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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A: Figures 2b-2h, drawn to a 6-port valve and Species (i): Figure 2a, drawn to a Y-shaped valve channel valve core in the reply filed on 1/2/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4 and 16 are withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected species. Claims 4 and 16 recite the flow channels being generally T-shaped. This is directed to non-elected species (ii), represented by Figure 6a, which is the T-shaped channel valve core. As such, claims 4 and 16 are withdrawn.
Claims 4 and 16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/2/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) dated 9/4/2024 and 1/2/2026 have been received and considered.
It is noted that only one (1) foreign reference is listed in the IDS dated 9/4/2024. However, five (5) foreign references appear in the file wrapper dated 9/4/2024.
Unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, references not listed on the IDSs have not been considered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnston (U.S. 3,927,693).
Johnston discloses a valve core (28) for adjusting fluid flow in a multi-port valve assembly having a valve body defining a valve seat (intended use in the preamble which has not been given patentable weight), the valve core comprising: a valve plug (28) defining two or more flow channels (30, 31, 32) configured to facilitate fluid flow between two or more channel ports (see the five ports shown in figs. 2-4; however, it is noted this is intended use as the claim is only directed to the valve core and the core is seen to be capable of facilitating flow through any number of ports), wherein the valve plug is configured to rotate within the valve seat about an axis of rotation between a first position and a second position (see figs. 2-4); and a valve stem (stem and handle 15) extending outwardly from the valve plug.
Regarding claim 2, Johnston further discloses wherein each of the two or more flow channels is configured to facilitate fluid flow between three channel ports (the openings for 30, 31, 32).
Regarding claim 3, Johnston further discloses wherein at least one of the two or more flow channels is generally Y-shaped (see figs. 2-4).
Regarding claim 5, Johnston further discloses wherein the valve core is configured to adjust fluid flow in a multi-port valve assembly having four ports (see the five ports shown in figs. 2-4; however, it is noted this is intended use as the claim is only directed to the valve core and the core is seen to be capable of facilitating flow through any number of ports).
Regarding claim 6, Johnston further discloses wherein the valve core is configured to adjust fluid flow in a multi-port valve assembly having five ports see the five ports shown in figs. 2-4; however, it is noted this is intended use as the claim is only directed to the valve core and the core is seen to be capable of facilitating flow through any number of ports).
Regarding claim 7, Johnston further discloses wherein the valve core is configured to adjust fluid flow in a multi-port valve assembly having six ports (this is intended use as the claim is only directed to the valve core and the core is seen to be capable of facilitating flow through any number of ports, including six ports).
Regarding claim 8, Johnston discloses a multi-port valve assembly for adjusting fluid flow, the multi-port valve assembly comprising: a valve body (22) defining a valve seat (the radially inward wall that contacts 28) fluidly coupled to each of a plurality of ports (23, 24, 24, 26, 26), wherein the plurality of ports comprises a first port (such as 23, 24, or 26), a second port (another of 23, 24, or 26), a third port (another of 23, 24, or 26), and a fourth port (another of 23, 24, or 26, as there are five total ports shown, four of the five ports being the “first port”, “second port”, “third port”, and “fourth port”); and a valve core (28) having a valve plug (28) and a valve stem (stem and handle 15) extending outwardly from the valve plug, wherein the valve plug defines two or more flow channels (30, 31, 32), and wherein the valve plug is configured to rotate within the valve seat about an axis of rotation between a first position and a second position to redirect or throttle a flow rate between two or more of the plurality of ports via the two or more flow channels (figs. 2-4).
Regarding claim 9, Johnston further discloses wherein the plurality of ports further comprises a fifth port (see the five ports shown in figs. 2-4).
Regarding claim 14, Johnston further discloses wherein each of the two or more flow channels is configured to facilitate fluid flow between three channel ports (30, 31, 32) formed in the valve plug.
Regarding claim 15, Johnston further discloses wherein at least one of the two or more flow channels is generally Y-shaped (figs. 2-4).
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) 10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston in view of Merrell (U.S. 2008/0223464).
Johnston discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose wherein the plurality of ports comprise a sixth port.
However, Merrell teaches it was known to have a multi-way valve that can alternatively have three, four, five (like the five ports of Johnston), or six ports (see para. 63).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnston such that the valve body has six ports as Merrell teaches it was known to alternatively have a three, four, five, or six port multi-way valve and an additional port can provide for an additional connection to another device to allow fluid control to, such as another filter (like the filters 14a-d of Johnston).
Regarding claim 13, Johnston as modified further discloses wherein the valve plug is configured to rotate within the valve seat between the first position and the second position via one or more intermediate positions that throttle flow rate (see the positions in figs. 2-4, notice especially fig. 3 showing an intermediate position when ports 23, 26, and 26 are partially open).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 are 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: claim 11 requires the first port to be coupled to two of the six ports and another of the six ports to be coupled to the remaining two ports in a first position. In other words, one of the ports fluidly connected to two ports and another of the ports fluidly connected to two ports, all in the same position. This implicitly requires an additional flow channel within the core in order to provide the two fluid communications, one being for three of the ports that are fluidly connected and the other being for the other three of the ports of the six port multi-way valve. Johnston is not seen to fairly disclose or teach and it is not seen to be obvious to modify Johnston in order to arrive at claim 11 as this would be a substantial redesign.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Leibinsohn (U.S. 3,678,960) discloses a stop cock with a plug having a Y-shaped fluid passage and the housing having 4 ports.
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