DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 1-15 as filed 12/06/2024 are pending for consideration.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-13 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "in particular" in line 1 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 1, the term "essentially" in line 19 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how much of the valve-seat sealing face is required to be formed on the sealing portion.
Claim 2 recites “said valve-seat sealing face axially directly adjoins said support-element body portion”. These limitations are unclear because applicant’s valve-seat sealing face 70 faces away from the support-element body portion 76. Therefore, it is unclear what is required by this claim.
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 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) 1-11, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hashiba et al. (US Patent Application 2023/0304583).
Regarding Claim 1, Hashiba discloses a valve, in particular for a fuel cell system (para. 0016), comprising: a discoid valve element 14 (as shown in Figures 3 and 4) pivotable about a pivot axis (pivot axis L1; para. 0046) between an open position (as shown in Figure 4) and a closed position (as shown in Figure 3); said discoid valve element 14 having an outer circumferential region defining an annular valve-element sealing face (sealing face 18); an annular valve seat (including 21 and 22) surrounding a valve opening (opening defined within seat surface 17) and having an inner circumferential region defining a valve-seat sealing face 17 annularly surrounding a valve-opening center axis P1 (as best shown in Figure 6) and being in contact with said valve-element sealing face 18 when said discoid valve element is in said closed position (as shown in Figures 3 and 6); said annular valve seat including an annular valve-seat support element 21 and an annular valve-seat sealing element 22 supported on said valve-seat support element 21; said valve-seat sealing face 17 being arranged on said valve-seat sealing element 22; said valve-seat support element 21 including a support-element body portion (main portion of 21 as shown in the annotated Figure 8 below) supporting said valve-seat sealing element 22 to prevent movement radially outward with respect to said valve-opening center axis (via engagement of surface 41 of element 21 with press-fit surface 32 of housing 6); said valve-seat sealing element 22 including, on one axial side of said support-element body portion, a sealing portion protruding beyond said support-element body portion axially with respect to said valve-opening center axis (the portion having surface 17 as shown in the annotated Figure 8 below protrudes axially beyond the support element body portion with respect to the center axis); and, essentially all of said valve-seat sealing face 17 being formed on said sealing portion (as shown in the annotated Figure 8 below, all of the valve seat sealing face 17 is formed on the sealing portion).
PNG
media_image1.png
668
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Hashiba is seen as further disclosing the valve-seat sealing face 17 axially directly adjoins said support-element body portion (the lower end of the sealing face 17 is seen to directly adjoin the support element body portion in at least the same manner as achieved by applicant’s device).
Regarding Claim 3, Hashiba further discloses said valve-seat sealing face 17 is arranged at an axial distance from said support-element body portion (as shown in the annotated Figure 8 above, the valve-seat sealing face is axially above the support-element body portion).
Regarding Claim 4, Hashiba further discloses an axial length of extent of said support-element body portion is less than a maximum axial length of extent of said valve-seat support element 21 (as shown in the annotated Figure 8 above, the axial extent of the support-element body portion of 21 is less than the maximum axial length of 21 achieved at the radial outer portion of 21).
Regarding Claim 5, Hashiba further discloses a valve housing 6 wherethrough gas flows when said discoid valve element is in said open position (via flow passage 11); and, said valve-seat support element 21 being supported in said valve housing 6 (as shown in Figures 3 and 4 especially).
Regarding Claim 6, Hashiba further discloses said valve-seat support element 21 is held in said valve housing 6 by at least one of press fit and material bonding (press fit; para. 0051).
Regarding Claim 7, Hashiba further discloses at least one of the following applies: i) a chamfer is provided on said valve housing; and, ii) a chamfer is provided on an outer circumferential region of said valve-seat support element in at least one axial end region (a chamfer is provided on an outer circumferential region of said valve-seat support element 21 in at least one axial end region at inclined portion 44).
Regarding Claim 8, Hashiba further discloses said pivot axis L1 is radially offset with respect to said valve-opening center axis P1 (as best shown in Figure 6) and is offset axially in a direction of said valve-opening center axis with respect to said valve-seat sealing face 17 (as best shown in Figure 6, the pivot axis L1 is above the sealing face 17 providing an axial offset).
Regarding Claim 9, Hashiba further discloses said valve-seat support element 21 is made of rigid material (such as stainless steel; para. 0050) and said valve-seat sealing element 22 is made of elastic material (rubber; para. 0050).
Regarding Claim 10, Hashiba further discloses said valve-seat support element 21 is made of metal material or plastic material (metal material; para. 0050) and said valve-seat sealing element 22 is made of rubber (para. 0050).
Regarding Claim 11, Hashiba further discloses one element of said valve-seat support element 21 and said valve-seat sealing element 22 includes: at least two protrusions (valve-seat sealing element 22 includes two protrusions as shown in the annotated Figure 8 above) which: i) are arranged at a distance from one another in a direction of said valve-opening center axis (i.e. the protrusions are axially spaced apart); ii) protrude radially toward the other element of said valve-seat support element and said valve-seat sealing element (i.e. the protrusions protrude radially outward toward the valve-seat support element 21); and; iii) form a recess therebetween (recess as shown in the annotated Figure 8 above); and, wherein the other element of said valve-seat support element and said valve-seat sealing element (element 21) includes, in association with said recess, a protrusion engaging in said recess (protrusion of 21 as shown in the annotated Figure 8 above).
Regarding Claim 14, Hashiba discloses a fuel cell system 101 comprising: a fuel cell unit 111 and at least one valve (valve 141, later described at valve 1; para. 0034) for selectively blocking and releasing a gas flow to and/or from the fuel cell unit (blocking and releasing air supply passage 131); said at least one valve 1 including: a discoid valve element 14 (as shown in Figures 3 and 4) pivotable about a pivot axis (pivot axis L1; para. 0046) between an open position (as shown in Figure 4) and a closed position (as shown in Figure 3); said discoid valve element 14 having an outer circumferential region defining an annular valve-element sealing face (sealing face 18); an annular valve seat (including 21 and 22) surrounding a valve opening (opening defined within seat surface 17) and having an inner circumferential region defining a valve-seat sealing face 17 annularly surrounding a valve-opening center axis P1 (as best shown in Figure 6) and being in contact with said valve-element sealing face 18 when said discoid valve element is in said closed position (as shown in Figures 3 and 6); said annular valve seat including an annular valve-seat support element 21 and an annular valve-seat sealing element 22 supported on said valve-seat support element 21; said valve-seat sealing face 17 being arranged on said valve-seat sealing element 22; said valve-seat support element 21 including a support-element body portion (main portion of 21 as shown in the annotated Figure 8 above) supporting said valve-seat sealing element 22 to prevent movement radially outward with respect to said valve-opening center axis (via engagement of surface 41 of element 21 with press-fit surface 32 of housing 6); said valve-seat sealing element 22 including, on one axial side of the support-element body portion, a sealing portion protruding beyond said support-element body portion axially with respect to said valve-opening center axis (the portion having surface 17 as shown in the annotated Figure 8 above protrudes axially beyond the support element body portion with respect to the center axis); and, all of said valve-seat sealing face 17 being formed on said sealing portion (as shown in the annotated Figure 8 above, all of the valve seat sealing face 17 is formed on the sealing portion).
Regarding Claim 15, Hashiba further discloses said fuel cell unit 111 comprises: an anode region (including 112; Figure 1) having an anode-gas feed region 121; an anode-exhaust-gas discharge region 122; a cathode region (including 113) having a cathode-gas feed region 131 and a cathode-exhaust-gas discharge region 132; and, wherein at least one of the following applies: i) said cathode-gas feed region 131 includes said valve; and, ii) said cathode-exhaust-gas discharge region 132 includes said valve (the cathode-gas feed region 131 includes the valve 1, indicated at 141 as described in para. 0034).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashiba et al. (US Patent Application 2023/0304583) in view of Geyer et al. (US Patent 10,400,897).
Regarding Claim 12, Hashiba does not specifically disclose said valve element is, at least in its surface region that comes into contact with the valve-seat sealing element, made of friction-reducing material at least in parts.
Geyer teaches a pivoting valve disc 308, at least in its surface region that comes into contact with a valve-seat sealing element 314, made of friction-reducing material at least in parts (the seal edge of disk 308 can comprise Teflon; col. 5, lines 42-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Hashiba such that the sealing surface of the valve element is made of friction-reducing material as taught by Geyer for the purpose reducing wear of the valve element.
Regarding Claim 13, Hashiba in view of Geyer further discloses said friction-reducing material is PTFE material (Teflon as taught by Geyer as described above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mishima et al. (US Patent Application 2018/0010699) and Yoshioka et al. (US Patent 10,862,147) teach pivoting valves.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-4pm.
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 supervisor, Craig Schneider can be reached on (571) 272-3607. 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.
/KEVIN F MURPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753