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.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 1 is objected to because claim 1 does not end with a period. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 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.
Claim 1 recites “a second worm” in line 5 and “a second worm” in line 10. It is unclear if these recitations are referring to the same second worm or different second worms. Subsequent recitations to “the second worm” are unclear as to which second worm is being referred to.
Claim 1 recites “a worm shaft” in line 5 and “a worm shaft” in line 13. It is unclear if these recitations are referring to the same worm shaft or different worm shafts. Subsequent recitations to “the worm shaft” are unclear as to which worm shaft is being referred to.
Claim 1, line 10 recites “a value”. It is unclear what is being referred to.
Claim 1 recites “a second worm wheel” in line 9. Claim 5 recites “a second worm wheel” in line 4. It is unclear if these recitations are referring to the same second worm wheel or different second worm wheels. Subsequent recitations to “the second worm wheel” are unclear as to which second worm wheel is being referred to.
Claim 1 recites “a manual handle” in line 8. Claim 3 recites “a manual handle” in lines 2 and 3. It is unclear if these recitations are referring to the same manual handle or different manual handles.
Claim 1 recites “a torque cam 170 installed close to a top of the worm shaft 130, and confirming and guiding whether the valve is opened/closed by actuation of a worm shaft”. The term “close” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” 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. It is also unclear how (or if) the functional language limits the claim. The recitation that the torque cam is “confirming and guiding whether the valve is opened/closed by actuation of a worm shaft”. It is unclear how a torque cam confirms and guides whether the valve is opened/closed by actuation of a worm shaft. It is also unclear if this recitation is one of the previously recited worm shafts or another worn shaft.
The claims recite “in link” in many places. It is unclear what is meant by “in link”.
Claim 3 recites “the switching lever is assembled and installed on one end of a switching shaft which is installed in link with a manual handle by a bolt B as a separation type”. It is unclear what “a separation type” means in this context.
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.
Claims 1-3 (as understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lay (US Patent Number 7,055,795) in view of Zouzoulas (US Patent Number 4,562,908).
Re claim 1, Lay discloses a valve opening/closing actuator installed inside an upper casing and a lower casing (see Fig. 3 for the unnumbered casing housing structure), comprising: a driving motor (1) coupled with a first gear (28) on an axis thereof, and driving the first gear; a worm shaft having a second worm (3) provided at one side and a first wheel (29) installed in link with the first gear (through gearing 24, 26, 34), which is provided at the other side; a switching lever (18 as shown in Fig. 2 or 36 as shown in Fig. 3) for manual switching to one side end of the worm shaft, and a manual handle (20 or 38/37) for manual actuation; a valve opening/closing means having a second worm wheel (2) which interlocks with a second worm (3) of the worm shaft, and installed in link with a valve (at the end of shaft 4) on a bottom, and opening/closing the valve.
Lay does not disclose the first gear as a worm gear. However, Lay discloses worm gears elsewhere in the valve actuator. Alternatively, or additionally, Zouzoulas discloses the worm gear (16) attached at the driving motor (18). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lay to have the worm coupled at the driving motor as worm gears are known in the art (from Lay and Zouzoulas) and the location is known per Zouzoulas. Furthermore, the combination yields no unexpected results as the motion of the driving motor is sent through the actuator in any case.
Lay also does not disclose a torque cam. Zouzoulas discloses a torque cam (the eccentric cam surface 36 of ring 30) in a similar valve opening/closing actuator with a motor actuator and a manual handle. The torque cam is installed close to a top of the worm shaft and the torque cam serves to guide the valve actuator and confirm whether the valve has been actuated. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lay to include the torque cam of Zouzoulas in order to guide one or the other actuator (i.e., the motor or manual handle) and to indicate the engagement and opening/closing position of the valve as taught by Zouzoulas.
Re claim 2, the modified Lay discloses the valve opening/closing actuator of claim 1, wherein the worm shaft and first and second components (portions of gearing 24, 26, 34) for rotation-driving the worm shaft are assembled by a worm shaft installation unit of the lower casing (see Lay Fig. 3). The remainder of claim 2 (“and the worm shaft installation unit 121 is provided in a cylindrical horizontal state by starting one end of the lower casing 120, and a first component 132 is primarily assembled at one end, the worm shaft is secondarily assembled, and a second component 133 is tertiarily assembled.”) outlines the order of assembly. However, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product in the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113).
Re claim 3, the modified Lay discloses the valve opening/closing actuator of claim 1, wherein the switching lever is assembled and installed on one end of a switching shaft which is installed in link with a manual handle by a bolt B as a separation type (the switching lever in Fig. 2 or Fig. 3 of Lay has a switching shaft which is installed “in link”, presumably mechanically coupled, and has fasteners that can be considered separation type bolts).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 5 may 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 (dependent on the nature of the amendments).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Crass, Cordray, Kim, and Denkowski disclose similar valve actuators.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric Keasel whose telephone number is (571) 272-4929. The examiner works a part-time schedule and can normally be reached on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday.
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 and Craig Schneider can be reached on 571-272-4881 and 571-272-3607, respectively. 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.
/ERIC KEASEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights