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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants’ submission filed on 08/13/2026, has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 08/13/2026. These drawings are accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) was/were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) was/were considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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(s) 1-3, 8, 10-12, 16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobes (U.S. Publication 2004/0182438).
In regards to claim 1, Kobes discloses a closing element (5) for a valve, comprising an upstream closing element side (13); a downstream closing element side (12); and a valve seat surface (7), wherein each of the upstream side (13) and the downstream side (12) of the closing element (5) have a frustoconical shape.
The structure of the closing element disclosed by Kobes is as necessitated by applicant. Accordingly, it is the office’s position that the closing element of Kobes provides a drag coefficient of each of the upstream side and the downstream side that is lower than a drag coefficient of a closing element with a side with a plate-shape or hemispherical shape.
In regards to claim 2, the valve seat surface (7) is formed on a valve plate.
In regards to claim 3, the upstream side (13) and the downstream side (12) of the closing element (5) has a conical shape.
In regards to claim 8, the valve (11) is designed as a non-return valve.
In regards to claims 10 and 11, a claim containing 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” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP §2114.
Additionally, the office notes that the only structure associated with the proportioning system is the valve. Accordingly, it is the office’s position that the valve is the proportioning system at least to the extent that the system is positively claimed.
In regards to claim 12, the frustoconical shape has rounded edges at least to the same extent illustrated by applicant in Fig. 2b (which appears to be the only Fig. illustrating a frustoconical shape).
In regards to claim 16, Kobes discloses that the curvature as a variable radius wherein portions of the curvature have a constant radius and other portions have a variable radius. See Figs. 9-11.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 8, 10-12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seitter et al. (U.S. Patent 11,512,7900), hereinafter “Seitter”.
In regards to claim 1, Sietter discloses a closing element (14) for a valve, comprising an upstream closing element side (141); a downstream closing element side (140); and a valve seat surface (VSS), wherein each of the upstream side (141) and the downstream side (140) of the closing element (14) have a conical shape and a bulbous shape, respectively.
The office notes that vocabulary.com define bulbous as, “bulging”; vocabulary.com goes on to define bulging as “to stick out”. It is the office’s position that portion 140 is bulbous because portion 140 sticks out from portion 142.
The structure of the closing element disclosed by Sietter is as necessitated by applicant. Accordingly, it is the office’s position that the closing element of Kobes provides a drag coefficient of each of the upstream side and the downstream side that is lower than a drag coefficient of a closing element with a side with a plate-shape or hemispherical shape.
PNG
media_image1.png
956
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 3, at least the upstream side (141) the closing element (14) has a conical shape.
In regards to claim 7, the downstream side (140) of the closing element (14) has a bulbous shape.
In regards to claim 8, the valve (1) is designed as a non-return valve.
In regards to claims 10 and 11, a claim containing 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” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP §2114.
Additionally, the office notes that the only structure associated with the proportioning system is the valve. Accordingly, it is the office’s position that the valve is the proportioning system at least to the extent that the system is positively claimed.
In regards to claim 12, the frustoconical shape has rounded edges at least to the same extent illustrated by applicant in Fig. 2b (which appears to be the only Fig. illustrating a frustoconical shape).
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) 4-6, 9, 13, 14, and 18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobes.
In regards to claim 4, a claim containing 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” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP §2114.
In the instant case, Kobes discloses all the structural limitations necessitated by claim 4.
In regards to claims 5 and 18, Kobes does not specifically disclose the material from which the closing element is fabricated.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have constructed the closing element from plastic having the necessitated compressive strength, since it was within the general skill of a worker to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use and for the purpose of providing an inert valve member.
In regards to claim 6, 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 in the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113).
In regards to claims 9, 13, and 14, a claim containing 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” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP §2114.
Claim(s) 4-6, 9, 13, 14, and 18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seitter.
In regards to claim 4, a claim containing 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” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP §2114.
In the instant case, Sietter discloses all the structural limitations necessitated by claim 4.
In regards to claims 5 and 18, Sietter does not specifically disclose the material from which the closing element is fabricated.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have constructed the closing element from plastic having the necessitated compressive strength, since it was within the general skill of a worker to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use and for the purpose of providing an inert valve member.
In regards to claim 6, 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 in the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113).
In regards to claims 9, 13, and 14, a claim containing 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” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP §2114.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments related to Kenny. However, Applicant’s argument s related to Kobes are unpersuasive. Additionally, it is the office’s position that Sietter discloses applicant’s invention.
Applicant states that the office’s interpretation of Kobes’ valve upstream side and downstream side is incorrect. However, the applicant does not provide any discussion as to why such an interpretation is incorrect. The office cannot find any claim limitations which limit interpreting Kobes 8 and 6 as the relative upstream and downstream portions as stated by applicant. Further, the valve seat surface identified by the office is located between the upstream and downstream sides (as discussed above). To the extent that Kobes discloses applicant’s invention it is the office’s position that Kobes further discloses that a drag coefficient of each of the upstream and downstream sides is lower than a drag coefficient of a closing element with a plate-shape or hemispherical shape.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to R.K. Arundale whose telephone number is 571-270-3453. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth 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 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.
/ROBERT K ARUNDALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights