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 are objected to because Fig. 1 has a floating reference charter (28).
There are no reference characters for the axial opening, axial orifice, lateral orifice, return means, shaft and housing in the Specification. These are some examples, the Specification is rife with these errors and should be checked and addressed.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims 1 and 10. Therefore, the second “the core including a lateral surface” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The Specification does not include numerals for claimed elements. Please see drawing objection above for further details.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: inconsistent use of “chamber” and “hydraulic chamber.” This issue persists through all of the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 13–15 and 20–24 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.
Regarding claims 20 and 24, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the 2 points" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites “the core (4) including a lateral surface,” lines 4–6. However, claim 1 also recites “the core (4) including a lateral surface,” Line 5. It is unclear as to whether there is a second core lateral surface or if this is an antecedent issue. It does not appear as though the figures support an addition core lateral surface. This same issue occurs throughout the claims and need to be addressed.
Claim 10 recites “an axial face.” It is unclear as to whether this axial face belongs to the casing or the core.
In general, throughout the claims it is unclear as to whether the various components are related to the casing or the core. Applicant should review and clarify claims.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "said lateral outlet" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the axes" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This issues occurs multiple times throughout the claims. Please review and address these issue.
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.
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) 1–4, 6, 9–13 ,17–21 and 23–24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusumoto et al. (US PGPub 20200173565 A1) in view of Ohrem et al. (US PGPub 20250334189 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
669
808
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 - Kusumoto Annotated Fig. 6
Regarding Claim 1, Kusumoto discloses a hydraulic rotary distributor including a case (6) and a core (34), said case (6) including a lateral wall (Kusumoto Annotated Fig. 6), two end walls (Kusumoto Annotated Fig. 6) defining a hydraulic chamber (Kusumoto Annotated Fig. 6), in which the core (34) capable of rotating in said chamber Kusumoto Annotated Fig. 6) about an axis of rotation (Kusumoto Annotated Fig. 6) is housed, at least one axial orifice (54), and at least one lateral orifice (7), which open(s) into the hydraulic chamber (Kusumoto Annotated Fig. 6), the core (34) including a lateral surface (Fig. 7, where the core’s lateral face is the external wall of the core) facing the lateral wall (Kusumoto Annotated Fig. 6) of the case (6), an axial opening (48), at least one lateral orifice (44) and a duct or a chamber that connects said axial opening (48) and said lateral orifice (44) and which allows a circulation of fluid, from or towards each of said lateral orifices (44) according to the angular position of the core (34) in the case (6), the core (34) including coupling means (62) to couple the end of a shaft (Para. 83) of an actuator (Para. 84, where the actuator is the motor) to the core (34), these coupling means (62) including a part provided with a groove (67) for receiving the end of a shaft (Para. 83) of an actuator (Para. 84, where the actuator is the motor), the core (4) but does not explicitly disclose the core including a housing capable of receiving said part, so that the latter transmits a rotation from the shaft to the core.
Ohrem teaches the core (50) including a housing (100) capable of receiving said part (51), so that the latter transmits a rotation from the shaft (80) to the core (50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the physical relationship between the core and the actuator of Kusumoto with a housing and receiving part as taught by Ohrem in order to couple the valve core to the actuator (Para. 41).
Regarding Claim 2, the Kusumoto–Ohrem combination teaches said part (Ohrem 51), as well as the housing (Ohrem 100), having a cylindrical shape (Ohrem Fig. 4A illustrates the cylindrical shape of the housing and Fig. 4B illustrates cylindrical shape of the part), and being provided with a lug (Ohrem 81) having a parallelepipedic shape, the housing (Ohrem 100) including a space (Ohrem 82) for receiving said lug (Ohrem 81), as seen in Ohrem Fig. 4C.
Regarding Claim 3, the Kusumoto–Ohrem combination teaches said groove (Ohrem 71) and said lug (Ohrem 81) extending according to perpendicular or substantially perpendicular directions (Ohrem Figs. 4A–4C).
Regarding Claim 4, the Kusumoto–Ohrem combination teaches said part (Ohrem 51) as well as the housing (Ohrem 100) having a parallelepipedic shape (Ohrem Figs. 4A–4B).
Regarding Claim 6, the Kusumoto–Ohrem combination teaches the sealing between the lateral surface (Kusumoto Fig. 7, where the core’s lateral face is the external wall of the core) of the core (Kusumoto 34) and the lateral wall (Kusumoto Annotated Fig. 6) of the case (Kusumoto 6) being ensured by the clearance (this is inherent, without a clearance the core would not be ablet to rotate within the case) between this lateral surface (Kusumoto Fig. 7, where the core’s lateral face is the external wall of the core) and this lateral wall (Kusumoto Annotated Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 9, the Kusumoto–Ohrem combination teaches core (Kusumoto 34) including a slot (Ohrem 91) in the shape of an arc (Ohrem Fig. 4A) of a circle into which a stop (Ohrem 90) penetrates for limiting its rotation when it is driven in rotation by an actuator (Ohrem Para. 39).
Regarding Claim 10, the Kusumoto–Ohrem combination teaches one of the end walls (Kusumoto Annotated Fig. 6) including an axial orifice (Kusumoto 26b) that extends substantially perpendicularly to said axis of rotation (Kusumoto Annotated Fig. 6), the lateral wall (Kusumoto Annotated Fig. 6) of the case (Kusumoto 6) including at least 2 lateral orifices (Kusumoto 76/86), which open into the hydraulic chamber (Kusumoto Annotated Fig. 6), the core (Kusumoto 34) including a lateral surface (Kusumoto Fig. 7, where the core’s lateral face is the external wall of the core) facing the lateral wall (Kusumoto Annotated Fig. 6) of the case (Kusumoto 6), an axial face facing the axial orifice (Kusumoto Annotated Fig. 6 and Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 11, the Kusumoto–Ohrem combination teaches the case (Kusumoto 6) including at least 2 lateral orifices (Kusumoto 76/86), said lateral outlet of the core having a shape allowing, in at least one other intermediate angular position between said 1st angular position and said 2nd angular position, a partial flow from or towards the 2 lateral orifices simultaneously (Kusumoto Annotated Fig. 6 and Figs. 3 and 4A–4C, where both Applicant and Kusumoto have the same geometry, thus Kusumoto reads on this claim).
Regarding Claim 12, the Kusumoto–Ohrem combination teaches said lateral orifice of the core (Kusumoto 34) has an oblong or oval or ellipsoid shape, elongated according to an axis substantially perpendicular to the axis of rotation (Kusumoto Annotated Fig. 6). As seen in Kusumoto Annotated Fig. 6 and Figs. 3 and 4A–4C.
Regarding Claim 13, the Kusumoto–Ohrem combination teaches the distance that separates the 2 points farthest from said lateral orifice of the core (Kusumoto 34) is greater than the distance that separates the 2 lateral orifices (Kusumoto 34 76/86) of the case (Kusumoto 6). As seen in Kusumoto Annotated Fig. 6 and Figs. 3 and 4A–4C.
Regarding Claim 17, the Kusumoto–Ohrem combination teaches the case (Kusumoto 6) includes at least 2 lateral orifices (Kusumoto 76/86), which are extended by ducts (Kusumoto 14/23) that extend according to the axes (X., X20), which have a point of intersection located to the rear of the centre of the core (Kusumoto 34) with respect to the lateral orifices (Kusumoto 76/86) of the case (Kusumoto 6). As seen in Kusumoto Annotated Fig. 6 and Figs. 3 and 4A–4C.
Regarding Claim 18, the Kusumoto–Ohrem combination teaches a distributor according to claim 1 and an actuator (Kusumoto Para. 16) driving the core (Kusumoto 34) in rotation.
Regarding Claim 19, the Kusumoto–Ohrem combination teaches the actuator including an output shaft (Ohrem 80) aligned according to the axis of rotation (Kusumoto Annotated Fig. 6 and Ohrem Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 20, the structural limitation of the apparatus described in the method is recited in Claim(s) 1. Accordingly, the method steps recited in claim 20 are necessarily those performed when making and/or using the device of the Kusumoto–Ohrem combination.
Regarding Claim 21, the Kusumoto–Ohrem combination does not explicitly teach “the fluid being a mixture of water and of glycol or being a coolant of a fuel cell.” The recitation “the fluid being a mixture of water and of glycol or being a coolant of a fuel cell” is seen as intended use of the solenoid valve. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. (MPEP §2114.II).
Regarding Claim 23, the structural limitation of the apparatus described in the method is recited in Claim(s) 1. Accordingly, the method steps recited in claim 23 are necessarily those performed when making and/or using the device of the Kusumoto–Ohrem combination.
Regarding Claim 24, the Kusumoto–Ohrem combination does not explicitly teach the 2 fluids being of the same nature or being the same, but at different temperatures or one of the fluids coming from a heating member or element, for example a fuel cell, and the other coming from a cooling member or element, for example a radiator.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the valve with the invention of the Kusumoto–Ohrem combination, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP §2144.07.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusumoto et al. (US PGPub 20200173565 A1) in view of Ohrem et al. (US PGPub 20250334189 A1), in further view of Zajac et al. (USPN 6315267 B1).
Regarding Claim(s) 5, the structural limitation of the apparatus described in the claim is recited in claim(s) 1, with the exception of the distributor further including return means to bring the core back to an equilibrium or initial position after having been brought in rotation into a position distant from this equilibrium or initial position, said return means including a torsion spring, one end of which is fastened to the core and another end of which is fastened to a part of the distributor that remains stationary when the core is driven in rotation.
Zajac teaches the distributor (12) further including return means (74) to bring the core (46) back to an equilibrium or initial position after having been brought in rotation into a position distant from this equilibrium or initial position (Col. 3, Lines 37–43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distributor of the Kusumoto–Ohrem combination with a spring as taught by Zajac in order to return the rotor which is attached to the valve stem to a particular position.
Per the Kusumoto–Ohrem–Zajac combination, Zajac’s reaction end 78 is located on Ohrem’s one of the cut–out 91 wall. Zajac’s spring 74 is located such that one end of the spring is located within Ohrem’s one of the cut–out 91 wall and the other end is located on the Kusumoto’s core 34 in a manner that allows Zajac’s spring 74 to function as intended.
The Kusumoto–Ohrem–Zajac combination teaches said return means (Zajac 74) including a torsion spring (Zajac Col. 3, Lines 37–43), one end of which is fastened to the core (Kusumoto 34) and another end of which is fastened to a part of the distributor that remains stationary when the core (Kusumoto 34) is driven in rotation.
Claim(s) 14–15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusumoto et al. (US PGPub 20200173565 A1) in view of Ohrem et al. (US PGPub 20250334189 A1), in further view of Galvan et al. (US PGPub 20210101188 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, the Kusumoto–Ohrem combination does not teach said inner duct of the core connects the axial face of the core and said lateral orifice of the core, this duct having a cross-section, perpendicularly to a direction of circulation of fluid, that increases from the axial face towards said lateral orifice.
Galvan teaches the inner duct of the core connects the axial face of the core and said lateral orifice of the core, this duct having a cross-section, perpendicularly to a direction of circulation of fluid, that increases from the axial face towards said lateral orifice. Fig. 11J.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed apparatus is significant, to change the shape of the apparatus as a matter of design choice. MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B). Here, Galvan illustrates several potential configurations that direct fluid flow in same manner as Applicant’s invention.
Regarding Claim 15, the Kusumoto–Ohrem–Galvan combination does not teach the cross-section of the inner duct increases by a value between 1% and 3% for any increase, between 5° and 15°, in an angle measured between the axial face of the core and a plane perpendicular to the direction of flow of fluid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed apparatus is significant, to change the shape of the apparatus as a matter of design choice. MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B). Here, Galvan illustrates several potential configurations that direct fluid flow in same manner as Applicant’s invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. McLane et al. (USPN 6688333 B2) discloses a distributor valve within a coolant system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Angelisa L. Hicks whose telephone number is 571-272-9552 and email is Angelisa.Hicks@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:30AM-5:00PM 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://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 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.
/Angelisa L. Hicks/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3753
