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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following limitations must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
---Claim 16 recites the following:
16. A piping assembly with an isolation valve, comprising: an isolation valve having a body having a first end portion, a second end portion, a fluid passageway extending between said first end portion and said second end portion, a first branch positioned near said first end portion, a second branch positioned near said second end portion, said first and second branches positioned generally perpendicular to said fluid passageway; a first valve member positioned in said fluid passageway between said first branch and said second branch; a second valve member positioned on said first branch; a third valve member positioned on said second branch; an incoming water supply pipe coupled to said first end portion; and an outgoing water supply pipe coupled to said second end portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
631
821
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As best understood by the Office (see FIG. A above), the piping assembly with the isolation valve 2 does show at least couplings 20 and 22 coupled to the first end portion (left/upstream side) and the second end portions (right/downstream side) which could be broadly interpreted as “pipes”. However, it is noted that dependent claims 19 and 20 makes it clear that couplings 20 and 22 are considered separate from the incoming/outgoing water supply pipes and as such the Drawings fails to show the “incoming water supply pipe” and the “outgoing water supply pipe” as claimed (essentially water pipes that are fluidly connected to couplings 20 and 22). The Office suggests that the claimed feature is added at least schematically such as showing pipes/conduits connected to couplings 20 and 22. It is also noted that should the highlighted features be deleted from claim 16, claim 16 may be substantially identical in scope to at least claim 1.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
---Notice that the abstract is well below the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The Office suggests that the abstract is amended to include greater detail of the invention within the range of 50 to 150 words.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
---Notice that claims 9-12 are substantial duplicates of claims 2-5. Applicant is advised that should claims 2-5 be found allowable, claims 9-12 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). The Office suggests that claims 9-12 are amended to change the scope to be different from those of claims 2-5.
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 16-20 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 16 recites the following:
16. A piping assembly with an isolation valve, comprising: an isolation valve having a body having a first end portion, a second end portion, a fluid passageway extending between said first end portion and said second end portion, a first branch positioned near said first end portion, a second branch positioned near said second end portion, said first and second branches positioned generally perpendicular to said fluid passageway; a first valve member positioned in said fluid passageway between said first branch and said second branch; a second valve member positioned on said first branch; a third valve member positioned on said second branch; an incoming water supply pipe coupled to said first end portion; and an outgoing water supply pipe coupled to said second end portion.
Notice in claim 16 L2 the double recitation of “an isolation valve” which makes it unclear if this is the same isolation valve previously recited in claim 16 L1 or if they are distinct. Based on the disclosure, the Office will assume that they are the same limitation. If so, the Office suggests that the limitation of claim 16 L2 of “an isolation valve” is amended to “ the isolation valve” to make it clear that they are the same limitation.
---Claim(s) 17-20, being dependent on any of the preceding claim(s) above, inherit the same deficiencies as the parent/intervening claim(s) and as such is/are rejected in the same manner, see the rejection(s) above.
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 –
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Weisse DE-202009001923.
Regarding claims 1 and 16, as best understood by the Office, Weisse DE-202009001923 teaches in Figs. 1-12 (see at least Figs. 1-3, in particular Fig. 2 and FIG. B below) the limitations of:
---Claim 1. An isolation valve (fitting 10), comprising: a body (housing 16) having a first end portion (see the left/upstream portion in FIG. B below), a second end portion (see the right/downstream portion in FIG. B below), a fluid passageway (see the fluid passageway between the first and the second end which is controlled by valve 18) extending between said first end portion and said second end portion, a first branch (see the first/upstream branch that connects to the inlet of the water treatment device in FIG. B below) positioned near said first end portion, a second branch (see the second/downstream branch that connects to the outlet of the water treatment device in FIG. B below) positioned near said second end portion, said first and second branches positioned generally perpendicular to said fluid passageway (see at least Fig. 2 and FIG. B below); a first valve member (ball valve 18) positioned in said fluid passageway between said first branch and said second branch; a second valve member (ball valve 22) positioned on said first branch; and a third valve member (ball valve 26) positioned on said second branch.
PNG
media_image2.png
594
684
media_image2.png
Greyscale
---Claim 16. A piping assembly with an isolation valve (fitting 10), comprising: an isolation valve (fitting 10) having a body (housing 16) having a first end portion (see the left/upstream portion in FIG. B), a second end portion (see the right/downstream portion in FIG. B), a fluid passageway (see the fluid passageway between the first and the second end which is controlled by valve 18) extending between said first end portion and said second end portion, a first branch (see the first/upstream branch that connects to the inlet of the water treatment device in FIG. B) positioned near said first end portion, a second branch (see the second/downstream branch that connects to the outlet of the water treatment device in FIG. B) positioned near said second end portion, said first and second branches positioned generally perpendicular to said fluid passageway (see at least Fig. 2 and FIG. B); a first valve member (ball valve 18) positioned in said fluid passageway between said first branch and said second branch; a second valve member (ball valve 22) positioned on said first branch; a third valve member (ball valve 26) positioned on said second branch; an incoming water supply pipe (not shown but understood to be the fluid pipe that is connected to inlet 12 to allow drinking water to enter the fitting 10 to allow the water to either be treated by the water treatment device connected to fitting 10 or allow water to bypass the water treatment device via valve 18 and allowed to flow to a user or appliance to be consumed) coupled to said first end portion; and an outgoing water supply pipe (not shown but understood to be the fluid pipe that is connected to outlet 14 to allow water or treated water to flow toward a user or appliance to be consumed) coupled to said second end portion.
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.
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(s) 3-5, 9-12 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weisse DE-202009001923 in view of Carter US-8910665.
Regarding claims 3-5, 9-12 and 17-18, it is noted that Weisse DE-202009001923 teaches that housing 16 includes test connections 28 and 30 which are in front of and behind the ball valve 18 in a similar manner as applicant’s gauge ports 34. However, Weisse DE-202009001923 fails to explicitly disclose that the “test connections 28 and 30” are used as “gauge ports” as claimed. However, pressure gauge ports are well known in the art.
Carter US-8910665 teaches in at least Fig. 2 of a piping assembly comprising at least a valve 218 for controlling a fluid in a flow path 212 wherein pressure gauges 226 and 228 are fluidly connected to the flow path on opposite sides of the valve 218 which allows a user to monitor the fluid pressure and determine the condition of the valve.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was effectively filed to modify the test connections/ports 28 and 30 of Weisse to be used as gauge ports wherein these ports 28 and 30 are coupled with pressure gauges 226 and 228 in a similar manner as taught by Carter since such a modification allows a user to be capable of monitoring the pressure between the upstream and downstream side of the ball valve 18 of Weisse and allows the user to determine the condition of the valve.
As such, the device of the combination of Weisse DE-202009001923 in view of Carter US-8910665 teaches the limitations of:
---Claim 2. The isolation valve of claim 1, including a first gauge port (test connection 28 of Weisse as modified by Carter to be a pressure gauge port for monitoring the upstream pressure) positioned on said body on said first end portion and a second gauge port (test connection 30 of Weisse as modified by Carter to be a pressure gauge port for monitoring the downstream pressure) positioned on said body on said second end portion.
---Claim 3. The isolation valve of claim 2, wherein said first gauge portion is positioned on said body between said first branch and said first end portion (see Fig. 2 of Weisse and FIG. B).
---Claim 4. The isolation valve of claim 2, wherein said second gauge port is positioned on said body between said second branch and said second end portion (see Fig. 2 of Weisse and FIG. B).
---Claim 5. The isolation valve of claim 2, wherein said first gauge port and said first branch are positioned on opposite sides of said body (see Fig. 2 of Weisse and FIG. B).
---Claim 9. An isolation valve assembly (fitting 10 of Weisse as modified by Carter), comprising: a body (housing 16 of Weisse) having a first end portion (see the left/upstream portion in FIG. B), a second end portion (see the right/downstream portion in FIG. B), a fluid passageway (see the fluid passageway between the first and the second end which is controlled by valve 18) extending between said first end portion and said second end portion, a first branch (see the first/upstream branch that connects to the inlet of the water treatment device in FIG. B) positioned near said first end portion, a second branch (see the second/downstream branch that connects to the outlet of the water treatment device in FIG. B) positioned near said second end portion, said first and second branches positioned generally perpendicular to said fluid passageway (see at least Fig. 2 of Weisse and FIG. B); a first valve member (ball valve 18 of Weisse) positioned in said fluid passageway between said first branch and said second branch; a second valve member (ball valve 22 of Weisse) positioned on said first branch; a third valve member (ball valve 26 of Weisse) positioned on said second branch; and a first gauge port (test connection 28 of Weisse as modified by Carter to be a pressure gauge port for monitoring the upstream pressure) positioned on said body on said first end portion and a second gauge port (test connection 30 of Weisse as modified by Carter to be a pressure gauge port for monitoring the downstream pressure) positioned on said body on said second end portion.
---Claim 10. The isolation valve assembly of claim 9, wherein said first gauge portion is positioned on said body between said first branch and said first end portion (see Fig. 2 of Weisse and FIG. B).
---Claim 11. The isolation valve assembly of claim 9, wherein said second gauge port is positioned on said body between said second branch and said second end portion (see Fig. 2 of Weisse and FIG. B).
---Claim 12. The isolation valve assembly of claim 9, wherein said first gauge port and said first branch are positioned on opposite sides of said body (see Fig. 2 of Weisse and FIG. B).
---Claim 17. The piping assembly of claim 16, including a first gauge port (test connection 28 of Weisse as modified by Carter to be a pressure gauge port for monitoring the upstream pressure) positioned on said body on said first end portion and a second gauge port (test connection 30 of Weisse as modified by Carter to be a pressure gauge port for monitoring the downstream pressure) positioned on said body on said second end portion.
---Claim 18. The piping assembly of claim 17, wherein said first gauge port and said first branch are positioned on opposite sides of said body (see Fig. 2 of Weisse and FIG. B).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weisse DE-202009001923 in view of Cimberio IT-MI20080153.
Regarding claim 6, the device of Weisse DE-202009001923 fails to explicitly disclose that the fluid connections are threaded as claimed. However, one of ordinary skill in the art can recognize that threaded connections are among the most used type of connection used in fluidic couplings due to their reliability, cheap to manufacture and ease in their installation and reusability as compared to other alternative fluid coupling methods. Furthermore, threaded fluid connections are well known in the art.
Cimberio IT-MI20080153 teaches in Figs. 1-3 (see at least Fig. 2) teaches of a bypass valve assembly 1 comprising conduits 2 and 3 with inlets 2a and 3a and outlets 2b and 3b comprising male and female threaded connections for coupling to connection rings 4 that allows the valve assembly to be easily coupled to a fluidic system through correspondingly sized threaded pipe connections.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was effectively filed to modify the fluid connections of the fitting 10 of the device of Weisse to include male and/or females threaded connections in a similar manner as taught by Cimberio since threaded fluid connections are a well-known method for coupling fluidic systems that allows for releasable fluidic connections to be easily made with minimal or no tools/training required as compared to other known fluid coupling methods.
As such, the device of the combination of Weisse DE-202009001923 in view of Cimberio IT-MI20080153 teaches the limitations of:
---Claim 6. The isolation valve of claim 1, wherein said first end portion, said second end portion, said first branch, and said second branch are all threaded (see at least Fig. 2 of Weisse/FIG. B as modified by Fig. 2 of Cimberio to include threaded fluid connections).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weisse DE-202009001923 in view of Carter US-8910665 as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Cimberio IT-MI20080153.
Regarding claim 13, the device of the combination of Weisse DE-202009001923 in view of Carter US-8910665 fails to explicitly disclose that the fluid connections are threaded as claimed. However, one of ordinary skill in the art can recognize that threaded connections are among the most used type of connection used in fluidic couplings due to their reliability, cheap to manufacture and ease in their installation and reusability as compared to other alternative fluid coupling methods. Furthermore, threaded fluid connections are well known in the art.
Cimberio IT-MI20080153 teaches in Figs. 1-3 (see at least Fig. 2) teaches of a bypass valve assembly 1 comprising conduits 2 and 3 with inlets 2a and 3a and outlets 2b and 3b comprising male and female threaded connections for coupling to connection rings 4 that allows the valve assembly to be easily coupled to a fluidic system through correspondingly sized threaded pipe connections.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was effectively filed to modify the fluid connections of the fitting 10 of the device of the combination to include male and/or females threaded connections in a similar manner as taught by Cimberio since threaded fluid connections are a well-known method for coupling fluidic systems that allows for releasable fluidic connections to be easily made with minimal or no tools/training required as compared to other known fluid coupling methods.
As such, the device of the combination of Weisse DE-202009001923 in view of Carter US-8910665 and Cimberio IT-MI20080153 teaches the limitations of:
---Claim 13. The isolation valve assembly of claim 9, wherein said first end portion, said second end portion, said first branch, and said second branch are all threaded (see at least Fig. 2 of Weisse/FIG. B as modified by Fig. 2 of Cimberio to include threaded fluid connections).
Claim(s) 7-8 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weisse DE-202009001923 in view of Cox US-1779421.
Regarding claims 7-8 and 19-20, the device of Weisse DE-202009001923 fails to disclose the use of a check valve in a coupling as claimed. However, one of ordinary skill in the art can recognize that check valves (also known as non-return valve, backflow prevention valves, one-way valves, etc.) are valves that are specifically constructed to allow fluid flow in one direction and prevents fluid flow in the opposite direction. These types of valves are used as a safety measure to ensure the proper direction of fluid flow while preventing backflow (fluid flow in the opposite direction) from occurring in a fluidic system. Furthermore, check valves within a coupling are well-known in the art.
Cox US-1779421 teaches in Figs. 1-4 (see at least Fig. 1) of a check valve assembly comprising housing 1 and 2 with threaded ends 3 forming “a coupling” for coupling to correspondingly threaded fluid lines and a spring biased check valve 13 with a threaded sleeve housing 6 that is within the coupling assembly. The spring biased check valve 13 includes a spring 25 which biases the valve to the closed position allowing fluid to be checked by allowing fluid to flow from the inlet end to the outlet end while preventing backflow. It is further noted that the valve is structured in such a manner that the valve is incapable of opening due to fluid acting in the opposite direction since backflow pressure only serves to push the valve into further sealing engagement with the valve seat 23.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was effectively filed to modify the fitting 10 of the device of Weisse to include one or more couplings (1 and 2) with a spring biased check valve (13) between the upstream water supply pipe and the fitting 10 and/or between the downstream water supply pipe and the fitting 10 in a similar manner as taught by Cox since such a modification aids in ensuring that fluid flows in the correct intended direction (from upstream end to downstream end) while preventing backflow from occurring which can damage and/or contaminate components of the fluid system (in the case of Weisse, preventing backflow from the downstream end of the fitting 10 to the water treatment device prevents damage/contamination to the water treatment device and preventing backflow from the upstream end of the water treatment device to the upstream end of the fitting 10 prevents contamination of the water supply).
As such, the device of the combination of Weisse DE-202009001923 in view of Cox US-1779421 teaches the limitation of:
---Claim 7. The isolation valve of claim 1, including a check valve positioned in a coupling that is coupled to said first end portion (see the fluid connection between the fitting 10 and the water supply pipe fluidly connected to the first/upstream end of fitting 10 which includes a coupling 1 and 2 with a spring biased check valve 13 in a similar manner as taught by Cox which ensures fluid flows correct intended direction while preventing backflow from occurring which can damage and/or contaminate components of the fluid system).
---Claim 8. The isolation valve of claim 1, including a check valve positioned on a coupling that is coupled to said second end portion (see the fluid connection between the fitting 10 and the water supply pipe fluidly connected to the second/downstream end of fitting 10 which includes a coupling 1 and 2 with a spring biased check valve 13 in a similar manner as taught by Cox which ensures fluid flows correct intended direction while preventing backflow from occurring which can damage and/or contaminate components of the fluid system).
---Claim 19. The piping assembly of claim 16, including a check valve positioned in a coupling that is coupled to said first end portion to prevent backflow from said piping assembly into said incoming water supply pipe (see the fluid connection between the fitting 10 and the water supply pipe fluidly connected to the first/upstream end of fitting 10 which includes a coupling 1 and 2 with a spring biased check valve 13 in a similar manner as taught by Cox which ensures fluid flows correct intended direction while preventing backflow from occurring which can damage and/or contaminate components of the fluid system).
---Claims 20. The piping assembly of claim 16, including a check valve positioned on a coupling that is coupled to said second end portion to prevent backflow from said outgoing water supply pipe into said piping assembly (see the fluid connection between the fitting 10 and the water supply pipe fluidly connected to the second/downstream end of fitting 10 which includes a coupling 1 and 2 with a spring biased check valve 13 in a similar manner as taught by Cox which ensures fluid flows correct intended direction while preventing backflow from occurring which can damage and/or contaminate components of the fluid system).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weisse DE-202009001923 in view of Carter US-8910665 as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Cox US-1779421.
Regarding claims 14-15, the device of the combination of Weisse DE-202009001923 in view of Carter US-8910665 fails to disclose the use of a check valve in a coupling as claimed. However, one of ordinary skill in the art can recognize that check valves (also known as non-return valve, backflow prevention valves, one-way valves, etc.) are valves that are specifically constructed to allow fluid flow in one direction and prevents fluid flow in the opposite direction. These types of valves are used as a safety measure to ensure the proper direction of fluid flow while preventing backflow (fluid flow in the opposite direction) from occurring in a fluidic system. Furthermore, check valves within a coupling are well-known in the art.
Cox US-1779421 teaches in Figs. 1-4 (see at least Fig. 1) of a check valve assembly comprising housing 1 and 2 with threaded ends 3 forming “a coupling” for coupling to correspondingly threaded fluid lines and a spring biased check valve 13 with a threaded sleeve housing 6 that is within the coupling assembly. The spring biased check valve 13 includes a spring 25 which biases the valve to the closed position allowing fluid to be checked by allowing fluid to flow from the inlet end to the outlet end while preventing backflow. It is further noted that the valve is structured in such a manner that the valve is incapable of opening due to fluid acting in the opposite direction since backflow pressure only serves to push the valve into further sealing engagement with the valve seat 23.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was effectively filed to modify the fitting 10 of the device of the combination to include one or more couplings (1 and 2) with a spring biased check valve (13) between the upstream water supply pipe and the fitting 10 and/or between the downstream water supply pipe and the fitting 10 in a similar manner as taught by Cox since such a modification aids in ensuring that fluid flows in the correct intended direction (from upstream end to downstream end) while preventing backflow from occurring which can damage and/or contaminate components of the fluid system (in the case of Weisse, preventing backflow from the downstream end of the fitting 10 to the water treatment device prevents damage/contamination to the water treatment device and preventing backflow from the upstream end of the water treatment device to the upstream end of the fitting 10 prevents contamination of the water supply).
As such, the device of the combination of Weisse DE-202009001923 in view of Carter US-8910665 and Cox US-1779421 teaches the limitation of:
---Claim 14. The isolation valve assembly of claim 9, including a check valve positioned in a coupling that is coupled to said first end portion (see the fluid connection between the fitting 10 and the water supply pipe fluidly connected to the first/upstream end of fitting 10 which includes a coupling 1 and 2 with a spring biased check valve 13 in a similar manner as taught by Cox which ensures fluid flows correct intended direction while preventing backflow from occurring which can damage and/or contaminate components of the fluid system).
---Claim 15. The isolation valve assembly of claim 9, including a check valve positioned on a coupling that is coupled to said second end portion (see the fluid connection between the fitting 10 and the water supply pipe fluidly connected to the second/downstream end of fitting 10 which includes a coupling 1 and 2 with a spring biased check valve 13 in a similar manner as taught by Cox which ensures fluid flows correct intended direction while preventing backflow from occurring which can damage and/or contaminate components of the fluid system).
Conclusion
The prior/relevant art made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
---References A (Related but not considered as “prior” art under U.S. Patent Laws): Mason US-12281712, Mason US-12281803, Mason US-12209758, Mason US-12203566, Mason US-12140236, Mason US-12066196, Mason US-20250257903 and Mason US-20240264614.
---References B (Prior art showing pipe branches with valves and/or gauge ports similar to applicant’s main invention): Ringer US-11781658, Mason US-11421791, Mason US-11408153, Mason US-11359729, Anderson US-11346483, Mudigere US-11111759, Balmforth US-10408353, Reck US-10302233, Winborn US-9061223, Carter US-8910665, Reck US-8770223, Erhardt US-8375991, Olsen US-8316886, Olsen US-10458662, Oltman US-8312889, Reck US-7789106, Reck US-7631662, Schwarz US-7077163, McHugh US-6681802, Walcott US-6357477, Pappas US-57715692, Coleman US-4711268, Roxton US-4570677, Jones US-3464447, Glasgow US-3134395, Jaegle US-2569857, Goehring US-2169043, Sartakoff US-1797591, Hartman US-20250109801, Matsui US-20240183469, Matsui US-20240142008, Mason US-20220196166, Terry US-20220042688, Terry US-20220057041, Tanghetti US-20190078695, Andersson US-20190032801, Alcaraz Sencianes US-20140034165, Wu US-20110247706, Olsen US-20100252129, VanZeeland US-20100018911, Cimberio US-20080314466, Reck US-20080087340, Reck US-20070186986, Arentsen US-20060180214, Schwarz US-20020096210, Abacus DE-202020105763, Rosler DE-202018101710, Maiwald DE-102012022576, Sapienza AU-2019283939, Lars GB-2573776, Allen GB-2509714, Weisse DE-202009001923, Cimberio IT-MI20080153 and Hecking EP-1681520.
---References C (prior art showing check valves similar to a feature of the claimed invention): Gass US-9644356, Truax US-5174327, Whelan US-11773991, Devlin US-11103102, Tomasko US-11073218, Markley US-4867200, Driscoll US-9885422, Petersen US-4537384, Napolitano US-4532958, Milo US-3122159, Cox US-1779421, Atkinson US-1674879 and Gould US-1260663.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID COLON-MORALES, whose telephone number 571-270-1741 and fax number is 571-270-2741. If the applicant has authorized internet communications via the filling of form PTO/SB/439, the examiner can be reached via email at david.colon-morales@uspto.gov , email communication is not permitted if the applicant has not filed an authorization for internet communication (see MPEP 502.03 for more details on internet communications). The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (7:30AM-3:30PM EST).
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. KENNETH RINEHART can be reached at 571-272-4881 or CRAIG SCHNEIDER can be reached 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 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.
/DAVID COLON-MORALES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753