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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I: Fig. 2 in the reply filed on 01/12/2026, is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 and 8 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. Claim 4 and 8 do not contain any limitation which is not already included in claim 1. 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-10, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jackson, Jr. et al. (U.S. Publication 2016/0061344), hereinafter “Jackson”.
In regards to claims 1, 4, 8, Jackson discloses a fluid management system comprising: a housing (12) having a port (port closed by gate 28); a valve body (22) moveable within the housing (12) between a first position (Fig. 10) and a second position (Fig. 7), the valve body (22) configured to seal the port in the first position (Fig. 10) and to permit fluid flow through the port in the second position (Fig. 7), wherein the valve body (22) includes a shoulder (42); a biasing element (44) surrounding a portion of and coupled to the valve body (22), the biasing element (44) configured to bias the valve body (22) toward one of the first position (Fig. 10) or the second position (Fig. 7); an actuator (40) surrounding a portion of and coupled to the valve body (22), wherein the actuator (44) includes a shape memory alloy material (para. 0049]) and is configured to move the valve body (22) to one of the first position (Fig. 10) or the second position (Fig. 7) against a biasing force of the biasing element (44) in response to heating the actuator (40); and a power source (para. [0052]) electrically coupled to the actuator (40), wherein the power source (para. [0052]) is configured to selectively drive current through the actuator (40) to heat the actuator (40), wherein the biasing element (44) and actuator (40) engage opposite sides of shoulder (42) on the valve body (22).
In regards to claim 2, the biasing element (44) extends in a direction along a length of the valve body (22).
In regards to claim 3, the actuator (40) extends in a direction along a length of the valve body (22).
In regards to claim 7, the housing (12) is configured to support the valve body (22) for sliding movement between the first (Fig. 10) and second positions (Fig. 7). See Merriam-Webster which defines “sliding” as: “to move smoothly along a surface”.
In regards to claim 9, the actuator (40) is a spring.
In regards to claim 10, Jackson discloses a fluid management system comprising: a housing having a port; a valve body moveable within the housing between a first position and a second position, wherein the housing is configured to support the valve body for sliding movement to seal the port in the first position and to permit fluid flow through the port in the second position;a biasing element surrounding a portion of and coupled to the valve body, wherein the biasing element extends in a direction along a length of the valve body and is configured to bias the valve body toward one of the first position or the second position;an actuator extending in a direction along and surrounding a length of the valve body and surrounding a portion of the biasing element, wherein the actuator is coupled to the valve body and includes a shape memory alloy material, and wherein the actuator is configured to move the valve body to one of the first position or the second position against a biasing force of the biasing element in response to heating the actuator; anda power source electrically coupled to the actuator, wherein the power source is configured to selectively drive current through the actuator to heat the actuator. See the rejections of claims 1-4, and 7-9 above.
Jackson further discloses that the biasing element (44) extends in a first direction from a shoulder (42) on the valve body (22) toward a first end of the housing (12) and the actuator (40) extends in a second opposite direction from the shoulder (42) toward a second opposite end of the housing (12).
In regards to claim 14, the biasing element (44) is configured to bias the valve body (22) toward the first position.
In regards to claim 15, the actuator (40) is a spring.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crofts et al. (U.S. Patent 6,253,736) in view of Jackson.
In regards to claims 1, 4, 8, Crofts discloses a fluid management system comprising: a housing (14) having a port (57); a valve body (50) moveable within the housing (14) between a first position (Fig. 2a) and a second position (Fig. 2b), the valve body (50) configured to seal the port (50) in the first position (Fig. 2a) and to permit fluid flow through the port in the second position (Fig. 2b), wherein the valve body (50) includes a shoulder (S); a biasing element (56) surrounding a portion of and coupled to the valve body (50), the biasing element (56) configured to bias the valve body (50) toward one of the first position (Fig. 2a) or the second position (Fig. 2b); an actuator (52) coupled to the valve body (50), wherein the actuator (52) includes a shape memory alloy material and is configured to move the valve body (50) to one of the first position (Fig. 2a) or the second position (Fig. 2b) against a biasing force of the biasing element (56) in response to heating the actuator (52); and a power source (58]) electrically coupled to the actuator (52), wherein the power source (58) is configured to selectively drive current through the actuator (52) to heat the actuator (52), wherein the biasing element (56) and actuator (52) engage opposite sides of shoulder (S) on the valve body (50).
PNG
media_image1.png
1330
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Crofts does not specifically disclose that the actuator surrounds a portion of the valve body. However, Crofts does explicitly disclose that actuator 52 “may include any type or design of piezoelectric actuator capable of actuating control valve member 50”.
Jackson teaches a fluid management system which includes a piezo actuator which surrounds a portion of a valve body (see the discussion above).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have utilized a piezo spring centered along a valve shaft as taught by Jackson in lieu of the piezo stack disclosed by Crofts as the simple solution of one type of piezo actuator with another type of piezo actuator.
In regards to claim 2, the biasing element (56) extends in a direction along a length of the valve body (50).
In regards to claim 3, the actuator (Jackson 40) extends in a direction along a length of the valve body (50).
In regards to claim 5, the valve body (50) includes a plunger and a sealing element (54) coupled to one end of the plunger.
In regards to claim 7, the housing (14) is configured to support the valve body (50) for sliding movement between the first (Fig. 2a) and second positions (Fig. 2b).
In regards to claim 9, the actuator (Jackson 40) is a spring.
In regards to claims 10 and 21, Crofts, as modified by Jackson, discloses a fluid management system comprising: a housing having a port; a valve body moveable within the housing between a first position and a second position, wherein the housing is configured to support the valve body for sliding movement to seal the port in the first position and to permit fluid flow through the port in the second position;a biasing element surrounding a portion of and coupled to the valve body, wherein the biasing element extends in a direction along a length of the valve body and is configured to bias the valve body toward one of the first position or the second position;an actuator extending in a direction along and surrounding a length of the valve body and surrounding a portion of the biasing element, wherein the actuator is coupled to the valve body and includes a shape memory alloy material, and wherein the actuator is configured to move the valve body to one of the first position or the second position against a biasing force of the biasing element in response to heating the actuator; anda power source electrically coupled to the actuator, wherein the power source is configured to selectively drive current through the actuator to heat the actuator. See the rejections of claims 1-5, and 7-9 above.
Crofts, as modified, further discloses that the biasing element (56) extends in a first direction from a shoulder (S) on the valve body (50) toward a first end of the housing (14) and the actuator (Jackson 40) extends in a second opposite direction from the shoulder (S) toward a second opposite end of the housing (14).
In regards to claim 11, the valve body (50) includes a plunger and a sealing element (54) coupled to one end of the plunger.
In regards to claim 12, the actuator (Jackson 40) extends along a first length along of the plunger and the biasing element (56) extends along a second length along the plunger different from the first length.
In regards to claim 13, the first length is less than the second length.
In regards to claim 14, the biasing element (56) is configured to bias the valve body (50) toward the first position.
In regards to claim 15, the actuator (Jackson 40) is a spring.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 16-20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to R.K. Arundale whose telephone number is 571-270-3453. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881, and Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/ROBERT K ARUNDALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753