DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of the Application
This action is responsive to the amendment dated 8/11/2026. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-14, and 16-21 remain pending. Claims 1, 16, and 20 have been amended. The applicant’s amendment has necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection below. This action is Final.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's amendment to recite wherein the one or more walls extend above the first and second pluralities of ribs on a side of the rigid support mesh opposite to a side on which the flapper is coupled, such that the one or more walls form raised gripping surfaces to allow a user to manually grip and rotate the valve assembly and/or wherein the valve body comprises a plurality of component-locking tabs, each of the plurality of component-locking tabs configured to engage the component opening in one of an unlocked or a locked position by rotation of the valve assembly has overcome the rejection of record. However, a new ground(s) of rejection is applied to the claims below. As such, applicant's arguments with respect to the 103 rejection over Hofer (US 2016/0036025) in view of Clericus et al. (US 2023/0358327, hereafter “Clericus”) have not been found persuasive. A new interpretation of Hofer in view of Clericus as stated below in the 103 rejection teaches each and every limitation including wherein the one or more walls extend above the first and second pluralities of ribs on a side of the rigid support mesh opposite to a side on which the flapper is coupled, such that the one or more walls form raised gripping surfaces to allow a user to manually grip and rotate the valve assembly and/or wherein the valve body comprises a plurality of component-locking tabs, each of the plurality of component-locking tabs configured to engage the component opening in one of an unlocked or a locked position by rotation of the valve assembly.
Applicant argues that the Examiner’s Gardner/Kuhle rationale is not properly applied because Applicant’s invention does in fact operate differently. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Having some of the crossing members that define the support mesh being of different dimensions from some other crossing members may provide slightly different structural features. These structural features may allow the user to grab onto the crossing members a little easier, but that does not result in the device functioning in a different way or manner. The modified assembly still operates in the same manner and because of this, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the 103 rejection over Hofer in view of Clericus is maintained.
Applicant's amendments to the claims have necessitated further search and/or consideration and/or revision of the rejection, and accordingly, this action must be made Final.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 8-14, and 16-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofer (US 2016/0036025) in view of Clericus et al. (US 2023/0358327, hereafter “Clericus”).
Regarding claim 1, Hofer discloses a valve assembly (2) configured to control fluid flow through a component opening in a component, the valve assembly comprising: a valve body (7) having a passageway (the passageway through the center of 7) through which fluid can flow; a rigid support mesh (9) located within the passageway, the rigid support mesh including one or more walls configured to divide the passageway into two or more sub-regions (as shown in Figs. 1-6), and a first plurality of ribs (one set of ribs as best shown in Figs. 2a, 2b) arranged transverse to a second plurality of ribs (a set of ribs that is transverse to the first plurality of ribs) and configured to form a grid of mesh openings within each sub-region (see Exhibit A), wherein the one or more walls are configured to allow a user to grip the valve assembly (the valve of Hofer is able to be gripped by a user at the walls at least by a tool that is designed to grip onto the walls); and a valve (10) that cooperates with the rigid support mesh and configured to permit one-way fluid flow through the passageway (Fig. 6; para. [0036]), wherein the valve assembly is configured to removably couple with the component via the component opening (the valve assembly is capable of coupling with the component; note that the component is not positively recited), but fails to disclose the valve is a flapper coupled to the rigid support mesh and wherein a height of the one or more walls is greater than a height of the first plurality of ribs and a height of the second plurality of ribs, wherein the one or more walls extend above the first and second pluralities of ribs on a side of the rigid support mesh opposite to a side on which the flapper is coupled, such that the one or more walls form raised gripping surfaces to allow a user to manually grip and rotate; the valve assembly is configured to control liquid flow; and wherein the valve body comprises a plurality of component-locking tabs, each of the plurality of component-locking tabs configured to engage the component opening in one of an unlocked or a locked position by rotation of the valve assembly.
Exhibit A
PNG
media_image1.png
479
1019
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Clericus teaches a valve that is a flapper (70; para. [0029]) coupled to a rigid support (the support portion at 50; Fig. 3) and configured to permit one-way liquid flow (para. [0029]; Figs. 2-3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the valve of Hofer to be a flapper that is coupled to the rigid support mesh and include the portion with a membrane 24 as taught by Clericus in order to provide a construction which will ensure the valving member is secured in place and operates efficiently as desired. (Figs. 2-3; para. [0029])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the height of the one or more walls to be greater than a height of the first plurality of ribs and a height of the second plurality of ribs, wherein the one or more walls extend above the first and second pluralities of ribs on a side of the rigid support mesh opposite to a side on which the flapper is coupled, such that the one or more walls form raised gripping surfaces to allow a user to manually grip and rotate since applicant has not disclosed that having the height of the one or more walls to be greater than a height of the first plurality of ribs and a height of the second plurality of ribs, wherein the one or more walls extend above the first and second pluralities of ribs on a side of the rigid support mesh opposite to a side on which the flapper is coupled, such that the one or more walls form raised gripping surfaces to allow a user to manually grip and rotate solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs.
Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality that the height of the one or more walls to be greater than a height of the first plurality of ribs and a height of the second plurality of ribs, wherein the one or more walls extend above the first and second pluralities of ribs on a side of the rigid support mesh opposite to a side on which the flapper is coupled, such that the one or more walls form raised gripping surfaces to allow a user to manually grip and rotate, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the height of the one or more walls to be greater than a height of the first plurality of ribs and a height of the second plurality of ribs, wherein the one or more walls extend above the first and second pluralities of ribs on a side of the rigid support mesh opposite to a side on which the flapper is coupled, such that the one or more walls form raised gripping surfaces to allow a user to manually grip and rotate, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Hofer would not operate differently with the claimed relative dimensions.
Additionally, Clericus teaches a valve assembly wherein the valve body comprises a plurality of component-locking tabs (38), each of the plurality of component-locking tabs configured to engage the component opening in one of an unlocked or a locked position by rotation of the valve assembly. (Fig. 2; para. [0019]; note that the component is not positively recited and that the tabs 38 of Clericus may require the user to rotate the assembly so that the tabs align as intended to allow the user to secure the valve assembly to the component)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the valve assembly of Hofer to include a plurality of component-locking tabs as taught by Clericus in order to provide means to attach the valve body to the component without having to access the inside of the component.
Regarding claim 2, Hofer in view of Clericus further disclose the valve assembly of claim 1, further comprising a third plurality of ribs (an set of ribs that are diagonal to each of the first and second plurality of ribs) arranged to further divide each mesh opening into a smaller grid having a plurality of flow openings configured to permit a liquid flow. (Figs. 1-6)
Regarding claim 3, Hofer in view of Clericus further disclose the valve assembly of claim 2, but fails to disclose a cross-sectional area of each of the third plurality of ribs is smaller than a cross-sectional area of each of the first and second plurality of ribs.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the valve assembly of Hofer such that the cross-sectional area of each of the third plurality of ribs is smaller than a cross-sectional area of each of the first and second plurality of ribs since applicant has not disclosed that having a cross-sectional area of each of the third plurality of ribs is smaller than a cross-sectional area of each of the first and second plurality of ribs solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs.
Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality that having a cross-sectional area of each of the third plurality of ribs is smaller than a cross-sectional area of each of the first and second plurality of ribs, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). In this case, Applicant does not disclose any criticality throughout the specification.
Regarding claim 5, Hofer in view of Clericus further disclose the valve assembly of claim 1, wherein the rigid support mesh provides structural support to the flapper to maintain its position and functionality. (Figs. 4 and 5)
Regarding claim 6, Hofer in view of Clericus further disclose the valve assembly of claim 1, further comprising an annular seal (14) configured to form a seal between the valve body and the opening. (Fig. 4)
Regarding claim 8, Hofer in view of Clericus further disclose the valve assembly of claim 1, wherein the valve body and the rigid support mesh are a unitary component. (Figs. 1-6)
Regarding claim 9, Hofer in view of Clericus further disclose the valve assembly of claim 1, wherein the valve body is a rigid component. (para. [0032] – [0033]; Figs. 1-6)
Regarding claim 10, Hofer in view of Clericus further disclose the valve assembly of claim 9, wherein the flapper is a flexible component. (para. [0032] – [0035]; Figs. 4-5)
Regarding claim 11, Hofer in view of Clericus further disclose the valve assembly of claim 1, wherein the flapper is coupled to the rigid support mesh via a pin receiver (as taught by Clericus; see 46, 48; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 12, Hofer in view of Clericus further disclose the valve assembly of claim 11, wherein the flapper comprises a conical body having a rim (74) at its outer perimeter and an attachment pin (72) at its center. (as taught by Clericus)
Regarding claim 13, Hofer in view of Clericus further disclose the valve assembly of claim 12, wherein the attachment pin is aligned with the central axis. (as taught by Clericus; Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 14, Hofer in view of Clericus further disclose the valve assembly of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the valve body comprises a plurality of component-locking tabs, each of the plurality of component-locking tabs is configured to engage the component opening via a receiver in one of an unlocked or a locked position.
Clericus also teaches a valve body that comprises a plurality of component-locking tabs (38), each of the plurality of component-locking tabs is configured to engage the component opening via a receiver in one of an unlocked or a locked position. (para. [0021])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the valve assembly of Hofer to include a plurality of component-locking tabs as taught by Clericus in order to provide means to attach the valve body to the component without having to access the inside of the component.
Regarding claim 16, Hofer in view of Clericus further disclose a valve assembly (2) configured to control fluid flow through a component opening in a component, the valve assembly comprising: a valve body (7) having a passageway (the passageway through the center of 7) through which fluid can flow; a rigid support mesh (9) located within the passageway, the rigid support mesh including one or more walls configured to divide the passageway into two or more sub-regions (as shown in Figs. 1-6), and a first plurality of ribs (one set of ribs as best shown in Figs. 2a, 2b) arranged transverse to a second plurality of ribs (a set of ribs that is transverse to the first plurality of ribs) and configured to form a grid of mesh openings within each sub-region (Exhibit A), wherein the one or more walls form raised gripping surfaces to allow a user to manually grip and rotate the valve assembly (the valve of Hofer is able to be gripped by a user at the walls at least by a tool that is designed to grip onto the walls); and a valve (10) that cooperates with the rigid support mesh and configured to permit one-way fluid flow through the passageway (Fig. 6; para. [0036]), wherein the valve is configured to open in response to fluid pressure in one direction and to close to prevent backflow (para. [0036]), and wherein the valve assembly is configured to removably couple with the component via the component opening (the valve assembly is capable of coupling with the component; note that the component is not positively recited), but fails to disclose the valve is a flapper coupled to the rigid support mesh and wherein a height of the one or more walls is greater than a height of the first plurality of ribs and a height of the second plurality of ribs, the valve assembly is configured to control liquid flow, and wherein the valve body comprises a plurality of component-locking tabs, each of the plurality of component-locking tabs configured to engage the component opening in one of an unlocked or a locked position by rotation of the valve assembly.
Clericus teaches a valve that is a flapper (70; para. [0029]) coupled to a rigid support (the support portion at 50; Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the valve of Hofer to be a flapper that is coupled to the rigid support mesh and include the portion with a membrane 24 as taught by Clericus in order to provide a construction which will ensure the valving member is secured in place and operates efficiently as desired. (Figs. 2-3; para. [0029])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the height of the one or more walls to be greater than a height of the first plurality of ribs and a height of the second plurality of ribs since applicant has not disclosed that having the height of the one or more walls to be greater than a height of the first plurality of ribs and a height of the second plurality of ribs solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs.
Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality that the height of the one or more walls to be greater than a height of the first plurality of ribs and a height of the second plurality of ribs, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the height of the one or more walls to be greater than a height of the first plurality of ribs and a height of the second plurality of ribs since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Hofer would not operate differently with the claimed relative dimensions.
Additionally, Clericus teaches a valve assembly wherein the valve body comprises a plurality of component-locking tabs (38), each of the plurality of component-locking tabs configured to engage the component opening in one of an unlocked or a locked position by rotation of the valve assembly. (Fig. 2; para. [0019]; note that the component is not positively recited and that the tabs 38 of Clericus may require the user to rotate the assembly so that the tabs align as intended to allow the user to secure the valve assembly to the component)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the valve assembly of Hofer to include a plurality of component-locking tabs as taught by Clericus in order to provide means to attach the valve body to the component without having to access the inside of the component.
Regarding claim 17, Hofer in view of Clericus further disclose the valve assembly of claim 16, wherein the rigid support mesh provides structural support to the flapper to maintain its position and functionality. (Figs. 4 and 5)
Regarding claim 18, Hofer in view of Clericus further disclose the valve assembly of claim 16, further comprising an annular seal (14) configured to form a seal between the valve body and the opening.
Regarding claim 19, Hofer in view of Clericus further disclose the valve assembly of claim 1, wherein the flapper is coupled to the rigid support mesh via a pin receiver (as taught by Clericus; see 46, 48; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 20, Hofer in view of Clericus further disclose a valve assembly (2) configured to control fluid flow through a component opening in a component, the valve assembly comprising: a valve body (7) having a passageway (the passageway through the center of 7) through which fluid can flow; a rigid support mesh (9) located within the passageway, the rigid support mesh including one or more walls configured to divide the passageway into two or more sub-regions (as shown in Figs. 1-6), and a first plurality of ribs (one set of ribs as best shown in Figs. 2a, 2b) arranged transverse to a second plurality of ribs (a set of ribs that is transverse to the first plurality of ribs) and configured to form a grid of mesh openings within each sub-region (Exhibit A), wherein the one or more walls are configured to allow a user to grip the valve assembly (the valve of Hofer is able to be gripped by a user at the walls at least by a tool that is designed to grip onto the walls); a valve (10) that cooperates with the rigid support mesh and configured to permit one-way fluid flow through the passageway (Fig. 6; para. [0036]), wherein the valve is configured to open in response to fluid pressure in one direction and to close to prevent backflow (para. [0036]), and wherein the valve assembly is configured to removably couple with the component via the component opening (the valve assembly is capable of coupling with the component; note that the component is not positively recited); and an annular seal (14) configured to form a seal between the valve body and the component opening, but fails to disclose wherein the valve body comprises a plurality of component-locking tabs, each of the plurality of component-locking tabs is configured to engage the component opening via a receiver in one of an unlocked or a locked position, and the valve is a flapper coupled to the rigid support mesh and wherein a height of the one or more walls is greater than a height of the first plurality of ribs and a height of the second plurality of ribs and the valve assembly is configured to control liquid flow, wherein the one or more walls extend above the first and second pluralities of ribs on a side of the rigid support mesh opposite to a side on which the flapper is coupled, such that the one or more walls form raised gripping surfaces to allow a user to manually grip and rotate.
Clericus teaches a valve that is a flapper (70; para. [0029]) coupled to a rigid support (the support portion at 50; Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the valve of Hofer to be a flapper that is coupled to the rigid support mesh and include the portion with a membrane 24 as taught by Clericus in order to provide a construction which will ensure the valving member is secured in place and operates efficiently as desired. (Figs. 2-3; para. [0029])
Clericus also teaches a valve body that comprises a plurality of component-locking tabs (38), each of the plurality of component-locking tabs is configured to engage the component opening via a receiver in one of an unlocked or a locked position. (para. [0021])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the valve assembly of Hofer to include a plurality of component-locking tabs as taught by Clericus in order to provide means to attach the valve body to the component without having to access the inside of the component.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the height of the one or more walls to be greater than a height of the first plurality of ribs and a height of the second plurality of ribs and wherein the one or more walls extend above the first and second pluralities of ribs on a side of the rigid support mesh opposite to a side on which the flapper is coupled, such that the one or more walls form raised gripping surfaces to allow a user to manually grip and rotate, since applicant has not disclosed that having the height of the one or more walls to be greater than a height of the first plurality of ribs and a height of the second plurality of ribs and wherein the one or more walls extend above the first and second pluralities of ribs on a side of the rigid support mesh opposite to a side on which the flapper is coupled, such that the one or more walls form raised gripping surfaces to allow a user to manually grip and rotate, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs.
Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality that the height of the one or more walls to be greater than a height of the first plurality of ribs and a height of the second plurality of ribs, and wherein the one or more walls extend above the first and second pluralities of ribs on a side of the rigid support mesh opposite to a side on which the flapper is coupled, such that the one or more walls form raised gripping surfaces to allow a user to manually grip and rotate, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the height of the one or more walls to be greater than a height of the first plurality of ribs and a height of the second plurality of ribs and wherein the one or more walls extend above the first and second pluralities of ribs on a side of the rigid support mesh opposite to a side on which the flapper is coupled, such that the one or more walls form raised gripping surfaces to allow a user to manually grip and rotate, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Hofer would not operate differently with the claimed relative dimensions.
Regarding claim 21, Hofer in view of Clericus further disclose the valve assembly of claim 20, wherein the two or more sub regions comprise four quarter-circle regions. (the circular passageway of Hofer is comprised of four quarter-circle regions)
Regarding claim 22, Hofer in view of Clericus further disclose the valve assembly of claim 1, wherein the two or more sub regions comprise four quarter-circle regions. (the circular passageway of Hofer is comprised of four quarter-circle regions)
Regarding claim 23, Hofer in view of Clericus further disclose the valve assembly of claim 16, wherein the two or more sub regions comprise four quarter-circle regions. (the circular passageway of Hofer is comprised of four quarter-circle regions)
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 PAUL J GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-0544. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, 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.
/PAUL J GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights