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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 5, 14 and 15 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.
The term “substantially” in claims 5, 14 and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. One of skill would be unable to determine what is required of “a substantially 30 degree angle”, “substantially 1.25 inches”, “substantially 3.5 inches”, “substantially 1 inch” and “substantially 3.1 inches”.
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.
(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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Carmichael (US 2,214,736), which discloses (e.g., see FIG 4):
1. A valve for use with an air seeder to selectively seed one or two crops in a field, the valve comprising:
a first inlet (84) connectable to a first air stream carrying a first crop seed (it is capable of being so connected);
a second inlet (86) connectable to a second air stream carrying a second crop seed (it is capable of being so connected);
an outlet (154) connectable to a opener hose running to an opener on the air seeder apparatus (it is capable of being so connected); and
gate valves (162, 164, 150) selectable between:
a first position, placing the first inlet in fluid communication with the outlet while fluid communication between the second inlet and the outlet is blocked (150 rotated to the right from the position shown in FIG 4); and,
a second position, placing the second inlet in fluid communication with the outlet while fluid communication between the first inlet and the outlet is blocked (150 rotated to the left from the position shown in FIG 5).
2. The valve of claim 1 further comprising: the first inlet (84) connected to a first tube (80), the second inlet (86) connected to a second tube (82); and the outlet connectable to an outlet tube (it is so capable), wherein the first tube and the second tube lead into the outlet tube (along the direction of flow).
3. The valve of claim 2 wherein the valve has a y-shape (see FIG 4)
Claim(s) 4-10 (5 as understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carmichael in view of either Ryan (US 2024/0057513) or Trushin (US 11,352,222).
Regarding claim 4, Carmichael discloses the invention as claimed with exception to wherein a first gate valve is provided passing through the first tube and a second gate valve is provided passing through the second tube. Ryan and Trushin each individually teaches that it was known to control flow through two different tubes using a first gate valve passing through the first tube and a second gate valve passing through the second tube (e.g., Ryan at para. 0070: there is a sliding gate valve 117 for each tube 108; Trushin teaches gate valves 114 in each of two tubes 108 at FIG 6). To individually control each of Carmichael’s constituent flows, such that failure of a single valve does not encumber both flow streams, it would have been obvious to use a first gate valve passing through the first tube and a second gate valve passing through the second tube, as taught by either Ryan or Trushin.
Regarding claim 5, Carmichael discloses wherein the first tube is at a substantially 30° angle to the outlet tube, and wherein the second tube is at a substantially 30° angle to the outlet tube (see FIG 4).
Regarding claim 6, Ryan and Trushin both teach wherein each gate valve has a gate plate (158) comprising a first side (top side, FIG 8) having an aperture (162) and a second side (bottom side, FIG 8) that is solid (see Trushin, FIG 6).
Regarding claim 7, Ryan and Trushin each teach an opening in the first tube through which the gate plate of the first gate valve slides; and, an opening in the second tube through which the which the gate plate of the second gate valve slides (in Ryan, each tube is read to comprise a valve body 156; in Trushin, see the parts of tube 108 through which valves 114 extend).
Regarding claim 8, Carmichael as modified by Ryan or Trushin renders obvious:
wherein the first gate valve is selectively positional between: an open position, with the gate plate positioned with the first side of the gate plate and the aperture in the gate plate inside the first tube and the second side of the gate plate extended outside of the first tube (i.e., the first gate valve could open); and, a closed position, with the gate plate positioned with the second side of the gate plate inside the first tube and the first side of the gate plate and the aperture in the gate plate extended outside of the first tube (the first gate valve could close) and
wherein the second gate valve is selectively positional between: an open position, with the gate plate positioned with the first side of the gate plate and the aperture in the gate plate inside the second tube and the second side of the gate plate extended outside of the second tube (the second gate valve could open); and, a closed position, with the gate plate positioned with the second side of the gate plate inside the second tube and the first side of the gate plate and the aperture in the gate plate extended outside of the second tube (the second gate valve could close).
Regarding claim 9, Ryan and Trushin each teach wherein the gate plate in the first gate valve extends out a first side of the valve when the first gate valve in the open position and wherein the gate plate in the second gate valve extends out a first side of the valve when the second gate valve is in the open position (as shown by Ryan at FIGS 7 and 8, and Trushin at FIG 6, the gate plates extend out a first side of the valves).
Regarding claim 10, neither Ryan nor Trushin teach the first and second latching members for the gate valves as claimed. However it was well-known in the art at the time of invention to use latching members for gate valves (official notice), and it would have been obvious to use first and second latching members with Ryan’s or Trushin’s gate valves as claimed, in order to secure their relative open/closed positions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 and 16-21 are allowed.
Claims 14 and 15 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 5,265,547 is typical of the prior art which uses a y-shaped diverter valve to separate a single inflow into two distinct outflows.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM M MCCALISTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1869. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 7am to 6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CRAIG SCHNEIDER, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3607, 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/WILLIAM M MCCALISTER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
1/21/26