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
This action is responsive to the amendment dated 11/7/2025. The previous drawing objection has been withdrawn due to applicant’s replacement figures dated 11/7/2025. The previous claim objections and 112 rejections have been withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment. Any new ground(s) of rejection below have been made due to applicant’s amendment. This action is Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 103 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 3-4, 6-7, 9, 14-15, 18-19, 22-23, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johann (U.S. 6,497,250) in view of Ray (U.S. 5,037,067) and Karpenko (U.S. 4,410,007).
It is noted that the rejections below are ordered based on dependency and not necessarily numerical order.
Regarding claim 25, Johann discloses a three-way valve, comprising: a valve housing (12) with a valve chamber (18), said valve chamber having an internal chamber wall (14); three ports (20, 22, 24) opening into the valve chamber; a rotatable valve body (60) rotatable around an axis of rotation (at the “+” in fig. 2) for selectively sealing one of the three ports relative to the valve chamber (by rotation, see col. 4, ll. 26-40 and fig. 2); and an endless resilient sealing member (70) in the form of an O-ring (see fig. 2 showing 70 as an O-ring) situated in a sealing member groove (the groove in which 70 resides in) for sealing between the rotatable valve body and the internal chamber wall (fig. 2); wherein: the internal chamber wall comprises a cylindrical section (14, see fig. 3) coaxial with the axis of rotation, at least one of the three ports opening into the valve chamber through said cylindrical section of the internal chamber wall (fig. 2); the valve body has a sealing surface (68), and the sealing surface of the valve body is part of a cylindrical surface coaxial with the axis of rotation (figs. 2-3 and 5, and in the same manner as the applicant’s device); the sealing surface of the valve body is adapted to be positioned adjacent a portion of the internal chamber wall surrounding one of the three ports when the valve body is in a rotational position to seal said one of the three ports (fig. 2); the sealing member groove encircles said one of the three ports for the sealing member to seal between the sealing surface of the valve body and the internal chamber wall (fig. 2); the sealing member groove is located in the valve body to open into the sealing surface of the valve body (fig. 5); the sealing member groove has a cross-section defining a cavity and an opening, the sealing member being situated in the cavity (fig. 2, the opening that leads to the cavity where the seal member resides and in the same manner as the applicant’s device).
Johann does not appear to disclose the O-ring being torus-shaped (defined as donut-shaped or ring-shaped surface generated by revolving a circle in a 3D space around an axis that is coplanar with the circle) or the groove opening being more narrow than a cross-sectional dimension of the sealing member; at least one channel is provided connecting the cavity of the sealing member groove and surroundings of the valve body; whereby through the at least one channel fluid may enter the groove from the surroundings of the valve body to urge the sealing member towards the opening of the groove by the pressure of said surroundings.
Ray teaches it was known in the art to have a cylindrical rotary plug valve with a seal that is a torus-shaped O-ring (29”, see fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johann by having the O-ring be torus-shaped as taught by Ray in order to provide an equivalent sealing function yet have the O-ring be of a shape (torus) that is well-known in the art for O-ring seals and thus readily available and inexpensive and easy to acquire and replace and especially as it has been held that a change in shape of a component generally involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.04.
Karpenko teaches it was known in the art to have a seal (24) on a valve head (11) for a rotary valve with a groove opening being more narrow than a cross-sectional dimension of the sealing member (see fig. 2, notice how the opening at the lead line for 24 is narrower and tapers outward toward 28 and compared to the sealing member cross-sectional width closer to numeral 28); at least one channel (27) is provided connecting the cavity of the sealing member groove and surroundings of the valve body (figs. 1-2); whereby through the at least one channel fluid may enter the groove from the surroundings of the valve body to urge the sealing member towards the opening of the groove by the pressure of said surroundings (fluid from outside the valve seal area will be able to enter 27 to expand 24 and increase the sealing effect, see col. 2, ll. 16-21) .
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johann by having the seal reside in a groove that is more narrow than a cross-sectional dimension of the sealing member and has a channel connecting the cavity of the sealing member groove and surroundings of the valve body as taught by Karpenko in order to better retain the seal within the groove so that it doesn’t inadvertently fall out of the groove and also provide a fluid biasing of the seal toward the valve seat when in the closed position to increase the sealing effect as more force is applied to the seal that then abuts against the valve seat, better preventing unwanted leakage (see also col. 2, ll. 16-21 of Karpenko).
Regarding claim 3, Johann as modified further discloses wherein the sealing member groove comprises a bottom wall (the wall opposite the opening for the groove where the seal resides in).
Regarding claim 4, Johann as modified further discloses wherein the sealing member is sealing between the bottom wall and the internal chamber wall (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Johann as modified further discloses wherein the sealing member closes the opening of the groove (as taught by Karpenko above as the opening is narrower than the seal).
Regarding claim 7, Johann as modified discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose whereby the sealing member bulges through the opening of the groove while closing said opening.
Karpenko further teaches a sealing member that bulges through the opening of the groove while closing the opening (fig. 2, see 24 bulging out of the groove, which will retain the shape while closing the valve and eventually 24 abuts against the seat at 12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Johann by having the seal bulge out of the opening of the groove when closing the opening as taught by Karpenko in order to have the seal be in a position to contact the valve seat to provide the desired sealing effect and better prevent unwanted leakage.
Regarding claim 9, Johann as modified further discloses wherein the at least one channel is configured for flow/pressure-connecting the cavity of the sealing member groove with one of the plurality of ports, when the valve body is in a rotational position to seal said one of the plurality of ports (as taught above by Karpenko, when in the closed position, fluid is able to flow from a port that is not closed and to the cavity of the sealing member groove, see fig. 1 and col. 2, ll. 16-21).
Regarding claim 14, Johann as modified further discloses wherein the cavity of the sealing member groove has a cross-sectional dimension in a direction parallel to the cross-sectional dimension of the opening, which is larger than the cross-sectional dimension of the opening (as taught above by Karpenko, see fig. 2, notice how the opening at the lead line for 24 is narrower and tapers outward toward 28).
Regarding claim 15, Johann as modified further discloses wherein the sealing member groove has a dovetail-like cross-section, wherein the opening constitutes a narrow part of the dovetail-like cross-section (as taught above by Karpenko, see fig. 2, notice how the opening at the lead line for 24 is narrower and tapers outward toward 28 and is thus interpreted to at least be dovetail-“like” in cross-section).
Regarding claim 18, Johann as modified further discloses wherein the valve body spans an angle in the range from approx. 75 degrees to 200 degrees (approximately 180 degrees or 90 degrees, and especially as the configuration of the ports and housing is the same as that shown by applicant’s figure 1 and approximately is broad and subjective).
Regarding claim 19, Johann as modified further discloses wherein the valve housing and the valve body comprise seawater resistant material (col. 5, ll. 9-13, such as aluminum or stainless steel, which are interpreted to be seawater resistant as the limitation is very broad and most all materials resist seawater at least to some degree).
Regarding claim 22, Johann as modified further discloses a liquid system comprising a valve according to claim 1 (Johann as modified is interpreted to meet this claim as the recitation of “a liquid system” is an intended use in the preamble which has not been given patentable weight, a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951)).
Regarding claim 23, Johann as modified further discloses a marine vessel comprising a valve according to claim 1 (Johann as modified is interpreted to meet this claim as the recitation of “a marine vessel” is an intended use in the preamble which has not been given patentable weight, a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/7/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 102 rejection with the Karpenko reference and the 103 rejection with Karpenko as the primary reference have been noted. However, Karpenko (or Karpenko as modified) have not been used in the current rejection.
On page 11, the applicant argues that Karpenko does not teach a torus-shaped O-ring. However, in the rejection above, Johann discloses an O-ring and Ray has been used to teach an O-ring that is torus shaped.
On page 13, the applicant argues that it would not be obvious to modify Johann as suggested by the examiner as there would be no reason for the claimed stop if the groove were modified to retain the seal therein so it doesn’t inadvertently fall out. The examiner respectfully disagrees as the groove provides a more secure space for the seal to reside and be retained in.
Further on page 13, the applicant argues that only a flexible material which has a U shape in cross-section is taught by Karpenko. However, it is noted that Johann discloses an O-ring and Ray has been used to teach the torus shape.
For at least these reasons, applicant’s arguments have not been found persuasive.
Applicant’s amendment has necessitated further search and/or consideration and/or revision of the rejection and, accordingly, this action is made Final.
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 MICHAEL R REID whose telephone number is (313)446-4859. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-5pm est.
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 can be reached by phone. Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607, or Ken 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.
/MICHAEL R REID/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights