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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Examiner-Initiated Interview
In a telephonic interview with attorney Mehta [67352] on 16 September 2025, the examiner contacted attorney Mehta to clarify which of the claim sets submitted on 06 September 2024 and 31 December 2024 the applicant wished to have examined. Attorney Mehta confirmed that the applicant wishes to pursue the amended claim set "B" filed on 06 September 2024 which includes 17 claims and are amended to be written in the United States standard. See the attached interview summary for more details.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following limitations must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
---Claim 14. A cooling system of a motor vehicle, comprising a fluid valve according to claim 1.
---Claim 15. A motor vehicle comprising a cooling system according to claim 14.
---Claim 16. A cooling system of a battery electric passenger motor vehicle comprising a fluid valve according to claim 1.
---Claim 17. A motor vehicle comprising a fluid valve according to claim 1.
Claims 14-17 requires the limitations of “a cooling system”, “a motor vehicle” and “a battery electric passenger motor vehicle”, however, notice that the drawings at best simply shows a multi-way valve which may be used for routing fluid coolant in a coolant circuit/system of a motor vehicle, however, there are no details of the cooling circuit/system or the motor vehicle.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because:
---In Fig. 3, at the upper portion shows the reference numbers “41a, 53” and at a lower portion it shows the reference number “53” pointing at a different component than the one being pointed at by reference numbers “41a, 53”. It is noted that Fig. 4 at the upper portion uses the reference numbers “41a, 43”. This leads to the assumption that Fig. 3 “41a, 53” is a typo and it should be amended to “41a, 43” in a similar manner as shown in Fig. 4.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 12, 14-17 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
---Claim 12 L2 recites “the inner circumferential face” should be “an inner circumferential face” since there is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation.
---Claim 14 L2 recite “a fluid valve according to claim 1” when it should be “the fluid valve according to claim 1” since intervening claim 1 already recites this limitation.
---Claim 15 L2 recite “a cooling system according to claim 14” when it should be “the cooling system according to claim 14” since intervening claim 14 already recites this limitation.
---Claim 16 L1-2 recite “a fluid valve according to claim 1” when it should be “the fluid valve according to claim 1” since intervening claim 1 already recites this limitation.
---Claim 17 L1 recite “a fluid valve according to claim 1” when it should be “the fluid valve according to claim 1” since intervening claim 1 already recites this limitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 13-17 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 13 recites the following:
“13. The fluid valve according to claim 1, wherein the elastic seal has a more elastic material than a material of the sliding seal.”.
The way the claim is written, it makes it unclear if the applicant is attempting to claim that the elastic seal has “more elastic material” in the sense of size/volume “than a material of the sliding seal” or if the elastic seal has “more elastic material” in the sense of elasticity or elastic-properties “than a material of the sliding seal”. Based on the disclosure, it appears that the applicant is attempting to claim that “the elastic seal has more elasticity than a material of the sliding seal”. The Office suggests that the claim is amended to clarify the claimed invention.
---Claim 14 recites the following:
“14. A cooling system of a motor vehicle, comprising a fluid valve according to claim 1.”.
It is noted that intervening claim 1 L1 already recites “A fluid valve for a coolant circuit of a motor vehicle”. Due to the lack of support from the drawings and the way the dependent claim is written, it makes it unclear and indefinite if the latter recited limitation of “a coolant system” is the same or related to the previously recited limitation of “a cooling circuit” or if they are distinct. It is further noted that it is unclear and indefinite if the latter recitation of “a motor vehicle” of claim 14 is the same as the previous recitation of intervening claim 1 or if they are distinct. Based on the disclosure, it is possible that the coolant circuit and the coolant system are the same or related to each other and the “motor vehicle” are the same limitation. However, assuming that they are the same, these limitations also trigger 112d rejections since these limitations are already recited in intervening claim 1 and as such, dependent claim 14 fails to further narrow the limitations of the claim from which it depends on.
---Claim 15 recites the following:
“15. A motor vehicle comprising a cooling system according to claim 14.”.
Similar to the rejection of claim 14 above, intervening claims 14 and 1 already recites the limitation of “a motor vehicle” which makes it is unclear and indefinite if the latter recitation of “a motor vehicle” of claim 15 is the same as those previously recited in intervening claim 1 and/or 14 or if they are distinct. Based on the disclosure, it appears that the limitation of “motor vehicle” are the same limitations in claims 1, 14 and 15. However, assuming that they are the same, these limitations also trigger 112d rejections since these limitations are already recited in intervening claim 1 and 14 and as such, dependent claim 15 fails to further narrow the limitations of the claim from which it depends on.
---Claim 16 recites the following:
“16. A cooling system of a battery electric passenger motor vehicle comprising a fluid valve according to claim 1.”.
It is noted that intervening claim 1 L1 already recites “A fluid valve for a coolant circuit of a motor vehicle”. Due to the lack of support from the drawings and the way the dependent claim is written, it makes it unclear and indefinite if the latter recited limitation of “a coolant system” is the same or related to the previously recited limitation of “a cooling circuit” or if they are distinct. It is further noted that it is unclear and indefinite if the latter recitation of “a battery electric passenger motor vehicle” of claim 16 is the same or related to the previous recitation of intervening claim 1 “a motor vehicle” or if they are distinct. Based on the disclosure, it is possible that the coolant circuit and the coolant system are the same or related to each other and the “battery electric passenger motor vehicle” and “motor vehicle” are the same limitation. However, assuming that they are the same, these limitations also trigger 112d rejections since these limitations are already recited in intervening claim 1 and as such, dependent claim 16 fails to further narrow the limitations of the claim from which it depends on.
---Claim 17 recites the following:
“Claim 17. A motor vehicle comprising a fluid valve according to claim 1.”.
Similar to the rejection of claims 14 and 16 above, intervening claim 1 already recites the limitation of “a motor vehicle” which makes it is unclear and indefinite if the latter recitation of “a motor vehicle” of claim 17 is the same as the one previously recited in intervening claim 1 or if they are distinct. Based on the disclosure, it appears that the limitation of “motor vehicle” are the same limitations in claims 1 and 17. However, assuming that they are the same, these limitations also trigger 112d rejections since these limitations are already recited in intervening claim 1 and as such, dependent claim 17 fails to further narrow the limitations of the claim from which it depends on.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
---As it was noted in the 112b rejections of claim 14-17 above, claims 14-17 appears to claim the same limitations as those already recited in intervening claims 1 and 14 which fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-10 and 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rozputniak US-11835155 in view of Hattass EP-4083480.
Rozputniak US-11835155 teaches in Figs. 1-4 (see at least Fig. 1) of a rotary ball valve assembly comprising at least a rotatable ball valve body 200 within a valve housing 100 and a sealing arrangement comprising at least an L-shaped sliding seal 20 that seals against the ball valve body and an elastic seal 30 that capable of deforming and biasing the sliding seal towards the ball valve body similar to applicant’s general invention. It is noted that Rozputniak mentions that the valve can be a multi-way cooling water regulating valve of a vehicle, the device of Rozputniak fails to explicitly shows that the valve housing has a plurality of flow channels as claimed. However, multi-way valves used for cooling system of vehicles are well-known in the art.
Hattass EP-4083480 teaches in Figs. 1-9 (see at least Figs. 6-9) of a rotary four-way valve 100 used for regulating the flow of fluid coolant of a coolant system to cool the battery cells of an electrically driven vehicle with valve comprising a housing (115, 155) having at least four ports 123 with each port having a sealing arrangement for sealing the rotary valve. As it is known in the art, the use of multiple ports to create multi-way valves such as a four-way valve allows for greater fluid control using a single valve.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was effectively filed to modify the valve of Rozputniak US-11835155 to be a multi-way valve having a housing with a plurality of ports each one having identical sealing arrangements for sealing the rotatable valve body in a similar manner as taught by the four-way valve of Hattass EP-4083480 since such a modification is known method of providing a multi-way valves such as a four-way valve capable of regulating the flow of fluid coolant of a coolant system in a motor vehicle’s thermal management system which allows for greater fluid control using a single valve.
As such, the device of the combination of Rozputniak US-11835155 in view of Hattass EP-4083480 teaches the limitations of:
---Claim 1. A fluid valve (see the rotary ball valve assembly of at least Fig. 1 of Rozputniak as modified to be a four-way valve as taught by Hattass) for a coolant circuit of a motor vehicle (the limitations of “for a coolant circuit of a motor vehicle” in the preamble are being treated as an “intended use” of the device since said limitations in the preamble merely states that the valve is intended to be used for a coolant circuit of a motor vehicle and has no significance to claim construction. See MPEP 2111.02. As such these limitations were not given patentable weight. It is further noted that both Rozputniak and Hattass teaches of using the valves as a multi-way coolant regulating valves of cooling system/circuit of a vehicle and as such the device of the combination is capable of being used for this application), comprising: a valve body (200 of Rozputniak) arranged rotatably in a valve housing (100 of Rozputniak as modified by Hattass to include 3 other identical ports to the one shown in Fig. 1 of Rozputniak creating a four-way valve in a similar manner as taught by Hattass), wherein the valve housing has a plurality of flow channels (see at least Fig. 1, see the flow channel within housing 100 of Rozputniak that fluidly connects to valve 200, see also at least Figs. 6-9 of Hattass showing a housing defining at least four ports to form a four-way valve with each port/channel having identical sealing arrangements) and a sealing arrangement (see at least 20 and 30 of Rozputniak) is provided between each of the flow channels and the valve body, wherein the sealing arrangement comprises a sliding seal (20 of Rozputniak) and an elastic seal (30 of Rozputniak), wherein the elastic seal is arranged between the valve housing and the sliding seal in such a way that the sliding seal is tensioned against the valve body (see at least C4 L1-30 of Rozputniak, 30 is elastically deformable and capable of biasing 20 into sealing engagement), wherein the sliding seal has an L-shaped cross section with a support flange (21, 22 of Rozputniak) and a pipeline section (23 of Rozputniak), wherein the pipeline section delimits a fluid channel in an annular manner and the support flange extends radially outwards beyond an outer circumference of the pipeline section (see at least Figs. 1-2 of Rozputniak).
---Claim 2. The fluid valve according to Claim 1, wherein the support flange has, on an annular face which faces the pipeline section, an annular groove for radially securing the elastic seal (see the rearward portion of 21 of Rozputniak having a annular groove that receives a portion of 30 in a similar manner as applicant’s invention).
---Claim 7. The fluid valve according to claim 1, wherein the support flange has a radial outer circumferential face supported against the valve housing (see 22 of Rozputniak).
---Claim 8. The fluid valve according to claim 1, wherein the elastic seal surrounds the pipeline section in an annular manner (see Fig. 1 of Rozputniak).
---Claim 9. The fluid valve according to claim 1, wherein the elastic seal has a predetermined bending point (see at least Fig. 2-3 of Rozputniak notice that 30 is shaped to allow it to elastically bend in a similar manner as applicant’s invention).
---Claim 10. The fluid valve according to Claim 9, wherein, in order to form the predetermined bending point, the elastic seal has, on an inner circumferential face, an annularly encircling depression and/or, on an outer circumferential face, an annularly encircling curvature (see at least Fig. 2-3 of Rozputniak notice that 30 is shaped to have a curvature to allow it to elastically bend in a similar manner as applicant’s invention).
---Claim 12. The fluid valve according to claim 1, wherein the inner circumferential face of the elastic seal widens conically at an end which faces away from the support flange and towards the valve housing (see at least Fig. 2-3 of Rozputniak).
---Claim 13. The fluid valve according to claim 1, wherein the elastic seal has a more elastic material than a material of the sliding seal (as best understood by the Office, at least claim 5 of Rozputniak mentions that the intermediate piece 30 is an elastomer such as EPDM and the seal element 20 is a hard sealing material such as PTFE. As it is known in the art, Ethylene Propylene Diene M-class rubber, EPDM, is an elastomer with a Young’s modulus around 6 MPa, whereas Polytetrafluoroethylene, PTFE/Teflon, is a thermoplastic with a Young’s modulus of around 575 MPa. A high Young’s modulus indicates high material stiffness and a low Young’s modulus indicates low stiffness, which in turn means that EPDM has more elasticity or is more elastic than PTFE).
---Claim 14. A cooling system of a motor vehicle, comprising a fluid valve according to claim 1 (as best understood by the Office, Rozputniak and Hattass teaches of using the valves as a multi-way coolant regulating valves of cooling system/circuit of a motor vehicle. Also, the Office notes that this claim limitation appears to simply reiterate that the fluid valve as claimed in claim 1 is being used in a cooling system/circuit of a motor vehicle. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations, see MPEP 2114 II.).
---Claim 15. A motor vehicle comprising a cooling system according to claim 14 (as best understood by the Office, Rozputniak and Hattass teaches of using the valves as a multi-way coolant regulating valves of cooling system/circuit of a motor vehicle. Also, the Office notes that this claim limitation appears to simply reiterate that the fluid valve as claimed in claim 1 is being used in a cooling system/circuit of a motor vehicle. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations, see MPEP 2114 II.).
---Claim 16. A cooling system of a battery electric passenger motor vehicle comprising a fluid valve according to claim 1 (as best understood by the Office, Rozputniak and Hattass teaches of using the valves as a multi-way coolant regulating valves of cooling system/circuit of a motor vehicle, with Hattass mentioning that the multi-way valve is used for regulating the flow of fluid coolant of a coolant system to cool the battery cells of an electrically driven vehicle. Also, the Office notes that this claim limitation appears to simply reiterate that the fluid valve as claimed in claim 1 is being used in a cooling system/circuit of a motor vehicle. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations, see MPEP 2114 II.).
---Claim 17. A motor vehicle comprising a fluid valve according to claim 1 (as best understood by the Office, Rozputniak and Hattass teaches of using the valves as a multi-way coolant regulating valves of cooling system/circuit of a motor vehicle. Also, the Office notes that this claim limitation appears to simply reiterate that the fluid valve as claimed in claim 1 is being used in a cooling system/circuit of a motor vehicle. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations, see MPEP 2114 II.).
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rozputniak US-11835155 in view of Hattass EP-4083480 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Popa EP-3730823.
The device of the combination of Rozputniak US-11835155 in view of Hattass EP-4083480 fails to disclose the limitation of the support flange having a chamfer as claimed. However, sealing arrangement including a chamfer or frustoconical sealing surface are known in the art.
Popa EP-3730823 teaches in Figs. 1-2 of a sealing arrangement for a rotary ball valve 200 comprising at least elastic seal 17 and an L-shaped sliding seal 21 wherein the sliding seal comprises a chamfer/frustoconical surface that engages with the ball 200 to provide a fluid tight seal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was effectively filed to modify the shape of the sealing surface of the support flange 21 of the sliding seal 20 of the device of the combination of Rozputniak in view of Hattass to have a chamfer/frustoconical surface that engages with the ball 200 in a similar manner as taught by Popa since such a modification is a known alternative structure for providing a reliable sealing engagement with a rotatable ball valve.
As such, the device of the combination of Rozputniak US-11835155 in view of Hattass EP-4083480 in view of Popa EP-3730823 teaches the limitations of:
---Claim 3. The fluid valve according to Claim 1, wherein the support flange has a chamfer with a chamfer edge forming a linear contact with the valve body (see Fig. 1-2 of Rozputniak showing the support flange 21 having a sealing surface for engaging with ball 200 as modified by Figs. 1-2 of Popa showing a similar L-Shaped sliding seal 21 with a support flange portion with a chamfer/frustoconical sealing surface that engages with the ball 200).
---Claim 4. The fluid valve according to Claim 3, wherein the chamfer edge is formed between the chamfer and a side face of the support flange facing the valve body (see Figs. 1-2 of Rozputniak and Figs. 1-2 of Popa).
---Claim 5. The fluid valve according to Claim 4, wherein the side face is oriented perpendicularly to a longitudinal axis of the sliding seal (see Figs. 1-2 of Rozputniak and Figs. 1-2 of Popa).
---Claim 6. The fluid valve according to claim 3, wherein an annular edge is formed between the chamfer and an inner circumferential face of the pipeline section, and wherein the annular edge is arranged at a distance from the valve body (see Figs. 1-2 of Rozputniak and Figs. 1-2 of Popa).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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:
The closest prior art are:
---References A (Coolant valves): Tochigi US-11971116, Popa US-11885255, Popa US-11635016, Ma US-11578806, Nomura US-11572958, Gramss US-11525519, Lou US-11473859, Yan US-11339879, Sano US-11149627, Grosskopf US-10865888, Ozeki US-10648577, Russalian US-10591069, Yumisashi US-10513968, Yumisashi US-10514103, Yutani US-10443745, Dutta US-10358969, Russalian US-10295076, Kaczmar US-10295066, Maruyama US-10072556, Carns US-9695734, Yokohama US-9145973 and Ikemoto US-20190017612.
---References B (Rotary Ball valves with special valve seats): Jukes US-12259047, Chavan US-12007031, Wu US-11859728, Rozputniak US-11835155, Seeger US-11255444, Kawamoto US-11047492, Warbey US-10801627, Yagi US-10794488, Hall US-10371266, Jang US-10352460, Whitlow US-10197168, Mircea US-9982789, Ricard US-9915359, Warbey US-9816625, Collison US-8733733, Wang US-7243900, Keiser US-6948699, Shafer US-6217002, Ahn US-6116575, Hosie US-6082707, Shafer US-6029948, Wozniak US-4762301, Asaka US-4467751, Kindersley US-4217923, Shand US-3266769, Yu US-20220146003, Wicher US-20180340620, He US-20150300508, Popa EP-3730823, Rozputniak EP-3730822, Seeger DE-102019213160, Fries DE-102018121563, Fries DE-102016220542, Fries WO-2016030505, Traudt DE-102009014047, Yamakawa WO-2005036036, Germain FR-2193459, Hattass EP-4083480, Fan CN-112253791 and Bonomi WO-2017145081.
References A teaches the general state of the art of rotary coolant valves which are multi-way valves used for regulating coolant water/fluid in a cooling system of a motor vehicle similar to applicant’s general invention. Notice that reference A fails to shows the specifics of the sealing arrangement as claimed. References B teaches of various examples of rotary ball valves including special sealing-arrangements/valve-seats for sealing between the valve housing and the valve member similar to applicant’s main invention. Notice that many of these references comprises similar structure and function as applicant’s general invention in that the sealing arrangement includes a main sliding seal that engages the ball valve member and a second elastic component such as elastic seal, a bellows or spring that is capable of biasing the sliding seal into sealing engagement. Notice in the rejections above that while the closest prior art teaches some of the limitations of the claimed invention, the closest prior art fails to disclose or render obvious the particular shape of the elastic seal 50 having the limitations of:
“11. The fluid valve according to claim 1, wherein the elastic seal has, at an end which faces away from the support flange, a radially outwardly directed bead.”
in combination with all the limitations as claimed in claim 11 and as shown in at least Fig. 2 and 4 of the application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID COLON-MORALES, whose telephone number 571-270-1741 and fax number is 571-270-2741. If the applicant has authorized internet communications via the filling of form PTO/SB/439, the examiner can be reached via email at david.colon-morales@uspto.gov , email communication is not permitted if the applicant has not filed an authorization for internet communication (see MPEP 502.03 for more details on internet communications). The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (7:30AM-3:30PM 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. 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 published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID COLON-MORALES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753