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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/1/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendment and RCE dated 9/1/2026. Claims 1-7 and 10-18 are pending. Claims 15-18 are newly presented. This action is Non-Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a), first paragraph
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 18 recites that the retaining body slidingly bears against an inner surface of the fluid channel. Support for this cannot be found in the originally filed disclosure. Paragraphs 15, 36, and 47 recite that the seal (retaining body) is floatingly mounted in the fluid channel via a clearance fit. There does not appear to be a description of the retaining body of the seal slidingly bearing against an inner surface of the fluid channel.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b), second paragraph
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 10 and 16-17 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 10, it is unclear how the valve core is floatingly mounted in the fluid channel when, per claim 1, the valve core is mounted in the valve chamber and the fluid channel is a separately claimed structure that fitted to at least one opening and opens to the valve chamber.
Claim 16, lines 2-3, it is unclear how the curved sealing contour and open space can have deformation. Lines 2-3 recite “deformation of the curved sealing contour and open space”. It is understood how a curved sealing contour structure is able to have deformation; however, it is not understood how this displacement is part of the retaining body being floatingly mounted in the fluid channel. Further, it is unclear how the open space could have deformation.
Claim 17 recites “the sealing body points” in lines 1-2. It is unclear what is meant by “the sealing body points”. It is further unclear what is meant by this feature not bearing against a terminal end surface of the fluid channel.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 103 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10, 12-13, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magna Powertrain AG (DE102013211331)(cited by the applicant in the IDS dated 8/21/2024, machine translation included herewith) in view of Kashiwagi et al. (U.S. 11,255,449).
Magna discloses a valve, comprising a valve housing (GH) with a chamber wall defining a valve chamber (the wall GH in fig. 1 forming a chamber toward the top of fig. 1 where the curved surface of DK is located facing upward) and at least one opening (AO), wherein at least one fluid channel is fitted to the at least one opening and opens to the valve chamber (fig. 1), wherein a valve core (not depicted, described as a cylindrical valve body, see at least para. 9) is mounted in the valve chamber, wherein a seal (DK, DR, fig. 1) is allocated to the fluid channel, the seal having a sleeve-shaped retaining body (the elongated portion that extends into AO), wherein the retaining body is arranged in the fluid channel (fig. 1), wherein a sealing body is arranged on one end face of the retaining body (at the area of the lead line for DK in fig. 1), and wherein the sealing body has a curved sealing contour which points in the direction of the valve core (notice the curving surface at the top of DK, see also para. 15 describing the surface as saddle-shaped), wherein a free end of the sealing body points in the direction of the chamber wall and bears against a radially facing interior surface of the chamber wall (the end at DR is interpreted to be the free end and contacts the surface of GH, that is facing radially inward toward the valve chamber).
Magna does not appear to disclose the chamber wall being cylindrical or the details of the valve core, such as wherein the valve core is provided with a channel structure which interacts with the fluid channel.
Kashiwagi teaches it was known in the art to have a cylindrical chamber wall for a valve and the valve having a channel structure (see the cylindrical wall of 12 for the valve 40, with the valve 40 having a channel 45 therethrough)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Magna by having the valve housing have a cylindrical chamber wall and the valve core having a channel as taught by Kashiwagi as a cylindrical housing provides an alternative functional equivalent shape for the wall of the housing that is well known to be used in conjunction with a rotary valve and the fluid channel through the valve core allows for selectively allowing or not allowing fluid flow through the valve via the channel by rotation and as desired by Magna as Magna is a rotary valve.
Regarding claim 2, Magna as modified further discloses wherein the sealing body is bent in a collar-shaped manner (see para. 14 describing the collar B, to the extent the applicant recites the term “bent”, this is seen as a product-by-process limitation and has not been given patentable weight, if the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product in the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113)).
Regarding claim 3, Magna as modified further discloses wherein a section of the sealing body is bent in a U-shaped manner, wherein the section bears sealingly against the valve core (see the upward facing surface at B, DK forming a U-shape, see para. 13 describing sliding contact with the valve body, further, to the extent the applicant recites the term “bent”, this is seen as a product-by-process limitation and has not been given patentable weight, if the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product in the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113)).
Regarding claim 4, Magna as modified further discloses wherein the seal is formed from a dimensionally stable plastic.
Regarding claim 5, Magna as modified further discloses wherein the seal is formed from a tough-hard plastic (para. 13 describing the seal being made of plastic, which is interpreted to have both the properties of being tough and hard).
Regarding claim 10, Magna as modified further discloses wherein the valve core is floatingly mounted in the fluid channel (as it is movably sat in the channel, see para. 13).
Regarding claim 12, Magna as modified further discloses formed as a rotary valve, wherein the valve core is rotatably mounted in the valve chamber (para. 8).
Regarding claim 13, Magna as modified further discloses formed as a proportional valve (by rotation, the valve will change the proportions of flow through the valve, such as fully on or fully off, or varying degrees of opening during rotation, and thus is seen to be a proportional valve).
Regarding claim 15, Magna as modified further discloses wherein the curved sealing contour of the sealing body defines an open space between the curved sealing contour and the radially facing interior surface of the chamber wall (the open space below the curved sealing contour surface that contacts the valve core and in which DR is located, which is between the sealing contour surface and the surface GH facing radially inward).
Regarding claim 17, Magna as modified further discloses wherein the free end of the sealing body points does not bear against a terminal end surface of the fluid channel (as best understood, as the sealing body does not bear against a radially inward facing surface of AO that is below where DK resides in fig. 1, alternatively, it does not contact a surface of AO below that which is depicted in fig. 1, as “a terminal surface” can be any surface of the fluid channel).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magna in view of Kashiwagi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Scaramucci (U.S. 9,328,828).
Magna as modified discloses the claimed invention and further discloses the seal being formed of plastic (para. 13). Magna is silent as to the material being a thermoplastic.
Scaramucci teaches it was known in the art to have a seal that is made of polypropylene (col. 4, ll. 25-26, which, per paras. 13 and 39 of the applicant’s specification, is a thermoplastic).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of the seal of Magna by having the seal be made of polypropylene as taught by Scaramucci in order to have the seal be of a good mechanical strength with flexibility that is also relatively inexpensive and easy to acquire and especially as it has been held that selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.07.
Claim(s) 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magna in view of Kashiwagi as applied to claims 1 and 15, respectively, above, and further in view of Sisk et al. (U.S. 6,698,452).
Magna discloses the claimed invention and while Magna does disclose the sealing member as being movable in the channel (see para. 13), Magna does not appear to disclose wherein the sleeve-shaped retaining body is floatingly mounted in the fluid channel with a clearance fit allowing displacement and rotation for self-alignment relative to the valve core.
Sisk teaches it was known in the art to have a rotary valve with sleeve-type sealing members (176, 178) that are floatingly mounted in fluid channels (col. 7, II. 50-58, see fig. 13) with a clearance fit (as they are floating) allowing displacement and rotation for self-alignment relative to the valve core (as they are floating).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Magna by having the sleeve-shaped retaining body floatingly mounted in the fluid channel with a clearance fit as taught by Sisk in order to accommodate minor imperfections and misalignment of the valve member (see col. 7, II. 50-58 of Sisk).
Regarding claim 16, Magna as modified discloses the claimed invention and while Magna does disclose the sealing member as being movable in the channel (see para. 13), Magna does not appear to disclose the sleeve-shaped retaining body floatingly mounted in the fluid channel for displacement via deformation of the curved sealing contour and open space.
Sisk teaches it was known in the art to have a rotary valve with sleeve-type sealing members (176, 178) that are floatingly mounted in fluid channels (col. 7, II. 50-58, see fig. 13) with a clearance fit (as they are floating) allowing displacement and rotation for self-alignment relative to the valve core (as they are floating).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Magna by having the sleeve-shaped retaining body floatingly mounted in the fluid channel with a clearance fit as taught by Sisk in order to accommodate minor imperfections and misalignment of the valve member (see col. 7, II. 50-58 of Sisk).
To the extent that applicant recites “for displacement via deformation of the curved sealing contour and open space” (and as best understood), this is seen to be an intended use that has not been given patentable weight. Magna as modified above is capable of displacement by deformation.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magna in view of Kashiwagi as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Oikawa et al. (U.S. 9,567,894).
Magna as modified discloses the claimed invention and does disclose the sealing body being movably slidable in the channel (para. 13). However, Magna is unclear as to whether the sealing body slidingly bears against an inner surface of the fluid channel.
Oikawa teaches it was known in the art to have a similar sealing member that contacts an inner surface of a channel (seal 77 has protrusions at 79 that contact an inner surface of a channel, see fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Magna by having the sealing body slidingly bear against the channel as taught by Oikawa in order to provide better sealing between the sealing member and the channel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claim 6, the seal of Magna is a two-piece construct of two different materials (plastic for DK per paragraph 13, and elastic material for DK per paragraph 14). Due to this two-piece construction, and DR performing the function of both sealing and providing a biasing force on DK (see para. 14), it is not seen to be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify DK/DR to be formed in one piece (i.e. a unitary, formed from a single piece of material component). Regarding claim 11, Magna or Magna as modified is not seen to disclose the shape as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R REID whose telephone number is (313)446-4859. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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. Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607, or Ken 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MICHAEL R REID/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights