DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16 were filed with the amendment dated 06/16/2026.
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 06/16/2026 overcome the previously set forth 35 USC 112b rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejections over DE 102014013630 (“Rosgen”), Applicant argues that Rosgen does not disclose a gas pressure equalization apparatus where gas is permitted to flow because Rosgen discloses liquid (see Remarks at page 10, 1st paragraph). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 1-16 are apparatus claims. The material, i.e., gas, worked upon in an apparatus is not given patentable weight (see MPEP 2115). Additionally, Rosgen discloses that other fluids, such as “air” (i.e., a gas) can be used with the valve (see Rosgen Translation at para [0036]).
Applicant further argues that the spring is configured to hold the valve body in the open state because the valve will close upon a pressure change (see Remarks at page 10, 2nd paragraph). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Rosgen discloses that in the open state, a fuel pressure lower than the pressure required to cause the snap-action will keep the spring (44) in its shape (i.e., open) (see Rosgen at para [0111]). Thus, Rosgen meets the broad claim limitation of “the spring configured to hold the valve body in the open state” because the spring (44) keeps it open at lower pressures.
With regard to the rejections over U.S. Pat. No. 3,429,327 (“Wright”), Applicant argues that the rejection over Wright fails because Wright discloses two valve seats and not a single valve seat (see Remarks at page 10, last paragraph). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., one-direction opening with one seat) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Wright still meets the claimed recitations.
Applicant further argues that the spring is configured to hold the valve body in the open state because the valve will close upon a pressure change (see Remarks at page 11 to page 12, first paragraph). The examiner respectfully disagrees. The spring (8) in Wright is a toggle spring that snaps into the open position (when moves away from seat 13). The spring (8) holds the open position for pressures under a predetermined force (see col. 4, lines 8-36). Thus, Wright meets the broad limitation of “the spring configured to hold the valve body in the open state.”
With regard to amended claim 3, the combination of Rosgen and Wright meet the claimed invention. The spring of Rosgen is connected to a pin shaped connecting member of the valve body (near 40) and is connected to the housing (20+28).
The rejection is made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1, 4-11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 102014013630 (hereinafter referred to as “Rosgen”) (cited on IDS dated 04/14/2025 with Translation).
With regard to claim 1, Rosgen discloses a gas pressure equalization apparatus (Figs 2-4) (see para [0036] “air”), comprising: a housing (30/28, para [0098]) defining a gas passage opening (24, para [0096]) surrounded by a valve seat of the housing (valve seat 34); a valve (36, para [0100]) having a valve body (38) with an exterior side (side facing 26) and an interior side (side facing 24) facing the gas passage opening (24), the valve body (38) being moveable between an open state (lifted off of 34) in which a gas is permitted to flow through the gas passage opening (24) and a closed state (Fig 2 state) in which the valve body (38) makes sealing contact with the valve seat (34); and a spring (44, “spring” because made of spring steel and with spring arm sections, see para [0106]) holding the valve body in the closed state (Fig 2 state) (para [0109]), the spring being configured to snap the valve body (38) into the open state when a first pressure acting on the interior side of the valve body (38) exceeds a second pressure acting on the exterior side of the valve body (38) by a predetermined threshold (“snap disk 44 finally snaps” para [0111]) (see paras [0110]-[0112]), the spring (44) being configured to hold the valve body in the open state (a fuel pressure lower than the pressure required to cause the snap-action will keep the spring (44) in its open shape; see Rosgen at para [0111]).
PNG
media_image1.png
575
878
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 4, Rosgen discloses that the spring (44) comprises a spring steel (pars [0052] [0106]).
With regard to claim 5, Rosgen discloses that the spring (44) has a stable state (“snap disc 44 is stable in its shape” para [0107]) due to a manufacturing process. The phrase “due to a manufacturing process” is a product by process limitation. 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). The product of the claim is the same/obvious from a product of Rosgen as it is also a spring with a stable state.
With regard to claim 6, Rosgen discloses that in an installed state in which the valve body (38) is closed (state/position of Fig 2), the spring (44) is arranged under elastic preload between the housing (30) and the valve body (38) and has a first metastable preloaded installed state (“preload” para [0109]).
With regard to claim 7, Rosgen discloses that in a case of an open valve body (38) (when 38 lifts off of 34, for state of spring 44 shown in Fig 4), the spring has a second metastable state (“metastable opening state” para [0113]).
With regard to claim 8, Rosgen discloses that in an opening direction (upwards direction in Fig 2) of the valve body (38), a functionally unstable changing region is arranged between the first metastable preloaded installed state (state shown in Fig 1) and the second metastable state (state shown in Fig 4), in which changing region the spring (44) is configured to be snapped over from the installed state (Fig 2) into the second metastable state (Fig 4) (44 moves between state in Fig 2 to state in Fig 4 and, inherently, 44 must have an in-between position as it moves between the Fig 2 and Fig 4 state).
With regard to claim 9, Rosgen discloses that the valve includes a connecting member (42, para [0102] see Fig 2) connecting the valve body (38) and the spring (44) (see Fig 2).
With regard to claim 10, Rosgen discloses that the connecting member (42) is formed by a journal (42 is a “journal” much like the application in that it is part of a shaft, see fig 2).
With regard to claim 11, Rosgen discloses that the connecting member (42) and the valve body (38) are configured in one piece from the same material (see Fig 2, also “40 is formed radially outwardly into a coaxial retaining collar 42” para [0102] and “valve plate 38 merges integrally into a coaxial valve stem 40.” Para [0101]).
With regard to claim 15, Rosgen discloses that the housing (30) and the valve seat (34) are configured in one piece (shown in Fig 2).
Claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 3,429,327 (“Wright”).
With regard to claim 1, Wright discloses a gas pressure equalization apparatus (Fig 1). The material, i.e., gas, worked upon in an apparatus is not given patentable weight (see MPEP 2115). The apparatus of Wright comprises: a housing (3) defining a gas passage opening (19) surrounded by a valve seat of the housing (valve seat 13; col. 3, lines 19-32); a valve (7) having a valve body (26) with an exterior side (side facing away from 13) and an interior side (side facing 13) facing the gas passage opening (19), the valve body (26) being moveable between an open state (lifted off of 13) in which a gas is permitted to flow through the gas passage opening (19) and a closed state (Fig 1 state) in which the valve body (26) makes sealing contact with the valve seat (13); and a spring (8, col. 2, lines 26-27) holding the valve body (26) in the closed state (Fig 1 state), the spring (8) being configured to snap the valve body (26) into the open state (away from 13) when a first pressure acting on the interior side of the valve body (26) exceeds a second pressure acting on the exterior side of the valve body (26) by a predetermined threshold (“spring is snapped” col. 4, line 10), the spring (8) being configured to hold the valve body in the open state (col. 3, line 73 to col. 4, line 15; the spring (8) holds the open position for pressures under a predetermined force; see col. 4, lines 8-36).
PNG
media_image2.png
842
692
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 4, Wright discloses that the spring (8) comprises spring steel (col. 3, lines20-21).
With regard to claim 5, Wright discloses that the spring (8) has a stable state due to a manufacturing process (spring 8 is stable because stays in position – col. 4, lines 36-44).
With regard to claim 9, Wright discloses that the valve includes a connecting member (stem 24) connecting the valve body (26) and the spring (8) (see fig 1).
With regard to claim 13, Wright discloses that wherein on a side which faces the valve seat (13), the valve body (26) has a seal (23 – resilient material, rubber; col. 2, lines 62-64).
With regard to claim 14, Wright discloses that the seal (23) comprises a rubber-elastic material (23 – resilient material, rubber; col. 2, lines 62-64).
With regard to claim 15, Wright discloses that the housing (3) and the valve seat (13) are configured in one piece (shown in Fig 1).
Claims 1 and 2, under an alternative interpretation, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 3,429,327 (“Wright”).
With regard to claim 1, Wright discloses a gas pressure equalization apparatus (Fig 1). The material, i.e., gas, worked upon in an apparatus is not given patentable weight (see MPEP 2115). The apparatus of Wright comprises: a housing (3) defining a gas passage opening (6/17) surrounded by a valve seat of the housing (valve seat 14; col. 2, line 40); a valve (7) having a valve body (26) with an exterior side (side facing away from 14/6) and an interior side (side facing 14/6) facing the gas passage opening (6/17), the valve body (26) being moveable between an open state (lifted off of 14) in which a gas is permitted to flow through the gas passage opening (6/17) and a closed state (when 26 seated on seat 14) in which the valve body (26) makes sealing contact with the valve seat (14); and a spring (8, col. 2, lines 26-27) holding the valve body (26) in the closed state (26 seated on seat 14; col. 4, lines 40-43), the spring (8) being configured to snap the valve body (26) into the open state (away from 14; Fig 1 position) when a first pressure acting on the interior side of the valve body (26) exceeds a second pressure acting on the exterior side of the valve body (26) by a predetermined threshold (“spring is snapped” col. 4, line 10), the spring (8) being configured to hold the valve body in the open state (col. 3, line 73 to col. 4, line 15; the spring (8) holds the open position for pressures under a predetermined force; see col. 4, lines 8-36).
With regard to claim 2, Wright discloses that the spring (8) is configured to exert a tensile force on the valve body (26) in the closed state (seated against 14; spring 8 in position shown in Fig 3, which is in a tensile force position pushing up on 24) and to exert a compression force on the valve body (26) in the open state (Fig 1 state, when seat 14 is open; (in compression state in Fig 1 position; col. 4, lines 8-11 “compression force stored in 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.
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 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102014013630 (“Rosgen”) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 3,429,327 (“Wright”).
With regard to claim 3, Rosgen discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that the spring is a leaf spring.
Rosgen discloses that a central portion of the spring (44) is connected to a pin shaped connecting member (42) of the valve body (38), and the ends of the spring (44) are connected to the housing (28+20 are the housing).
Wright teaches a pressure equalization apparatus with a valve (7) and snap acting spring (8), similar to that of Rosgen, that it is known in the art to modify a snap acting spring to be configured as a leaf spring (“Toggle spring 8 is of the leaf type” col. 3, line 20).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a leaf spring for the snap action spring, as taught by Wright, in place of the spring of Rosgen, since the springs are known equivalents and the use of which would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claim 16, which depends from claim 3, the combination discloses that the interior side of the leaf spring has a central concave portion (spring 8 in Wright is concave as the central portion adjacent 30 in Fig 1) disposed between two convex portions (convex portions on outer portions of 8 in Fig 1; see annotated Fig 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
798
634
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102014013630 (“Rosgen”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2024/0133475 (“Tracz”).
With regard to claim 12, Rosgen discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that the valve body comprises a polymeric material.
Tracz teaches that it is known in the art to modify a valve with a valve body (628 and spring (biasing member 626, see Fig 29) to have the valve body comprise a polymeric material (para [0125]: “poppet 628 is formed from a plastic or other polymeric material”).
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 valve body of Rosgen out of any suitable material, such as a tough polymeric material, such as taught by Tracz, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (See MPEP 2144.07).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 3,429,327 (“Wright”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2024/0133475 (“Tracz”).
With regard to claim 12, Wright discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that the valve body comprises a polymeric material.
Tracz teaches that it is known in the art to modify a valve with a valve body (628 and spring (biasing member 626, see Fig 29) to have the valve body comprise a tough (as far as definite and understood) polymeric material (para [0125]: “poppet 628 is formed from a plastic or other polymeric material”).
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 valve body of Wright out of any suitable material, such as a tough polymeric material, such as taught by Tracz, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (See MPEP 2144.07).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102014013630 (“Rosgen”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0182366 (“Haynes”).
With regard to claim 13, Rosgen discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that on a side which faces the valve seat, the valve body has a seal which makes sealing contact with the valve seat in a case of a closed gas passage opening.
Haynes teaches that it is known in the art to modify a valve body (174) to include, on a side facing a valve seat (172), a seal (178) which makes sealing contact with the valve seat in a case of a closed gas passage opening (para [0042]; compare Fig 1B open position with Fig 3B closed position).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add a seal, such as taught by Haynes, to the valve body of Rosgen, for the purpose of improving the seal between the valve body and seat.
With regard to claim 14, (claim 14 depends from claim 13), the combination discloses that the seal (178 of Haynes) comprises a rubber-elastic seal material (para [0046]: “Gasket 178 may be comprised of a rubber material, such as an elastic polymer”).
Conclusion
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