DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 1-11 are pending for consideration following applicant’s amendment filed 7/10/2026.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 7/10/2026. These drawings are accepted.
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagel (US Patent 6,095,186) in view of Landacre et al. (US Patent 10,774,943).
Regarding Claim 1, Nagel discloses an electric valve (it is noted that the term “electric valve” is merely the name given to the claimed device), wherein the electric valve comprising: a valve seat (the stepped portion of the body 2 shown in Figure 3 provides a seat for sealing elements 8 and 35) with a valve cavity (region within the stepped portion of 2 as shown in Figures 4 and 5); a valve needle (valve cone 10) movably arranged in the valve cavity (as shown in Figures 4 and 5); a first valve core 35, which is arranged in the valve cavity (as shown in Figures 4 and 5) and has a first through hole (hole extending through the center of 35), the material of the first valve core 35 is a non-metallic material (PTFE; col. 3, lines 59-65), and the first valve core 35 is located between the valve needle 10 and an opening of the valve cavity (35 is located between the enlarged portion of 10 and the opening at the lower end of the stepped portion of 2 as shown in Figures 4 and 5); and a second valve core 36, which is arranged in the valve cavity and has a second through hole (hole extending through the center of 36), the material of the second valve core 36 is metal material (as shown in the cross-section shown in Figures 4 and 5, the second valve core 36 is shown to be metal as is consistent with the example cross-sections shown in MPEP 608.02), the second valve core 36 is adjacent to a side of the first valve core 35 that faces upwardly (the second valve core 36 is adjacent the upwardly facing side of 35 in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s device), and the second through hole and the first through hole jointly form a valve port (the openings through 36 and 35 jointly form a valve port through which the fluid flows); wherein, when the electric valve is in a fully closed state (as shown in Figure 5), the valve needle 10 passes through the second through hole (through 36) and makes contact with a hole wall of the first through hole to form a seal (needle 10 makes contact with at least the upper edge of the wall of the first through hole), and wherein the second valve core 36 is matched with the valve needle 10 for flow regulation (i.e. the inner surface of the second valve core 36 and the outer surface of needle 10 together define a flow path for the fluid and therefore are “matched” in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s device).
Nagel does not disclose the valve is an electric valve (the recitation of the electric valve in the body of the claim is seen to require an electric element associated with the valve).
Landacre teaches a reciprocating valve is an electric valve (operated by a solenoid; abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Nagel such that the valve is an electric valve operated by a solenoid as taught by Landacre for the purpose of utilizing an alternative actuator which is able to be precisely controlled.
Regarding Claim 2, Nagel further discloses an inner diameter of a port of the valve port facing upwardly (i.e. the diameter of the upper end of 36 which faces upwardly in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s device) is greater than an inner diameter of a port of the valve port facing downwardly (i.e. the diameter of the lower end of 35 which faces downwardly in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s device), and an inner wall of the valve port smoothly transitions between the two ports (the lower end of the inner diameter of 36 is shown to have a convex radius which is seen to provide a smoother transition than a sharp edge; it is noted that “smoothly transitions” is a broad term which has not been given a special definition in applicant’s specification as filed).
Regarding Claim 3, Nagel further discloses an inner diameter of an orifice (orifice at the upper end of 35) of the first through hole (through hole of 35) facing upwardly (i.e. the diameter of the through hole of 35 at the upper end) is less than or equal to an inner diameter of an orifice (orifice at the lower end of 36) of the second through hole (through hole of 36) facing downwardly (i.e. the diameter of the through hole of 36 at the lower end; Figures 4 and 5 show the inner diameter of 35 less than the inner diameter of 36).
Regarding Claim 5, Nagel further discloses an inner diameter of an orifice (orifice at the upper end of 36) of the second through hole (through hole of 36) facing upwardly (i.e. the diameter of the through hole of 36 at the upper end) is greater than an inner diameter of an orifice (orifice at the lower end of 36) of the second through hole (through hole of 36) facing downwardly (i.e. the diameter of the through hole of 36 at the lower end; Figures 4 and 5 show the inner diameter of 36 at the upper end is greater than the inner diameter of 36 at the lower end abutting 35), and a hole wall of the second through hole smoothly transitions between the two orifices (tapering inner wall of 36).
Regarding Claim 6, Nagel further discloses an inner wall of the second through hole (inner wall of 36) has a shape of inclined surface or curved surface (the inner wall of 36 has an inclined surface as it extends upwardly and away from the center axis).
Regarding Claim 7, Nagel further discloses the inner wall of the second through hole (inner wall of 36) comprises multiple inclined surfaces with different slopes or multiple curved surfaces with different radians (the inner surface of 36 includes an upper surface defining a first inclined surface extending upwardly and away from the central axis; the inner surface of 36 also includes a short inclined inner surface extending upwardly from member 35 and toward the central axis as shown in Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 9, Nagel further discloses the second valve core 36 is formed with a second annular groove (the upper surface of the upper portion of 36 forms an annular groove to define the tapered surface; i.e. the tapered surfaces is formed via an annular groove cut out of the inner wall of 36) formed at a periphery of an orifice of the side of the second throughhole facing upwardly (as described above).
Regarding Claim 10, Nagel further discloses a valve core sleeve 8, which is partially provided in the valve cavity (region within the stepped portion of 2 as shown in Figures 4 and 5) and adjacent to a side of the first valve core 35 facing downwardly (i.e. 8 is provided on the lower side of 35), the valve core sleeve 8 is provided with a through channel connected to the valve port (through channel through the center of 8).
Claim 1-7, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagel (US Patent 6,095,186) in view of Landacre et al. (US Patent 10,774,943) and further in view of Naedler et al. (US Patent 10,815,989).
Regarding Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, and 10, Nagel in view of Landacre is seen as disclosing all of the elements of these claims as described above. Alternatively, in the event that Nagel is not seen as disclosing the valve needle makes contact with the hole wall of the first through hole to form a seal, Naedler teaches a reciprocating valve and further teaches a valve head 1 makes contact with an inner tapered surface of a seat seal 7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Nagel such that the first valve core includes a tapered inner surface and engages the tapered surface of the valve needle as taught by Naedler for the purpose of providing an alternative sealing arrangement which enhances the stability between the valve head and seat.
Regarding Claim 4, Nagel does not disclose an inner diameter of an orifice of the first through hole facing upwardly is greater than an inner diameter of an orifice of the first through hole facing downwardly, and the hole wall of the first through hole smoothly transitions between the two orifices.
Naedler teaches a reciprocating valve and further teaches an inner diameter of an upper opening of a seat seal 7 (i.e. the opening at the upper end of 7 as shown in Figure 3) is greater than an inner diameter of an orifice of the through hole facing away from the valve 1 (i.e. the diameter of the opening at the upper end of 7 is greater than the diameter of the opening at the lower end of 7), and a hole wall of the through hole smoothly transitions between the two orifices (tapered inner surface of 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Nagel such that the first valve core includes a tapered inner surface to engage the tapered surface of the valve needle as taught by Naedler for the purpose of providing an alternative sealing arrangement which enhances the stability between the valve head and seat.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either Nagel (US Patent 6,095,186) in view of Landacre et al. (US Patent 10,774,943) or Nagel (US Patent 6,095,186) in view of Landacre et al. (US Patent 10,774,943) and further in view of Naedler et al. (US Patent 10,815,989) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Anderson et al. (US Patent 2,985,424).
Regarding Claim 8, Nagel does not disclose the first valve core is formed with a first annular groove at a periphery of an orifice of the side of the first through hole facing downwardly.
Anderson teaches a reciprocating valve and further teaches a seat seal 4 is formed with a first annular groove (a groove is formed by the serration 5 of the element 1 below the seat seal 4 as shown in Figure 2; i.e. in the installed state the seal 4 includes an annular groove) at a periphery of the orifice (the groove is provided on the downwardly facing side at a periphery of the central opening of 4) of the side of the first through hole facing downwardly (as described above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Nagel such that the first valve core is formed with a first annular groove at a periphery of the orifice of the side of the first through hole facing downwardly as taught by Anderson, using serrations of a lower support element, for the purpose of providing a gripping structure to retain the seal in the desired location.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either Nagel (US Patent 6,095,186) in view of Landacre et al. (US Patent 10,774,943) or Nagel (US Patent 6,095,186) in view of Landacre et al. (US Patent 10,774,943) and further in view of Naedler et al. (US Patent 10,815,989) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Gremillion, III (US Patent 7,178,546).
Regarding Claim 11, Nagel does not disclose an installation substrate provided with an installation cavity, and the valve seat, the first valve core, the second valve core, and the valve core sleeve are installed within the installation cavity and detachably connected to the installation cavity.
Gremillion teaches a valve assembly 100 in which the entire valve is provided within an installation cavity defined by a removable cover body 2 (the cover body is readable as an installation substrate in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s housing) such that access to the valve is prevented.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Nagel such that the valve assembly is provided within a lockable substrate as taught by Gremillion for the purpose of providing a structure to prevent unauthorized access to the valve. It is noted that in the proposed modification of Nagel in view of Gremillion the entire valve assembly of Nagel including the valve seat, first valve core, second valve core, and the valve core sleeve are provided within the installation cavity of the lockable installation substrate as taught by Gremillion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that Nagel fails to disclose the arrangement recited in claim 1 because the central openings of disk 35 and ring 36 are larger than the portion of valve cone 10 extending through these openings. Applicant argues that the valve cone 10 does not contact the hole wall of the central opening of disk 35 nor the inner wall of the opening of clamping ring 36. These arguments are not persuasive because, as described above and in the previous Office action, the valve cone 10 of Nagel contacts the disk 35 as shown in Figure 5. This contact includes contact of the valve cone 10 with at least the upper edge of the wall of the first through hole defined by disk 35.
It is noted that in the event that Nagel is not seen as disclosing the valve needle makes contact with the hole wall of the first through hole to form a seal, an alternative rejection in view of Naedler has been provided. As described in the previous Office action, Naedler teaches a reciprocating valve and further teaches a valve head 1 makes contact with an inner tapered surface of a seat seal 7.
Applicant further argues that clamping ring 36 of Nagel merely retains PTFE annular disk 35 and is not matched with the valve cone 10 for flow regulation. These arguments are not persuasive because the inner surface of ring 36 together with an outer surface of cone 10 defines a portion of the fluid flow path. Therefore, because these elements determine a size, shape, and configuration of a portion of the flow path, they are seen to be “matched for flow regulation” as required by the claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KEVIN MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached on (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 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.
/KEVIN F MURPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights