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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) dated 10/10/2024 has been received and considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figures 1B and 6A show the sleeve 106 and stem 108 as being a single, unitary component; however, paragraph 27 describes the stem as being movable with respect to the sleeve, it is unclear how this would be possible if it is a single component. It is noted figure 1A appears to show 106 and 108 as two separate components.
Figure 6A is further objected to as hatching has not been shown to indicate sectional portions of the figures in accordance with 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3). Particularly for elements 106 and 108.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 9, “refrigerant received at the first port pushes” should be amended to --refrigerant is configured to be received at the first port to push the stem-- in order to avoid any potential possibility of method type steps being recited in the apparatus claim resulting in a 112(b) rejection, see MPEP2173.05(p).
Further instances of the above can be found in additional locations in claim 1 as well as claims 3 and 5.
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: coupling features in claim 18, corresponding to structure in the specification as recited in paragraphs 47 and 49, such as threads.
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 § 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) 1-3, 5, 8, 10-12, 14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qiu (U.S. 2010/0096028).
Qiu discloses an assembly comprising: a tube (pipe 3) having a first port and a second port (at the top and bottom in fig. 6); a sleeve (1) fixedly disposed within the tube (fig. 6); a stem (2) disposed, and axially movable (fig. 5-6), within the sleeve, wherein the stem has a rim formed at a proximal end thereof (at the bend that forms 23) ; a spring (24) mounted around the stem and axially interposed between the sleeve and the rim of the stem; and a seal (26) mounted to the stem, wherein: refrigerant received at the first port pushes the stem in a distal direction, compressing the spring, thereby preventing the stem from moving in the distal direction beyond a particular axial position (fig. 6), while allowing refrigerant to flow to the second port, and as pressure level at the first port is reduced, the spring pushes the stem in a proximal direction until the seal reaches the sleeve, thereby preventing the stem from moving further in the proximal direction, and blocking refrigerant flow to the first port (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 2, Qiu further discloses wherein the stem has a cylindrical portion (in the area of the lead line for numeral 2 in fig. 6), a flanged distal end (near 26 in fig. 6), and an annular groove interposed between the cylindrical portion and the flanged distal end, wherein the seal is mounted in the annular groove (see the groove where the seal 26 resides in).
Regarding claim 3, Qiu further discloses wherein the stem has a blind cavity (21) and one or more circumferential slots (22) formed in the cylindrical portion, wherein refrigerant received at the first port flows through the blind cavity, pushing the stem in the distal direction, then laterally outward through the one or more circumferential slots, then around the flanged distal end to the second port (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 5, Qiu further discloses wherein an outer diameter of the flanged distal end is smaller than an inner diameter of the tube (see fig. 6) such that refrigerant discharged from the one or more circumferential slots flows through an annular gap formed between the flanged distal end and the tube (see fig. 6).
Regarding claim 8, Qiu further discloses wherein the seal is a first seal, wherein the sleeve has an annular groove (the groove for 101), and wherein the assembly further comprises: a second seal (101) disposed in the annular groove of the sleeve such that the second seal is configured to seal between an exterior surface of the sleeve and an interior surface of the tube (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 10, Qiu a discloses method comprising: providing a tube (pipe 3); providing a sleeve (1) of a check valve, wherein the sleeve has a cylindrical cavity (within 1); inserting a stem (2) in the cylindrical cavity such that the stem is axially movable within the sleeve (figs. 5 and 6), wherein the stem has an annular groove (see the groove where the seal 26 resides in); mounting a spring (24) around the stem such that a distal end of the spring rests against the sleeve (fig. 6); forming a rim (at the bend that forms 23) at a proximal end of the stem such that a proximal end of the spring rests against the rim (fig. 6) ; mounting a seal (26) in the annular groove of the stem, wherein the stem is capable of sliding in a proximal direction until the seal contacts the sleeve (fig. 5); and mounting the check valve inside the tube such that the sleeve of the check valve is fixedly position within the tube (figs. 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 11, Qiu further discloses wherein inserting the stem in the cylindrical cavity of the sleeve comprises: inserting a cylindrical portion of the stem (in the rea of the lead line for numeral 2 in fig. 6) in the cylindrical cavity of the sleeve, wherein the stem further includes a flanged distal end (near 26 in fig. 6), wherein the annular groove is interposed between the cylindrical portion and the flanged distal end (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 12, Qiu further discloses forming the stem to have a blind cavity (21) and one or more circumferential slots (22) in the cylindrical portion.
Regarding claim 14, Qiu further discloses forming the flanged distal end of the stem such that an outer diameter of the flanged distal end is smaller than an inner diameter of the tube (see fig. 6).
Regarding claim 19, Qiu further discloses wherein the seal is a first seal, wherein the sleeve has an annular groove (the groove for 101), and wherein the method further comprises: mounting a second seal (101) in the annular groove of the sleeve such that the second seal is configured to seal between an exterior surface of the sleeve and an interior surface of the tube (fig. 6).
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) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu in view of Kuhn et al. (U.S. 2022/0260165).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Qiu discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose the sleeve comprising a tapered end that operates as a lead-in chamfer that facilitates insertion of the sleeve into the tube when mounting the check valve.
Kuhn teaches it was known in the art to have a similar sleeve that has a tapered end (see the inwardly tapered end where the lead line is for 21 in fig. 2) that operates as a lead-in chamfer that facilitates insertion of the sleeve into a tube (see fig. 3 showing in the inserted position, notice in the area of 39 how the sleeve can only be inserted in one direction, the direction where the tapered end is the first to be inserted into the structure 44 surrounding the sleeve).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sleeve of Qiu by having the sleeve have a tapered end as taught by Kuhn in order to more easily align and insert the sleeve into the tube.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu in view of Wynn (U.S. 4,129,145).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Qiu discloses the claimed invention and further discloses the spring resting on the rim (figs. 5-6) but does not appear to disclose the sleeve having an annular groove formed in a proximal end with a distal end of the spring received in the annular groove of the sleeve.
Wynn teaches it was known to have a sleeve with an annular groove formed in an end (groove 20 formed by shoulder 18) with a spring received in the groove of the sleeve (fig. 1B-1C).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sleeve of Qiu by having the sleeve have an annular groove formed in a proximal end with a distal end of the spring received in the annular groove of the sleeve as taught by Wynn in order to more securely receive the spring in the sleeve and prevent unwanted radial movement of the spring which could lead to damage or breaking of the spring, increasing the longevity of the device.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu in view of Salisbury (U.S. 3,001,546).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Qiu discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose the spring coiled in increasing outer diameter in the distal direction such that coils closer to the rim have a smaller diameter compared to coils closer to the sleeve.
Salisbury teaches it was known to have a check valve with a spring (36) with coils that have a smaller diameter towards a rim (near 30) as compared to coils closer to a sleeve (equivalent structure at 20)(notice the coils narrowing in diameter as the coils extend from 20 to 30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spring of Qiu such that the spring increases in outer diameter in the distal direction such that coils closer to the rim have a smaller diameter compared to coils closer to the sleeve as taught by Salisbury in order to provide an equivalent functioning spring but can be a shorter overall length for a more compact overall assembly and have better buckling resistance.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu in view of Turney (U.S. 4,257,443).
Qiu discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose after mounting the check valve within the tube, forming respective coupling features in a proximal end and a distal end of the tube to facilitate coupling the tube to a refrigeration system.
Turney teaches it was known in the art to have a similar check valve with a tubing that has coupling features at the proximal and distal ends (see the external threading at the end at 71 and the internal threading at the end at 77).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qiu by having couplings features (such as internal/external threading) at the proximal and distal ends of the tube as taught by Turney in order to more easily coupled the tube to various components via a secure means such as threading.
The examiner further notes that this forming of the coupling features can occur at any step, including before or after mounting the check valve within the tube, without affecting the resultant product and especially as it has been held that selection of an order of performing process steps has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art in the absence of new or unexpected results. In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930). See MPEP2144.04.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu in view of Sonsterod (U.S. 5,409,088).
Qiu discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose wherein forming the rim comprises using a rolling forming process to form the rim.
Sonsterod teaches it was known in the art to form a rim by using a rolling forming process (forming end portion 46 by rolling, see col. 3, ll. 59-63, which forms a similar resultant shape as that of Qiu).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qiu by having the rim formed by a rolling forming process as taught by Sonsterod in order to have the rim formed by a process known for forming such a rim that is conventional and relatively easy to manufacture in such a manner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 15 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.
Regarding claims 9 and 15, the closest prior art includes Fritts (U.S. 8,016,263). Fritts in figure 10 shows protrusions that keep a sleeve within a conduit; however, there are not proximal and distal annular grooves that form respective internal protrusions that retain the sleeve axially within the tube.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yie (U.S. 5,241,986) discloses a check valve with a stem that has a blind bore and radial openings and is spring biased closed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R REID whose telephone number is (313)446-4859. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-5pm est.
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 571-272-3607, or Ken 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 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.
/MICHAEL R REID/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753