides assistance with mixing fluid from the at least two inlets to the outlet (e.g. Fig 3),
wherein the mixing part is integrally formed with valve body (e.g. Fig 3).
Ma does not explicitly teach the limitation of wherein the at least two inlets transition from a substantially circular shape to a substantially rectangular shape.
However, Jan teaches a mixing valve comprising at least two inlets transition from a substantially circular shape to a substantially rectangular shape (e.g. description “. The sockets 15, 16, 17, 18 may be as shown in circular cross section with transition to a rectangular rectangular inlet 19,20,21,22”).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Ma and integrated wherein the at least two inlets transition from a substantially circular shape to a substantially rectangular shape, as taught by Jan, in order to increase the efficiency.
Furthermore, Ma, as modified, teaches the method of manufacturing said valve (See above rejection).
Re claim 2, Ma, as modified, teaches the valve of claim 1, wherein the return spring has a length that extends beyond one end of the mixing part (see Fig 3).
Re claim 3, Ma, as modified, teaches the valve of claim 1, wherein the mixing part forms a channel with the valve body to receive the return spring (see Fig 3).
Re claim 4, Ma, as modified, teaches the valve of claim 1, wherein the one end of the mixing part is in the form of a free end (see Fig 3).
Re claim 5, Ma, as modified, teaches the valve of claim 4, wherein the free end is at an opposite end to where the mixing part is connected to the valve body (see Fig 3).
Re claim 6, Ma, as modified, teaches the valve of claim 1, wherein the mixing part includes a tube portion that extends from a connection with the valve body in a direction away from the outlet (see Fig 3).
Re claim 7, Ma, as modified, teaches the valve of claim 1. Ma teaches a ratio of piston height to piston diameter (see Fig 3). Ma does not teach the limitation of wherein the ratio is in the range of 1:1.65 to 1:5. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the ratio in the range of 1:1.65 to 1:5, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II)¶ 3.
Re claim 11, Ma, as modified, teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the step of forming the mixing part includes forming a channel in the valve body that is configured to receive a return spring and defines part of the mixing part (see Fig 3).
Re claim 12, Ma, as modified, teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the method includes placing the return spring into the channel in a manner that allows its length to extend beyond one end of the mixing part (see Fig 3).
Re claim 13, Ma, as modified, teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the method further includes inserting a thermostatic element (e.g. 41) into the mixing part (see Fig 3).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma, in view of Jan, in view of Lebkuchner (US Pat No. 6, 079,625), hereinafter referred to as Lebkuchner.
Re claim 8, Ma, as modified, teaches the valve of claim 1. Ma does not teach the limitation of wherein a diameter of one of the at least two inlets is greater than the piston height. However, Lebkuchner teaches a valve comprising a diameter of one of at least two inlets (126 or 124) is greater than a piston (l) height (see Fig 2). Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Ma and integrated wherein a diameter of one of the at least two inlets is greater than the piston height, as taught by Lebkuchner, in order to improve the facilitating of mixing of hot and cold fluid (see Lebkuchner ¶ 3).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma, in view of Pottie et al. (US 20220107658), hereinafter referred to as Pottie.
Re claim 9, Ma, as modified, teaches the valve of claim 1. Ma does not teach the limitation of wherein the piston includes a spring seat that receives a force from the return spring that is configured to assist in biasing the thermostatic element. However, Pottie teaches a valve wherein a piston (20) includes a spring seat (see where spring 33 seats on) that receives a force from a return spring (33) that is configured to assist in biasing a thermostatic element (31) (see Fig 1). Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Ma and integrated wherein the piston includes a spring seat that receives a force from the return spring that is configured to assist in biasing the thermostatic element, as taught by Pottie, in order to limit the phenomenon of whistling and vibrations (see Pottie ¶ 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (see PTO-892).
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 NELSON NIEVES whose telephone number is (571)270-0392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/NELSON J NIEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 1/24/2026