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 information disclosure statement (IDS) is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by applicant’s cited Ishitoya et al (US 20120132298).
Regarding claim 1, Ishitoya (FIG 2 embodiment relied upon; FIG 1 used when analogous) discloses “A valve assembly comprising:
a body (122); and
a plurality of valve subassemblies (134, 38) configured to be attached to the body (see FIG 2), wherein the plurality of valve subassemblies includes:
a safety valve (134) having an inlet (space below bottom of 134) and configured to release a gas flowing into the inlet to an outside (via 32) when a temperature of the safety valve exceeds a threshold temperature (analogously described in paragraphs 9, 41);
and another valve (38) configured to control a flow of the gas in a manner different from a manner of the safety valve (different mode of operation [manual] to a different outlet [16]),
the body includes:
a gas flow passage (14, 18, 20) including a first flow passage (18) connected to a gas tank (12) and a second flow passage (20) connected to an external device (paragraph 32); and
an integrated attachment hole (integrated vertical through-way that collectively houses 134 and 38) that communicates with each of the first flow passage and the second flow passage (see FIG 2),
the integrated attachment hole includes:
a first attachment hole (portion where 134 resides) that is open in an outer surface of the body (at top_ and is configured such that the safety valve is attached (see FIG 2); and
a second attachment hole (portion where 38 resides) that is open in a bottom surface of the first attachment hole (around 36) and is configured such that the other valve is attached (see FIG 2), and
the inlet (space at bottom end of 134) is configured to communicate with the first flow passage (18) regardless of an open or closed state of the other valve (see FIG 2, 38 is branched from 18).”
Regarding claim 2, Ishitoya (FIG 2 embodiment relied upon; FIG 1 used when analogous) discloses “wherein the second attachment hole is provided coaxially with the first attachment hole (they are along the vertical axis).”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, Ishitoya is silent regarding “wherein the other valve is a check valve configured to restrict the flow of the gas from the first flow passage to the second flow passage and allow the flow of the gas from the second flow passage to the first flow passage.” The “other valve” 38 is a manual valve, not a check valve. “check valve” is seen as a term in the art to mean a valve that only allows flow in one direction. In this case, 38 could enable two-way flow as backflow does not close the valve.
While there is a check valve 26 present, this check valve is not part of the “integrated attachment hole” in claim 1, instead being in a passage transverse to the hole. As a structurally different feature is present in this case, Ishitoya is seen to teach against claim 3.
Claim 3 is seen to be nonobvious for at least the reason that Ishitoya teaches against the limitation.
4 or 5 are allowable by virtue of their dependency on claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Devices similar to the application are disclosed by Moretti et al (US 20100326540), Frenal et al (US 20200292135), Ninomiya et al (US 20180038507), Stevens (US 20060042617), Funt et al (US 20050150566), and Holley (US 4838527).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK C WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)431-0767. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 PM.
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, 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.
/PATRICK C WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753