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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 06/05/2024 and 09/16/2025 are acknowledged by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the "wide angle" direction of the force in claim 7, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, the limitation “the cylinder opening valve” in line 16 should read –the one-way cylinder opening valve—.
Claim 2, the limitation “flow channel” in line 7 should read –central flow channel--.
Claim 7, the limitation “material” in line 3 should read --non-metallic material--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, the limitation “a sealing force” in line 17 is indefinite because it is unclear if this is a different force than the “sealing force” previously introduced in line 12.
Claim 2, the limitation "a non-metallic material" in lines 2-3, is indefinite because it is unclear if this refers to the same non-metallic material previously introduced in claim 1.
Claim 2, the limitation “an angle between a direction of a force applied to the structural member of the non-metallic material and a deformation direction of the non-metallic material during sealing is varied to adapt to hydrogen working conditions under different pressures” in lines 10-13, is indefinite because it is unclear in meaning. It is not clear if this is intended to refer to the angle varying as the force changes in one single sealing arrangement, or if this varying requires changing out the sealing arrangement to another one with different angle geometry.
Claim 2, the limitation “a force” in line 10 is indefinite because it is unclear if this force is referring to either the “external force” or the “sealing force” previously introduced in claim 1, is a different force, or is even a combination of these forces. Claims 4 and 7 similarly seem to introduce a different force.
Claim 14, the limitation "an air guide hole" is indefinite because it is unclear if it is intended to refer to the same "intake hole" previously introduced in claim 1. The description describes the air guide holes 2-1 as being in the valve core. As there are no other holes, it appears to refer to the same holes as the intake hole.
Claim 15, the limitation "an inlet" in line 2 is indefinite because it is unclear if it is referring to the same hydrogen inlet previously introduced in claim 1. The through hole 4-1 in the lower end of the spring chamber is disclosed as a hydrogen inlet and only 4-1 is shown in the drawings.
Claims 3, 5-6, and 8-13 are rejected due to being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 of this title, 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 1-5 and 9-15 are rejected, as far as they are definite, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rilett (US 4760865) in view of Baker et al. (GB 2312268).
Rilett discloses:
1. (Currently Amended) A one-way cylinder opening valve (3 in fig. 1, or equivalents in figs. 2, 3) capable of being used for a hydrogen energy handheld torch, comprising: a valve body (2, 16); a valve core assembly (10, 11, 12); a spring (13); a spring chamber (14); and a sealing ring (sealing ring shown between threads 100 and flange of 2 in fig. 1); wherein the spring chamber is connected to the valve body (fig. 1), the valve core assembly and the spring are arranged in the spring chamber (10 and 13 are within 14), a valve body sealing lip (7) is arranged on the valve body, and the sealing lip and the valve core assembly are sealed by means of a principle of compressing a non-metallic material (12) to reach a sealing specific pressure of the non-metallic material, and the spring provides a sealing force for the valve core assembly (as seen in fig. 1, 13 biases 10, 12 against seat 7); the sealing ring is arranged on an outer side of the valve body (as seen in fig. 1, sealing ring adjacent threads 100 is on the outer side of 2), so as to ensure sealing between the valve body and a gas cylinder (1); a through hole (in right end of 14 in fig. 1) is provided in the spring chamber and is capable of being used as a hydrogen inlet, a fluid intake hole (9) capable of being used as a hydrogen intake hole and a central flow channel (8) are provided in the valve body; an external force (refilling equipment which clamps to groove 17 and then depresses 11 rightward in fig. 1; col. 6, ll. 29) needed to open the cylinder opening valve needs to overcome is greater than a sealing force provided by the spring for the valve core assembly (col. 6, ll. 35-38) and an upward medium force applied to the valve core assembly in an under-pressure state, hydrogen enters a central through hole (4) in the valve body through the hydrogen inlet/through hole, the spring chamber, the hydrogen intake hole/fluid intake hole and the central flow channel of the valve body, and flows out via the central through hole, so as to realize hydrogen/fluid discharging (fluid flows from right to left, from the right opening in 14 to the outlet 9 during discharge of the tank 1). (Note, regarding the limitation “suitable for a hydrogen energy handheld torch,” it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Also note, regarding the limitation “hydrogen” and “gas,” a claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115.)
2. (Currently Amended) The one-way cylinder opening valve of claim 1, wherein the valve core assembly comprises the valve core (10, 11) and a structural member of a non-metallic material (12); wherein the valve core comprises a central valve core (portion 11), a bottom cylinder (portion which 13 surrounds) and a large-diameter structure (large diameter portion in the middle) between the central valve core and the bottom cylinder for installing the structural member of the non-metallic material (12 is seen in the larger diameter middle portion in fig. 1); the bottom cylinder is configured to install one end of the spring (as seen in fig. 1), an installation position of the structural member of the non-metallic material corresponds to a position of the valve body sealing lip (12 seats on 7), and an angle between a direction of a force applied to the structural member of the non-metallic material and a deformation direction of the non-metallic material during sealing is varied to adapt to hydrogen working conditions under different pressures (the force angle on the non-metallic material 12 changes as the pressure acting on the non-metallic material from any fluid in the tank changes, as well as the force of the sealing lip 7 against the non-metallic seal 12 varies as the spring 13 is compressed/uncompressed due to changes in pressure in the tank, so the angle direction is capable of change depending on the degree of the varying combination of these forces on the non-metallic material. Embodiments in figs. 2 and 3 also include a bleed port 22 which affects the pressure in the tank while 7 is seated on 12).
3. (Currently amended) The one-way cylinder opening valve of claim 2, wherein the structural member of the non-metallic material is capable of being in a form of an inlaid or injection-molded non-metallic material or an extrusion molded sealing ring. (Note, the limitations “injection-molded” and “extrusion molded” are considered product-by-process limitations. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
4. (Currently Amended) The one-way cylinder opening valve of claim 2, wherein a direction of a force applied to the valve core assembly is perpendicular to a deformation direction of the non-metallic material, which is suitable for hydrogen working conditions below 20MPaG (note, the limitation does not specify what is applying the force or where on the valve core assembly the force is applied; the seat 7 would provide a force which would be perpendicular to the direction of deformation of the non-metallic material which would deform in the directions opposite to the surrounding constraining surfaces in combination to the direction of the force applied by 7 and extend toward the least compressive force applied, such as the gap exposed to fluid pressure, and Embodiment in fig. 2 further includes a bleed port 22 which is disclosed to have a threshold of 20 bar or 20MPaG, col. 7, ll. 9-10).
5. (Original) The one-way cylinder opening valve of claim 3, wherein the structural member of the non-metallic material is an annular member (12), and when a cross-sectional shape of the annular member is quadrangular (12 has 4 surfaces), the structural member is installed in an inlaid manner, and is suitable for hydrogen working conditions not higher than 1OMPaG (Embodiment of fig. 3 includes an exemplary pressure of 100 bar or 10MPaG as the threshold pressure of relief); or when a cross-sectional shape of the annular member is isosceles trapezoid (12 includes two parallel surfaces and one angled wall which creates an isosceles trapezoid), the structural member is capable of being installed in an injection-molded manner, and is suitable for hydrogen working conditions not higher than 20MPaG (Embodiment in fig. 2 further includes a bleed port 22 which is disclosed to have a threshold of 20 bar or 20MPaG, col. 7, ll. 9-10) (Note, the limitations “injection-molded” is considered product-by-process limitations. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
7. (Original) The one-way cylinder opening valve of claim 2, wherein a direction of a force applied to the valve core assembly is at a wide angle to the deformation direction of the material, which is suitable for hydrogen working conditions below 70MPaG(note, the limitation does not specify what is applying the force or where on the valve core assembly the force is applied; there are several forces being applied to the valve core assembly in various directions, such as from fluid pressure, the coil spring, from seat 7 and when an external filling device pushes 11, some which would include force applied at a wide angle to the deformation direction of the material; further the recitation “which is suitable for hydrogen working conditions below 70MPaG” is considered as the functional language. Rilett discloses all the structural components of a piston system, which are read on those of the instant invention. Therefore, the Rilett valve core assembly is capable of performing the same desired functions as the instant invention having been claimed in claim 7).
9. (Original) The one-way cylinder opening valve of claim 2, wherein the valve body sealing lip (7) is a cylindrical structure (as seen in fig. 1) arranged at one end of the central through hole (8) in the valve body (portion 16), and after the central valve core (portion 11) is inserted into the central through hole (8), and a gap is left between an outer wall of the central valve core and an inner wall of the cylindrical structure (as seen in fig. 1, a tapered gap is shown between the cylinder portion having 7 and the end of portion 11 adjacent 7).
12. (New) The one-way cylinder opening valve of claim 1, wherein internal threads (internal threads shown in Embodiment of fig. 2 to attach 14a to 21) of the valve body are configured to connect the valve body to the spring chamber (seen in Embodiment in fig. 2).
13. (New) The one-way cylinder opening valve of claim 1, wherein external threads (100) of the valve body are configured to connect the one-way cylinder opening valve to the gas cylinder (1)(as seen in fig. 1).
15. (New) The one-way cylinder opening valve of claim 1, wherein a lower end (right end in fig. 1) of the spring chamber (14) is provided with a through hole (right end hole), and the through hole is an inlet of the one-way cylinder opening valve (inlet as fluid in the tank 1 flows out of the tank to discharge out 9).
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 14, Rilett does not disclose wherein the fluid intake hole and the central flow channel are part of the valve core provided in the valve core assembly; wherein the central valve core is axially provided with the central flow channel of the valve core, and a side wall of the central flow channel is provided with the hydrogen intake hole; and wherein the valve core assembly is provided with an air guide hole.
Baker et al. teach a related one-way cylinder valve wherein the fluid intake hole (240, fig. 4a, 5) and the central flow channel (241) are part of the valve core (205, 207) provided in the valve core assembly (224); wherein the central valve core (205, 207) is axially provided with the central flow channel (241) of the valve core, and a side wall of the central flow channel is provided with the fluid intake hole (240); and wherein the valve core assembly (224) is provided with an air guide hole (241), for the purpose of providing an alternate arrangement of allowing flow past the valve core than to a solid member around which fluid flows, in a manner yielding predictable results, and which further allows more variability in the selected hole size, such as for larger passages for more flow which allow for faster charging of the tank (pg. 7, ll. 7-9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Rilett, such that the fluid intake hole and the central flow channel are part of the valve core provided in the valve core assembly; wherein the central valve core is axially provided with the central flow channel of the valve core, and a side wall of the central flow channel is provided with the hydrogen intake hole; and wherein the valve core assembly is provided with an air guide hole, as taught by Baker et al., for the purpose of providing an alternate arrangement of allowing flow past the valve core than to a solid member around which fluid flows , in a manner yielding predictable results (Baker’s solid member 105a around which fluid flows would be equivalent to Rilett’s solid portion 11 around which fluid must flow), and which further allows more variability in the selected hole size, such as for larger passages for more flow which allow for faster charging of the tank.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Rilett discloses the invention as essentially claimed, except for wherein a diameter d1 of the valve body sealing lip matched with the valve core assembly in a form of the inlaid non-metallic material ranges from 2 to 10mm, a diameter d2 of the valve body sealing lip matched with the valve core assembly in a form of the injection-molded non-metallic material ranges from 2 to 8mm, and a diameter d3 of the valve body sealing lip matched with the valve core assembly in a form of the extrusion molded sealing ring ranges from 2 to 5mm; and wherein the diameter d1 of the valve body sealing lip matched with the valve core assembly in a form of the inlaid non-metallic material ranges from 2.5 to 8mm, the diameter d2 in a form of the valve body sealing lip matched with the valve core assembly of the injection-molded non-metallic material ranges from 2.5 to 7mm, and the diameter d3 of the valve body sealing lip matched with the valve core assembly in a form of the extrusion molded sealing ring ranges from 2.5 to 4mm.
Although Rilett does not explicitly disclose the particular dimensions such that “a diameter d1 of the valve body sealing lip matched with the valve core assembly in a form of the inlaid non-metallic material ranges from 2 to 10mm, a diameter d2 of the valve body sealing lip matched with the valve core assembly in a form of the injection-molded non-metallic material ranges from 2 to 8mm, and a diameter d3 of the valve body sealing lip matched with the valve core assembly in a form of the extrusion molded sealing ring ranges from 2 to 5mm” or “the diameter d1 of the valve body sealing lip matched with the valve core assembly in a form of the inlaid non-metallic material ranges from 2.5 to 8mm, the diameter d2 in a form of the valve body sealing lip matched with the valve core assembly of the injection-molded non-metallic material ranges from 2.5 to 7mm, and the diameter d3 of the valve body sealing lip matched with the valve core assembly in a form of the extrusion molded sealing ring ranges from 2.5 to 4mm”, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than a prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rilett (US 4760865) in view of Baker et al. (GB 2312268) further in view of Lockwood, Jr. (US 4402340).
Rilett disclose the invention as essentially claimed, except for wherein the non-metallic material is selected from polytetrafluoroethylene, nylon, poly(ether-ether-ketone) resin, or polyimide.
Lockwood, Jr. teaches a related pressure actuated cylinder valve, wherein the non-metallic material (224) is nylon, for the purpose of providing a seal out of a material that seals, yet resists being extended under relatively high pressures (col. 8, ll. 39-44).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the invention of Rilett, such that the non-metallic material is nylon, as taught by Lockwood, Jr., for the purpose of providing a seal out of a material that seals, yet reduce being extended under relatively high pressures
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARINA TIETJEN, whose telephone number is 571-270-5422. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (10:30AM-7:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Tom Barrett can be reached at 571-272-4746, Ken Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881, and Craig Schneider can be reached 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.
/MARINA A TIETJEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753