DETAILED ACTION
Final
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/09/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Claims 1-21 are pending. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, and 15 are currently amended. Claims 16-21 are newly added. The double patenting rejection is maintained.
The remarks regarding the drawing objections, the 35 USC 112 first and second paragraph rejections regarding claims 1, 13 and 15 are not persuasive.
Applicant correctly notes that Ex parte Gross is applicable to “and/or” but as noted by the Board, the claim includes the limitations each individually or as combined, and it is noted that the combination itself is not disclosed, and/or clearly described, and/or clearly defined so the limitations are only to individual embodiments that were not combined as of the initial filing of the application.
Regarding the drawing objections there is a lack of disclosure as to how or in what way the claimed invention is to be interpreted and the drawings are necessary for the understanding of the subject matter to be patented. MPEP 608.02
The amendments to claims have overcome the rejections to claims 2, 4, 6 and 10 under 35 USC 112 second paragraph and those rejections are withdrawn.
The amendment to claims 1 and 2 has required further consideration, and adjustment to the rejection regarding the first primary reference Myers. Applicant is not correct, Myers does disclose that the piston is so sealed at the upper guiding portion, and since the guiding portion reciprocates along the axis, it is sealed at the plurality of valve stroke positions. This can be clearly seen in the annotated figure 3 provided in the rejection below. The remarks cannot be found persuasive as they are narrowly tailored and do not encompass a broad and reasonable interpretation of the claim language in context with the application as filed.
With regard to Harada, Applicants remarks are not persuasive, as previously pointed out there is a pressure balance chamber in Harada as claimed, that pressure balances the piston and armature. As previously indicated, the pressure balancing path flows through the piston and then into the chamber above the piston. When the piston reciprocates upwards, it also allows for pressure into the enlarged diameter portion of the chamber. The remarks are appreciated but not found persuasive as they are not commensurate in scope with the claim language and the prior art as applied. For these reasons the rejections must be made Final.
Drawing Objections
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 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 1 recites “and wherein an inner surface of the bonnet guiding the upper guiding and sealing portion and/or an outer surface of the piston has a smaller diameter at a bottom portion than at an upper portion” in lines 11-14, where it is noted that due to the alternative language, the phrase can be alternatively interpreted as though either the outer piston upper guiding and sealing portion or the inner surface of the bonnet can have the smaller diameter portion…. Which the figures do not disclose in the alternative;
Claim 13 recites “the seal section…or that at least one is or exactly two seals are fixedly coupled to the bonnet” where it is noted that the seal section is on the piston in claim 1, which thus mixes embodiments and requires this drawing objection because the features as claimed are not disclosed;
Claim 15 “a set of two valves according to claim 1…fluidly connected to a port for a third valve…the port …between the two valves” the claimed limitations as arranged in the claim are not disclosed in the figures.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “and wherein an inner surface of the bonnet guiding the upper guiding and sealing portion and/or an outer surface of the piston has a smaller diameter at a bottom portion than at an upper portion” in lines 11-14, where it is noted that due to the alternative language, the phrase can be alternatively interpreted as though either the outer piston or the inner surface of the bonnet can have the smaller diameter portion…and the written description merely discloses that the smaller diameter part of the bonnet’s opposed to the upper guiding and sealing portion of the piston;
Claim 13 recites “the seal section…or that at least one is or exactly two seals are fixedly coupled to the bonnet” where it is noted that the seal section is on the piston in claim 1, which thus mixes embodiments and requires this written description rejection as there is no clear discussion as to how the features should be combined;
Claim 15 “a set of two valves according to claim 1…fluidly connected to a port for a third valve…the port …between the two valves” the claimed limitations as arranged in the claim are merely disclosed in ipsis verbis re-recitation as seen in ph 0028 and 0065 of the original written description filed on 9/17/2025 (substitute specification.) see MPEP 2163.03 V.
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 1-15 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 1 recites “and wherein an inner surface of the bonnet guiding the upper guiding and sealing portion and/or an outer surface of the piston has a smaller diameter at a bottom portion than at an upper portion” in lines 11-14. It is unclear and/or uncertain (i.e. there appears to be a zone of uncertainty) from a reading of the claim as to what is intended by the term/phrase/idea and how such a term/phrase/idea should be interpreted. In other words, where it is noted that it is uncertain as to how or in what way the claimed phrase can be accomplished due to the alternative language, the phrase can be alternatively interpreted as though either the outer piston or the inner surface of the bonnet can have the smaller diameter portion, as well as both at the same time, making the effect of the and/or on the remaining limitations as combined as claimed unclear. In the interest of compact prosecution, the term/phrase will be given its broadest reasonable interpretation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites “the seal section…or that at least one is or exactly two seals are fixedly coupled to the bonnet” where it is noted that the seal section is on the piston in claim 1, which thus mixes embodiments and so it is unclear how or in what way the claimed phrase can be interpreted, especially without adequate disclosure in the written description so as to place the claimed phrase in context;
Claim 15 “a set of two valves according to claim 1…fluidly connected to a port for a third valve…the port …between the two valves” where it is noted that there is no clear disclosure as to how or in what way the arrangement is provide, and there is a lack of objective meaningful reference as to the arranged valves, especially without adequate disclosure in the written description so as to place the phrase in context.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 19 and 20 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Myers (US 3892384);
Claim(s) 2, 16-18 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myers as applied to claims 1 (as indefinitely understood) above.
Myers discloses in claim 1: (and see annotated figure 2 and 3 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
470
1064
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A valve (figure 1, 2 and 3) for a refrigeration application (the statement “for a refrigeration application” considered a statement of intended use as the phrase adds no meaningful limitation to the body of the claimed apparatus under MPEP 2114), in particular a shut-off and/or regulating valve (the valve shuts off and prevents leakage Col 4 ln 23-34), comprising a bonnet (at 20/34) connected to a housing (10) with two fluid openings (via 14/16), a spindle (at 40) fully penetrating the bonnet and reaching inside the housing, and a piston (48) with an upper guiding (54/64) and sealing (54) portion (at 58 and 2002) with a seal section (surface of 54/48), a bottom closing portion (50) for opening and closing a fluid passage (via 22) between the two fluid openings, and a piston tube (structure that defines 62) between the upper guiding and sealing portion and the bottom closing portion (as shown), wherein the spindle engages the piston (at connection 46) for moving it (F axial direction) between a closed position and an open position of the valve, wherein a pressure balancing chamber (the inside of 62/20 and up to 42) is provided above and within the piston, wherein the piston is sealed (via 54/2002) against the bonnet at the upper guiding and sealing portion (as discussed and shown when closed) at a plurality of valve stroke positions (for example as the piston moves reciprocally, at 58 and as seen at 2002) of the piston in an axial direction of the valve, and wherein an inner surface of the bonnet (at 58) guiding the upper guiding and sealing portion and/or (the term and/or considered an alternative grouping under MPEP 2131 here and throughout) an outer surface of the piston (at 56) has a smaller diameter at a bottom portion (bottom portion of chamber area at 58, or bottom portion of piston at 56) than at an upper portion (as shown in both cases)
Myers discloses in claim 2: The valve according to claim 1, wherein the smaller diameter at the bottom portion of the bonnet (at 58) and/or a larger diameter upper portion of the piston (at 54) extend in the axial direction; but does not disclose: extending 2%, of a valve stroke (the total valve stroke being 100.percent. with the range being between 2.percent and 25.percent, where and the length of 54 for example is clearly much less than 25.percent or 1/4 of the length of the valve stroke as can be taken from the dashed lines of the piston in the open position thus being inclusive of 2.percent per MPEP 2144.05;) in the axial direction of the valve (thus it cannot be said that the upper piston does not include at least 2.percent nor is less than 25.percent of the total valve stroke.);
so accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide as arguably taught in Myers and/or suggested as such, the length extent of the piston large diameter portion as between 2.percent and at least up to 20.percent of the total length of the valve stroke (where 2.percent falls within the range), so as to for example, provide an adequate seal of the fluid chamber when closed.
Myers discloses in claim 16: The valve according to claim 1, wherein the smaller diameter at the bottom portion of the bonnet (at 58) and/or a larger diameter upper portion of the piston (at 54) extend in the axial direction; but does not disclose: extending 5%, of a valve stroke (the total valve stroke being 100.percent. with the range being between 2.percent and 25.percent, where and the length of 54 for example is clearly much less than 25.percent or 1/4 of the length of the valve stroke as can be taken from the dashed lines of the piston in the open position thus being inclusive of 5.percent per MPEP 2144.05;) in the axial direction of the valve (thus it cannot be said that the upper piston does not include at least 2.percent nor is less than 25.percent of the total valve stroke.);
So accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide as arguably taught in Myers and/or suggested as such, the length extent of the piston large diameter portion as between 2.percent and at least up to 20.percent of the total length of the valve stroke (where 5.percent falls within the range), so as to for example, provide an adequate seal of the fluid chamber when closed.
Myers discloses in claim 17: The valve according to claim 1, wherein the smaller diameter at the bottom portion of the bonnet (at 58) and/or a larger diameter upper portion of the piston (at 54) extend in the axial direction; but does not disclose: extending 10.percent, of a valve stroke (the total valve stroke being 100.percent. with the range being between 2.percent and 25.percent, where and the length of 54 for example is clearly much less than 25.percent or 1/4 of the length of the valve stroke as can be taken from the dashed lines of the piston in the open position thus being inclusive of 10.percent per MPEP 2144.05;) in the axial direction of the valve (thus it cannot be said that the upper piston does not include at least 2.percent nor is less than 25.percent of the total valve stroke.);
So accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide as arguably taught in Myers and/or suggested as such, the length extent of the piston large diameter portion as between 2.percent and at least up to 20.percent of the total length of the valve stroke (where 10.percent falls within the range), so as to for example, provide an adequate seal of the fluid chamber when closed.
Myers discloses in claim 18: The valve according to claim 1, wherein the smaller diameter at the bottom portion of the bonnet (at 58) and/or a larger diameter upper portion of the piston (at 54) extend in the axial direction; but does not disclose: extending 20.percent, of a valve stroke (the total valve stroke being 100.percent. with the range being between 2.percent and 25.percent, where and the length of 54 for example is clearly much less than 25.percent or 1/4 of the length of the valve stroke as can be taken from the dashed lines of the piston in the open position thus being inclusive of 20.percent per MPEP 2144.05;) in the axial direction of the valve (thus it cannot be said that the upper piston does not include at least 2.percent nor is less than 25.percent of the total valve stroke.);
So accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide as arguably taught in Myers and/or suggested as such, the length extent of the piston large diameter portion as between 2.percent and at least up to 20.percent of the total length of the valve stroke (where 20.percent falls within the range), so as to for example, provide an adequate seal of the fluid chamber when closed.
Myers discloses in claim 19: The valve according to claim 1, wherein the upper guiding and sealing portion comprises only the extreme end of the piston (as seen at end 58 and 2002) and/or corresponds to less than a fourth of an entire length of the piston (as shown.)
Myers discloses in claim 20: The valve according to claim 1, wherein the upper guiding and sealing portion comprises only the extreme end of the piston (as seen at end 58 and 2002) and/or corresponds to less than a fifth of an entire length of the piston (as shown.)
Claim(s) 1 (in the alternative) along with Claims 3-9, 11, 13 and 14 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Harada (US 2012/0248355);
Claim(s) 10, 12 and 21 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada as applied to claims 1 (as indefinitely understood) above, and further in view of Zuck (US 5996369);
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada as applied to claims 1 (as indefinitely understood) above, and further in view of Hirota (US 5996369);
Harada discloses in claim 1: (see at least annotated figure 2 below)
PNG
media_image2.png
994
890
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A valve for a refrigeration application ((the statement “for a refrigeration application” considered a statement of intended use as the phrase adds no meaningful limitation to the body of the claimed apparatus under MPEP 2114) 40 figure 2 and see ph 0004), in particular a shut-off and/or regulating valve (ph 0002, flow rate fluid regulation/control), comprising a bonnet (at 1000 and including 24/28/220 all form the respective bonnet (i.e. which matches that of the bonnet 1/11/12 in the instant application and which supports in the same way the upper portion of the piston) and…that then connects to the actuator above and the housing 210 below which is…) connected to a housing (210 is the fluid flow defining area, same as in the instant application and…) with two fluid openings (via 12a,12b), a spindle (at 70/70a/72/284) fully penetrating the bonnet and reaching inside the housing, and a piston (280) with an upper guiding (270/280/290a) and sealing (230) portion (of 1002/290a) with a seal section (230), a bottom closing portion (82) for opening and closing a fluid passage (via 14) between the two fluid openings, and a piston tube (structure that defines the passages of 280a/284a/284b) between the upper guiding and sealing portion and the bottom closing portion (at least that of 280a), wherein the spindle engages the piston (at 284c and ball 76) for moving it between a closed position and an open position of the valve (when opposing the spring 92), wherein a pressure balancing chamber (the passages and volumes themselves in 285/284b/284a/280a) is provided above and within the piston, wherein the piston is sealed (via 230) against the bonnet at the upper guiding and sealing portion (of 1002) at a plurality of valve stroke positions (as it reciprocates axially) of the piston in an axial direction of the valve, and wherein an inner surface of the bonnet (at 210d) guiding the upper guiding and sealing portion (at 1002) and/or (the term and/or considered an alternative grouping under MPEP 2131 here and throughout) an outer surface of the piston (opposed to 210d) has a smaller diameter at a bottom portion (bottom portion of chamber area 285, or bottom portion of piston 280 at 280s) than at an upper portion (for the chamber, above at 210e, or for the piston, above at 270)
Clarity Comment, it is noted that Harada discloses: a small diameter bottom portion inner surface (at 210d) of the bonnet is smaller than an upper portion (at 210e) thereof (where as discussed in Harada, the piston raises the spring seat 290b and opens this upper piston chamber portion area to the fluid in 285, see ph 0055, 0057), and the small diameter bottom portion inner surface of the bonnet guides (as shown) the upper guiding and sealing portion along an outer surface of the piston (as opposed to 210d.)
If it could be persuasively argued at some future unforeseen date that Harada does not disclose: an unitary integrally formed bonnet which is also separable from the valve body, considering that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider providing a single unitary material part such as a bonnet separate from the body as an efficient assembly and for part replaceability and valve seat maintenance;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide as suggested, a single unitary material bonnet part for Harada, which is separable from the valve body for the purpose of providing an efficient assembly of parts and for later part replaceability and valve seat maintenance, all especially since it has been held that the provision of separability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Harada discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 3: The valve according to claim 1, wherein the bonnet comprises two concentric protrusions (24/220) formed as hollow cylinders, between which the upper guiding and sealing portion is at least partially guided (that of 290a.)
Harada discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 4: The valve according to claim 3, wherein one of the protrusions abuts the spindle in a fully open position of the valve for sealing the valve against an outside (the spindle at 72 and inner sleeve portion of 220a abut in threaded relationship and in a fully open position, the valve is still closed to the outside via the sealing 230.)
Harada discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 5: The valve according to claim 1, wherein the pressure balancing chamber is connected to the fluid passage via a pressure balancing passage (280a) within the spindle and/or within the piston (both), and/or that the piston is supported only by the spindle and the bonnet during at least some or all open positions of the valve (as shown.)
Harada discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 6: The valve according to claim 1, wherein the upper guiding and sealing portion comprises only the extreme end of the piston (top end) and/or corresponds to less than half of an entire length of the piston (about less than half.)
Harada discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 7: The valve according to claim 1, wherein the piston is sealed against the bonnet only at the upper guiding and sealing portion (at 1002 as shown.)
Harada discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 8: The valve according to claim 1, wherein the pressure balancing chamber is connected to the fluid passage via a pressure balancing passage (i.e. that of 280a at the bottom of 82…in other words…) within the bottom closing portion.
Harada discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 9: The valve according to claim 1, wherein the bonnet is formed integrally (as shown with that of 24/1000) and/or inserted partially (as shown with 220) into the housing and/or connected directly to the housing.
Harada discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claims 10 and 21: The valve according to claim 1, wherein the spindle is [rotationally]/coupled to a piston tube via ball[[s]] (at 76.); but Harada does not disclose: multiple balls for establishing a rotatable connection; Zuck teaches: multiple balls (84) providing a bearing rotational connection (ph 0048) between the spindle and the piston head 36, (all for the purpose of for example, providing an arrangement where a centrally aligned axis can be maintained while also providing for rotational lost motion and axial driving of the valve, thus assuring a more accurate sealing/closing arrangement of the valve coaxially with the opening);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide for Harada as taught in Zuck, in lieu of a single ball bearing, multiple balls that can provide a bearing rotational connection as taught in Zuck as arranged between the spindle and the piston of Harada as taught in Zuck, all for the purpose of for example, providing an arrangement where a centrally aligned axis can be maintained while also providing for rotational lost motion and axial driving of the valve, thus assuring a more accurate sealing/closing arrangement of the valve coaxially with the opening.
Harada discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 11: The valve according to claim 1, wherein a bushing (at 1006 below 76) is provided at or close to an extreme end of the spindle and between the spindle and the bottom closing portion (as shown the bushing is disposed between the two ends.)
Harada discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 12: The valve according to claim 1, wherein the bottom closing portion comprises an outer flange [surface] (bottom of 82) and an inner flange [surface] (top of 82) between which a sealing [surface] is provided (at 18.) Harada does not disclose, although Zuck teaches: a separate outer flange (at 76) and a separate inner flange (at 36) which hold between them a sealing element (at 74 valve seal, and provided for the purpose of for example a removable sealing surface for replaceable wearing of parts.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Harada as taught in Zuck, with a separate outer flange and a separate inner flange as taught in Zuck, which hold between them a sealing element or valve seal, and all provided for the purpose of for example a removable sealing surface for replaceable wearing of parts.
Harada discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 13: The valve according to claim 1, wherein the seal section comprises at least one (one annular o-ring seal at 230) or (the use of “or” indicating an alternative grouping under MPEP 2131) exactly two seals or that at least one seal is or exactly two seals are fixedly coupled to the bonnet.
Harada discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 14: The valve according to claim 1, wherein a sliding sleeve (sliding sleeve part 290…) is provided (axially) between the piston and the bonnet.
Harada discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 15: [The valve according to claim 1]; but Harada does not disclose, although Hirota teaches: a set of two valves each being the valve and (figure 1 includes two valves (21/23) distally arranged from one another with a third valve (22) between, making at least a set of two valves), wherein the valves are fluidly connected to a port (at 10 of 22) for a third valve (22), wherein the port is provided (fluidly) between the two valves (for the purpose of providing fluid control for a refrigeration circuit for a heating system for example an air conditioner.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to use Harada valve as taught in Hirota as a set of two valves so arranged as taught in Harada above, where the valves can be fluidly connected to a port as taught in Hirota for a third valve (22), wherein the port can be provided (fluidly) between the set of two valves, all for the purpose of providing fluid control for a refrigeration circuit for a heating system for example an air conditioner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 MATTHEW W JELLETT, whose telephone number is 571-270-7497. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Ken 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.
/Matthew W Jellett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753