DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4, 8-10, and 12-17 were filed with the amendment dated 04/09/2026. Claims 5-7 and 11 were cancelled.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed 04/09/2026 overcome the previously set forth 35 USC 112b rejections. However, new 35 USC 112 rejections are made below in view of the claim amendments.
Applicant’s amendments to independent claims 1 and 9 have overcome the 35 USC 102 rejections over JP2010-112616 (“Yuki”).
Applicant’s amendments to independent claim 1 have overcome the 35 USC 102 rejection over CN 209164677 (“Zhejiang”).
Applicant's arguments filed 04/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to claim 9 in view of Zhejiang. Independent claim 9 was amended to include subject matter similar to that of dependent claim 11. Applicant merely states in the Remarks (at page 10) that Zhejiang does not disclose “the bottom wall surface-forming member has a tool connecting portion provided at a portion of the bottom wall surface-forming member that exposes an entirety of the tool connecting portion 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 a rotation of the bottom wall surface-forming member" (See Remarks at page 10). Applicant does not provide any arguments regarding the previous rejection over claim 11. The examiner maintains it would have been obvious to modify Zhejiang to arrive at the claimed subject matter of amended claim 9, as set forth below.
The rejection is made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the end of the claim is missing a period. Appropriate correction is required.
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 4, 13, 14, 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 4, the phrase “an opening portion” in line 2 renders the claim indefinite. Claim 4 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 was amended to include “an opening portion” in line 12. Therefore, it is not clear if the opening portion of claim 4 is intended to be the same as or different from that of claim 1. For purposes of examination, the opening portions are considered to be the same. The examiner suggests amending claim 4 to state “the opening portion.”
With regard to claim 13, the phrase “an opening portion” in line 2 renders the claim indefinite. Claim 13 ultimately depends from claim 1. Claim 1 was amended to include “an opening portion” in line 12. Therefore, it is not clear if the opening portion of claim 13 is intended to be the same as or different from that of claim 1. For purposes of examination, the opening portions are considered to be the same. The examiner suggests amending claim 13 to state “the opening portion.”
With regard to claim 14, the phrase “an opening portion” in line 2 renders the claim indefinite. Claim 14 ultimately depends from claim 1. Claim 1 was amended to include “an opening portion” in line 12. Therefore, it is not clear if the opening portion of claim 14 is intended to be the same as or different from that of claim 1. For purposes of examination, the opening portions are considered to be the same. The examiner suggests amending claim 14 to state “the opening portion.”
With regard to claim 17, the claim is missing following “according to Claim 10,”. For purposes of examination, claim 17 will be construed to be the same as that which was filed on 12/11/2024.
With regard to claim 17 being construed to be the same as that filed 12/11/2024, the phrase “an opening portion” in line 2 of claim 17 renders the claim indefinite. Claim 17 ultimately depends from claim 9. Claim 9 was amended to include “an opening portion” in line 11. Therefore, it is not clear if the opening portion of claim 17 is intended to be the same as or different from that of claim 9. For purposes of examination, the opening portions are considered to be the same. The examiner suggests amending claim 17 to state “the opening portion.”
With regard to claim 17 being construed to be the same as that filed 12/11/2024, the phrase “a tool connecting portion” in line 4 of claim 17 renders the claim indefinite. Claim 17 ultimately depends from claim 9. Claim 9 was amended to include “a tool connecting portion” in line 13. Therefore, it is not clear if the tool connecting portion of claim 17 is intended to be the same as or different from that of claim 9. For purposes of examination, the tool connecting portions are considered to be the same. The examiner suggests amending claim 17 to state “the tool connecting portion.”
With regard to claim 17 being construed to be the same as that filed 12/11/2024, the phrase “a rotation regulating tool” in line 7 of claim 17 renders the claim indefinite. Claim 17 ultimately depends from claim 9. Claim 9 was amended to include “a rotation regulating tool” in line 17. Therefore, it is not clear if the rotation regulating tool of claim 17 is intended to be the same as or different from that of claim 9. For purposes of examination, the rotation regulating tools are considered to be the same. The examiner suggests amending claim 17 to state “the rotation regulating tool.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112d
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4, 13, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 4, 13, and 14 each repeat what is required in claim 1, lines 12-13.
Claim 17 repeats what is required in claim 9, lines 11-18.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
The examiner suggests deleting claims 4, 13, 14, and 17.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN209164677 (hereinafter “Zhejiang”) (as evidenced by Translation submitted with IDS).
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), wherein 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 of the bottom wall surface-forming member that exposes the tool connecting portion at the opening portion (9a overlaps portion of 7b, see fig 1), 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 discloses that an entirety of the tool connecting portion is exposed at the opening portion, or explicitly disclosing 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, thus making the entirety of the tool connecting portion exposed at the opening portion, 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
796
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 8, 15, and 16 are allowed.
Claims 10 and 12 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.
Claims 4, 13, 14, and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 112(d) 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 “provide a polygonal recessed portion on a second end surface of the bottom wall surface-forming member; and a cap member configured to be screwed to the body member, close the body opening portion, and be in contact with the second end surface of the bottom wall surface- forming member, wherein the cap member comprises an opening portion of a polygonal shape penetrating the cap member and exposing an entirety of the polygonal recessed portion” (claim 1); “wherein the cap member comprises 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 of the bottom wall surface-forming member that exposes an entirety of the tool connecting portion 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 a rotation of the bottom wall surface-forming member” (claim 9); or “wherein the bottom wall surface-forming member is slidably in contact with the inner wall surface of the internal space of the body member, the cap member is in contact with the bottom wall surface-forming member from a side opposite to a surface forming the bottom wall surface, and in the sealing step, a position of the bottom wall surface-forming member is adjusted by adjusting a tightening amount of the cap member with respect to the body member” (claim 10); or “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) in combination with the other limitations set forth in the independent claims.
The closest prior art references of record are: JP2010-112616 (hereinafter “Yuki”) and CN209164677 (hereinafter “Zhejiang”).
Yuki fails to teach or suggest the recited language of independent claims 1 and 9 above.
Zhejiang fails to teach or suggest the recited language of independent claim 1 or claims 10 and 12 as recited above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2006/0196201 (“Sendo”) discloses a pressure reducing valve with a bottom wall surface-forming member. However, Sendo fails to teach or suggest a cap member.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights