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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in People’s Republic of China on March 4, 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202220472166.3 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. An attempt by the Office to electronically retrieve priority documents, under the priority document exchange program, has been made on September 12, 2024, but has failed.
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 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 Objections
Claims 3, 8 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, line 4, the recitation “the other end” should read –[[the]]an other end--;
In claim 8, line 3, the recitation “surrounds the circle of side plate in a circle” should read --circumscribes the circular side plate
In claim 9, line 2, the recitation “the inside” should read –[[the]]an inside--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4-8 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 4 recites the limitation “an inner wall of the valve body” in line 5; however, the claim is unclear as to if this recitation refers to the same “an inner wall of the valve body” in claim 2, lines 3-4, or a different element therefrom.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the inside of the first support portion” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that the recitation “the inside of the valve body” in claim 5, line 4, should read –[[the]]an inside of the valve body--.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a circle of recess” in line 5; however, it is unclear as to what is being claimed by this limitation. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that the recitation “a circle of recess” in claim 6, line 5, should read –a circular recess--. Similarly, it is assumed that the recitation “the recess” in claim 6, lines 5-6, should read –the circular recess--.
Claim 7 the limitation “circle of side plate” in lines 2, 3 and 6; however, it is unclear as to what is being claimed by this limitation. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that all recitations of “circle of side plate” in claim 7 should read –circular side plate--.
Similarly, claim 8 recites the limitation “circle of side plate” in line 3, and is rejected for the same reason as claim 7, above.
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, 9 and 10, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US11603942 (“Arteta”).
Regarding claim 1, Arteta discloses an automatic drain valve, comprising:
a valve body (mainly defined by “55”), wherein the valve body is provided with an enclosed chamber (“95”) and a first opening (“90”) and second opening (“100”) communicating with the enclosed chamber separately, and the valve body is configured to pass through a drain outlet (“14”) and close the drain outlet (see fig. 3A), the first opening being located on an inner side (upper side, relative to the orientation of fig. 3A) of the drain outlet, and the second opening being exposed from the drain outlet (see fig. 3A); and
a water-soluble assembly (mainly defined by “120”, “105” and “115”), wherein the water-soluble assembly is disposed in the enclosed chamber, the water-soluble assembly is configured to close (see fig. 2A) the second opening and to open (see fig. 2B) the second opening after a water-soluble member (“120”) in the water-soluble assembly is dissolved in water.
Regarding claim 9, Arteta discloses a battery (see specification col. 5, lines 9-14), comprising:
a box (housing “10”), wherein the box is provided with a drain outlet (“14”) communicating the inside and outside of the box; and
the automatic drain valve (see figs. 3A and 3B), wherein the valve body of the automatic drain valve passes through the drain outlet and closes the drain outlet, and the automatic drain valve is fixedly connected to the drain outlet.
Regarding claim 10, Arteta discloses an electric apparatus (“electric vehicle”; see specification col. 5, lines 9-14), comprising: the battery.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2 is/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.
Claim(s) 3-6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objection(s) and/or rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Regarding claim 2, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious the automatic drain valve, wherein: the water-soluble assembly comprises a sealing gasket and an elastic member, wherein the sealing gasket covers the second opening, two ends of the elastic member are connected to an inner wall of the valve body and the sealing gasket respectively, two ends of the water-soluble member abut against the inner wall of the valve body and the sealing gasket respectively, and the elastic member is in a tensile state under the support of the water-soluble member, in combination with the limitations of the base claim.
Regarding claim 7, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious, as best understood, the automatic drain valve, wherein: the valve body comprises a circle of side plate, a bottom plate, and a top cover, wherein the bottom plate and the top cover close two openings at two ends of the circle of side plate respectively, the bottom plate, the circle of side plate, and the top cover fit together to define the enclosed chamber, a radial size of the bottom plate is larger than a hole diameter of the drain outlet, a size of an outer contour of the circle of side plate is smaller than or equal to the hole diameter of the drain outlet, the top cover or the circle of side plate is provided with the first opening, and the bottom plate is provided with the second opening, in combination with the limitations of the base claim.
Claims 3-6 and 8, as best understood, are allowable because they depend upon an allowable claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. DE102024004036, US2026/0081331, US2014/0239208 and US2911988 disclose a drain valve comprising an actuator having a dissolvable 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
Prosecution Insights