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 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “variable radius of curvature along a sectional profile and wherein the curved surface includes regions of substantially constant and variable radius” as recited in claim 16 and the “curved surface portion including at least one convex portion and at least one concave portion” as recited in claim 17 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 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 15-17 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.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase "may" and “including” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For purposes of examination, the office regards the limitations following the phrase “may” as being part of the claimed invention. Further, the office regards any curved shape as meeting the limitations set forth by the claim (i.e. the curved shape is not limited to convex, concave or variably curved).
Claim 15 depends from claim 1. Claim 15 necessitates that closing element have a “curved shape”. It is unclear and indefinite how applicant intends this curved shape to modify the already necessitated conical, frustoconical, bulbous, or bead-like shape necessitated by claim 1.
For purposes of examination, the office regards the curved shape of claim 15 to be a stand-alone feature. Stated differently, the office regards a closing element having a curved shape as meeting the limitations set forth by claims 1 and 15.
The term “substantially” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims not specifically recited are rejected as 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 (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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-11, 13 and 14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenney et al. (U.S. Publication 2016/0348471), hereinafter “Kenney”
In regards to claims 1 and 5, Kenney discloses a closing element (11) for a valve, comprising an upstream closing element side (11a); a downstream closing element side (11b); and a valve seat surface (S), wherein each of the upstream side (11a) and the downstream side (11b) of the closing element (11) have a bulbous shape.
The structure of the closing element disclosed by Kenny is as necessitated by applicant. Accordingly, it is the office’s position that the closing element of Kenny 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.
Kenney discloses all of the elements as discussed above.
Kenney 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 necessitate 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
1208
884
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2, the valve seat surface (S, portion indicated by 11 in Figs. 1.2 and 1.3) is formed on a valve plate.
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, Kenney discloses all of the structural limitations necessitated by claim 4.
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 claim 7, the downstream closing element side (11b) is of bulbous form.
In regards to claim 8, the valve (11) is in particular designed as a non-return valve.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, and 8-16, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobes (U.S. Publication 2004/0182438).
In regards to claims 1 and 5, 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.
Kobes discloses all of the elements as discussed above.
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 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 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 of the structural limitations necessitated by claim 4.
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 claim 8, the valve (11) is in particular designed as a non-return valve.
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.
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 15, Kobes discloses that the upstream and downstream side of the closing element includes a curved shape. See Figs. 9-11 and para. [0075].
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection as outlined above.
As discussed above, Kenny and Kobes disclose applicant’s invention as now claimed and best understood
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 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