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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities: regarding claim 2, in lines 1-2, “wherein, in orthogonal projection” should read --wherein, in an orthogonal projection--; in claim 4, lines 8-9, “by axial bearing” should read --by an axial bearing--. Appropriate correction is required.
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: “overtravel system” in claim 10.
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.
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 § 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 1-11 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. For instance, the use of “which”, “each other”, “concerned”, “namely”, “so as”, “whereas”, “one to the other”, “to connect fixedly” are narrative and indefinite.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “wherein the sleeve is assembled with the plug: freely slidable along the axis when the plug is driven between the closed configuration and the predetermined intermediate position, and fixedly along the axis when the plug in the open configuration is driven beyond the predetermined intermediate position” is unclear and indefinite. This limitation contradicts the limitations of claim 1, which state that the sleeve is immobile during movement of the plug from closed to intermediate, and the sleeve moves when the plug moves from beyond intermediate.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “a movable part of the thermostatic element” in lines 2-3 is unclear and indefinite. It is unclear and indefinite whether this is the same movable part of the thermostatic element as claimed in claim 1, line 10 or a different movable part of the thermostatic element. For examination purposes, the limitation will be read as the same element: --the movable part of the thermostatic element--.
Regarding claims 6 and 8, the limitations “substantially parallel” and “substantially radial” are unclear and indefinite. The metes and bounds of “substantially parallel” and “substantially radial” are not defined in the specification and therefore and unknown/unclear and indefinite.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “at least one second chamber” in line 8 is unclear and indefinite. It is unclear and indefinite whether the limitation is referring to the second chamber of claim 1 or a different second chamber. For examination purposes, the limitation will be read as the same second chamber: --the second chamber--.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter: the prior art of record neither discloses nor makes obvious the combinations set forth in the independent claim.
Regarding claim 1, Grumer et al. (U.S. 2017/0220056) discloses a thermostatic valve, comprising: a housing (80, 83) inside which are arranged first and second chambers (inner 83, 85) which are configured to be directly connected to each other so that a fluid flows inside the housing (80, 83) and are each configured to each be connected directly to an outside (at 78 and 79) of the housing (80, 83) so that a fluid enters the housing (80, 83) and/or leaves the housing (80, 83) via the chambers (inner 83, 85) concerned; a plug seat (47) and a first sleeve seat 82; a thermostatic element (10), which includes a fixed part (14) fixedly connected to the housing (80, 83), and a movable part (12) movable along an axis relative to the fixed part (14), the fixed part (14) and movable part (12) axially moving away from each other under an action of an expansion of a thermally expandable material of the thermostatic element 10; a plug (50) which is movable along the axis relative to the housing (80, 83) in order to change between a closed configuration, wherein the plug (50) is axially pressed against the plug seat (47), so as to prevent the fluid from flowing between the first and second chambers (inner 83, 85), by passing through the plug seat (47), and an open configuration wherein the plug (50) is moved away from the plug seat (47) so as to let the fluid flow between the first and second chambers (inner 83, 85) by passing through the plug seat 47; and a sleeve (30) which is movable along the axis relative to the housing (80, 83) to change between a first configuration, wherein the sleeve (30) is pressed axially against the first sleeve seat (82), so as to prevent the fluid from flowing between the first and second chambers (inner 83, 85) by passing through the first sleeve seat (82), and a second configuration, wherein the sleeve (30) is moved away from the first sleeve seat (82) so as to let the fluid flow between the first and second chambers (inner 83, 85) by passing through the first sleeve seat (82), wherein the plug (50) is connected to the movable part (12) of the thermostatic element (14) and to the sleeve (30) so that during the expansion of the thermally expandable material: the movable part (12) drives the plug (50) along the axis with respect to the housing (80, 83) from the closed configuration to the open configuration, until the plug (50) occupies a predetermined intermediate position, whereas the sleeve (30) is immobile with respect to the housing (80, 83), staying in the first configuration thereof, then the plug (50) in the open configuration is driven along the axis with respect to the housing (80, 83) by the movable part (12) beyond the predetermined intermediate position, while driving the sleeve (30) along the axis with respect to the housing (80, 83) from the first configuration to the second configuration.
Grumer fails to disclose the housing supporting a plug seat and a first sleeve seat in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 2-11 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. Auweder (U.S. 2013/0240634) discloses a thermostatic valve comprising: a housing comprising first and second chambers; the housing having a plug seat and a first sleeve seat; a thermostatic element; a plug; a sleeve.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY E CARY whose telephone number is (571)272-9427. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-5:30pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at (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 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.
/KELSEY E CARY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753