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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to applicant’s argument that it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the primary reference Clear et al. with the secondary reference Shimizu et al., Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the secondary reference does provide a teaching and motivation to combine as was and is rejected below, for the advantage of contributing to elimination of an air lock in the system. Applicant states that the primary reference Clear et al. is designed to incorporate a feature from a different type of system and cites the vent pipe 22 as an example, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Clear et al. disclose a vacuum drainage system with a vacuum drainage valve that is analogous with the secondary reference Shimizu et al. who also disclose a vacuum drainage system with a vacuum drainage valve. Applicant states that since Clear et al. disclose a vent pipe any vacuum lock up of the vacuum valve is prevented, Examiner respectfully disagrees and cites the disclosure of Shimizu et al. Column 1 line 23-Column 2 line 20 which disclose a conventional vacuum sewage system that also has a vent pipe (315) and can still have the air lock issue within the vacuum valve.
Since the following grounds of rejection are being maintained, the instant Office action has been made final.
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) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clear et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,282,281) in view of Shimizu et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,013,909).
Regarding claim 1, Clear et al. disclose an extraction valve (40) comprising: a valve body (Fig. 3), the valve body having an inlet port (56) defining an inlet passageway (Fig. 3), an outlet port (58) defining an outlet passageway (Fig. 3), and portions defining a valve seat (60) generally located between the inlet port (56) and the outlet port (58); a bonnet (64), the bonnet (64) mounted to the valve body (Fig. 3) and cooperating with the valve body to define a fluid chamber (54) communicating the inlet port (56) with the outlet port (58); the bonnet (64) including a valve member (80) disposed within the fluid chamber (54) and moveable between an engaged position (Fig. 3) with the valve seat (60) and a disengaged position (Fig. 4) with the valve seat (60), in the engaged position (Fig. 3) the valve member (80) preventing fluid communication (Column 5 lines 23-40) between the inlet port (56) and the outlet port (58); but lacks disclosure of an induction port defined in the valve body, the induction port defining a passageway in fluid communication with the fluid chamber.
Shimizu et al. teach an extraction valve (4) comprising a valve body (body of valve 4, Fig. 2) having an inlet passageway (3) and an outlet passageway (5), a fluid chamber (chamber in communication with nozzle 8, Fig. 2) communicating the inlet passageway (3) with the outlet passageway (5); and an induction port (8) defined in the valve body (Fig. 2) with a passageway (Fig. 2) in fluid communication with the fluid chamber (Column 5 line 58-Column 6 line 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve of Clear et al. with an induction port as taught by Shimizu et al. for the advantage of contributing to elimination of an air lock in the system (Column 7 lines 27-33).
Regarding claim 2, Shimizu et al. (modified above) teach wherein the induction port (8) is located upstream (Fig. 2) of the valve seat (6a).
Regarding claim 3, Shimizu et al. (modified above) teach wherein the induction port (8) is located in a side wall (Fig. 2) of the valve body (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Shimizu et al. (modified above) teach wherein the passageway (passageway of 8, Fig. 2) of the induction port (8) has a cross-sectional area smaller (Fig. 2) than a cross-sectional area of the inlet passageway (3).
Regarding claim 5, Shimizu et al. (modified above) teach wherein the induction port (8) is coupled to a source of ambient pressure (10c, Column 5 line 58-Column 6 line 14).
Regarding claim 6, Clear et al. disclose a liquid collection system (10) comprising: a liquid collection device (14); an accumulator (16), the liquid collection device (14) being coupled to the accumulator (16) whereby liquid from the collection device (14) is transferred to the accumulator (16); a vacuum pipe (36, 38, and 42), the vacuum pipe (Column 4 lines 5-12) having an upstream portion (42) and a downstream portion (38), the upstream portion (42) being coupled (Fig. 9) to the accumulator (16); an extraction valve (40) coupled to the vacuum pipe (Fig. 9); a valve controller (50), the valve controller (50) coupled to the extraction valve (40); and a vacuum pump (30), the vacuum pump (30) coupled (Column 4 lines 5-12) to the downstream portion (38) of the vacuum pipe (36, 38, and 42); the extraction valve (40) including a valve body (Fig. 3), the valve body having an inlet port (56) defining an inlet passageway (Fig. 3), an outlet port (58) defining an outlet passageway (Fig. 3), and portions defining a valve seat (60) generally located between the inlet port (56) and the outlet port (58), a bonnet (64), the bonnet (64) being mounted to the valve body (Fig. 3) and cooperating with the valve body to define a fluid chamber (54) communicating the inlet port (56) with the outlet port (58), the bonnet (64) including a valve member (80) disposed within the fluid chamber (54) and being moveable between first position (Fig. 3) engaged with the valve seat (60) and a second position (Fig. 4) disengaged from the valve seat (60), in the first position (Fig. 4) the valve member (80) preventing fluid communication (Column 5 lines 23-40) between the inlet port (56) and the outlet port (58), but lacks disclosure of an induction port defined in the valve body, the induction port defining a passageway in fluid communication with the fluid chamber.
Shimizu et al. teach an extraction valve (4) comprising a valve body (body of valve 4, Fig. 2) having an inlet passageway (3) and an outlet passageway (5), a fluid chamber (chamber in communication with nozzle 8, Fig. 2) communicating the inlet passageway (3) with the outlet passageway (5); and an induction port (8) defined in the valve body (Fig. 2) with a passageway (Fig. 2) in fluid communication with the fluid chamber (Column 5 line 58-Column 6 line 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve of Clear et al. with an induction port as taught by Shimizu et al. for the advantage of contributing to elimination of an air lock in the system (Column 7 lines 27-33).
Regarding claim 7, Shimizu et al. (modified above) teach wherein the induction port (8) is located upstream (Fig. 2) of the valve seat (6a).
Regarding claim 8, Shimizu et al. (modified above) teach wherein the induction port (8) is located in a side wall (Fig. 2) of the valve body (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Shimizu et al. (modified above) teach wherein the passageway (passageway of 8, Fig. 2) of the induction port (8) has a cross-sectional area smaller (Fig. 2) than a cross-sectional area of the inlet passageway (3).
Regarding claim 10, Shimizu et al. (modified above) teach wherein the induction port (8) is coupled to a source of ambient pressure (10c, Column 5 line 58-Column 6 line 14).
Regarding claims 11 and 13, Shimizu et al. (modified above) teach wherein the induction port (8) is an elongated port (disclosed nozzle is capable of being elongated, Column 5 lines 58-65) extending from the valve body (Fig. 2), but lacks clear disclosure of the induction port being an elongated port.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the induction port of Shimizu et al. to be an elongated port, since applicant has not disclosed that the elongated port solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the nozzle of Shimizu et al. to prevent any potential air lock as is disclosed.
Regarding claims 12 and 14, Shimizu et al. (modified above) teach wherein the induction part (8) and the valve body (Fig. 2) are of one-piece construction (nozzle is mounted on the valve body as is disclosed in Column 5 lines 58-65 to make an integral one-piece construction), but lacks disclosure if applicant is attempting to refer to a monolithic one-piece construction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the valve of Clear et al. with a one-piece construction valve and induction port, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
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 Reinaldo Sanchez-Medina, telephone number 571-270-5168, fax number 571-270-6168. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (7:30AM-4:00PM 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 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.
/REINALDO SANCHEZ-MEDINA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights