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 passageway 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: A passageway is not mentioned in the Specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and 8 state “An valve comprising” and should be “A valve comprising.”
Claim 8 has numerous issues with providing the proper punctuation at the end of the lines.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This 112(f) applies to claim 8.
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 1–9 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, lines 4–5 the limitation “valve body further defining a first valve chamber adapted to receive therein a first valve member and intersecting with the passageway” is indefinite. It is unclear as to whether the valve body or the valve chamber is supposed to “receive therein a first valve member.” Additionally, it is unclear as to whether the valve body or the valve chamber is “intersecting with the passageway.”
Claim 1, lines 5–7 is rejected to because the Applicant claims, “a second valve chamber located on an opposite side of the passageway relative to the first valve chamber and opposing the first valve chamber.” As seen in figure 2, it appears as if Applicant’s passageway is 115. If that it is the case, the second valve cannot be located on the opposite side of the passageway. The Examiner understands that Applicant is trying to describe the second valve opposite the first valve, but further clarification must be made.
Claim 1, lines 7–8 the limitation “valve body further defining a second valve chamber adapted to receive therein a second valve member and intersecting with the passageway” is indefinite. It is unclear as to whether the valve body or the valve chamber is supposed to “receive therein a second valve member.” Additionally, it is unclear as to whether the valve body or the valve chamber is “intersecting with the passageway.”
Claim 1, lines 9–10 the limitation “a first valve member received within the first valve chamber and defining a first valve stem” is indefinite. It is unclear as to whether the valve member or the valve chamber is supposed to “receive therein a first valve member.” Additionally, it is unclear as to whether the valve member or the valve chamber is “defining a first valve stem.”
Claim 1, lines 9–10 the limitation it is unclear as to how a first valve member defines the first valve stem.
Claim 1, lines 11–12 the limitation “wherein movement of the first valve member and the first valve stem toward the second position is in a direction toward the passageway” is unclear. The “second position” has yet to be described.
Claim 1, lines 12–15 the limitation “movement of the first valve member and the first valve stem toward the first position is in a direction away the passageway” is not clearly described.
Applicant’s 5th paragraph beginning with “a second valve member” has the same issues described in lines 9–15.
Claim 1, lines 29–30 the limitation “the first valve member and the first valve stem are movable between a first position and a second position thereof.” It is unclear whether the first and second positions are the same positions that were described in lines 12–15. If this is the case then the above limitation is substantially the same as the limitation in lines 12–15 and should be removed. Lines 31–32 have the same issues.
Claim 8 is convoluted and appears to have the same 112(b) issues as claim 1. Furthermore, claims 9–11 are also convoluted.
Claim 12, lines 2, the first position does not appear to be described.
Claim 12, line 3 the limitation “engaging the first actuator and moving the first actuator toward the passageway” does not clearly describe the element that is engaging the actuator.
Claim 12, lines 4, the second position does not appear to be described.
Claim 12, lines 7–12 have the same 112(b) issues described in lines 1–4.
Claim 13, lines 2–3 it is unclear how the valve “defines” a position.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Heine et al. (US PGPub US 20110114866 A1), Heren et al. (USPN 6659373 B1), Fukano et al. (USPN 6029903), McKenzie (USPN 5335696) and Craven (USPN 5415378) disclose a double actuation valve. Goto (USPN 3768514) discloses a done shaped biasing member.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Angelisa L. Hicks whose telephone number is 571-272-9552 and email is Angelisa.Hicks@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:30AM-5:00PM 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 supervisor, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 or Kenneth 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 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.
/Angelisa L. Hicks/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights