DETAILED ACTION
Claims 24-40 and 42-45 were filed with the amendment dated 02/24/2026. Claims 1-23 and 41 have been canceled.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 10/29/2024. These drawings are acceptable in view of the arguments filed 02/24/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previously set forth claim objections and 35 USC 112 rejections.
Claim 24 has been amended to include subject matter from claim 41 as well as new features. Applicant’s amendments and arguments, see Remarks, filed 02/24/206, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 24 as being anticipated by FR 2949527 (“Valeo”) and the rejection of claim 41 as being obvious over Valeo in view of U.S. Pat. No. 5,988,219 (“Larsen”) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Valeo in view of U.S. Pat. No. 2,282,455 (“Church”). Church teaches a rotatable valve with a plurality of grooves in an upper sealing portion and a lower sealing portion to reduce friction.
The rejection is made FINAL.
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.
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.
Claims 24-33, 37, 40, 42, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 2949527 (“Valeo”) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 2,282,455 (“Church”).
With regard to claim 24, Valeo discloses a four-way valve (see Figs 2-3) provided with a housing (110) with a central bore (bore inside 110 for 120, see annotated Fig 2a) and four connections (VC, VR1, VR2, VE) for conduits communicating with the central bore (communication flow path shown in Fig 2A) and provided with a valve body (120) that is rotatable (compare Figs 3A-3B showing rotation) arranged within the central bore (see Fig. 3A), wherein the central bore is cylindrical (shown in Fig 3A and 2A), wherein the connections (VC, VR1, VR2, VE) are in communication with a cylinder jacket (cylinder jacket is construed as the interior surface of 110 adjacent to the valve body 120, similar to that of the application) of the central bore, wherein the valve body (120) comprises a valve blade (123) extending along the axial direction (along X axis shown in Figs) of the central bore (see Fig 2a) and two round-shaped sealing discs (Fig 2B shows a top round sealing disc and a bottom round sealing disc, identified in annotated Fig 2B) provided at the edges of the valve blade (123) extending in the radial direction of the central bore (see Fig 2B), all this such that these round-shaped sealing discs (shown in annotated Fig 2B) seal the central bore (sealing discs close off top and bottom of central bore, see Fig 2 and also see Fig 3 showing the bottom sealing disc sealing off/closing off the central bore), wherein, in a transverse section of the valve blade (123), the edges, extending in the axial direction, are formed as circular arcs (curved/arc edges shown in annotated Fig 3A) with a central angle between 30 degrees and 90 (degrees (about 45 to 50 degrees shown, clearly between 30 and 90 degrees); and, the housing (110) is provided with two sealing covers which are arranged over said sealing discs (sealing discs shown in annotated Fig 2b) (the two sealings covers are: top sealing cover at 140, Fig 2; a bottom sealing cover shown in Fig 2a at bottom of housing 110, see annotated Fig 2A).
PNG
media_image1.png
896
891
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
856
802
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Valeo discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing wherein circumferential edges of the two round-shaped sealing discs are provided with a plurality of grooves that are configured to reduce a contact area between the two round-shaped sealing discs and the housing to reduce friction between the circumferential edges of the two round-shaped sealing discs and the housing during rotation.
Church discloses a rotatable valve body (10/10a) with an upper sealing portion and a lower sealing portion (see Fig 2) and teaches that it is known in the art to modify a valve body to include circumferential edges of the sealing discs provided with a plurality of grooves (27, 27, 27a, 27a, 28, 28a) configured to reduce a contact area between the sealing discs and the housing to reduce friction between the circumferential edges and the housing during rotation (page 1, col. 2, lines 42-47: “external arcuate lubricant grooves 27, 27, 27a, 27a which are connected by longitudinal external grooves 28, 28a”).
PNG
media_image3.png
459
490
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a plurality of grooves, such as taught by Church, in the circumferential edges of the valve body of Valeo, for the purpose of reducing friction and allowing for application of lubrication to maintain adequate lubrication for the valve (see page 1, col. 2, lines 42-47).
With regard to claim 25, Valeo discloses that the valve blade (123) is flat (flat surfaces shown in annotated Fig 3c, for example) and rectangular (each half of blade is rectangular in shape, see Fig 2).
With regard to claim 26, Valeo discloses that a thickness (see annotated Fig 3c) of the valve blade (123) increases towards the edges of the valve blade (123), extending in axial direction.
With regard to claim 27, Valeo discloses that the circular arcs (see annotated Fig 3A) are located on the same circular (see Fig 3A, arcs continue along same circle) and must have a radius that is smaller than a radius of the central bore (inherently must be smaller so that the valve body 120 can rotate within the central bore).
Valeo discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that the same circle has a radius which is 0.1 mm to 1 mm smaller than a radius of the central bore.
Valeo would necessarily have the circle of the circular arcs be smaller than a radius of the central bore in order for the valve body/arcs be able to rotate within the central bore.
Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the circular arcs radius be any suitable size smaller than the radius of the central bore, such as 0.1 mm to 1 mm smaller, because the specific radius does not appear to provide any unexpected results.
With regard to claim 28¸Valeo discloses that the circular arcs (shown in annotated Fig 3a) have a radius which is smaller than a radius of the central bore (inherently must be smaller so that the valve body 120 can rotate within the central bore).
Valeo discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that the radius is 0.5 mm smaller than the radius of the central bore.
Valeo would necessarily have the radius of the circular arcs be smaller than a radius of the central bore in order for the valve body/arcs be able to rotate within the central bore.
Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the circular arcs radius be any suitable size smaller than the radius of the central bore, such as 0.5 mm smaller, because the specific radius does not appear to provide any unexpected results.
With regard to claim 29, Valeo discloses that the valve body (120) is symmetrically implemented (shown in Figs 2 and 3).
With regard to claim 30, Valeo discloses that the housing (110) is symmetrically implemented (shown in Fig 2A).
With regard to claim 31, Valeo discloses that the housing (110) and the valve body (120) are manufactured (manufactured with result shown in Fig 2). The phrase “by means of casting” is product by process type phrase. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product in the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113). The product in the claim is the same as or obvious from a product in Valeo.
With regard to claim 32, Valeo discloses that the valve body (110) is provided with two protruding taps (one protruding tap shown in Fig 2 at top of 120, see annotated Fig 2; and a second protruding tap is shown at the bottom of 120 in Fig. 2b) which extend according to the axial direction (X axis direction labeled in Fig 2) of the valve body (110).
With regard to claim 33, Valeo discloses that the four-way valve is provided with an actuator (150) for rotating the valve body (120), wherein the actuator (150) is coupled to one of said protruding taps (as can be seen in Fig 2, protruding tap at the top of 120 connects through 140 into a coupling piece of 150, see annotated Fig 2, in order for the actuator 150 to move the valve body 120 as required).
With regard to claim 37, Valeo discloses that said sealing covers (140 at top, shown in Fig 2a for bottom cover, see annotated Figs) are provided with passages (passage necessary in 150 for 120 to extend through and actuator 150 portion to extend through; hole/passage shown in bottom sealing cover in Fig 2a) through which the protruding taps of the valve body extend.
With regard to claim 40, Valeo discloses a diameter of the sealing discs (shown in annotated Fig 2b) is about the same as the diameter of the central bore, but does not explicitly disclose that the diameters are the same.
It would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the diameter of the sealing discs be any suitable size relative to the central bore, such as the same diameter, in order to seal off unwanted leakage from the central bore and because the specific radius does not appear to provide any unexpected results.
With regard to claim 42, Valeo discloses that said connections (VC, VR1, VR2, VE) for the conduits are provided with a provision for arranging mechanical quick-couplings (outer surface of the connections VC, VR1, VR2, VE are capable of connecting to a coupling).
With regard to claim 44, Valeo discloses that a height of the central bore (central bore shown in Fig 2A annotated) is larger than or equal to a diameter of the connections for the conduits (as can be seen in Fig. 2A, the central bore top is higher than the connections, thus the diameter of the connections VC, VR1, VR2, VE must be smaller than the height of the central bore).
Claims 34, 38, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 2949527 (“Valeo”) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 2,282,455 (“Church”) as set forth above in claim 24 and further in view of WO 03014577 (“Woodworth”).
With regard to claim 34, Valeo discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing the actuator is coupled to said tap via a coupling piece which is slid over said tap.
Valeo does disclose a tap and a coupling piece (see annotated Fig 2).
Woodworth teaches that it is known in the art to modify a rotary valve, similar to that of Valeo to include an actuator (33/29) that is coupled to a tap (86) via a coupling piece (43) (page 13, lines 6-14) which is slid over the tap (86) (see Fig 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
804
684
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a coupling piece that is slid over the tap, as taught by Woodworth, in place of the connection of Valeo, since the actuator/couplings are known equivalents and the use of which would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claim 38, Valeo discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that the passages (passage necessary in 150 for 120 to extend through and actuator 150 portion to extend through; hole/passage shown in bottom sealing cover in Fig 2a) in the sealing covers are provided with roller bearings with which the projecting taps of the valve body can rotate relative to the housing.
Woodworth teaches that it is known in the art to modify a rotary valve, similar to that of Valeo to include an roller bearings (426, 422, Figs 25-27; page 29, lines 18-21) in sealing covers (418 at top, portion of 33 identified in annotated Fig 27 at bottom; passages of sealing covers are openings/spaces within 418 and portion of 33 in which 426 and 422 reside) at the projecting taps (424, 428).
PNG
media_image5.png
834
720
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add roller bearings for the projecting taps in passages of the sealing covers, such as taught by Woodworth, in the system of Valeo, for the purpose of allowing the valve body to rotate smoothly and minimize binding as taught by Woodworth (page 29, lines 22-23: “to rotate smoothly and minimize binding”).
With regard to claim 39, the combination of Valeo and Woodworth, as set forth above for claim 38, discloses that at least one hole (hole for 427 at bottom cover; hole when 418 unscrewed at top cover) is provided through the sealing covers (in Valeo: 140 at top, shown in Fig 2a for bottom cover, see annotated Figs; in Woodworth: (418 at top, portion of 33 identified in annotated Fig 27 at bottom; passages of sealing covers are openings/spaces within 418 and portion of 33 in which 426 and 422 reside) in order to be able to remove the roller bearings (422, 426). The phrase “in order to be able to remove the roller bearings by means of a pin or a punch” is a statement of intended use. Statements of intended use are not given patentable weight (intended use of an apparatus does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art. See MPEP 2114). The hole(s) in the sealing covers are capable of such use.
Claims 35 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 2949527 (“Valeo”) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 2,282,455 (“Church”) as set forth above in claim 24 and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 11226045 (“Richard”).
With regard to claim 35, Valeo discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing the actuator is arranged on the housing by means of a mounting bracket.
Richard teaches that it is known in the art to modify a rotary valve, similar to that of Valeo, to include a mounting bracket (180) to arrange the actuator (200) to the housing (22) (col. 8, lines 6-10).
PNG
media_image6.png
898
666
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a mounting bracket as taught by Richard in place of the mounting mechanism of Valeo, since the mounting and connection of actuators to valve housings are known equivalents and the use of which would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claim 36, Valeo discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that the four-way valve is provided with a position switch which is directly connected to one of said projecting taps.
Richard teaches that it is known in the art to modify a rotary valve, similar to that of Valeo, to include a position switch (160) that is directly connected to a projecting tap (104) (col. 7, lines 32-34: “The position sensor assembly further comprises magnet collar 160 which sits upon position sensor 150 and is attached to shaft 104 of valve element 100”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add a position switch directed to one of the projecting taps, such as taught by Richard, to the assembly of Valeo, for the purpose of allowing a user to determine the current position of the valve body (col. 7, lines 25-29).
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 2949527 (“Valeo”) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 2,282,455 (“Church”) as set forth above in claim 24 and further in view of DE 4106622 (“Eichel”).
With regard to claim 43, Valeo discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that the four-way valve is free of sealings between the valve blade and the housing.
Eichel teaches that it is known in the art to modify a four-way valve, similar to that of Valeo, to include no sealings between the valve blade (10) and housing (8) (see Fig 1).
PNG
media_image7.png
541
489
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a valve body and housing contact arrangement as taught by Eichel in place of the contact arrangement of Valeo, since the valves and valve contacts are known equivalents and the use of which would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art. By not having a seal between the valve body and housing, the valve assembly would be easier to clean and permit easier removal and replacement of the valve body.
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 4,601,114 (“Noguchi”) in view of FR 2949527 (“Valeo”) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 2,282,455 (“Church”) as set forth above in claim 24.
With regard to claim 45, Noguchi discloses a dryer. The phrase “for drying a compressed gas” is a statement of intended use and the preamble and not given patentable weight (intended use of an apparatus does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art. See MPEP 2114). The dryer (1) comprises at least two vessels (7, 8; col. 2, line 40) containing therein a regenerable desiccant (9, 10; col. 2, lines 40-41) and an controllable valve system (valves 14, 15), wherein this valve system is such that at least one vessel (7 or 8) is always being regenerated while the other vessels (other of 7 or 8) dry the compressed gas, whereby the vessels are successively regenerated (col. 2, line 52 to col. 3, line 5) in turn by control of the valve system (valves 14, 15), and wherein the dryer (1) is provided with a regeneration conduit (conduit from 5 to 14 and 7/8) for supplying a hot regeneration gas (via blower 5, col. 2, lines 46-48) to the vessel being regenerated, wherein the regeneration conduit of the dryer is provided with a four-way valve (14) (see Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image8.png
738
651
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Noguchi discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that the four-way valve is the valve according to claim 24. Noguchi does not disclose the details of the four-way valve (14).
Valeo (as modified by Church above in claim 24) teaches that it is known in the art to modify a four-way valve, similar to that of Noguchi, to include the valve of claim 24.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a four-way valve as taught by Valeo/Church in place of the four-way valve of Noguchi, since the valves are known equivalents and the use of which would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.GB992977 discloses a four way valve with a valve blade. U.S. Pat. No. 4,142,708 discloses a valve with plural grooves.
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