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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendment and RCE dated 6/10/2026. By way of amendment, claims 1, 3-15, and 18-20 remain pending. The previous claim objection has been withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment. This action is Non-Final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/1/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Final Rejection on 3/11/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: component to be detected in claim 15, corresponding in structure to a magnetic element per paragraph 36; and detector in claim 15, corresponding in structure to a hall element per paragraph 56.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Romanchik et al. (U.S. 5,273,073).
Romanchik discloses a control valve, wherein the control valve is provided with an accommodation chamber (within 12), and the control valve comprises a valve body (12) and a valve core (24), the valve body comprises a side wall portion (the radially inward facing wall(s) of 12), the side wall portion forms at least a part of a peripheral wall of the accommodation chamber and is provided with at least four communication ports (14, 16, 18, 20), wherein at least a part of the valve core is located inside the accommodation chamber and is rotatable (figs. 1-4), and the valve core is provided with a first communication chamber (27), the valve core has at least a first position (fig. 4) and a second position (fig. 2), wherein, when the valve core is at the first position, the first communication chamber is configured to communicate at least two of the communication ports (fig. 4, 14 and 18), and when the valve core is at at least one of the first position and the second position, at least a part of a wall portion that forms the first communication chamber closes at least another one of the communication ports (16 is closed), the valve core comprises two first partitions (see at least Details A and B in the annotated figure below), the two first partitions form two side walls of the first communication chamber, and the two first partitions forms the at least the part of the wall portion (see the annotated figure below and figures 1-4), the first communication chamber is provided with two first openings (fig. 4, 27 has an opening leading to 14 and an opening leading to 18) at a peripheral side of the valve core, when the valve core is at the first position, one of the two first openings is in communication with at least one of the communication ports, and the other one of the two first openings is in communication with at least another one of the communication ports (fig. 4), and when the valve core is at the second position of the valve core (fig. 2), one of the two first openings is in communication with one of the communication ports (the larger opening of 27 is in communication with 20), and the other one of the two first openings is arranged staggeredly from any others of the communication ports (see the smaller of the two openings for 27 not being in communication with any port in fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
735
752
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Romanchik further discloses wherein at least a part of the communication ports are arranged along a circumferential direction of the side wall portion (figs. 1-4), the valve core is provided with M communication chambers (25, 27), and each of the communication chambers is configured to communicate with at least two of the communication ports (figs. 1-4), in at least some of the operation modes of the control valve, the control valve has N flow paths (see the various flow paths in figs. 1-4), totaling N number), and each of the flow paths comprises one of the M communication chambers and at least two communication ports in communication with the one of the M communication chambers (figs. 1-4), wherein M and both M and N are positive integers, in at least one of the operation modes of the control valve, M>N (fig. 2, M totals two (25 and 27) and there is only one flow path, between 16 and 14), and a total number of the communication ports of the N flow paths is less than a total number of all of the communication ports on the side wall portion (fig. 2, two communication ports in fluid communication is less than the four total communication ports).
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) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romanchik in view of Chen et al. (U.S. 4,904,245) and Makihara et al. (U.S. 5,983,937).
Romanchik discloses the claimed structure and further discloses wherein the main body of the valve core is of a cylinder structure (see figs. 2-4), the valve core is of a one-piece structure (24 is shown as a single piece), and the valve core comprises a valve core shaft (26, 28).
Romanchik does not appear to disclose the one-piece structure made by injection molding or a component to be detected and a detector, the component to be detected is located at an end of the valve core shaft and is fixedly connected to the valve core shaft, and the detector is configured to cooperate with the element to be detected to detect a position of the valve core.
To the extent that the applicant recites the limitation of injection molding, this is viewed as a product-by-process claim and has not been given patentable weight; however, the limitation is seen to require the material of the core to be capable of being injection molded.
Chen teaches it was known in the art to have a similar valve core (34) that is a one-piece structure made by injection molding (figs. 5-10, see col. 2, ll. 33-34 describing the core being made of plastic that is molded which is seen to be capable of being injection molded).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Romanchik by having the core be made of plastic that is able to be injection molded as taught by Chen in order to have the material of the core be of a relatively inexpensive, easy to acquire and manufacture material and especially as it has been held that the 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.
Makihara teaches it was known in the art to have a similar rotary valve (8) with a shaft (108) that is part of the rotary valve and a component to be detected (20) and a detector (ECU 21), the component to be detected is located at an end of the valve core shaft and is fixedly connected to the valve core shaft (fig. 3, connected at 8c, see also col. 7, ll. 6-9), and the detector is configured to cooperate with the element to be detected to detect a position of the valve core (col. 7, ll. 6-9, 17-25).
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 rotary valve of Romanchik by having a shaft for the core and a position detector located at the end of the shaft and fixedly connected to the shaft as taught by Makihara in order to be able to detect the position of the valve so that the various flow paths can be determined and changed if so desired by a user to connect the various ports and allow fluid communication amongst the different downstream and/or upstream components.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-14, and 18-20 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.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the previous art rejections of record for claims 4-6 and 18-19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
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