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 .
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: drive unit in claims 1-4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Music (U.S. 2010/0130944)in view of Hayes et al. (U.S. 4,003,405).
Regarding claims 1-4, and 6, Music discloses a vortex-type flow control valve (10) comprising: a vortex chamber (12) defined by a cylindrical peripheral side wall, a first end wall (top 14 as seen in Figure 3), and a second end wall (bottom 14 as seen in Figure 3), said first end wall (top 14 as seen in Figure 3) and said second end wall (bottom 14 as seen in Figure 3) provided opposite each other at both ends of the peripheral side wall, said vortex chamber (12) extending along a vortex chamber central axis; an inlet flow passage (16) extending along an inlet flow passage central axis and being opened in the peripheral side wall (see paragraphs 0015, 0016, 0020; see Figures 1 and 2); and an outlet flow passage (18) extending along an outlet flow passage central axis and being opened in the first end wall (top 14 as seen in Figure 3), said vortex-type flow control valve (10) configured such that fluid flowing in from the inlet flow passage (16) generates a vortex flow in the vortex chamber (12) and flows out into the outlet flow passage (18),wherein the inlet flow passage (16) is provided such that the inlet flow passage central axis extends through a position away from the vortex chamber central axis and the outlet flow passage central axis (see Figure 4; see paragraphs 0015, 0016, 0020).
Music fails to disclose the second end wall is configured to be movable closer to or away from the first end wall by a drive unit, said vortex-type flow control valve configured such that a flow rate of the fluid flowing out into the outlet flow passage is adjusted in accordance with an amount of movement of the second end wall with respect to the first end wall; wherein the second end wall is constituted by a diaphragm moved closer to or away from the first end wall by the drive unit; wherein the diaphragm includes a movable portion moved by the drive unit, and an elastically deformable supporting portion which is connected to an outer peripheral edge of the movable portion and supports the movable portion; wherein the diaphragm includes a movable portion moved by the drive unit, and a flexible or bendable supporting portion which is connected to an outer peripheral edge of the movable portion and supports the movable portion; wherein the first end wall is provided thereon with a protruding portion protruding toward the diaphragm.
Hayes teaches a flow control valve comprising: a chamber defined by a peripheral side wall, a first end wall (29), and a second end wall (34), said first end wall (29) and said second end wall (34) provided opposite each other at both ends of the peripheral side wall, the second end wall (34) is configured to be movable closer to or away from the first end wall (29) by a drive unit (per the 112f interpretation, shown as element 25 in applicant’s figure 3 and described in paragraph 0021, functional equivalent 39 in Hayes), said flow control valve configured such that a flow rate of the fluid flowing out into an outlet flow passage (27) is adjusted in accordance with an amount of movement of the second end wall (34) with respect to the first end wall 29 (Col. 16, line 34 - Col. 17, line 56); wherein the second end wall (34) is constituted by a diaphragm (34) moved closer to or away from the first end wall (29) by the drive unit (per the 112f interpretation, shown as element 25 in applicant’s figure 3 and described in paragraph 0021, functional equivalent 39 in Hayes; Col. 16, line 34 - Col. 17, line 56); wherein the diaphragm (34) includes a movable portion (38) moved by the drive unit (per the 112f interpretation, shown as element 25 in applicant’s figure 3 and described in paragraph 0021, functional equivalent 39 in Hayes), and an elastically deformable supporting portion which is connected to an outer peripheral edge of the movable portion (38) and supports the movable portion 38 (see Figure 6); wherein the diaphragm (34) includes a movable portion (38) moved by the drive unit (per the 112f interpretation, shown as element 25 in applicant’s figure 3 and described in paragraph 0021, functional equivalent 39 in Hayes), and a flexible or bendable supporting portion which is connected to an outer peripheral edge of the movable portion (38) and supports the movable portion 38 (see Figure 6); wherein the first end wall (29) is provided thereon with a protruding portion (29) protruding toward the diaphragm 34 (see Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Music to provide the second end wall is configured to be movable closer to or away from the first end wall by a drive unit, said vortex-type flow control valve configured such that a flow rate of the fluid flowing out into the outlet flow passage is adjusted in accordance with an amount of movement of the second end wall with respect to the first end wall; wherein the second end wall is constituted by a diaphragm moved closer to or away from the first end wall by the drive unit; wherein the diaphragm includes a movable portion moved by the drive unit, and an elastically deformable supporting portion which is connected to an outer peripheral edge of the movable portion and supports the movable portion; wherein the diaphragm includes a movable portion moved by the drive unit, and a flexible or bendable supporting portion which is connected to an outer peripheral edge of the movable portion and supports the movable portion; wherein the first end wall is provided thereon with a protruding portion protruding toward the diaphragm. Doing so would allow the regulation of fluid flow as a function of pressure drop and allow for the setting of the flow (Col. 16, lines 34-45), as recognized by Hayes.
Regarding claim 5, Music as modified teaches the invention as essentially claimed and further teaches wherein the outlet flow passage (18) is provided such that the outlet flow passage central axis extends on the vortex chamber central axis (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 7, Music as modified teaches the invention as essentially claimed and further teaches wherein the first end wall (top 14 as seen in Figure 3) and the second end wall (bottom 14 as seen in Figure 3) have a circular shape or an elliptical shape (see Figure 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wu (U.S. 2006/0102748) discloses a vortex flow control valve wherein a wall is adjustable to vary flow through the valve; Lorenz (USPN 3,198,214) discloses a vortex flow control valve wherein an element is adjustable to vary flow through the valve.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY E CARY whose telephone number is (571)272-9427. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-5:30pm.
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, 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.
/KELSEY E CARY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights