DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 1-3 and 8-11 are pending for consideration following applicant’s amendment filed 12/04/2025.
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 § 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 1-3 and 8-11 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 recites “an end of the valve core towards the valve port is provided with a guiding portion, the guiding portion is capable of guiding the valve core into the valve port, and the first sealing member is sleeved outside the guiding portion” in lines 22-24 of claim 1. However, these limitations are all recited in lines 17-19 in claim 1 and therefore it is unclear what is intended to be required by the recitations in lines 22-24.
Claim 8 recites “the guiding portion is provided with a guiding section, and the guiding section is an arc-shaped chamfer”. However, these limitations are provided in amended claim 1. Therefore, it is unclear what is required by these limitations presented in claim 8.
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, 8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheffel (US Patent 4,659,061) in view of Vicars (US Patent 7,909,057).
Regarding Claim 1, Scheffel discloses a stop valve (shutoff valve A), comprising a valve body B provided with a valve port (port at the upper end of passage 14); a valve core 34, wherein at least a part of the valve core 34 is disposed in the valve body B (as shown in Figure 1), and is capable of moving along an axis of the valve body to seal or open the valve port (as shown between Figures 2 and 3, respectively); a side of the valve core towards the valve port (lower side) is provided with a first groove (groove defined radially outside of tapered surface 66), a first sealing member 86 is inserted in the first groove, the first sealing member is in interference fit with the first groove (col. 4, lines 19-22; the first sealing member 86 is under compression and is distorted from its normal circular cross-section when installed in the first groove and therefore is seen to be in interference fit with the first groove), an inner surface (either surface 66 and/or surface 74 which defines the radial outer end of the first groove) of the first groove is provided with a restricting portion (both surfaces 66 and 74 taper into the groove to provide respective restricting portions in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s device), and the restricting portion is capable of restricting the first sealing member 86 (the tapered surfaces 66 and 74 restrict the first sealing member 86 in respective radial directions in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s device); a width of the first groove (groove formed between tapered surfaces 66 and 74) gradually decreases along a direction towards the valve port to define the restricting portion (as shown in Figures 1-3, the tapered surfaces create a narrowing groove in a direction towards the valve port); an inner surface 74 of a sidewall of the first groove adjacent to a periphery surface of the valve core (these elements separated by the first groove in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s device) gradually extends towards an axis of the valve core 34 along the direction towards the valve port (as shown in Figure 2, 74 tapers inwardly as it extends toward the valve port), so as to define an inclined plane (as shown in Figure 2), the inclined plane forms the restricting portion (as described above), and the number of the restricting portion is one (i.e. the tapered surface 74 forms one restricting portion in the same manner in which applicant’s tapered surface forms one restricting portion; it is noted that the claim is an open-ended comprising claim and therefore the device is not limited to only one restricting portion as argued by applicant; furthermore, it is noted that applicant’s device is seen to include three restricting portions because the groove for the first sealing member is defined by three distinct surfaces which all restrict movement of the first sealing member); an angle between the restricting portion (defined by surface 74) and the axis of the valve core 34 is defined as α (as shown in Figures 1 and 2, there is necessarily an angle α defined between surface 74 and the vertical axis through core 34); an end of the valve core 34 towards the valve port is provided with a guiding portion (the central portion of 34 at the lower end thereof provides a guiding portion for the first sealing member 86), and the first sealing member 86 is sleeved outside the guiding portion (as shown in Figures 1 and 2); and an end of the valve core 34 towards the valve port is provided with a guiding portion (as described above, the central portion of 34 at the lower end thereof provides a guiding portion for the first sealing member 86), and the first sealing member 86 is sleeved outside the guiding portion (as described above as shown in Figures 1 and 2), an inner surface of the sidewall of the first groove adjacent to the axis of the valve core forms a part of the guiding portion (guiding portion at the lower end of 34 also defines an inner surface of the sidewall of the first groove as shown in Figure 2 especially).
Scheffel is silent on the particular dimensions of the angle α and therefore does not disclose the angle α between the restricting portion and the axis of the valve core is in a range of 1° to 10°.
However, the selection of the particular angle α is seen to be an obvious engineering design choice to ensure an appropriate level of compression of the seal 86 (as desired by Scheffel; col. 4, lines 19-22).
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 Scheffel such that the angle α is any desired angle, including an angle in a range of 1° to 10°, for the purpose of ensuring an appropriate level of compression of the seal. It is noted that such a modification requires a mere change in size/proportion and it has been generally held that mere changes in size/proportion are within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Scheffel further does not disclose the guiding portion is capable of guiding the valve core into the valve port; and the guiding portion is provided with a guiding section, and the guiding section is an arc-shaped chamfer.
Vicars teaches a reciprocating valve member (Figure 7 especially) with a sealing member 10 and further teaches a guiding portion (including wall 60) is capable of guiding a valve core (head portion 28) into a valve port (defined at the upper end of inner wall 44); and the guiding portion 60 is provided with a guiding section (the lower end indicated at 28b in Figure 7), and the guiding section is an arc-shaped chamfer (28b is shown to be convex and therefore forms an “arc-shaped chamfer” at least at the radially outer portion of 28b; this is seen to be achieved in the same manner in which it is achieved by applicant’s convex portion of the guiding section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Scheffel to include a guiding portion extending into the valve port, the guiding portion having a guiding section formed as an arc-shaped chamfer as taught by Vicars for the purpose of providing a shape which guides the fluid flow along a smooth transition toward the outlet.
Regarding Claim 8, Scheffel in view of Vicars is seen as further disclosing the guiding portion is provided with a guiding section, and the guiding section is an arc-shaped chamfer (as taught by Vicars as described above; guiding portion 60 is provided with a guiding section at the lower end indicated at 28b in Figure 7, and the guiding section is an arc-shaped chamfer; 28b is shown to be convex and therefore forms an “arc-shaped chamfer” at least at the radially outer portion of 28b; this is seen to be achieved in the same manner in which it is achieved by applicant’s convex portion of the guiding section).
Regarding Claim 11, Scheffel in view of Vicars is seen as disclosing a refrigeration system comprising the stop valve of claim 1 (as described with respect to claim 1 above). It is noted that the limitation of “a refrigeration system” is recited in the preamble only and therefore is not accorded patentable weight (the body of the claim does not recite any refrigeration components). Additionally, the valve of Scheffel is capable of being used in a refrigeration system.
Claims 2, 3, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheffel (US Patent 4,659,061) in view of Vicars (US Patent 7,909,057) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matousek (US Patent 3,623,699).
Regarding Claim 2, Scheffel further discloses the valve body comprises an end cap (as shown in the annotated Figure 1 below) and a valve seat (the surface of the valve body surrounding the upper end of passage 14 forms a valve seat), the end cap is located at a top end of the valve body B or disposed inside the valve body (located at the top end of the valve body B as shown in Figure 1), and the end cap fits with the valve core to seal the valve body (the end cap seals to the valve body using bellows 20 to seal against portion 18 of the valve core to thereby seal the valve body); and the valve seat is disposed inside the valve body (as shown in Figure 1, the valve seat is an interior surface of the valve body and therefore disposed inside the valve body; these limitations do not require the valve seat to be separately formed from the valve body), the valve port is located on the valve seat (as described above), the first sealing member 86 is capable of abutting against a wall of the valve seat where the valve port is located to seal the valve port (as shown in Figure 2).
Scheffel does not disclose the first sealing member capable of abutting against a circumference sidewall of the valve seat (instead the first sealing member abuts against a planar wall of the valve seat as shown in Figure 2).
Matousek teaches a valve device and further teaches a first sealing member 46 capable of abutting against a circumference sidewall of a valve seat 18 (i.e. the first sealing member 46 abuts against an inner circumferential edge of the seat 18 and therefore abuts against the inner circumference sidewall which extends to the edge of the seat).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Scheffel such that the first sealing member abuts against a circumference sidewall of the valve seat (i.e. at the edge defining the port) as taught by Matousek for the purpose of providing the seal at an alternative, functionally equivalent location known in the art.
Regarding Claim 3, Scheffel further discloses a hardness of the first sealing member 86 is smaller than a hardness of the valve core 34 (Scheffel discloses the seal member formed of a “soft” material in col. 4, lines 12-19 and therefore is seen to necessarily disclose the hardness of the sealing member is less than a hardness of the valve core to ensure the desired distortion of the sealing member, rather than distortion of the core), the first groove is a ring-shaped groove (ring-shaped groove formed between surfaces 66 and 74), the first sealing member 86 is a sealing ring.
Scheffel does not disclose the sealing ring is made of copper.
Matousek further teaches first sealing member 46 is formed of a soft material and may be made of copper (col. 3, lines 10-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Scheffel such that the first sealing member is made of copper as taught by Matousek for the purpose of utilizing an alternative material known in the art to be suitable for providing a soft sealing material as desired by Scheffel.
As described above, Scheffel is seen as necessarily disclosing the hardness of the first sealing member is smaller than a hardness of the valve core. Alternatively, in the event that Scheffel is not seen as necessarily disclosing the hardness of the first sealing member is smaller than a hardness of the valve core, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Scheffel such that the hardness of the first sealing member is smaller than a hardness of the valve core for the purpose of ensuring the desired distortion of the sealing member as specifically disclosed by Scheffel (col. 4, lines 19-26).
Regarding Claim 9, Scheffel further discloses the valve core 34 is provided with an operation portion (the uppermost portion of the stem 18 surrounded by piston 24 is seen to be readable on the recited operation portion as shown in the annotated Figure 1 below) and a connecting portion (including the portions of stem 18 below and above the connection with bellows 20 as shown in the annotated Figure 1 below), the operation portion is connected to an end of the connecting portion away from the valve seat (i.e. the operation portion is connected to the upper end of the connecting portion), a size of the connecting portion is greater than a size of the operation portion (the operation portion is a reduced diameter relative to the connecting portion as shown by the stepped down diameter within the piston 24), a step is defined between the connecting portion and the operation portion (as shown in the annotated Figure 1 below), the step is provided with a second sealing member (sealing member at the step as shown in the annotated Figure 1 below), and the second sealing member abuts against a side of the end cap adjacent to the valve core (as shown in the annotated Figure 1 below, the second sealing member abuts an inner surface of the end cap adjacent the valve core).
Regarding Claim 10, Scheffel further discloses the connecting portion (as shown in the annotated Figure 1 below) is provided with a third sealing member (bellows 20 provides a third sealing member), the third sealing member 20 circumferentially surrounds an outer surface of the connecting portion (third sealing member 20 surrounds the connecting portion as shown in the annotated Figure 1 below), and a surface of a peripheral side of the third sealing member 20 is in contact with an inner surface of the valve body to seal the valve body (the lower end of 20 is in contact with an inner surface of the valve body as shown in Figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
783
673
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that Scheffel discloses a trapezoidal cavity 84 such that both sidewalls of the trapezoidal cavity are inclined planes. Therefore, applicant argues that Scheffel discloses two restricting portions, while claim 1 recites “the number of restricting portion is one”. These arguments are not persuasive because the claim is an open-ended comprising claim. That is, the limitation that “the number of restricting portion is one” requires one restricting portion. However, this limitation does not require only one restricting portion and does not preclude additional restriction portions. Furthermore, it is noted that applicant’s groove is formed by two annular sidewalls as well as a planar wall defining the depth of the groove and each of these walls form a restricting portion of the first sealing member.
Applicant further argues that Scheffel fails to disclose an angle α between the restricting portion and the axis of the valve core is in a range of 1° to 10°. While Scheffel does not disclose this particular angular range, such a modification is seen to have been an obvious matter of engineering design choice to provide a predetermined compression of the seal as described above (as desired by Scheffel; col. 4, lines 19-22).
Applicant further argues that Scheffel fails to disclose a guiding portion as claimed. These arguments are not persuasive because Vicars is relied upon for teaching a guiding portion as claimed at 60. This portion extends to and includes the inner surface of the groove for the seal as shown in Figure 7.
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