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 .
Oath/Declaration
The application is lacking a proper oath or declaration. The inventor, or each individual who is a joint inventor of a claimed invention, in an application for patent must execute an oath or declaration directed to the application, except as provided for in § 1.64.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 5 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 1, the recitation “low volume lubrication system, comprising” should read --low volume lubrication system, the check valve comprising--.
In claim 1, line 17, the recitation “such that the cartridge includes the balls and seats and can be replaced in the body if the valve fails” should read --such that the replaceable cartridge includes the first and second balls and the first and second ball seats and can be replaced in the body if the check valve fails--.
In claim 2, the recitation “in which cartridge includes two cartridge outlets” should read --in which the at least one cartridge outlet includes two cartridge outlets--.
In claim 3, line 2, the recitation “the cartridge” should read –the replaceable cartridge--.
In claim 3, line 2, the recitation “an outlet of the body” should read –[[an]]the body outlet
In claim 5, line 2, the recitation “a check valve body, comprising” should read –a check valve body, the removable cartridge comprising--.
In claim 5, lines 11 and 12, both recitations of “the body” should read –the check valve body--.
In claim 7, the recitation “removing a first removable cartridge from a check valve” should read --removing [[a]]the first removable cartridge from [[a]]the check valve body--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3, 5 and 7 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “cartridge outlets” in line 1; however, the claim is unclear as to if this recitation refers to the “at least one cartridge outlet” recited in claim 1, line 14, or the “two cartridge outlets” recited in claim 2, or different cartridge outlets altogether. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that the recitation “in which cartridge outlets” in claim 3, line 1, should read --in which the two cartridge outlets--.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the body outlet” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that the recitation “the body outlet” in claim 5, line 10, should read –[[the]]a body outlet--.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the replaceable cartridge” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that the recitation “the replaceable cartridge” in claim 5, line 11, should read –the [[replaceable]]removable cartridge--.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the check valve assembly” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that the recitation “the check valve assembly” in claim 7, line 2, should read –the check valve [[assembly]]--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-7, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US2056133 (“Corey”).
Regarding claim 1, Corey discloses a check valve for a high pressure, low volume lubrication system, comprising:
a body (1) including:
a body inlet (5);
first threads (female threads of body 1 which engaged with male threads of cartridge housing 7);
a body outlet (3);
a replaceable cartridge comprising
a cartridge inlet (port obstructed by first ball 9) communicating with the body inlet;
a first spring (15);
a first ball seat (16);
a first ball (9) that can be biased by the first spring against the first ball seat (see position illustrated in fig. 1);
a second spring (17);
a second ball seat (18);
a second ball (10) that can be biased by the second spring against the second ball seat (see position illustrated in fig. 1);
at least one cartridge outlet (8) communicating with the body outlet;
second threads (male threads of cartridge housing 7 which engaged with female threads of body 1) that mate with the first threads of the body to secure the replaceable cartridge in the body (see fig. 1);
such that the cartridge includes the balls and seats and can be replaced in the body if the valve fails (see specification page 2, col. 1, lines 51-62).
Regarding claim 2, Corey discloses cartridge (7) includes two cartridge outlets (8).
Regarding claim 3, Corey discloses cartridge outlets (8) open into a space (4) between the cartridge (7) and the body (1) through which lubricant flows (see specification page 1, col. 2, lines 15-17) to an outlet (3) of the body.
Regarding claim 4, Corey discloses the first threads (female threads of body 1 which engaged with male threads of cartridge housing 7) are female threads and the second threads (male threads of cartridge housing 7 which engaged with female threads of body 1) are male threads.
Regarding claim 5, Corey discloses a removable cartridge for a check valve, the removable cartridge configured to fit inside a check valve body, comprising:
a cartridge inlet (5);
a first spring (15);
a first ball seat (16);
a first ball (9) that can be biased by the first spring against the first ball seat (see fig. 1);
a second spring (17);
a second ball seat (18);
a second ball (10) that can be biased by the second spring against the second ball seat (see fig. 1);
at least one cartridge outlet (8) communicating with the body outlet; and
threads (male threads of removable cartridge 7, which engage with female thread of check valve body 1) that mate with threads (female threads of check valve body 1, which engage with male threads of removable cartridge 7) of the body to secure the replaceable cartridge in the body (see assembly of fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Corey discloses a method of repairing a check valve composed of a body (1) and a removable cartridge (7), comprising:
removing a first removable cartridge (7) from a check valve body (1), the first removable cartridge including two balls (9, 10), two springs (15, 17), and two ball seats (16, 18); and
inserting a second removable cartridge into the check valve body, the second removable cartridge including two balls, two springs, and two ball seats (“Repairs can be quickly made by merely removing the cage and substituting another”; see specification page 2, col. 1, lines 51-62).
Regarding claim 7, Corey discloses removing a first removable cartridge from a check valve comprises unscrewing (see threaded engagement between cartridge housing 7 and check valve body 1) the first removable cartridge (7) from the check valve assembly (1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. DE102009017031, US4513220, US8656946, US9353742 and US9611980 disclose a check valve having serial spring biased ball closures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hailey K. Do whose direct telephone number is (571)270-3458 and direct fax number is (571)270-4458. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00AM-5:00PM ET) and Friday (8:00AM-12:00PM ET).
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, Kenneth Rinehart at 571-272-4881, or Craig M. Schneider at 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAILEY K. DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753