DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 were filed with the application on 10/04/2024.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/03/2025 and 04/14/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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: “connecting device” in claim 9.
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.
The specification describes the connecting device as being a journal and in one piece with the valve body (paras [0029] [0030]).
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 § 112b
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.
Claim 12 is 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 “tough” in claim 12 (line 2) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “tough” 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 not clear how tough the material must be in order to meet the claim limitation. The examiner suggests deleting the term “tough.”
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, 2, 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 pressure equalization apparatus (Figs 2-4), comprising: a housing (30, para [0098]) with a gas passage opening (24, para [0096]) which is assigned a valve (36, para [0100]) with a valve body (38) which is loaded with spring force by a spring (44, “spring” because made of spring steel and with spring arm sections, see para [0106]), the valve body (38) being held by the spring (44) in a holding position (closed position in Fig 2), in which the valve body (38) makes sealing contact with a valve seat (34) (see Fig 2) (para [0109]), and the valve body (38) being configured to be snapped (“snap disk 44 finally snaps” para [0111]) in a manner which is dependent on a differential pressure and by the spring force of the spring (44) into an open position, in which the valve body (38) is open and lifted up from the valve seat (34) (see paras [0110]-[0112]).
PNG
media_image1.png
575
878
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, Rosgen discloses that the spring (44) is configured as a tension spring (“switching mechanism can be or have an element acting under pressure or, alternatively , under tension” para [0049]) (switching mechanism is the snap spring disc 44, see para [0051]).
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 spring (44) and the valve body (38) are connected by a connecting device (retaining collar 42, para [0102]).
With regard to claim 10, Rosgen discloses that the connecting device (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 device (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, 3-5, 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 pressure equalization apparatus (Fig 1), comprising: a housing (3) with a gas passage opening (at 19) which is assigned a valve (7) with a valve body (26) which is loaded with spring force by a spring (8, col. 2, lines 26-27), the valve body (26) being held by the spring (8) in a holding position (closed at seat 13, position shown in Fig 1), in which the valve body (26) makes sealing contact with a valve seat (13; col. 3, lines 19-32), and the valve body (26) being configured to be snapped (“spring is snapped” – col. 4, line 10) in a manner which is dependent on a differential pressure and by the spring force of the spring (8) into an open position (when 26 moves away from 13), in which the valve body (26) is open and lifted up from the valve seat (13) (col. 3, line 73 to col. 4, line 15).
PNG
media_image2.png
842
692
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 3, Wright discloses that the spring (8) is configured as a leaf spring (“Toggle spring 8 is of the leaf type” col. 3, line 20).
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 spring (8) and the valve body (23/26) are connected by a connecting device (stem 24 and screw 30).
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).
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
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.
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 tough 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 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 tough 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DE 2329068 discloses a valve with a snap action spring member.
GB2290368 discloses a pressure relief valve with a snap acting spring.
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