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 .
Status of the claims
No claims is/are amended, Currently claims 1-10 are pending in this application.
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Nam et al (KR 20130139019 A) in view of Su et al (KR 101092138 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Nam, discloses a valve for metering a volumetric flow through a flow opening (G), the valve comprising: a valve plate 23 for closing the flow opening in a closed position of the valve; and at least two valve rods 33 and 32 which are in each case inherently elongate, wherein the valve rods are being fastened to the valve plate 23 at mutually spaced-apart locations, and at least one of the valve rods is driven in a linearly displaceable manner by a valve drive (connections to 313), so as to adjust the valve plate between the closed position and a maximum open position, and wherein the valve rods are designed with a different stiffness (rods 33 and 32 can be seen in Fig 7 as a having different diameters while having same hatch pattern indicating same material) relative to one another in terms of a deflection transverse (buckling stiffness is proportional to cross-sectional area) to a respective longitudinal extent of the valve rods.
Nam fails to disclose material of valve rods. Su teaches a valve with parts made of aluminum (translation Page 3, para 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device disclosed by Nam with valve components including valve rods made by aluminum as taught by Su in order to provide strong as well as lightweight material.
With valve rods made of aluminum, Nam as modified would have the valve rods would have different stiffness (rods 33 and 32 can be seen in Fig 7 as a having different diameters while having same material being aluminum) relative to one another in terms of a deflection transverse (buckling stiffness is proportional to cross-sectional area) to a respective longitudinal extent of the valve rods.
As to claim 2, the valve rods are formed from a same material (rods 33 and 32 can be seen in Fig 7 as a having different diameters while having same hatch pattern indicating same material).
As to claim 3, the valve rods 33,32 have a different diameter relative to one another.
Regarding claim(s) 4, in Nam, the valve rod 32 which is stiffer in terms of the deflection transverse to the longitudinal extent thereof has a section modulus (which depends on diameter) that is greater than the other valve rod but fails to disclose optimal claimed range of ratio of section modulus of two rods. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to employ optimal claimed range of ratio of section modulus of two rods, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
As to claims 5-7, Nam shows a respective dedicated valve drive (separate connection for each rod 33,32 to piston 313 drives the valve) for each of the valve rods is driven by a dedicated valve drive of the valve. The valve drives of the valve rods are mutually synchronized (all are rigidly connected to a single piston 313 and therefore move together unison). Each of the valve rods 33,32 is linearly driven by the respective valve drive over an entire adjustment path of the valve plate between the closed position and the maximum open position.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 8-10 is/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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 04/29/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5-7 under USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nam in combination with Su. Su is cited to show valve components made of aluminum.
Applicant's arguments that “these rods may or may not have the same or different stiffnesses. Instead, this appears to be an unsupported assumption that attempts to rely on drawings that are not even indicated as being to scale, that is merely a possibility and not a suggestion” are not persuasive since Examiner is not relying on precise dimensions and proportions but is relying on what is readily shown by the drawings as reasonably interpreted. It has been held that, Drawings, like references in any other form, are "evaluated] and appl[ied]... on the basis of what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one skilled in the art." In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 914 (CCPA 1979). It has been held that, "[d]escription for the purposes of anticipation can be by drawings alone as well as by words." In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972). It has been held that, description via drawings and pictures can be relied upon alone as well as by words to anticipate claimed subject matter if they clearly show the structure claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972). Although, in the case of patent drawings not indicated as drawn to scale, it is improper to rely "on 'a greatly enlarged section of a small drawing obviously never intended to show the dimensions of anything,'" that does "not mean that things patent drawings show clearly are to be disregarded." Id. (quoting In re Wilson, 312 F.2d 449, 454 (1963). It has been held that, regardless of whether or not drawings are to scale, things clearly shown in the drawings are not to be disregarded. See In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972)
Applicant's arguments that “rods 32 and 33 are fastened to the "roller block 10" and not to the "plate 23" … the entire assembly of rods is only connected to the valve plate at one location in Nam” are not persuasive since Nam discloses rods 32 and 33 connected to plate 23 through frame of body 10 at difference locations with 33 in the middle and 32 at two sides. The claim does not require direct fastening of plate to rod at different locations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Atif Chaudry at phone number 571-270-3768. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881, or Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/ATIF H CHAUDRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights