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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendment dated 5/11/2026. The priority documents were received on 2/24/2026. The previous drawing objection has been withdrawn due to the replacement figures submitted on5/11/2026. The previous 112 rejection has been withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment. Claims 1-7 and 10-14 are pending. Claim 14 is newly presented. Any new ground(s) of rejection have been made due to applicant’s amendment. This action is Final.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 102 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Toto Ltd (JPH0246378)(supplied by the applicant in the IDS dated 8/21/2024).
Toto discloses a valve, comprising a valve housing (40) with a valve chamber (within 40), wherein the valve chamber has a chamber wall (the walls that define the chamber and in which the valve “V” is located) into which at least one fluid channel opens (see the channels along where numerals 16 and 17 are located in fig. 2, additionally below numeral 23 in fig. 2), wherein a valve core (V) is mounted in the valve chamber, wherein the valve core is provided with a channel structure (41, 42) which interacts with the fluid channel, wherein a seal (16 and/or 17) is allocated to the fluid channel, the seal having a sleeve-shaped retaining body (the elongated portion where the lead lines for numerals 16 and 17 are located), wherein the retaining body is arranged in the fluid channel (fig. 2), wherein a sealing body (the radially inward portion that is located closer to the valve core V) is arranged on one end face of the retaining body (fig. 2), and wherein the sealing body has a curved sealing contour which points in the direction of the valve core (the surface area that contacts the valve core V, which will have a curved contour that matches the curved contour of the cylindrical valve core, especially due to the deformation of the sealing member at the area of contact with the valve core and taking a complementary curved shape in order to provide the sealing effect between the seal and valve core), wherein a free end of the sealing body points in the direction of the chamber wall (see the left facing surface of 16 at Detail A in the annotated figure below contacting the channel structure that forms part of the chamber wall) and bears against a radially facing interior surface of the chamber wall (see the left facing surface of 16 at Detail A in the annotated figure above contacting the channel structure that forms part of the chamber wall).
PNG
media_image1.png
578
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Toto further discloses wherein the sealing body is bent in a collar-shaped manner (see the bent area at Detail A in the annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 3, Toto 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 area of Detail B in the annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 6, Toto further discloses wherein the seal is formed in one piece (see the seal being one piece in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Toto further discloses wherein the valve core is floatingly mounted in the fluid channel (fig. 2, and in the same manner as the applicant’s device).
Regarding claim 11, Toto further discloses wherein the sealing body is bent in an S-shaped manner between the free end and the U-shaped section (see the section of the sealing body leading from the lead line at Detail A to the area of Detail B, starting from the top left, the sealing body swoops down and to the right to the U-shaped section in the same manner as the applicant’s sealing body and especially as the limitation of “S-shaped manner” is broad and subjective).
In the event that applicant is not convinced that the above area of the sealing body is “bent in an S-shaped manner”, 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 sealing body area of Toto by having curvature in the directional transition portions such that it is bent in an “S-shaped manner”, since it has been held that a change in shape of a component generally involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.04. The motivation for doing so would be to have a functionally similar seal that provides for more gradual transitions that are less prone to snagging.
Regarding claim 12, Toto further discloses the valve formed as a rotary valve, wherein the valve core is rotatably mounted in the valve chamber (see claim 1 found on page 1 of the 9 page document submitted by the applicant).
Regarding claim 13, Toto further discloses the valve 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, see claim 1 found on page 1 of the 9 page document submitted by the applicant).
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) 1-3, 6, and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toto in view of Oikawa et al. (U.S. 9,567,894).
Regarding claim 1, in the event that applicant is not convinced that Toto discloses the sealing body having a curved sealing contour, Oikawa teaches it was known in the art to have a seal (77) that has a curved sealing contour that contacts a rotary valve member (at 80, 81 in 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 modify the sealing body of Toto by having the sealing body have a curved sealing contour that points in the direction of and contacts the valve core as taught by Oikawa in order to provide a greater surface contact area that more closely matches the curvature of the rotary member to provide a better seal.
Regarding claim 2, Toto as modified further discloses wherein the sealing body is bent in a collar-shaped manner (see the bent area at Detail A in the annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 3, Toto 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 area of Detail B in the annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 6, Toto as modified further discloses wherein the seal is formed in one piece (see the seal being one piece in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Toto as modified further discloses wherein the valve core is floatingly mounted in the fluid channel (fig. 2, and in the same manner as the applicant’s device).
Regarding claim 11, Toto as modified further discloses wherein the sealing body is bent in an S-shaped manner between the free end and the U-shaped section (see the section of the sealing body leading from the lead line at Detail A to the area of Detail B, starting from the top left, the sealing body swoops down and to the right to the U-shaped section in the same manner as the applicant’s sealing body and especially as the limitation of “S-shaped manner” is broad and subjective).
Regarding claim 12, Toto as modified further discloses the valve formed as a rotary valve, wherein the valve core is rotatably mounted in the valve chamber (see claim 1 found on page 1 of the 9 page document submitted by the applicant).
Regarding claim 13, Toto as modified further discloses the valve 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, see claim 1 found on page 1 of the 9 page document submitted by the applicant).
Claim(s) 4-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toto in view of Scaramucci (U.S. 9,328,828).
Regarding claims 4-5 and 7, Toto discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose the seal formed from a dimensionally stable plastic, a tough-hard plastic (claim 5), or a thermoplastic (claim 7). Per paragraph 39 (and paragraph 13) of the applicant’s specification, this material is described as being either polypropylene or polyamide.
Scaramucci teaches it was known in the art to have a seal that is made of polypropylene (col. 4, ll. 25-26).
As applicant’s specification describes polypropylene as being an exemplary material that is dimensionally stable and a thermoplastic (and is also a tough-hard plastic example per paragraph 13 of the applicant’s specification), and Scaramucci teaches it was known in the art to use polypropylene for a seal in a valve assembly, 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 Toto 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) 4-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toto in view of Oikawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Scaramucci.
Regarding claims 4-5 and 7, Toto as modified discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose the seal formed from a dimensionally stable plastic, a tough-hard plastic (claim 5), or a thermoplastic (claim 7). Per paragraph 39 (and paragraph 13) of the applicant’s specification, this material is described as being either polypropylene or polyamide.
Scaramucci teaches it was known in the art to have a seal that is made of polypropylene (col. 4, ll. 25-26).
As applicant’s specification describes polypropylene as being an exemplary material that is dimensionally stable and a thermoplastic (and is also a tough-hard plastic example per paragraph 13 of the applicant’s specification), and Scaramucci teaches it was known in the art to use polypropylene for a seal in a valve assembly, 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 Toto 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toto in view of Sisk et al. (U.S. 6,698,452).
Toto discloses the claimed invention but 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, ll. 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 modify Toto 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, ll. 50-58 of Sisk).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toto in view of Oikawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sisk.
Toto as modified discloses the claimed invention but 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, ll. 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 Toto 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, ll. 50-58 of Sisk).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 6, the applicant argues that Toto does not disclose a sealing body having a free end bearing against a radially facing interior surface of the chamber wall as the fluid channels are inset from the chamber wall of the valve and the ends of the sealing contour rest against an end surface of the channel. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As described in the rejection, the chamber wall is the walls that define the chamber and in which the valve “V” is located. This includes the radially inner wall of 40 and the radially inner walls of the conduits, as they together form the walls that define the chamber in which the valve “V” is located”. Further, as shown in Detail A in the annotated figure above, the sealing body has a free end that points in the direction of the chamber wall (to the left in fig. 2 of Toto, which contacts the channel structure that forms part of the chamber wall) and bears against a radially facing interior surface of the chamber wall (the left facing surface of 16 at Detail A in the annotated figure contacting the channel structure that forms part of the chamber wall).
For at least the above reason(s), applicant’s arguments have not been found persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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