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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the PCT international search report by the Israel Patent Office have been considered, but will not be listed on any patent resulting from this application because they were not provided on a separate list in compliance with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1). In order to have the references printed on such resulting patent, a separate listing, preferably on a PTO/SB/08 form, must be filed within the set period for reply to this Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 2, the recitation “wherein said” should read –wherein—.
Claim 3, line 2, the recitation “wherein said” should read –wherein--.
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 4-5 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 4, line 8, the limitation “a pin” is indefinite because it is unclear if it is intended to refer to the same pin already introduced in claim 1, line 2 or to a different pin. For the purpose of examination, it will be interpreted to mean the same pin.
Claim 5 is rejected due to being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected, as well as claim 4, as far as it is definite, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Attridge (US 5728001).
Attridge discloses:
1. A valve (10/110), comprising: an electro-mechanical device (solenoid 26/126; col. 5, ll. 26-28) for sliding a pin (24/124, figs. 3-4); and an electric circuit (control means 20 connected to 26, and fig. 5b for 126), for controlling said electro-mechanical device (remote operable control means 20 and circuit which provides electric signal to energize the solenoid, col. 7, ll. 35-40; as well as control box 84 for the sensor 30 which is operatively connected to 26 to send signals to 26, col. 7, ll. 53-col. 8, ll. 5); wherein opening said valve requires manual physical operation (manual reset switch 186;” manual reset switch 186 must be thrown by a fire fighter before any attempt can be made to remotely operate the damper”, col. 10, ll. 5-10), whereas closing said valve is applicable only by controlling said electric circuit (the shut off valve is controlled from a remote location when a sensor is tripped, such as a fire or loss of power; col. 7, ll. 54-col. 8, ll. 24). (Note, the limitation “liquefied petroleum faucet” in the preamble is considered the intended use of a valve for controlling flow of liquefied petroleum. It is noted that the preamble herein, "A liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) faucet" has been given little patentable weight because it has been held that if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Furthermore, the “[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115. Thus, the recitation of the actual fluid handled has been given no patentable weight in the apparatus claims, MPEP 2115).
2. The valve according to claim 1, wherein said controlling said electric circuit to close said valve comprises a member selected from a group consisting of: remote control, a sensor (remotely operable control means 20; sensor 30/130 and position sensor 60/164,166).
4. The valve according to claim 1, further comprising: a spring (18/118), connected to an arm (14), connected to a pipe (12) blocking element (12), said spring being normally tensed to move said arm to dispose said pipe blocking element to block a gas passage (in 32); and the pin (24/124) being insertable into at least one hole (34, fig. 4) of said arm to lock said arm at a disposition which said pipe blocking element opens said gas passage (“blade 12 are driven to the closed position by spring 18 once rod 24 is retracted”, col. 8, ll. 20-21; therefore the open position is when the pin is inserted), thereby said opening said gas passage requires manual physical motion of said arm against said spring (by manual reset switch 186; “manual reset switch 186 must be thrown by a fire fighter before any attempt can be made to remotely operate the damper…a fire fighter must physically travel to the location of the damper. The fire fighter can then visually verify the position of the damper blade by inspecting signal arm 162. Thereafter, the fire fighter can activate the manual reset switch”, col. 10, ll. 5-20), and said closing said gas passage is applicable only by controlling said circuit to slide said pin (24/124) to remove thereof from said at least one hole of said arm, for unlocking said arm from said disposition which said pipe blocking element opens said gas passage (the shut off valve is controlled from a remote location when a sensor is tripped, such as a fire or loss of power and “blade 12 are driven to the closed position by spring 18 once rod 24 is retracted;” col. 7, ll. 54-col. 8, ll. 24).
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Attridge (US 5728001) in view of Chatelet et al. (US 20210109552).
Attridge discloses the invention as essentially claimed, except for wherein said controlling said electric circuit to close said valve is encoded.
Chatelet et al. teaches utilizing encoded signals at different frequencies when controlling positions of valve for the purpose of reducing, minimizing, or preventing any interference from third-parties [0032].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Attridge, such that the controlling of said electric circuit to close said valve is encoded, as taught by Chatelet et al., for the purpose of reducing, minimizing, or preventing any interference from third-parties.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
De Jonge (US 6837474 B1) also discloses a valve (45), comprising: an electro-mechanical device (solenoid 12) for sliding a pin (18, or alternatively 50); and an electric circuit (would provide electric signal to energize the solenoid), for controlling said electro-mechanical device; wherein opening said valve requires manual physical operation (“The reset knob 40 can then be manually pushed in a direction from left-to-right”, col. 2, ll. 48-67), whereas closing said valve is applicable only by controlling said electric circuit (the shut off valve is controlled from a remote location by a trip mechanism; see Abstract; col. 1, ll. 6-10).
US 20080041473 A1 and US 10663070 B2 also disclose electromagnetically released valves by a trip.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARINA TIETJEN, whose telephone number is 571-270-5422. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (10:30AM-7:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Tom Barrett can be reached at 571-272-4746, Ken Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881, and Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARINA A TIETJEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753