DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
This action is in response to the amendment filed 6/15/2026.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments that, the reference to Wright fails to disclose “a first opening and a second opening formed in the sealing surface”, is not persuasive, since the left vertical wall of the opening 38 intersects with the sealing surface, the opening is considered as being formed in the sealing surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
912
1040
media_image1.png
Greyscale
There is no positive recitation that the entirety of the circumferential opening lies on the sealing surface, as an example.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a first opening and a second opening formed in the sealing surface) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Additionally, the opening of 38 can include the area in-line within the larger area of 68, since the fluid that passes through 38, it also passes through 68 region and then into the lower opening of part 60.
PNG
media_image2.png
895
1603
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Additionally, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. 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 of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), see MPEP 2113. The reference does not disclose which opening was made first, the opening 38 or the notch 68, it is very possible that the smaller hole was first made “formed in the sealing surface”, and then the larger notch made after the smaller hole was put in place.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Schumann provides additional triangular shaped feature extending from the hole that provides the area to “facilitates a relatively gradual decrease in flow rate and minimizes the discontinuity, or abrupt change, in flow rate which occurs at the moment when the opening passes totally out of register with the port” (Schumann et al., Col. 14, lns. 42-60, col.1, lns.7-12). This reduces the water hammer effect and therefore will reduce the damage to the apparatus (Schumann, col. 13, lns. 29-39).
Since applicant’s amendments necessitated the new grounds for rejection and the arguments are not persuasive, this action is made Final.
Claim Objections
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the prior objections.
Claims 1 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “formed in the sealing surface”, (2 occurrences) should be, - -located in the sealing surface - - (in order to not mix statutory classes in the same claim);
In claim 2, “is formed as a”, should be, - -has a - -;
In claim 15, line 6, “a piston”, should be, - -the piston - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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) 1,6,15,16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Wright et al. (US 7921876) (referred herein after as “Wright”).
Regarding claim 1, Wright discloses a rotor (58,66) for a directional control valve (14), the rotor comprising: a rotor body (58) defining a sealing surface (surface seal interface at 16 surface), a circumferential side surface (the vertical side of 58, see Fig.3), and a stem (66) that receives a rotational input to rotate the rotor about an axis (at 42);
a first opening (38a within 58) formed in the sealing surface and defining a first perimeter, the first opening positioned to move along a rotation path as the rotor body rotates and the first opening having a first notch (68a) extending from the first perimeter toward a centerline of the rotor body that is perpendicular to the axis and along the rotation path (as seen in Fig.3); and
a second opening (38b within 58) formed in the sealing surface and defining a second perimeter, the second opening positioned to move along the rotation path as the rotor body rotates and the second opening having a second notch (68b) extending from the second perimeter toward the centerline of the rotor body and along the rotation path, the second opening and the first opening being in fluid communication with each other (as shown in Figure 3, the chamber 62 is or is connected to the high pressure source, and the ports 38 are located within valve member 58, therefore the ports 38a and 38b are connected to each other and in fluid communication with each other, as column, 4, lines 47-48 and 58-59 discloses, that the “ports 38a&b are connected to the high pressure source”, and since there is nothing blocking communication between them within chamber 62, they are considered as being in fluid communication with each other).
PNG
media_image3.png
629
941
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Wright discloses the first notch and the second notch are shaped (the shape having a depth of the notch in Fig. 3) to facilitate a linear decrease in pressure when the rotor is rotated (this permits more area and decreases pressure).
Regarding claim 15, Wright discloses a method of operating a piston (28) via a rotary shear seal valve (14), the method comprising: rotating a rotor (58) defining a sealing surface (surface seal interface at 16 surface), to a first position (fig 5); fluidly coupling a pressure source with a first opening (38a) formed in the sealing surface and fluidly coupling a second opening (38b) formed in the sealing surface with a tank; extending “a piston” (col.5, lns. 33-37) within a cylinder (18) of a piston cylinder assembly that causes an operation on a workpiece; rotating the rotor to a second position (Fig 6); fluidly coupling a first notch (68a) extending from the first opening with the tank and fluidly coupling a second notch (68b) extending from the second opening with the pressure source; and retracting the piston (col.5, lns. 45-49) within the cylinder of the piston cylinder assembly.
PNG
media_image2.png
895
1603
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Wright discloses wherein the rotor rotates in a first rotational direction (clockwise) to reach the first position and in a second rotational direction (counterclockwise) to reach the second position, the first rotational direction being opposite the second rotational direction.
Regarding claim 19, Wright discloses wherein the first notch and the second notch are located on a rotation path (the path which they are radially located as shown in Figures 4-6) of the rotor that increases flow metering.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2,3,9,12-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright ‘876 in view of Schumann et al. (US 4633904).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Wright discloses all of the features of the claimed invention, including each of the first perimeter and the second perimeter has a circular shape, and the rotation path bisects the path of the other openings, but is silent to having each of the first notch and the second notch is formed as a triangular portion and, wherein the triangular portion defines an arcuate base and a peak opposite the arcuate base, and wherein the rotation path bisects the arcuate base and intersects the peak. Schumann et al. teach the use of an opening where each of the first notch and the second notch is formed as a triangular portion (104, see Fig. 15) and, wherein the triangular portion defines an arcuate base (at 105) and a peak (the smallest end portion of 104) opposite the arcuate base, and wherein the rotation path bisects the arcuate base and intersects the peak (as shown in Figure 11 the centerline of the openings are on the same diametrical circle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a triangular shaped opening as taught by Schumann et al. for the passage in Wright to have each of the first perimeter and the second perimeter has a circular shape, and the rotation path bisects the path of the other openings, but is silent to having each of the first notch and the second notch is formed as a triangular portion and, wherein the triangular portion defines an arcuate base and a peak opposite the arcuate base, and wherein the rotation path bisects the arcuate base and intersects the peak, in order to “facilitates a relatively gradual decrease in flow rate and minimizes the discontinuity, or abrupt change, in flow rate which occurs at the moment when the opening passes totally out of register with the port” (Schumann et al., Col. 14, lns. 42-60, col.1, lns.7-12), and since it has been held, that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component (passage/opening) or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious.
Regarding claim 9, Wright discloses a shear seal control valve (41), comprising:
a valve body (60) defining first and second ports (the ports 38 within 60); and
a rotor (58) rotatably received in the valve body and having a plurality of openings (38a-d) formed in a mating surface (16) of the rotor, the plurality of openings arranged to allow selective coupling of the first and second ports as the rotor rotates in the valve body, the plurality of openings including first and second openings (38a,b) that each define a perimeter having a partially circular portion, the second opening and the first opening being in fluid communication with each other (as shown in Figure 3, the chamber 62 is or is connected to the high pressure source, and the ports 38 are located within valve member 58, therefore the ports 38a and 38b are connected to each other and in fluid communication with each other, as column, 4, lines 47-48 and 58-59 discloses, that the “ports 38a&b are connected to the high pressure source”, and since there is nothing blocking communication between them within chamber 62, they are considered as being in fluid communication with each other),
although are silent to having
a triangular portion, the respective triangular portions defining a notch of the respective first and second openings.
Schumann et al. teach the use of a triangular portion (104, see Fig. 15) a triangular portion, the respective triangular portions defining a notch of the respective first and second openings.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a triangular shaped opening as taught by Schumann et al. for the passage in Wright to have a triangular portion, the respective triangular portions defining a notch of the respective first and second openings, in order to “facilitates a relatively gradual decrease in flow rate and minimizes the discontinuity, or abrupt change, in flow rate which occurs at the moment when the opening passes totally out of register with the port” (Schumann et al., Col. 14, lns. 42-60, col.1, lns.7-12), and since it has been held, that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component (passage/opening) or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious.
Regarding claim 12, Wright discloses the notches provide a linear pressure decrease in hydraulic pressure as the rotor is rotated from a first position to a second position (the notches having a depth of the notch in Fig. 3, this permits more area and decreases pressure).
Regarding claim 13, Wright discloses the first opening is coupled with a pressure source (at 20) and the second opening is coupled with a tank (at 22) in the first position (as shown in Figure 4).
Regarding claim 14, Wright discloses the first opening is coupled with the tank and the second opening is coupled with the pressure source in the second position (as shown in Figure 2, the two openings are coupled with the tank and the pressure source since they are all physically connected, they are also considered as being coupled with each other and the tank and the source).
Regarding method claim 20, the device shown by Wright when combined with Schumann et al. will perform the methods as recited in claim 20, during normal operational use of the device.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright ‘876 in view of Nogami et al. (US 5014748).
Regarding claim 4, Wright discloses all of the features of the claimed invention, including a third opening (at 38d with 68d) formed in the sealing surface and defining a third perimeter, the third perimeter defining a circular shape (at 68d), and a fourth opening (at 38c with 68c) formed in the sealing surface and defining a fourth perimeter, the fourth perimeter defining a circular geometry and, but is silent to having the third opening having an open area that is less than an open area of the first opening; and the fourth opening having a surface area less than the first perimeter of the first opening.
Nogami et al. teach the use of the third opening (at 12) having an open area that is less than an open area of the first opening (10); and the fourth opening (at 13) having a surface area less than the first perimeter of the first opening.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute an opening with an open area that is less than an open area of the first opening; and the another opening having a surface area less than the first perimeter of the first opening, as taught by Nogami et al. for the third and fourth openings in Wright to have the third opening having an open area that is less than an open area of the first opening; and the fourth opening having a surface area less than the first perimeter of the first opening, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to construct the openings in any size, since there is no criticality to the opening's size and invention would function as well with any opening size.
Regarding claim 5, Wright discloses the third and the fourth openings are in fluid communication with each other (col. 4, lns. 48-49; “ports 38c&d are connected to the low pressure source 22”).
Claim(s) 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright ‘876 in view of Schumann et al. (US 4633904) and further in view of Nogami et al. (US 5014748).
Regarding claim 10, Wright and Schumann et al. disclose all of the features of the claimed invention, including Wright discloses a third opening (at 38d with 68d) and a fourth opening (at 38c with 68c), but is silent to having the third opening and the fourth opening that define a surface area less than the perimeter of the first opening and the second opening.
Nogami et al. teach the use of the third opening (at 12) and the fourth opening (at 13) that define a surface area less than the perimeter of the first opening (10) and the second opening (11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the smaller openings as taught by Nogami et al. for the third and fourth openings in Wright, in the combined device of Wright and Schumann et al., to have the third opening and the fourth opening that define a surface area less than the perimeter of the first opening and the second opening, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to construct the openings in any size, since there is no criticality to the opening's size and invention would function as well with any opening size.
Regarding claim 11, Wright discloses the third and the fourth openings are in fluid communication with each other (col. 4, lns. 48-49; “ports 38c&d are connected to the low pressure source 22”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7,8, 17 and 18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the prior art discloses or renders as obvious;
“a third position where the first opening and the second opening are not fluidly coupled to the tank or the pressure source”, in combination with the rest of the limitations in claim 7 and the claims from which it depends.
None of the prior art discloses or renders as obvious;
“rotating the rotor to a third position; and fluidly decoupling the first opening, the second opening, the pressure source, and the tank” , in combination with the rest of the limitations in claim 17 and the claims from which it depends.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 Craig Price, whose telephone number is (571)272-2712 or via facsimile (571)273-2712. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:00AM-4:30PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3607, 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.
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 Form at;
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/CRAIG J PRICE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights