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/Restriction
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species (the examiner notes that Figs. 1A-1C appear to be prior art and to see the drawing objection below and Figs. 8-10 do not appear to read on any of the claims):
Species I of Figs. 2A-3C.
Species II of Figs. 4-5C.
Species III of Figs. 6A-7C
The species are independent or distinct because specific claims read only on certain species. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, no claims appear generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: Specific claims read only on certain species.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with Timothy P. Collins on 12/6/25 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Species I, claims 1-6. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 7-19 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 3/10/26. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanjing Runze Fluid Control Equipment CO LLC CN 213598624 U in view of Shirai et al. US 5,094,430.
Regarding claim 1, Nanjing Runze discloses a valve for a liquid chromatography system, comprising:
a stator 310 (see Fig. 2);
a rotor that rotates about a vertical axis relative to the stator, the rotor comprising a rotor body 320 and a rotary shaft interface 400, the rotary shaft interface comprising a cavity 411 along the vertical axis and an indentation 4112 at a bottom region of the cavity along the vertical axis;
a platen 330 positioned within the cavity of the rotary shaft interface (see Fig. 2, the back of 411 from the cross-section is raised up such that the platen is positioned within the cavity) and in communication with a bottom surface of the rotor body, the platen having a feature 334 along the vertical axis; and
a ball bearing 500 having a top portion positioned in the feature of the platen and a bottom portion positioned in the indentation of the rotary shaft interface allowing for pivoting of the platen relative to the vertical axis and for aligning a top surface of the rotor body to be parallel with a surface of the stator.
Nanjing Runze lacks the platen feature being conical. Shirai discloses the equivalence of a ball bearing 30 that is in an indentation feature that is conical (28 and 29 in Fig. 2) or spherical (28 or 29 in Fig. 3). 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 spherical feature in the platen of Nanjing Runze into a conical feature as disclosed by Shirai as the equivalence of the two shapes is disclosed in Shirai and/or as a matter of simple substitution of shapes of the features and/or to make it conical would provide less surface area contacting as would only be line contact as opposed to full surface sphere to sphere contact. The examiner would like to point out that applicant’s own disclosure in [0012] states that “The indentation of the platen may be conical, cylindrical, or spherical” so are seen as equivalent even by the applicant.
Regarding claim 5, Nanjing Runze in view Shirai discloses the conical feature of the platen in communication with the ball bearing provides a fulcrum that is proximal the bottom surface of the rotor body (a fulcrum is what is made by making the conical feature).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanjing Runze Fluid Control Equipment CO LLC CN 213598624 U in view of Shirai et al. US 5,094,430 in view of Peterson US 6,067,864.
Regarding claim 2, Nanjing Runze lacks an o-ring about the platen in the cavity of the rotary shaft interface. Peterson discloses using O-rings 13, 28, 30, 60 to seal moving parts in a fluid flow system. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an o-ring as disclosed by Peterson about the platen in the cavity of the rotary shaft interface of Nanjing Runze in order to prevent leakage as is well known in using O-rings and/or “obvious to try” an o-ring about the platen in the cavity of the rotary shaft interface to minimize leakage and keep the device fluid tight.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanjing Runze Fluid Control Equipment CO LLC CN 213598624 U in view of Shirai et al. US 5,094,430 in view of Tower US 2015/0114501.
Regarding claim 6, Nanjing Runze lacks what material the rotor is formed of such as a hard material selected from a group comprising stainless steel, titanium, ceramic, and tetragonal zirconia polycrystal (TZP), metal, or glass. Tower discloses the rotor made of metal [0009]. 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 material of the rotor metal as a matter of simple substitution of materials and/or metal is known to be cheap and strong and resistant to wear and breakage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 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 3-4 is a valve having the combination of the rotor body has a first hole at a first side of the rotor body and a second hole at a second side of the rotor body with the valve further comprises a first pin extending from the rotary shaft interface into the first hole of the rotor body and a second pin extending from the rotary shaft interface into the second hole of the rotor body allowing the rotor body and the rotary shaft interface to rotate about the vertical axis in unison in combination with the rest of the device as claimed in claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/10/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the drawing objections, the applicant has provided new accepted drawings for the prior art and the examiner agrees with the applicant that the 3 211’s are all pointing to the same thing and is clearer now that it is on the record. Regarding applicant’s argument to the 103 rejections to claims 1 and 5 of Nanjing Runze in view of Shirai, the examiner does not agree that the platen is not positioned within the cavity of the rotary shaft interface in amended claim 1. See Nanjing Runze, Fig, 2 as the cavity at the top, middle of 411 (especially see the raised back of 411 away from the cross-section) which clearly shows platen 330 inside this cavity. The examiner notes that platen 330 is above and below 331 thus is clearly in the cavity. The arguments to the 103 rejections to dependent claims 2 and 6 are based upon the argument to claim 1 which is responded to above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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)272-4921 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
Prosecution Insights