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
The applicant’s election with traverse of Group I-B (claims 1-3 and 8-12) in the reply filed on 5/1/26 is acknowledged. The applicant argues that restriction is improper because examining all groups would not impose a serious burden – the searches would be substantially coextensive because the claims share similar features and would require searching the same art areas. It should be noted that the applicant’s arguments do not specifically contest the determination that Groups I and II lack the same corresponding Special Technical Feature under PCT Rule 13.2 in view of WO 2018/185652, nor has the applicant contested the determination that Species I-A and I-B are distinct1 and mutually exclusive2. The traversal instead asserts that examination of all inventions would not impose a serious burden.
The applicant’s arguments regarding serious burden, however, are not persuasive. While both species implicate pressure regulator art, e.g., CPC B64D 83/673 and B65D 83/70, Species I-A additionally requires searching channel, passage, and valve seat arrangements, including art in F16K 1/42, whereas Species I-B requires searching pressure chamber, closure member, sealing, guide, support, and abutment arrangements, including pertinent valve art areas of F16K 1/36, 1/46, and 15/02. The respective species therefore require different classification areas and/or materially different search queries and strategies. Accordingly, a search directed to the elected Species I-B would not necessarily encompass the additional structural limitations peculiar to Species I-A, and examination of Species I-A would require additional search queries and prior art consideration. Therefore, examination of both species would impose a serious search burden.
The examiner has no objection to the applicant amending claim 1 with features from a non-elected group to overcome a rejection.
Claims 4-7 and 13-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The examiner notes that upon the finding of an allowable generic claim, all non-elected claims depending from the allowable generic claim will be considered for rejoinder.
35 USC § 103 Rejection
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.
Claims 1-3 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van’t Hoff (US 6,616,017) in view of Matsui et al (US 7,258,133).
Regarding claim 1, van ’t Hoff discloses pressure control device (1) for attachment in a pressurized fluid container (38, 40) separating a dispersible fluid compartment (2, upper portion of 40) and a propellant compartment (4, lower portion of 40), comprising:
a partition wall (50) provided with at least one passage opening (hole for pressure control device 1); and
a closing element (8) attached to the partition wall moveable between a passage opening release position and a passage opening closing position.
van ‘t Hoff does not expressly disclose: 1) wherein the partition wall is provided with a protruding guide element, wherein the closing element is surrounding the protruding guide element; and 2) wherein the passage opening in the partition wall is allocated in or adjacent the protruding guide element. However, Matsui teaches 1) wherein the partition wall is provided with a protruding guide element (19b), wherein a closing element (23) is surrounding the protruding guide element; and 2) wherein a passage opening (19c) in the partition wall is allocated in or adjacent the protruding guide element. The advantage of such a modification would be to provide guided movement of the closing member between its open and closed positions, thereby facilitating reliable opening and closing of the fluid passage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify van ‘t Hoff to provide a cup-shaped closing member surrounding and axially slidable on a protruding guide element, with the passage opening adjacent the guide member, as taught by Matsui (col. 9, ll. 47-65; col. 10, ll. 26-42), to provide guided movement of the closing member for selectively opening and closing the passage.
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, Matsui further teaches that the closing element (Matsui: 23) and the protruding guide element (Matsui: 19b) are moveable connected such that the closing element and the protruding guide element are gas-tight enclosing a pressure chamber (Matsui: col. 9, ll. 47-65).
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, Matsui further teaches that the closing element is hood-shaped (Matsui: “cup-shaped valve body 23”; col. 8, ll. 58-59).
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, Matsui further teaches that the inside of the closing element the protruding guide element contacting or the outside of the protruding guide element contacting the closing element is provided with an annular sealing element (Matsui, “annular seal member 24”; 8:59-61).
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, Matsui further teaches that the protruding guide element is cylindrical (Matsui: small disk 19b having a circumferential surface and received within axially sliding cup-shaped valve body 23; col. 9, ll. 19-36; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, Matsui further teaches that the protruding guide element is stationary connected with at least one support that externally seizes on the closing element (Matsui: cup-shaped stopper 33 fitting externally on valve body 23 and sliding relative thereto).
Regarding claim 12, in addition to the limitations in claim 11, Matsui further teaches that at least one external closing element support (Matsui: valve stopper 25 associated with valve support member 19) is provided with an abutment limiting the maximum freedom of movement of the closing element (Matsui: valve stopper 25 prevents valve body 23 from leaving valve support member 19).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van’t Hoff (US 6,616,017) in view of Matsui et al (US 7,258,133) and further in view of Galli (US 5,139,046).
Regarding claim 8, in addition to the limitations in claim 1, van ‘t Hoff as modified is silent the inside of the closing element contacting the protruding guide element or the outside of the protruding guide element contacting the closing element is covered with a flexible sealing material layer. However, Galli teaches the outside surface of a movable valve stem (Galli: 2) contacting a surrounding guide/sealing structure (Galli: 21, 10) is covered with a flexible sealing layer (Galli: molded coating 3 of resilient plastics material that provides a pressure tight seal; col. 3, ll. 23-44; col. 5, ll. 9-14). The advantage of providing the contacting surface of the movable valve component with a flexible sealing material layer is to provide a pressure tight seal at the movable valve interface while permitting relative movement between the valve components. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify the van ‘t Hoff pressure control arrangement, as already modified by Matsui, to provide the contacting surface of the movable valve component with a flexible sealing material layer, as taught by Galli, to provide a pressure tight seal while permitting relative movement between the valve components.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SPE DAVID ANGWIN whose telephone number is (571)-270-3735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5 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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. 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: httos://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 P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754
1 The examiner notes that the disclosed species are supported by the Specification. Species I-A corresponds to the slot-shaped embodiment of ¶¶ [0009]-[0010]. Species I-B corresponds to the pressure control device configurations of ¶¶ [0007]-[0008] and [0011]-[0013], including the pressure chamber, closing element, sealing, guide, support, and abutment features.
2 The respective species are mutually exclusive because they each recite different limitations not contained in the other species – Species I-A recites the slot-shaped channel limitations of claims 4-7, whereas Species I-B recites the alternative limitations of claims 2, 3, and 8-12. See MPEP 806.04(f).
Prosecution Insights