DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-17 were filed with the Preliminary Amendment dated 12/11/2024.
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) submitted on 07/01/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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: elastic member in claim 3.
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. The specification describes the “elastic member” as being a spring (para [0012]).
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 § 112b
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regard to claim 10, the phrase “an inner wall surface of the body member” (lines 3-4) renders the claim confusing and, therefore, indefinite. Claim 10 depends from claim 9. Claim 9 recites “an inner wall surface of the internal space” in line 7. It is not clear if claim 10, with the phrase “an inner wall surface of the body member” is attempting to claim a new feature or if it is referring back to claim 9, line 7. For purposes of examination, the phrases are being construed as if it is the same inner wall surface. The examiner suggests amending claim 10 to state: “the [[an]] inner wall surface of the internal space of the body member” and the claim will be construed as such.
Claim 17 is rejected for being dependent upon rejected claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, 15, and 16 (as far as claim 10 is definite and understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP2010-112616 (hereinafter “Yuki”) (as evidenced by Translation submitted with IDS).
With regard to claim 1, Yuki discloses a pressure reduction valve (see Fig 1; reduces pressure by opening and closing valve at 19) comprising: a body member (13) that has an internal space (space inside of 13; see annotated Fig) which accommodates a valve element (19) and has a body opening portion (bottom opening of 13, see annotated Fig) communicating with the internal space (inner space of 13); a bottom wall surface-forming member (24) configured to be accommodated in the internal space (see Fig 1), be in contact with an inner wall surface (inner wall of 13) of the body member (13), and form a bottom wall surface (top surface of 24) of a valve chamber (14) in which the valve element (19) is located (see Fig 1); and a cap member (22) configured to be screwed (“adjusting screw” para [0018] of Translation) to the body member (13) and close the body opening portion (bottom opening in 13; see Fig 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
806
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, Yuki discloses that the bottom wall surface-forming member (24) is slidably in contact (moves up and down based on 22) with the inner wall surface (inner wall of 13, see annotated Fig) of the body member (13), and the cap member (22) is in contact with the bottom wall surface-forming member (24) (shown in Fig 1) from a side (bottom side) opposite to a surface (top surface) forming the bottom wall surface (see fig 1).
With regard to claim 3 Yuki discloses an elastic member (spring 21) interposed between the bottom wall surface-forming member (24) and the valve element (19).
With regard to claim 8, Yuki discloses that the bottom wall surface-forming member (24) includes a collar member (body of 24 is a “collar”) that forms the bottom wall surface (see Fig 1), and a seal ring (23) that is interposed between the collar member (24) and the inner wall surface (inner wall of 13) of the body member (13) and is in contact with the body member (shown in Fig 1).
With regard to claim 9, Yuki discloses a production method for a pressure reduction valve (see Fig 1; method inherent in apparatus disclosed), in which a body member (13) has an internal space (inner space of 13, see annotated fig), which accommodates a valve element (19), and a body opening portion (bottom opening of 13, see annotated fig), which communicates with the internal space (inner space of 13, see annotated fig), the method comprising: a bottom wall surface-forming member disposing step of accommodating a bottom wall surface-forming member (24) in the internal space (inner space of 13) such that the bottom wall surface-forming member (24) is in contact with an inner wall surface (inner surface of 13, see annotated fig) of the internal space, the bottom wall surface-forming member (24) forming a bottom wall surface (top surface of 24) of a valve chamber (14) in which the valve element (19) is located; and a sealing step of screwing a cap member (22; “adjusting screw” para [0018]), which closes the body opening portion (bottom opening of 13), to the body member (13, see Fig 1).
With regard to claim 10, Yuki discloses that the bottom wall surface-forming member (24) is slidably in contact with (moves up and down and in contact with, see para [0018] and fig 1) an inner wall surface of the body member (as best understood, 24 is in contact with the inner wall surface of the internal space of the body member 13), the cap member (22) is in contact with the bottom wall surface-forming member (24) from a side (bottom side) opposite to a surface forming the bottom wall surface (top surface of 24), and in the sealing step, a position of the bottom wall surface-forming member (24) is adjusted by adjusting a tightening amount of the cap member (22) with respect to the body member (13) (see para [0018]).
With regard to claim 15, (claim 15 depends from claim 2) Yuki discloses that the bottom wall surface-forming member (24) includes a collar member (body of 24 is a “collar”) that forms the bottom wall surface (see Fig 1), and a seal ring (23) that is interposed between the collar member (24) and the inner wall surface (inner wall of 13) of the body member (13) and is in contact with the body member (shown in Fig 1).
With regard to claim 16, (claim 16 depends from claim 3) Yuki discloses that the bottom wall surface-forming member (24) includes a collar member (body of 24 is a “collar”) that forms the bottom wall surface (see Fig 1), and a seal ring (23) that is interposed between the collar member (24) and the inner wall surface (inner wall of 13) of the body member (13) and is in contact with the body member (shown in Fig 1).
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN209164677 (hereinafter “Zhejiang”) (as evidenced by Translation submitted with IDS).
With regard to claim 1, Zhejiang discloses a pressure reduction valve (Fig 1) comprising: a body member (6) that has an internal space (inner space within 6) which accommodates a valve element (5; 5 is integrally part of valve piston 1) and has a body opening portion (bottom opening in 6, see annotated Fig) communicating with the internal space (see fig); a bottom wall surface-forming member (7) configured to be accommodated in the internal space (shown in annotated Fig), be in contact with an inner wall surface (inner wall of 6, see annotated Fig) of the body member (6), and form a bottom wall surface (top surface of 6) of a valve chamber (chamber in which 5 is located, see annotated Fig) in which the valve element (5) is located; and a cap member (9) configured to be screwed (para [0024]) to the body member (6) and close the body opening portion (bottom opening in 6; see annotated Fig).
PNG
media_image2.png
796
778
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 4, Zhejiang discloses that the cap member (9) has an opening portion (9a) that penetrates the cap member (9) to expose a part of the bottom wall surface-forming member (7) (see Fig 1).
With regard to claim 6, Zhejiang discloses that the bottom wall surface-forming member (7) includes a tool connecting portion (7b) provided at a portion exposed at the opening portion (9a) (“exposed at” because 9a overlaps portion of 7b) (see also paras [0013] [0025]).
With regard to claim 7, Zhejiang discloses that the tool connecting portion (7b) is a recessed portion (7b is recessed into 7) having a polygonal shape (hexagonal; see para [0013]) as viewed in the through-direction of the opening portion (9a) (see Fig 1 and paras [0013] [0025]).
With regard to claim 9, Zhejiang discloses a production method for a pressure reduction valve (see Fig 1; method inherent in apparatus disclosed), in which a body member (6) has an internal space (inner space of 6), which accommodates a valve element (5; 5 is integral with valve stem 1), and a body opening portion (bottom opening in 6, see Fig 1), which communicates with the internal space (see Fig 1), the method comprising: a bottom wall surface-forming member disposing step of accommodating a bottom wall surface-forming member (7) in the internal space (inner space of 6) (see Fig 1) such that the bottom wall surface-forming member (7) is in contact with an inner wall surface (inner surface of 6) of the internal space (see annotated Fig), the bottom wall surface-forming member (7) forming a bottom wall surface (top surface of 7) of a valve chamber (chamber in which 5 is located, see annotated fig) in which the valve element (5) is located; and a sealing step of screwing a cap member (9) (para [0024]), which closes the body opening portion (bottom opening in 6), to the body member (6) (see annotated Fig 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN209164677 (hereinafter “Zhejiang”).
With regard to claim 5, Zhejiang discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that the opening portion is formed in a polygonal shape as viewed in a direction along a through-direction of the opening portion.
Zhejiang is silent as to the shape of the opening portion 9a. Zhejiang does disclose that the shape of opening 7b is polygonal (hexagonal).
Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the opening portion comprise any suitable shape, such as polygonal, because the shape of the opening portion does not appear to provide any unexpected results.
With regard to claim 11, Zhejiang discloses that the cap member (9) has an opening portion (9a) that penetrates the cap member (9, see Fig 1) to expose a part of the bottom wall surface-forming member (7, see Fig 1), the bottom wall surface-forming member (7) has a tool connecting portion (7b) provided at a portion exposed (9a overlaps portion of 7b, see fig 1) at the opening portion (9a), and in the sealing step, the cap member (9) is screwed to the body member (6); and a rotation regulation tool (hexagonal wrench, para [0013]) to regulate rotation of the bottom wall surface-forming member (7) (see paras [0013] and [0025]).
Zhejiang discloses all the claimed features with the exception of explicitly disclose that the rotation regulating tool is connected while the cap member is screwed to the body member. Zhejiang is silent as to connection of the cap member while the tool is used (see para [0013]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make the opening portion (9a) of the cap member (9) of Zhejiang any suitable larger size, such that the disclosed tool (hexagonal wrench, para [0013]) can be inserted through the cap member instead of removing the cap member for the purpose of preventing lost components while adjusting the bottom wall surface-forming member.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2010-112616 (hereinafter “Yuki”) in view of CN209164677 (hereinafter “Zhejiang”).
With regard to claim 13, (claim 13 depends from claim 2) Yuki discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that the cap member has an opening portion that penetrates the cap member to expose a part of the bottom wall surface-forming member.
Zhejiang teaches that it is known in the art to modify a pressure reduction valve with a cap member (9) and a bottom wall surface-forming member (7) similar to that of Yuki, to include an opening portion in the cap member to expose a part of the bottom wall surface-forming member (opening 9a) for the purpose of allowing for ambient air to enter and to allow for any unwanted moisture to exit (para [0013]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add an opening portion, such as taught by Zhejiang, to the cap member of Yuki for the purpose of allowing for ambient air to enter and to allow for any unwanted moisture to exit (see Zhejiang at para [0013]).
With regard to claim 14, (claim 14 depends from claim 3) Yuki discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that the cap member has an opening portion that penetrates the cap member to expose a part of the bottom wall surface-forming member.
Zhejiang teaches that it is known in the art to modify a pressure reduction valve with a cap member (9) and a bottom wall surface-forming member (7) similar to that of Yuki, to include an opening portion in the cap member to expose a part of the bottom wall surface-forming member (opening 9a) for the purpose of allowing for ambient air to enter and to allow for any unwanted moisture to exit (para [0013]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add an opening portion, such as taught by Zhejiang, to the cap member of Yuki for the purpose of allowing for ambient air to enter and to allow for any unwanted moisture to exit (see Zhejiang at para [0013]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is 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.
Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious “a screwing tool having a central opening through which the tool connecting portion is exposed is attached to the opening portion, the rotation regulating tool is inserted into the tool connecting portion through the central opening, and the cap member is rotated through the screwing tool” (claim 12); or “the cap member has an opening portion that penetrates the cap member to expose a part of the bottom wall surface-forming member, the bottom wall surface-forming member has a tool connecting portion provided at a portion exposed at the opening portion, and in the sealing step, the cap member is screwed to the body member while connecting a rotation regulating tool to the tool connecting portion to regulate rotation of the bottom wall surface-forming member” (claim 17) in combination with the other limitations set forth in the independent claims.
The closest prior art references of record are: JP2010-112616 (hereinafter “Yuki”) in view of CN209164677 (hereinafter “Zhejiang”). However, neither Yuki nor Zhejiang disclose “a screwing tool having a central opening through which the tool connecting portion is exposed is attached to the opening portion, the rotation regulating tool is inserted into the tool connecting portion through the central opening, and the cap member is rotated through the screwing tool” (claim 12). It would not have been obvious to modify Zhejiang and/or Yuki to arrive at the claimed invention without improper hindsight reasoning and/or improperly changing the principle of operation of the references.
Claim 17 depends from claim 10. Zhejiang does not teach or suggest the claimed recitations of claim 10. Yuki and Zhejiang fail to teach or suggest each and every limitation of claim 17. It would not have been obvious to modify Zhejiang and/or Yuki to arrive at the claimed invention without improper hindsight reasoning and/or improperly changing the principle of operation of the references.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Pat. No. 5,904,178 discloses a pressure reduction valve with a cap member (36) and a bottom wall surface forming member (32).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA CAHILL whose telephone number is (571)270-5219. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 to 3:00.
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 can be reached by phone. Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-60073607 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.
/JESSICA CAHILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753