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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-20 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. Applicant’s newly added arguments regarding (1) sealing surface adjacent the valve seat, (2) an opening that extends through the sealing surface and the valve seat, and (3) a filter coupled to the valve seat. The amendment to Stern, as applied below, meets these newly added claim limitations.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stern US 7080817 (“Stern”).
Regarding Claim 1, Stern discloses a filter component (14, body 14, sealing surface 56, and filter 32, see fig. 1) comprising: a vale seat (14, 56); a sealing surface (58) adjacent to the valve seat (14, 56) and configured to sealingly engage a valve stem (20); an opening (38, 58, 60) that extends through the sealing surface (58) and valve seat (14, 56); a filter (32) coupled to the valve seat (14, 56) and configured to remove contaminants from a stream of fluid (from inlet to outlet, see fig. 1); and a conduit seat (recess in valve seat 14 that retains fluid conduit 26, ann. fig. 4) configured to secure a fluid conduit (26) in alignment with the opening (38, 58, 60), wherein the fluid conduit (26) is configured to be coupled to a downstream component (user device housing 72, see ann. fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
307
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
STERN – ANNOTATED FIGURE 4
Regarding Claim 2, Stern discloses the filter (32) is configured to prevent contaminants from engaging the sealing surface (58).
Regarding Claim 3, Stern discloses the filter (32) is positioned between (fig. 2 illustrates a plan view of the sealing surface 58 with respect to the sealing assembly 12) the sealing surface (58) and a sealing assembly (12, solenoid actuator body) configured to direct the stream of fluid (from inlet to outlet, see fig. 1) through the filter (32).
Regarding Claims 8 and 17, Stern discloses the filter (32) is configured to prevent contaminants from blocking or damaging the downstream component (user device housing 72, see ann. fig. 4).
Regarding Claims 9 and 18, Stern discloses the filter (32) is configured to prevent contaminants from blocking or damaging an orifice (78) of the downstream component (user device housing 72, see ann. fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 10, Stern discloses the filter component (14, body 14, sealing surface 56, and filter 32) is a consumable part that is replaceable (filter component 14 is screwed into actuator 64 and valve stem 20 body).
Regarding Claim 11, Stern discloses a filter component (14, body 14, seat 56, and filter 32) comprising: a filter (32) configured to be positioned between (fig. 2 illustrates a plan view of the sealing surface 58 with respect to the sealing assembly 12) a sealing surface (58) of a valve seat (14, 56) and a sealing assembly (16, diaphragm peripheral edge seals the actuator 64 from the fluid flow), wherein the filter (32) is configured to remove contaminants from a stream of fluid (from inlet to outlet), and the filter (32) is coupled to the valve seat (14, 56).
Regarding Claim 12, Stern discloses the filter (32) is configured to prevent contaminants from engaging the sealing surface (60) of the valve seat (14, 56).
Regarding Claim 13, Stern discloses the filter (32) is configured to prevent contaminants from blocking or damaging an orifice (78) of a downstream component (user device housing 72, see ann. fig. 4).
Regarding Claims 14 and 19, Stern discloses the filter (32) includes a plurality of perforations (filter screen), and the orifice (78) of the downstream component (user device housing 72, see ann. fig. 4) has a diameter that is equal to or greater than a diameter of each of the plurality of perforations (perforation in a filter screen)(see ann. fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 15, Stern discloses a filter component (14, body 14, sealing surface 56, and filter 32) comprising: a sealing surface (58) configured to sealingly engage a valve stem (20); an entry (60) formed in the sealing surface (58) that is in flow communication with an opening (inlet opening, fig. 1) extending through the filter component (14, body 14, sealing surface 56, and filter 32); and a filter (32) configured to remove contaminants from a stream of fluid (from inlet to outlet, fig. 1), and the filter (32) coupled to the valve seat (14, 56), which is adjacent to the sealing surface (58); wherein the valve stem (20) is movable through a cavity of the filter (filter 32 is located at the inlets, the inlet ports are located radially around the perimeter of filter component 14; thus, a cavity in the filter is located within the perimeter of filter component 14), the valve stem (20) is configured to be engageable with the sealing surface (58) to prevent the stream of fluid from flowing through the entry (60) formed in the sealing surface (58), the valve stem (20) is configured to be disengageable (fig. 1) from the sealing surface (58) to allow the stream of fluid to flow through the entry (60) formed in the sealing surface (58), and the filter (32) is configured to prevent contaminants in the stream of fluid from damaging the sealing surface (58) and the valve stem (60).
Regarding Claim 16, Stern discloses a conduit seat (recess in valve seat 14 that retains fluid conduit 26, ann. fig. 4) configured to secure a fluid conduit (26) in alignment with the opening (60), wherein the fluid conduit (26) is configured to be coupled to a downstream component (user device housing 72, see ann. fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 20, Stern discloses the filter (32) comprises an annular wall (filter 32 is located at the inlets, the inlet ports are located radially around the perimeter of filter component 14; thus, a cavity in the filter is an annular wall around filter component 14) through which a plurality of perforations extend.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stern US 7080817 (“Stern”).
Regarding Claim 4, Stern discloses the claimed invention except for the filter (32) is formed integrally with the filter component.. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a filter that is formed integrally with a filter component, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993). Please note that in the instant application, para 0023, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding Claim 5, Stern discloses the claimed invention except for the filter (32) is removably coupled to the filter component. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a filter that is a separate and removably coupled to a filter component, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993). Please note that in the instant application, para 0023, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding Claim 6, Stern discloses the filter (32) includes a plurality of perforations extending therethrough. Stern discloses the claimed invention, except each of a plurality of perforations has a diameter of between approximately 0.001 inches and approximately 0.010 inches. The limitations of Claim 6 are seen as an obvious design choice in accordance with MPEP 2144.04. Please note that in the instant application, para 0024, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. It would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the size of perforations for the purpose of using a filter sized to the valve, type of fines in the fluid, and used in the specific system.
Regarding Claim 7, Stern discloses the filter (32) includes a plurality of perforations extending therethrough. Stern discloses the claimed invention, except a plurality of perforations comprises between approximately 250 and approximately 600 perforations. . The limitations of Claim 7 are seen as an obvious design choice in accordance with MPEP 2144.04. Please note that in the instant application, para 0025, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. It would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the number of perforations for the purpose of using a filter appropriate to the valve, type of fines in the fluid, and used in the specific system.
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 Daphne Barry whose telephone number is (571)272-9966 and fax number is (571) 273-9966. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 9 AM-6 PM (eastern).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor either 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/DAPHNE M BARRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights