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 .
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s reply filed on 01/07/2026 is acknowledged. However, the applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement and no election was made. However, in the reply the applicant makes arguments as to why the species are obvious variants as they are essentially directed to the same matter and are just variants of mechanisms for transforming vertical motion to rotational motion. As such, the restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 08/20/2024 are acceptable subject to correction of the informalities indicated below. In order to avoid abandonment of this application, correction is required in reply to the Office action. The correction will not be held in abeyance.
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because, although the partial hatching of some elements is proper, the overlapping lines in views seen in figs. 1-3 and 6 seem to indicate these are sectional views and should also have respective hatching for viewing otherwise internal components. “Hatching must be used to indicate section portions of an object, and must be made by regularly spaced oblique parallel lines spaced sufficiently apart to enable the lines to be distinguished without difficulty. Hatching should not impede the clear reading of the reference characters and lead lines. If it is not possible to place reference characters outside the hatched area, the hatching may be broken off wherever reference characters are inserted. Hatching must be at a substantial angle to the surrounding axes or principal lines, preferably 45°. A cross section must be set out and drawn to show all of the materials as they are shown in the view from which the cross section was taken. The parts in cross section must show proper material(s) by hatching with regularly spaced parallel oblique strokes, the space between strokes being chosen on the basis of the total area to be hatched. The various parts of a cross section of the same item should be hatched in the same manner and should accurately and graphically indicate the nature of the material(s) that is illustrated in cross section. The hatching of juxtaposed different elements must be angled in a different way. In the case of large areas, hatching may be confined to an edging drawn around the entire inside of the outline of the area to be hatched. Different types of hatching should have different conventional meanings as regards the nature of a material seen in cross section.” See MPEP 608.02 (V) Drawing Standards. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings.
INFORMATION ON HOW TO EFFECT DRAWING CHANGES
Replacement Drawing Sheets
Drawing changes must be made by presenting replacement sheets which incorporate the desired changes and which comply with 37 CFR 1.84. An explanation of the changes made must be presented either in the drawing amendments section, or remarks, section of the amendment paper. 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). A replacement sheet must 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 the amended drawing(s) must not be labeled as “amended.” If the changes to the drawing figure(s) are not accepted by the examiner, applicant will be notified of any required corrective action in the next Office action. No further drawing submission will be required, unless applicant is notified.
Identifying indicia, if provided, should include the title of the invention, inventor’s name, and application number, or docket number (if any) if an application number has not been assigned to the application. If this information is provided, it must be placed on the front of each sheet and within the top margin.
Annotated Drawing Sheets
A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, may be submitted or required by the examiner. The annotated drawing sheet(s) must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheet” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings.
Timing of Corrections
Applicant is required to submit acceptable corrected drawings within the time period set in the Office action. See 37 CFR 1.85(a). Failure to take corrective action within the set period will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
If corrected drawings are required in a Notice of Allowability (PTOL-37), the new drawings MUST be filed within the THREE MONTH shortened statutory period set for reply in the “Notice of Allowability.” Extensions of time may NOT be obtained under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 for filing the corrected drawings after the mailing of a Notice of Allowability.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities: they are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. For example:
Claim 1, line 2, the recitation “at lower end” should read –at a lower end--.
Claim 1, lines 12-13, the recitation “to dock at opened position” should read --to dock at an opened position--.
Claim 1, line 14, the recitation “moving upward” should read –moves upward—
Claim 1, lines 15, the recitation “docked at closed position” should read --docked at a closed position--.
The above list is not exhaustive and the Examiner recommends thorough review of claims 1-3 and 5 to put in proper grammatical English format. 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 1-3 and 5 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.
Claims 1-3 and 5, are indefinite because they are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors which make the claims indefinite because they are unclear in meaning. For example:
Claim 1, line 3, the limitation “a centralized control button 14, as a whole” is unclear in meaning in relation to the press-knob button.
Claim 2, lines 4-5, the limitation “said hinge pieces 22 clamped just outside of a valve core handle 12 which must be ensured that relative motion of the valve shaft 11 driving the valve core handle 12 is flexible” is confusing and unclear in meaning. The hinge pieces 22 seem to engage the handle 12 with a sliding rod or pin in a slot or groove. This does not seem to be clamped or flexible. It seems the motion is slidable, not flexible. Similarly for the limitation in lines 6-8.
Claim 1, line 11, the limitation “namely the valve shaft 11” is indefinite as it is unclear if it is further limiting pressing of the “press-knob button 14”.
Claim 1, line 12, the limitation “around itself horizontal axis 15 by the hinge groove 21” is indefinite as it is unclear in meaning. A similar limitation is in line 15.
Claim 1, lines 17-19, the limitation “to locate at any position including opened or closed position of itself whole vertical journey” is confusing and unclear in meaning.
The above list is not exhaustive and the Examiner recommends thorough review of claims 1-3 and 5 to put in proper grammatical English format.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 and 5 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
As best understood, the following claim 1 is drafted by the examiner and considered to distinguish patentably over the art of record in this application, is presented to applicant for consideration:
A centralized control valve, comprising:
at least two eccentric hinge pieces 22 connected at a lower end of a valve shaft 11 that is coupled to a press-knob button 14 to form a centralized control button 14;
said hinge pieces 22 connected just outside of a valve core handle 12 to allow relative motion of the valve shaft 11 to slidably drive the valve core handle 12;
a hinge rod 23 coupled to the lower part of said hinge pieces 22 and embedded in a hinge groove 21 with a mouth opened upwards on an upper part of said valve core handle 12 which allows the relative motion of said hinge rod 23 to slidably driving said valve core handle 12;
a valve hinge comprising the hinge rod 23, the hinge groove 21 and the hinge pieces 22 to drive the ceramic valve core 13;
when pressing the press-knob button 14 to vertically move the valve shaft 11, the hinge rod 23 will rotate the valve core handle 12 clockwise around a horizontal axis 15 of the valve core handle 12 by the hinge groove 21 to stop at a fully opened position of the ceramic valve core 13;
when the press-knob button moves upwards, the valve core handle 12 will be rotated counterclockwise around the horizontal axis 15 of the valve core handle 12 by the hinge groove 21 to the fully closed position of the ceramic valve core 13;
furthermore by controlling the valve shaft 11 to vertically move between the opened or closed position, the hinge rod 23 will force the valve core handle 12 to move to a corresponding position to perform the function of water flow regulation; and
simultaneously as the valve shaft 11 is moved between the opened or closed position, a horizontal rotation of the press-knob button 14 will rotate the valve core handle 12 via the valve shaft 11 and the hinge pieces 22 to perform the function of selecting multiple water inlets.
The Examiner recommends the Applicant to call Examiner Tietjen (at the number listed below) if further pro se assistance is needed to consider further amendments that may place the Application in better form for Allowance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 9212760, US 7922151, US 6793195, US 5303735, US 4946135, US 4460153, US 3096966, US 3037520, US 1291799, US 1155576, and US 0496998 each disclose related mechanical mechanisms to open and close a valve.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARINA TIETJEN, whose telephone number is 571-270-5422. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (10:30AM-7:00PM CST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Tom Barrett can be reached at 571-272-4746, Ken Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881, and Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/MARINA A TIETJEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753