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.
In this case, “closing means” in claim 1 are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
reference character “18” has been used to designate both “joint” and “coupling”, and
reference character “20” has been used to designate both “stem” and “stem force”. 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. 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.
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 and 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fischer, et al. (“Fischer”) (U.S. Pat. 7,147,205).
Regarding claim 1, Fischer discloses (see figures 1-3), a microdosing valve for dosing a fluid, comprising:
a valve body (20) internally hollow;
a valve head (30), connected to the valve body and having a conduit (31,32) for passage of fluid;
closing means (40) of the passage conduit;
a joint (50) connected to the closing means and enclosed in the valve body;
wherein said microdosing valve comprises a linear motor (70) comprising:
a motor body (70) fixed to the valve body (12);
a stem (60), movable relative to the motor body;
the stem (60) being connected to the joint (50), so that when the linear motor is actuated, the joint moves and the closing means open or close the passageway.
Regarding claim 3, Fischer discloses that the linear motor is double-acting. (Motor acts in both valve positions, open or closed, col. 1, lines 45-50)
Regarding claim 4, Fischer discloses the closing means comprises a diaphragm (40).
Regarding claim 5, Fischer discloses that the valve body has corresponding cylindrical bores for the linear motor. (see figures 1 & 2)
Regarding claim 6, Fischer discloses the joint/coupling (50) and the coupling (50) comprises an outer cylindrical portion abutting the second cylindrical bore of the valve body. (Figures 1-3 show an outer cylindrical portion of joint/coupling 50 abutting the second cylindrical bore of the valve body 20).
Claim(s) 1 and 7-10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schiavone, et al. (“Schiavone”) (EP 2413008).
Regarding claim 1, Schiavone discloses a microdosing valve for dosing a fluid, comprising:
a valve body (2) internally hollow;
a valve head (6+4+3), connected to the valve body and having a conduit (7+8) for passage of fluid;
closing means (10) of the passage conduit;
a joint (11a,11b) connected to the closing means and enclosed in the valve body;
wherein said microdosing valve comprises a linear motor comprising:
a motor body (12) fixed to the valve body;
a stem (13), movable relative to the motor body;
the stem being connected to the joint, so that when the linear motor is actuated, the joint moves and the closing means open or close the passageway.
Regarding claim 7, Schiavone discloses elastic means (15) arranged between the motor body and the coupling (seen in Fig. 1) are included, so that, when the linear motor is not driven and the stem is free to move, the coupling is pushed by the elastic means so that the closing means close the passageway. (¶ [0053])
Regarding claim 8, Schiavone discloses that elastic means are placed under pressure on the outer cylindrical portion. (Both ends of spring 15 are in contact, as seen in Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 9, Schiavone discloses that the elastic means is a spring.
Regarding claim 10, Schiavone discloses wherein on the cylindrical end a support ring (14) is disposed in which, in turn, a first end of the spring (15) goes in, wherein the opposite end of the spring goes in on a bushing (stepped perimeter of 11b), threaded (¶ [0039]) into the lower portion of the joint (18) and in rebate on the outer cylindrical portion (40) of the same joint (18).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fukano, et al. (“Fukano”) (U.S. Pat. 6,764,060).
Regarding claim 2, Fischer discloses that the motor is double-acting; however, Fukano discloses a single-acting valve actuator that moves an operating member to an open position or a closed position and a spring mechanism that moves the operating member to the other of the open position or the closed position. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to borrow the teaching of Fukano’s use of a single-acting valve motor with spring, to enable either normally-opened or normally-closed (¶ [0112]) so the valve is failsafe in an appropriate position if power is removed.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Fischer discloses that the linear motor is driven with a current of 100-200 mA at 6 volts (col. 4, line 24) but does not specifically mention a controller.
Fukano discloses a valve with a rotary driving source (50) of the driving section (26) is driven by a control signal (pulse signal) inputted from the controller (53) into the rotary driving source (col. 4, lines 5-8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to borrow the teaching of Fukano’s use of a controller to drive Fischer’s linear motor to highly accurately control the flow of fluid. (col. 1, lines 37-43)
Regarding claim 12, Fischer discloses the stem (60) is driven by the motor which controls the stroke and force of the threaded stem through the number of rotations of the motor (col. 3, lines 34-36) but does not specifically mention a controller.
Fukano discloses a valve with a rotary driving source (50) of the driving section (26) is driven by a control signal (pulse signal) inputted from the controller (53) into the rotary driving source (col. 4, lines 5-8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to borrow the teaching of Fukano’s use of a controller to drive Fischer’s linear motor to highly accurately control the flow of fluid. (col. 1, lines 37-43)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892, attached.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J MELARAGNO whose telephone number is (571)270-7735. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8 am - 5 pm +/- flex.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at (571) 272-4459. 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.
/MICHAEL J. MELARAGNO/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights