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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11 Dec 2024 and 6 March 2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 3, line 2 “the valve plate (3) toward” should likely read “the valve plate toward”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Geiser et al (US 20120298899).
Regarding Claim 1, Geiser et al disclose a valve for metering a volumetric flow through a flow opening (Figures 12-17). The valve comprising:
a valve plate for closing the flow opening in a closed position of the valve; (plate 1 of Figure 12 with opening 2 (of Figure 14))
at least two valve rods which are in each case elongate, the valve rods are fastened to the valve plate at mutually spaced apart locations; (9, 9', 9''; Figure 12)
a dedicated valve drive for each of the valve rods that linearly displaces a respective one of the valve rods so as to adjust the valve plate; and (¶ 65)
wherein only a subset of the valve rods are driven by the respective valve drive over an entire adjustment path of the valve plate between the closed position and a maximum open position (¶ 66 discloses where one rod acts to close the valve plate and two rods operate in the opening direction thereby allowing for a subset of two of the three rods to open the valve).
Regarding Claim 2, Geiser et al disclose where only one of the valve rods is driven by the respective valve drive over the entire adjustment path of the valve plate between the closed position and the maximum open position (¶ 66 discloses where one rod acts to close the valve plate and two rods operate in the opening direction thereby allowing for a subset of two of the three rods to open the valve).
Regarding Claim 6, Geiser et al disclose wherein the valve drives of the valve rods (¶ 66) are mutually synchronized over partial distances of the adjustment path on which said valve rods are conjointly active (¶ 66).
Regarding Claim 7, Geiser et al disclose wherein the valve rods at least in regions have a different diameter (at least at the top end where the fastener is attached as seen in Figure 15 to attach the rod to the valve door via bracket 8).
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.
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Geiser et al (US 20120298899).
Regarding Claim 5, Geiser et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose wherein the valve rods are formed from a same material.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the valve rods of Geiser et al to all be formed of a same material since selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a commonly used material that is inexpensive and durable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 8-10 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE GARDNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-4PM 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 supervisors, KENNETH RINEHART (571-272-4881) or CRAIG SCHNEIDER (571-272-3607) can be reached by telephone. 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.
/NICOLE GARDNER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3753