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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-16, in the reply filed on 1/29/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/29/26.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the implied language “The present disclosure relate”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, and 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Griffith et al. US 2,594,641.
Regarding claim 1, Griffith discloses a coupling assembly comprising:
a main body 11 forming a valve housing 11 that extends along a housing axis, the valve housing including a first port end defining a first port (at 14) and a second port end defining a second port (at 15), the valve housing defining a flow passage that extends through the valve housing from the first port to the second port (between 14 and 15), the valve housing further defining an internal valve seat 13;
a valve guide 23 positioned within the flow passage;
a valve member 17 and 20 supported by the valve guide within the valve housing, the valve member being moveable along the housing axis relative to the internal valve seat and the valve guide, the valve member including a valve head 17 and a valve shaft 20, the valve shaft extending along the housing axis and being supported for movement along the housing axis by the valve guide; the valve member being moveable relative to the internal valve seat between an open position and a closed position, the valve member being spring biased 21 toward the closed position (see Fig. 1);
a collar 19 configured to mount to the valve head, the collar having a construction that is radially movable between a first radial configuration and a second radial configuration that is radially larger than the first radial configuration, the first radial configuration being configured to allow the collar to be inserted through the internal valve seat, the second radial configuration being configured to retain the collar on the valve head (collar 19 is an O-ring made of rubber that is elastically compressed thus when removed can be squeezed to fit through the internal valve seat and moves from a first radial configuration that is compressed to fit through the internal valve seat to a second radial configuration that is at rest/not compressed thus is radially larger);
a valve head assembly including the valve head 17 and the collar 19, the collar being configured such that when the collar is mounted on the valve head, the collar moves with the valve member relative to the internal valve seat between the open position and the closed position and prevents the valve head from moving through the valve seat (see Fig. 1 as valve head assembly moves down and up and the collar stops the valve head assembly at the valve seat), wherein when the valve member is in the closed position with the collar mounted on the valve head, the valve head assembly seals the internal valve seat preventing fluid flow through the internal valve seat (see Fig. 1), and wherein when the valve member is in the open position the valve head assembly with the collar mounted on the valve head fluid flow through the flow passage between the first port and the second port is allowed (see Fig. 1, when the valve head assembly is moved down and open).
Regarding claim 2, wherein the main body defining the valve housing has a unitary seamless construction defining the first port, the second port, the valve seat and the flow passage (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, wherein the valve guide has a first port facing surface 22 defining a spring groove (see Fig. 1), and wherein a valve spring 21 for spring biasing the valve member to the closed position is captured between the valve head and the first port facing surface (see 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(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffith et al. US 2,594,641 in view of Johnson US 7,708,025.
Regarding claim 3, Griffith lacks the valve guide is unitary with the main body. Johnson discloses the valve guide 34 is unitary with the main body 10 (see Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the valve guide of Griffith unitary with the main body as disclosed by Johnson as a matter of simple substitution of make two pieces into one piece and/or makes it cheaper and/or easier to make one piece instead of two pieces.
Regarding claim 4, Griffith discloses the valve guide includes at least one arm 26, and wherein the at least one arm is integrally formed with the valve guide but not with the valve body. Johnson discloses the valve guide 34 is unitary with the main body 10 (see Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the arms of Griffith unitary with the main body as disclosed by Johnson as a matter of simple substitution of make two pieces into one piece and/or makes it cheaper and/or easier to make one piece instead of two pieces.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medina US 3,800,824 in view of Griffith et al. US 2,594,.
Regarding claim 1, Medina discloses a coupling assembly comprising:
a main body 12 forming a valve housing 12 that extends along a housing axis, the valve housing including a first port end defining a first port (top of 12) and a second port end defining a second port (bottom of 12), the valve housing defining a flow passage that extends through the valve housing from the first port to the second port (from top to bottom of inside 12), the valve housing further defining an internal valve seat 22;
a valve guide 40 positioned within the flow passage;
a valve member 24 and 28 supported by the valve guide within the valve housing, the valve member being moveable along the housing axis relative to the internal valve seat and the valve guide, the valve member including a valve head 28 and a valve shaft 24, the valve shaft extending along the housing axis and being supported for movement along the housing axis by the valve guide; the valve member being moveable relative to the internal valve seat between an open position and a closed position, the valve member being spring biased 21 toward the closed position (see Fig. 1);
a collar 20 configured to mount to the valve head;
a valve head assembly including the valve head 28 and the collar 20, the collar being configured such that when the collar is mounted on the valve head, the collar moves with the valve member relative to the internal valve seat between the open position and the closed position and prevents the valve head from moving through the valve seat (see Fig. 1 as valve head assembly moves down and up and the collar stops the valve head assembly at the valve seat), wherein when the valve member is in the closed position with the collar mounted on the valve head, the valve head assembly seals the internal valve seat preventing fluid flow through the internal valve seat (see Fig. 1), and wherein when the valve member is in the open position the valve head assembly with the collar mounted on the valve head fluid flow through the flow passage between the first port and the second port is allowed (see Fig. 1, when the valve head assembly is moved down and open).
Medina is silent as to the material of collar 20 (seen as hatched as rubber in Fig.1) and is silent to the collar having a construction that is radially movable between a first radial configuration and a second radial configuration that is radially larger than the first radial configuration, the first radial configuration being configured to allow the collar to be inserted through the internal valve seat, the second radial configuration being configured to retain the collar on the valve head. Griffith discloses a collar 19 that is made of rubber that is elastically compressed to provide fluid sealing between the valve head and valve seat and when removed can be squeezed to fit through the internal valve seat and moves from a first radial configuration that is compressed to fit through the internal valve seat to a second radial configuration that is at rest/not compressed thus is radially larger. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the collar of Medina out of rubber as disclosed by Griffith as a matter of simple substitution of materials and/or to provide better fluid sealing between the seal and valve head which would also allow the collar to have construction that would provide it to be elastically compressed have first and second radial configurations to allow the collar to be inserted through the internal valve seat.
Regarding claim 2, Medina discloses the main body defining the valve housing has a unitary seamless construction defining the first port, the second port, the valve seat and the flow passage (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Medina discloses the valve head is sized and configured such that when the collar is not attached to the valve head the valve head can pass through the valve seat (see Fig. 1 as 28 can pass through the valve seat).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for the allowance of the claims 5-13 is in claim 5, the coupling assembly of claim 1, wherein the collar includes a collar body including a central hub and a plurality of circumferentially spaced-apart resilient cantilever fingers that project from the central hub with the resilient cantilever fingers having finger lengths that extend from base ends formed with the central hub to free ends that resiliently flex along their lengths relative to the central hub to move the collar body between the first radial configuration and the second radial configuration in combination with the rest of the claim as in claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Edgeworth, Osburn, Johnson, Johanson, Carlson, and Ward disclose guide valves.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN BASTIANELLI whose telephone number is (571)272-4921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider, can be reached at telephone number (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 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.
/John Bastianelli/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
571-272-4921