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 .
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. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 3354904 (“Federle”).
Regarding claim 1, Federle discloses a valve comprising:
a body (mainly defined by 1, 11 and 12) having a first body end (right end, relative to the orientation of fig. 1) and a second body end (left end, relative to the orientation of fig. 1) opposite and spaced apart from the first body end, wherein the body defines a cavity (cavity within which ball 2 is disposed), wherein the first body end defines an inlet port (see port adjacent to seat 4) extending to the cavity and the second body end defines an outlet port (port adjacent to seal 3) extending to the cavity;
a diffuser insert (5) having a diffuser longitudinal axis, a first diffuser end (right end, relative to the orientation of fig. 1), and a second diffuser end (left end, relative to the orientation of fig. 1) opposite and spaced apart from the first diffuser end, wherein the first diffuser end defines a diffuser central channel (central channel of member 5) extending to the second diffuser end, wherein the diffuser insert is disposed within the cavity such that the second diffuser end is adjacent the outlet port and the diffuser central channel is in fluid communication with the cavity and the outlet port; and
a ball (2) having a ball outer surface (spherical outer surface of ball 2), wherein the ball outer surface defines a groove (13) extending circumferentially along a center line (see center line defined by interior corner of V-shaped groove 13) at least partially around a circumference of the ball, wherein the groove has a V-shaped profile (see fig. 1) in a plane (cutting plane of cross-section of fig. 1) perpendicular to the center line, wherein a depth of the groove tapers along the centerline (see figs. 1 and 2) from a shallowest groove portion (bottom portion of groove 13, relative to the orientation of fig. 2) to a deepest groove portion (top portion of groove 13, relative to the orientation of fig. 2), wherein the ball is rotatably disposed within the cavity such that the ball is adjacent the first diffuser end and the inlet port (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Federle discloses the ball (2) is rotatable between a first position (position where groove 13 is not communicated with inlet and distanced from seat 4, and handle remains with pointer 25 at zero degrees), a second position (position where shallowest portion of groove 13 communicates with inlet through seat 4, where handle 24 is rotated to counter-clockwise from zero degrees), and a third position (position where deepest portion of groove communicates with inlet through seat 4 to allow maximum flow through valve), wherein: the inlet port is not in fluid communication with the groove in the first position, the inlet port is in fluid communication with the shallowest groove portion in the second position, and the inlet port is in fluid communication with the deepest groove portion in the third position.
Regarding claim 3, Federle disclose the diffuser central channel (central longitudinal channel of member 5) is defined by a diffuser inner surface (radially inner surface), wherein the diffuser inner surface defines one or more longitudinally extending diffuser grooves (14) extending from the first diffuser end (right end, relative to the orientation of fig. 1) toward the second diffuser end (left end, relative to the orientation of fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Federle discloses the first diffuser end (right end, relative to the orientation of fig. 1) defines a diffuser seal groove (groove within which seal 3 is disposed), wherein the valve further comprises a diffuser seal (3) disposed in the diffuser seal groove, wherein the ball (2) abuts the diffuser seal (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Federle discloses a valve stem (9) coupled to the ball (2) and rotatable relative to the body (mainly defined by 1, 11 and 12), wherein rotation of valve stem causes the ball to rotate (to communicate groove 13 with seat 4).
Regarding claim 6, Federle discloses a handle (10 and/or 24) coupled to the valve stem (9) for causing rotation of the valve stem.
Regarding claim 7, Federle discloses an actuator (10 and/or 24) coupled to the valve stem (9) for causing rotation of the valve stem.
Regarding claim 8, Federle discloses a dial gauge (15; see fig. 5) adjacent the valve stem (9), wherein the dial gauge includes a scale (mainly defined by 21, 22 and 23) of amounts of fluid flowing through the valve.
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.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Federle, as applied to claim 1 above, in the alternative over Engineering expedient.
Regarding claim 9, Federle discloses the valve as claimed except for the valve being a 1-inch valve.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention would know that changing the size of the valve would change volume of flow through the valve.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the invention of Federle by configuring the valve to be a 1-inch valve, to have a valve with the desired flow volume characteristics, and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Federle, alone as applied to claim 1 above, or in the alternative in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0221839 (“Aselton”).
Regarding claim 10, Federle discloses the valve being a soft wash valve for metering bleach into a stream of water (since Federle discloses all the structure claimed, the invention of Federle would function as a soft wash valve for metering bleach into a stream of water).
Alternatively, Aselton teaches employing a ball valve (48; see fig. 6 and specification paragraph [0052]) to meter bleach into a stream of water (see specification paragraphs [0057] and [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the invention of Federle by employing the valve as a soft wash valve for metering bleach into a stream of water, as taught by Aselton, to have better control of bleach volume in the stream of water.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. FR3082585, GB2246614, CN112503204 and U.S. Pat. No. 5799695 discloses a ball valve having a ball with at least one groove disposed on an exterior ball surface. GB191121477 discloses a rotary valve having a groove disposed on an exterior surface of a closure member.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hailey K. Do whose direct telephone number is (571)270-3458 and direct fax number is (571)270-4458. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00AM-5:00PM ET) and Friday (8:00AM-12:00PM ET).
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 supervisors, Kenneth Rinehart at 571-272-4881, or Craig M. Schneider 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAILEY K. DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753