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 .
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.
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 10-14 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 10 recites “A method for producing a disc valve device according to claim 1, with…” followed by positive recitations to many structures already recited in claim 1. The scope of the claim is unclear. There does not appear to be a method step recited in the claim. So, it is unclear if the claim is directed to an apparatus or a method. Most of the structure has already been recited in claim 1 and most of the limitations are double inclusions of structure previously recited. It is unclear if the scope of claim 10 includes multiple positive recitations of various structure (e.g., are there two abutments or one abutment?).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rodstein (US Patent Number 4,966,186).
Re claim 16, Rodstein discloses a disc valve device (see Figs. 2 and 3) with at least one first valve part (60) comprising at least one first fluid port (64), with at least one second valve part (40) comprising at least one second fluid port (46) which is manufactured separately from the first valve part (the first and second valve parts are separately manufactured and screwed together later), and with at least one disc pack (including 26 and 32) comprising at least one first valve disc (32) and at least one second valve disc (26) that is rotatable relative to the first valve disc, wherein flow-through paths can be opened (see Fig. 3) and/or closed (see Fig. 2) depending on a position of the valve discs of the disc pack relative to one another, and wherein the first valve part and the second valve part are mounted to each other in such a way that the valve parts together form a disc pack receiving space within which at least the disc pack is accommodated (see Figs. 2 and 3 showing the disc pack (26, 32) within the valve parts (40, 60)), the disk valve device further comprising at least one elastically deformable sealing element (62), which is arranged in the disc pack receiving space in an elastically pre-loaded fashion (see col. 4, line 60 to col. 5, line 6 and col. 5, lines 40-48), such that in a mounted state of the valve parts, the disc pack is pressed towards an abutment (the bottom of stem 12), which is situated opposite the sealing element (see Figs. 2 and 3) and wherein the sealing element is arranged on a side of the disc pack that faces away from a designated standard flow-through direction through the disc pack (the flow goes from the inlet to the outlet in the “up” direction as shown in Fig. 3 and the sealing element faces away from this direction below the disk pack).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 and 17 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendment filed March 12, 2026 has resulted in claims 1-9 and 17 being allowable. However, other arguments filed March 12, 2006 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re claim 10, the dependency on claim 1 results in most of the recitations in claim 10 to be double inclusions of structure previously recited. It is unclear if this is meant to recite the same structure twice. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a method step recited.
Re claim 16, Rodstein discloses the standard flow-through direction as up from upstream of the disc pack to downstream of the disc pack as shown in Fig. 3. The sealing element is below or upstream of the disc pack. This is a side of the disc pack that faces away a designated standard flow direction through the disc pack (i.e. upstream of the disc pack faces away from the downstream flow).
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 Eric Keasel whose telephone number is (571) 272-4929. The examiner works a part-time schedule and can normally be reached on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday.
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, Kenneth Rinehart and Craig Schneider can be reached on 571-272-4881 and 571-272-3607, respectively. 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.
/ERIC KEASEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights