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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Eversol (US 151,580), which discloses:
1. A valve for controlling a pressure difference between fluids on an inside and on an outside of a wall (B) defining a portion of a chamber (A), the valve comprising:
- a lever (D) having a first end portion (on the left) and a second end portion (on the right), and a fulcrum element (E) arranged between the first end portion and the second end portion,
- a first cap (the bottom member C, on the left of FIG 1) operatively connected to the first end portion of the lever, the first cap having a sealing surface (shown closed against the left valve seat in FIG 1) facing the lever and configured for sealing a first aperture in a portion of the wall of the chamber when the valve is in a closed position (as shown in FIG 1) and
- a second cap (the top member C, on the right of FIG 1) operatively connected to the second end portion of the lever, the second cap having a sealing surface (shown closed against the right valve seat, FIG 1) facing away from the lever and configured for sealing a second aperture in a portion of the wall of the chamber when the valve is in the closed position (as shown in FIG 1),
wherein the valve is configured to open so that fluid is communicated into or out of the chamber via the first aperture and the second aperture (i.e., when the valves are open, fluid can communicate into or out of the chamber) when a pressure difference between fluids inside and outside of the chamber exceeds a predetermined level (the valve itself is capable of opening when such a pressure difference occurs).
2. The valve according to claim 1, further provided with a biasing means (F, F’, G) configured for providing an additional torque on the lever.
3. The valve according to claim 2, wherein the biasing means is configured for urging the first cap and the second cap towards the wall of the chamber (weight of F’ and resilience of G cause closure of valve members C).
4. The valve according to claim 2, wherein the biasing means comprises a spring (G).
5. The valve according to claim 2, wherein the biasing means comprises a mass element (F’) configured for providing a torque with respect to the fulcrum element.
7. The valve according to claim 1, wherein an area of the sealing surface of the first cap is different from an area of the sealing surface of the second cap (they occupy two different areas – one is on the left of the device, the other is on the right; alternatively this limitations is met in that they inherently cannot be exactly the same surface area size).
8. The valve according to claim 1, wherein the valve comprises a wall element (B) provided with the first aperture and the second aperture, wherein the wall element is configured for overlapping a perimeter of an opening provided in the wall of the chamber (the outer perimeter of horizontal wall B meets the vertical walls of the chamber A).
9. A valve assembly comprising the valve according to claim 1 (see the analysis of claim 1 above), wherein the valve assembly further comprises a wall element (horizontal wall B) configured for overlapping a perimeter of an opening provided in the wall of the chamber (the perimeter of wall B meets with the interior perimeter of the chamber wall of chamber A).
10. A method for controlling a pressure difference between fluids on an inside and on an outside of a wall of a chamber, the method comprises:
- providing a valve according to claim 1 (as shown in FIG 1; see the analysis of claim 1 above);
- providing fluid communication through a portion of the wall (a, behind D in FIG 1) of the chamber (A); and
- securing the valve to the chamber so that fluid is communicated into our out of the chamber via the first aperture and the second aperture (e.g., col. 1 lines 22-29) when a pressure difference between fluids on an inside (at a) and on an outside the chamber (at b) exceeds a predetermined level (inherent to flow of fluid from a to b) and the valve opens (flow only occurs when the valve opens), and so that fluid is prevented from being communicated through the wall of the chamber when the valve is closed (no flow occurs when the valve is closed).
11. The valve according to claim 3, wherein the biasing means comprises a spring (G).
12. The valve according to claim 3, wherein the biasing means comprises a mass element (F’) configured for providing a torque with respect to the fulcrum element.
13.The valve according to claim 4, wherein the biasing means comprises a mass element (F’) configured for providing a torque with respect to the fulcrum element.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eversol in view of either Martinez (US 4,225,980) or Parker (US 1,463,658).
Eversol discloses wherein the first cap and the second cap are adapted to a form of the first aperture and the second aperture, respectively (they are similar in shape to one another in order to close the valves), but does not disclose wherein at least one of the first aperture and the second aperture has a non-circular form allowing at least one of first cap and the second cap to be passed through the first aperture or the second aperture. However each of Martinez (FIGS 1, 2) and Parker (at 23) teach that it was known in the art before the effective filing date to form an aperture to be non-circular such that a correspondingly-shaped cap can fit therethrough. To allow Eversol’s cap(s) to fit through the aperture(s) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a non-circular aperture (and correspondingly-shaped cap), as taught by either of Martinez or Parker.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument that Eversol’s valve does not “open/close based on a pressure difference between fluids on an inside and outside of the chamber” is moot because this language is not found in the claims. Rather the claims merely require the valve to be “configured to open … when a pressure difference between fluids inside and outside of the chamber exceeds a predetermined level”. That is, the claims require a capability of operating during a certain condition, whereas the arguments improperly infer a causal relationship between operation of the valve and the condition. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 WILLIAM M MCCALISTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1869. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 7am to 6pm.
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, 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/WILLIAM M MCCALISTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
11/24/25