DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-13 are pending for consideration following applicant’s amendment filed 10/24/2025.
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 .
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 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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson (US Patent 7,325,565).
Regarding Claim 1, Peterson discloses a flush valve comprising: a valve housing 12 defining a fluid flow channel between an inlet end 56 and an outlet end 54 (Figures 3 and 4 especially); a valve closure member (bladder 32) arranged to open and close the fluid flow channel (open as shown in Figure 3, closed as shown in Figure 4); a mounting unit (including the vertically arranged walls defining the cavity for the valve member 32; see annotated Figure 3 below) attached to the valve housing at a location intermediate the inlet end and the outlet end (between 56 and 54; see annotated Figure 3 below) to which the valve closure member 32 is mounted, wherein the valve closure member 32 is an inflatable valve member (bladder 32 is inflatable as shown in Figure 4) mounted to the mounting unit such that, when in an inflated state (as shown in Figure 4), the inflatable valve member extends across the fluid flow channel to prevent flow of fluid past the inflatable valve member from the inlet end to the outlet end (abstract) and, when in a deflated state (as shown in Figure 3), the inflatable valve member does not prevent flow of fluid through the fluid flow channel from the inlet end to the outlet end (as shown in Figure 3), wherein the valve housing 12 comprises an opening between the valve housing and the mounting unit (central opening for the passage of the bladder 32 in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s device), wherein the mounting unit includes a cavity in which the inflatable valve member 32 (as shown in Figure 3, the inflatable valve member is provided within the cavity of the mounting unit) is mounted such that, when in the inflated state, the inflatable valve member extends out of the cavity though the opening and into the fluid flow channel (as shown in Figure 4) and, when in the deflated state, the inflatable valve member is contained within the cavity (as shown in Figure 3), and wherein a perimeter of the opening is smaller than a perimeter of the cavity (as shown in the annotated Figure 3 below, the perimeter of the opening is less than the enlarged perimeter of the cavity); and elastomeric lips (24 and 26 provide elastomeric lips as they are formed of rubber) configured to provide sealing at an interface between the mounting unit and the valve housing (sealing between the valve housing 12 and the portion 28 of the mounting unit) around the inflatable valve member 32 (as best shown in Figure 4) so as to wipe the inflatable valve member 32 as the inflatable valve member passes the elastomeric lips 24, 26 and into the cavity on deflation (the lips are at least capable of wiping the inflatable valve member as it passes into the cavity as these elements contact each other as shown in Figure 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
402
750
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Although Peterson discloses a perimeter of the opening is smaller than a perimeter of the cavity, Peterson does not disclose a diameter of the opening is smaller than a diameter of the cavity (i.e. Peterson does not disclose the shapes of these elements are circular). However, modifying Peterson such that the shapes of the opening and cavity are circular requires a mere change in shape/form and it has been generally held that mere changes in shape/form are within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Peterson such that the opening and cavity are any desired shapes, including circular shapes such that a diameter of the opening is smaller than a diameter of the cavity, for the purpose of accommodating particular spatial requirements of a particular installation. As described above, such a modification requires a mere change in shape/form and it has been generally held that mere changes in shape/form are within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 2, Peterson further discloses the inflatable valve member 32 is a balloon (the valve member is made of rubber and is inflated and therefore is readable as a balloon in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s device).
Regarding Claim 4, Peterson further discloses the mounting unit (as shown in the annotated Figure 3 above) is provided with a port (19 provides a port for communication with air tube 58) arranged to be connected, in use, to a source of pressure (air pump 82) to inflate the inflatable valve member, the inflatable valve member being mounted to the mounting unit in fluid communication with the port (via opening 72).
Regarding Claim 5, Peterson is seen as further disclosing the port 19 is arranged to be connected, in use, to a source of negative pressure to deflate the inflatable valve member (although Peterson does not disclose a source of negative pressure, the claim only requires the port to be “arranged to be connected” to a source of negative pressure; therefore, because it is possible to connect port 19 to any pressure source, including a source of negative pressure, Peterson is seen to anticipate the claim).
Regarding Claim 6, Peterson further discloses the inflatable valve member 22, 32 is formed of a rubber material, a silicone material, or an elastomeric material (rubber).
Claims 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson (US Patent 7,325,565) in view of Twerdochlib (US Patent 4,840,063).
Regarding Claim 7, Peterson does not disclose a switch mechanism to connect the inflatable valve member selectably to a positive pressure for inflation and to a negative pressure for deflation.
Twerdochlib teaches an inflatable bladder 20 to control fluid flow and further teaches a switch mechanism (valve 60) to connect the inflatable valve member 20 selectably (col. 3, lines 20-23) to a positive pressure (via line 56) for inflation and to a negative pressure (via line 58; the vent line is at least capable of handling a negative pressure) for deflation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Peterson to include a switch mechanism to selectably connect the inflatable valve member to positive pressure or negative pressure as taught by Twerdochlib for the purpose of ensuring the valve member moves to the desired position.
Regarding Claim 8, Peterson in view of Twerdochlib further discloses the switch mechanism (60 as taught by Twerdochlib) comprises a solenoid actuated valve 60 (Twerdochlib; col. 3, lines 20-23).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson (US Patent 7,325,565) in view of Twerdochlib (US Patent 4,840,063) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Kresse et al. (US Patent 8,439,329).
Regarding Claim 9, Peterson in view of Twerdochlib further discloses the solenoid actuated valve (as taught by Twerdochlib at 60 as described above) is a three-way valve (as taught by Twerdochlib having ports connected to 54, 56, and 58).
Peterson in view of Twerdochlib does not disclose the valve is a three position valve.
Kresse teaches a system for delivering air to a pneumatically actuated device 30 and further teaches a supply valve (shown at 11 in Figure 1) is a three-way, three position valve (including a blocking center position as shown in Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Peterson in view of Twerdochlib such that the supply valve is a three-way, three position valve as taught by Kresse for the purpose of providing a center blocking position to thereby hold the pneumatic chamber at a desired pressure without having to continuously supply positive pressure.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson (US Patent 7,325,565) in view of Stadler et al. (US Patent 9,297,460).
Regarding Claim 11, Peterson does not disclose the balloon has selectively thickened wall portions to control folding of the balloon as it deflates.
Stadler teaches an expandible sealing element 10 has selectively thickened wall portions (portions of 20 are thicker than 18) to control folding of the sealing element as it contracts (col. 12, line 64 – col. 13, line 7; the thinner portion 18 causes deflection in this area).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Peterson such that the balloon has selectively thickened wall portions to control folding of the balloon as it deflates as taught by Stadler for the purpose of ensuring that the deflection of the rubber member occurs in the desired portions.
Claims 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson (US Patent 7,325,565) in view of Cooper (US Patent Application 2021/0404590).
Regarding Claim 12, Peterson discloses a flush valve as claimed in claim 1 as described above.
Although Peterson discloses the device used in a “home sewer conduit”, Peterson does not specifically disclose a vacuum toilet having: a toilet bowl, the flush valve arranged to flush waste from the toilet bowl.
Cooper teaches a toilet (it is noted that the term “vacuum toilet” is merely the name given to the claimed device in the preamble of the claim and therefore is not accorded patentable weight) having: a toilet bowl 30 (as shown in Figure 4A) and an inflatable flush valve 10, arranged to flush waste from the toilet bowl (via outlet 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Peterson such that the inflation valve is used in an outlet pipe of a toilet as taught by Cooper for the purpose of utilizing the valve in an alternative environment in which inflation valves are known to be desired.
Regarding Claim 13, Peterson in view of Cooper further discloses a waste line (as taught by Cooper, waste line downstream of valve 10 as shown in Figure 4A), the flush valve (flush valve of Peterson utilized with a toilet as taught by Cooper as described above) connected between the toilet bowl and the waste line (as shown by Cooper in Figure 4A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/24/2025 with respect to Peterson have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that Peterson does not disclose a mounting unit as claimed. These arguments are not persuasive because Peterson teaches the mounting unit (as shown in the annotated Figure 3 above) which is provided at a location intermediate the inlet end and the outlet end. Applicant further argues that Peterson does not disclose the mounting unit includes a cavity in which the inflatable valve member is mounted. These arguments are not persuasive because, as shown in the annotated Figure 3 above, the mounting unit includes an enlarged cavity within which the inflatable valve member 32 is mounted. Applicant further argues that Peterson does not disclose elastomeric lips configured to provide sealing at the interface between the mounting unit and the valve housing. These arguments are not persuasive because elements 24 and 26 of Peterson are seen to be readable as mounting lips as claimed. These lips contact the inflatable valve member 32 and therefore are seen to be capable of wiping the inflatable valve member as claimed.
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 KEVIN MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-4pm.
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 on (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 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.
/KEVIN F MURPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights