DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16 were filed with the Application on 08/08/2024
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 § 112b
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 2, 9, 10-12, and 16 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.
With regard to claim 2, the phrase “achieved by plastic deformation at least of the valve components” is confusing and renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear what is being required by the phrase. As best understood, the claim will be construed as if it states: “achieved by plastic deformation of at least one of the valve components.”
With regard to claim 9, the phrase “the valve stem comprising at least the second poppet” renders the claim indefinite. Claim 9 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 requires that the common valve stem “compris[es] the first poppet and the second poppet” (line 7). Therefore, it is not clear how claim 9 is now only requiring at least the second poppet, when both poppets must be on the stem per claim 1. For examination purposes, claim 9 will be construed as if it is written as: “the valve stem comprising first poppet and the second poppet.”
Claim 10 is rejected for being dependent upon rejected claim 9.
With regard to claim 11, the phrase “the valve seat” in line 4 renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear, as it is written in claim 11, which valve seat is being referred to in line 4. Is it the first valve seat, the second valve seat, the valve seat that is permanently displaced? For purposes of examination, claim 11 will be construed as if the valve seat is referring to the valve seat that is permanently displaced in preceding claim 1.
Claim 12 is rejected for being dependent upon rejected claim 11.
With regard to claim 16, the phrase “a first valve seat” renders the claim indefinite. Claim 16 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 already recites a first valve seat in line 3. Therefore, it is not clear if claim 16 is requiring an additional first valve seat or if it is referring to the same first valve seat of claim 1. For purposes of examination, claim 16 is being construed as if it is written as: “the first valve seat.”
With regard to claim 16, the phrase “a second valve seat” renders the claim indefinite. Claim 16 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 already recites a second valve seat in line 4. Therefore, it is not clear if claim 16 is requiring an additional second valve seat or if it is referring to the same second valve seat of claim 1. For purposes of examination, claim 16 is being construed as if it is written as: “the second valve seat.”
With regard to claim 16, the phrase “a first poppet” renders the claim indefinite. Claim 16 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 already recites a first poppet in line 5. Therefore, it is not clear if claim 16 is requiring an additional first poppet or if it is referring to the same first poppet of claim 1. For purposes of examination, claim 16 is being construed as if it is written as: “the first poppet.”
With regard to claim 16, the phrase “a second poppet” renders the claim indefinite. Claim 16 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 already recites a second poppet in line 6. Therefore, it is not clear if claim 16 is requiring an additional second poppet or if it is referring to the same second poppet of claim 1. For purposes of examination, claim 16 is being construed as if it is written as: “the second poppet.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112d
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
With regard to claim 16, the phrase “dual poppet valve, manufactured via a method according to claim 1” renders the claim noncompliant with 35 USC 112d requirements. Claim 1 requires a multiple poppet valve. Claim 16 requires only a dual poppet valve. Thus, claim 16 is not requiring all of the limitations of claim 1. The examiner suggests deleting claim 16.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 16 (as far as they are definite and compliant and understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 6,814,102 (“Hess”).
With regard to claim 1, Hess discloses a method for a manufacturing of a multiple poppet valve (method is inherent in the apparatus disclosed), the multiple poppet valve (see Figs 1-2 and 5) at least comprising: a first valve seat (22), a second valve seat (24), a first poppet (36) for opening and closing the first valve seat (22) (see col. 3, lines 26-31), a second poppet (38) for opening and closing the second valve seat (24) (col. 3, lines 19-22), and a common valve stem (34) comprising the first poppet (36) and the second poppet (38) (see Figs 1-2), the method at least comprising the method steps of joining a first valve component (as so broadly recited, 22+26 together are considered to be a “component”) comprising the first valve seat (22 is connected to 26, therefore 26 comprises 22) with a second valve component (as so broadly recited, 28+24 together are considered to be a “component”) comprising the second valve seat (24), and subsequently setting a distance between the first valve seat (22) and the second valve seat (24) by permanently displacing one of the valve seats (22 or 24) towards the other one of the valve seats (other of 22 or 24) (this is met because one seat 22 or 24 would be installed after the other seat and “permanently displacing” (as so broadly recited) is met because the installed seat 22 or 24 is permanently displaced (i.e., moved) when installed relative to uninstalled position).
PNG
media_image1.png
781
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 4, Hess discloses that during the joining of the valve components (22+26 and 24+28), an initial distance between the valve seats (22, 24) is intentionally made larger than a distance between the first poppet (36) and the second poppet (38) (this is met because the distance between 22 and 24 before 22 is installed would be greater than the installed distance between 36 and 38 because 22 could be completely located outside of the housing during installation).
With regard to claim 5, Hess discloses that during the displacement of the valve seat (22 or 24), the other valve seat (the other of 22 or 24) remains undeformed and undisplaced (this is met because if 22 is installed first, then 24 would not deform or displace 22 as 24 initially begins to move toward its final location; i.e., before 24 starts any force on 26).
With regard to claim 16, (as far as it is definite and understood) Hess discloses an at least dual poppet valve (see Figs 1, 2, and 5), manufactured via a method according to claim 1 (see above with respect to claim 1), and at least comprising: a first valve seat (22), a second valve seat (24), a first poppet (36) for opening and closing the first valve seat (22), a second poppet (38) for opening and closing the second valve seat (24), and a common valve stem (34) comprising first poppet (36) and the second poppet (38) (see Fig 2).
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 16 (as far as they are definite and compliant and understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 3,927,692 (“Wenrich”).
With regard to claim 1, Wenrich discloses a method for a manufacturing of a multiple poppet valve (method is inherent in the apparatus disclosed), the multiple poppet valve (see Fig 1) at least comprising: a first valve seat (23/4), a second valve seat (24/5), a first poppet (27) for opening and closing the first valve seat (23/4), a second poppet (49) for opening and closing the second valve seat (24/5), and a common valve stem (16) comprising the first poppet (27) and the second poppet (49) (see Fig 1), the method at least comprising the method steps of joining a first valve component (as so broadly recited, 12+4/23 together are considered to be a “component”) comprising the first valve seat (4/23 is connected to 12, therefore 12 comprises 4/23) with a second valve component (as so broadly recited, 13+24+5 together are considered to be a “component”) comprising the second valve seat (24/5), and subsequently setting a distance between the first valve seat (23/4) and the second valve seat (24/5) by permanently displacing one of the valve seats (23/4 or 24/5) towards the other one of the valve seats (other of 23/4 or 24/5) (this is met because one seat 23/4 or 24/5 would be installed after the other seat because they are separate components and “permanently displacing” (as so broadly recited) is met because the installed seat 23/4 or 24/5 is permanently displaced (i.e., moved) when installed relative to uninstalled position).
PNG
media_image2.png
903
708
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 4, Wenrich discloses that during the joining of the valve components (12/4/23 and 13/24/5), an initial distance between the valve seats (23/4 and 24/5) is intentionally made larger than a distance between the first poppet (27) and the second poppet (49) (this is met because the distance between 23/4 and 24/5 before 24/5 is installed would be greater than the installed distance between 29 and 49 because 24/5 could be completely located outside of 1 during installation).
With regard to claim 5, Wenrich discloses that during the displacement of the valve seat (23/4 or 24/5), the other valve seat (the other of 23/4 or 24/5) remains undeformed and undisplaced (this is met because if 23/4 is installed first, then 24/5 would not deform or displace 23/4 as 24/5 initially begins to move toward its final location; i.e., before 24/5 starts any force on 12).
With regard to claim 16, (as far as it is definite and understood) Wenrich discloses an at least dual poppet valve (see Fig 1), manufactured via a method according to claim 1 (see above with respect to claim 1), and at least comprising: a first valve seat (23/4), a second valve seat (24/5), a first poppet (27) for opening and closing the first valve seat (23/4), a second poppet (49) for opening and closing the second valve seat (24/5), and a common valve stem (16) comprising first poppet (27) and the second poppet (49) (see Fig 1).
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.
Claims 2 and 11 (as far as the claims are definite and understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 6,814,102 (“Hess”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2004/0021537 (“Zutt”).
With regard to claim 2, Hess discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing wherein the permanent displacement of the valve seat is achieved by plastic deformation of at least one of the valve components comprising the valve seat that is to be displaced.
Zutt teaches that it is known in the art to modify a valve arrangement to include joining components together to set a permanent displacement of one piece to another by utilizing a tool (9) (see Figs 1 and 2d) to plastically deform a component (11) during joining of components (11 and 3) (see para [0006]: “ the housing material deforming plastically;” see also para [0010]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a joining and installation method that results in plastic deformation, such as taught by Zutt, in the joining of components in Hess for the purpose of permanently fixing components together in a well-known method (see paras [0006] and [0010]).
With regard to claim 11, Hess discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that to set the distance between the first valve seat and the second valve seat, a valve seat setting tool is brought into contact with an entire circumference of a valve opening of the valve seat in order to exert a uniform pressing force to the whole valve sea.
Zutt teaches that it is known in the art to modify a valve arrangement to include joining components together to set a permanent displacement of one piece to another by utilizing a tool (9) (see Figs 1 and 2d) to plastically deform a component (11) during joining of components (11 and 3) (see para [0006]: “ the housing material deforming plastically;” see also para [0010]). Furthermore, the tool (9) is brought into contact along an entire circumference of the openings of 3 and 11, see Figs 1, 2b, and 2d).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a joining and installation method that includes a valve seat setting tool that is in contact with an entire circumference of a valve opening of the valve seat, such as taught by Zutt, in the joining of components in Hess for the purpose of permanently fixing components together in a well-known method (see paras [0006] and [0010]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 6,814,102 (“Hess”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2012/0305106 (“Morse”).
With regard to claim 8, Hess discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that a leakage of at least the displaced valve seat is measured during the displacement of the valve seat and the amount of displacement of the valve seat is set depending on the measured leakage.
Morse teaches that it is known in the art to modify a valve arrangement to include leakage testing to for the purpose of ensuring that valve components are installed correctly and no unwanted leaks are occurring (see paras [0005] [0047]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to leak test, as taught by Morse, the valves and valve seats of Hess, for the purpose of ensuring there are no unwanted leaks and to meet any applicable safety requirements (see paras [0038] and also paras [0005] [0047]). If unwanted leakage is occurring it would be obvious to adjust the valve assembly/components to achieve the desired leakage threshold.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 3,927,692 (“Wenrich”).
With regard to claim 13, Wenrich discloses that a third valve component (14+6+25 together form the broadly recited “component”) comprising a third valve seat (25/6) is joined with the second valve component (13/24/5) (see Fig 1).
Wenrich discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing explicitly that the third valve component is joined after the first and second valve components are set.
Wenrich does disclose that the third valve component (14/6/25) is a separate component relative to the first (12/4/23) or second (13/5/24) components.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to install the valve components in any suitable order, such as installing the third valve component to join the second valve component after the first and second valve components are set for the purpose of enabling a linear installation of components from bottom to top to make installation easier (see Fig 1).
With regard to claim 14, (claim 14 depends from claim 13) Wenrich discloses that the third valve seat (25/6) is disposed in front of the first valve seat (23/4) and in front of the second valve seat (24/5), when viewed along a longitudinal direction of the valve stem (16) that is pointing towards a free end of the valve stem (end with 22) (see annotated Fig 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, 7, and 15 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.
Claims 9, 10, and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 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: the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious “wherein during the displacement of the valve seat the other valve seat is sealed by the corresponding poppet” (claim 3); or “wherein during the displacement of the valve seat, the other valve seat is kept sealed by forcing the corresponding poppet into a sealing position via a spring force of a spring which interacts with the valve stem and/or with the corresponding poppet” (claim 6); or “wherein during the displacement of the valve seat, an externally generated pressure force of a supply pressure fluid is applied to an interspace between the first valve seat and the second valve seat” (claim 7); or “wherein prior to the joining of the valve components, the valve stem comprising at least the second poppet is inserted into a designated interspace between the valve seats” (claim 9); or “wherein the valve seat setting tool is slid over the valve stem, surrounding at least a section of the valve stem during the setting procedure” (claim 12); or “wherein a direction in which the valve stem is to be moved in order to open the third valve seat is the opposite of a direction in which the valve stem is to be moved to open the first valve seat and the second valve seat” (claim 15) in combination with the other limitations set forth in the independent claims.
The closest prior art references of record are U.S. Pat. No. 6,814,102 (“Hess”), U.S. Pat. No. 3,927,692 (“Wenrich”), U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2004/0021537 (“Zutt”), and U.S. Pat. No. 12,228,011 (“Gaspard”). However, none of the references teach or suggest each and every claimed invention.
For example, Hess discloses that the valve seats cannot be sealed by a corresponding poppet during displacement/installation of the valve seat at least because Hess teaches that the valve seats are installed prior to the installation of the poppets (see Fig 5 showing installation of the poppets/stem).
For example, Gaspard discloses a dual poppet valve that includes a singular insert 126 that provides the first and second seats. The singular liner is fixed or rotationally attached into the housing (see col. 3, lines 37-43). Thus, Gaspard teaches away from a first component comprising the first seat and a second component comprising the second seat that are joined together and permanently displaced.
For example, Wenrich discloses a third valve component (14+25) that is joined with the second valve component (13+24). However, Wenrich does not teach or suggest that a direction in which the valve stem is moved in order to open the third valve seat is opposite of a direction in which the valve stem is to be moved to open the first valve seat and the second valve seat (claim 15). As shown in Fig. 1, the valve stem (16) moves down to open the third valve seat (25). The valve stem (16) must move down to also open the first valve seat (23) as shown in Fig 1. Furthermore there is no teach or suggestion that the other valve seat would be sealed by a corresponding poppet during displacement of the valve seat. It would not be obvious to modify Wenrich to arrive at the claimed invention without improperly changing the principle of operation of the reference or without improper hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pat. No. 12,228,011 (“Gaspard”) discloses a dual poppet valve.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA CAHILL whose telephone number is (571)270-5219. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 to 3:00.
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 can be reached by phone. Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-60073607 or 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.
/JESSICA CAHILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753