DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-17 were filed with the amendment dated 05/27/2026.
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 03/09/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
The amendments filed 05/27/2026 overcome the previously set forth 35 USC 112 rejections. However, a new 35 USC 112 rejection is set forth below based on the newly submitted claim amendments.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see Amendments and Remarks, filed 05/27/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1-17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0119828 (“Ozeki’) have been withdrawn.
The rejection is made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112a
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11, 16, and 17 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.
Amended independent claim 11 requires that “the plurality of resin housings is formed by bodies that include only the channels, the valve chamber, the spare chamber, the vortex chamber, and a partition wall partitioning the channels, the valve chamber, the spare chamber, and the vortex chamber.” However, there is not support for the requirement that the resin housings are formed by bodies that include only the recited elements.
Applicant states that support for the amendments is found in Figures 19 and 20 (see Remarks filed 05/27/2026 on page 9). However, the specification clearly states and Figure 19 clearly shows that the resin housings also include a second valve chamber 318 (para [0038]; claim only requires a singular valve chamber), plural (not singular as claimed) spare chambers 314 (para [0068]), a second vortex chamber 322 (para [0069]). Therefore, the specification does not provide support for the claimed recitations.
The examiner suggests deleting claim 11.
Dependent claims 16 and 17 are also rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 and 12-15 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious “a water pump that pumps the fluid through the channels, wherein the fluid that is pressurized from the water pump and flows through the inflow channel directly flows into the inflow spare chamber” (claim 1); or the valve body rotates about a rotation axis and is partitioned into a plurality of valve spaces in a circumferential direction by a coupling plate, and at least one of the valve spaces is further partitioned into a plurality of spaces in the rotation axis direction by a partition plate and disks are arranged at both ends of the valve body in a direction of the rotation axis, and the fluid does not flow in along the direction of the rotation axis but flows in along the radial direction and flows out along the radial direction” (claim 8); or “the plurality of resin housings includes a valve communication path that allows the first valve chamber and the second valve chamber to communicate with each other, and the valve communication path is formed in the plurality of resin housings and outside the valve chamber” (claim 12); or “a plurality of the channels having a portion protruding outward from the resin housings includes a first channel group that is a set of some of the channels, and a second channel group that is a set of a plurality of the channels not included in the first channel group and is disposed so as to be offset with respect to the first channel group in a direction along the rotation axis and the channels of both the first channel group and the second channel group extend along axes that are parallel to each other” (claim 13) in combination with the other limitations set forth in the independent claims.
Applicant’s arguments provided in the response filed 05/27/2026 are persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA CAHILL whose telephone number is (571)270-5219. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 to 3:00.
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 571-272-60073607 or Kenneth 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 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.
/JESSICA CAHILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights