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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “left and right sides to have a constant curvature” (claim 6), as described in the specification.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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) 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):
(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), 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a insertion shaped portion”, “a stopper shape portion”, in claims 2-5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the side to couple with the first fastening portion”, which is unclear, and is suggested to be changed to - -a side to couple with the single pair of the first fastening portions - -, and further recites, “each of the first fastening portion”, which is unclear, and is suggested to be changed to, - -each of the single pair of the first fastening portions - -.
Claims 2-5 recite limitations in the format of “a (1-1)-th ", as recited in claim 2 as one example, “ a (1-1)-th insertion shaped portion that vertically extends in the vertical direction of the valve housing; and a (1-1)-th stopper shaped portion ", this is unclear as to what structure the numerals are referring to in claims 2-5. Should this be changed to - - a first stopper shaped portion- -, as an example?
Claims 2,3,10 recites the limitation “the first fastening portion”, which is unclear, and is suggested to be changed to, - - the single pair of the first fastening portions - -.
Claim 2 further recites “the vertical direction”, “the end” and “the largest” which does not have antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim.
Claim 3 further recites “the lower side”, “the inner direction”, “the end”, and “the largest” which does not have antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim.
Claim 4 further recites “the side”, ”the vertical direction”, “the inner direction”, “the end”, and “the largest” which does not have antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim.
Claim 5 further recites “the side”, ”the lower side”, “the inner direction”, “the end”, and “the largest” which does not have antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “left and right sides to have a constant curvature” which is unclear as to how the device is configured in this manner since the valve seat (30) has portions that are straight.
Claim 10 further recites “on the outside” which does not have antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Graichen (US 11280414). The claims are being rejected as best understood, based on the 112 rejections above.
Regarding claim 1, Graichen discloses a valve seat assembly (see Fig. 1, below) structure comprising: a valve housing (60) including an inner wall (the inner wall of 60, at 73) and a single pair of first fastening portions (75,76) having a shape (the flat vertical shape along 75) that protrudes from the inner wall and provided to face each other; and
PNG
media_image1.png
1102
1016
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a valve seat (20,21,22) provided between the single pair of first fastening portions and including a second fastening portion (the sides at 39 see Fig. 5 below) formed on the side to couple with the first fastening portion, wherein each of the first fastening portion and the second fastening portion includes an insertion shaped portion having a curved shape (77, see Fig. 2, and the bottom of 22 at 41, see Fig. 6) and a stopper shaped portion having a planar shape (retaining shoulder 76, see fig. 1 is flat vertically, and the vertical wall of 39 that mates with 76, see Fig. 1, both of these portions are flat and therefore have a planar shape).
PNG
media_image2.png
1469
966
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Graichen discloses the first fastening portion includes: a (1-1)-th insertion shaped portion (a portion of 75) that vertically extends in the vertical direction of the valve housing; and a (1-1)-th stopper shaped portion (the upper portion of 76 that is perpendicular to 75) that is formed in the inner direction of the first fastening portion at the end (the left inner top end of 75) of the largest horizontal cross-section of the (1-1)-th insertion shaped portion.
PNG
media_image3.png
830
520
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Graichen discloses the first fastening portion includes: a (1-2)-th insertion shaped portion (the lower curved shaped portion below the vertical wall of 75) that extends in a curved shape from the lower side (the bottom side of the vertical part of 75) of the (1-1)-th insertion shaped portion; and
a (1-2)-th stopper shaped portion (the bottom section portion of 76 that intersects with the (1-2)-th insertion shaped portion) that extends in the inner direction of the first fastening portion at the end of the largest horizontal cross-section of the (1-2)-th insertion shaped portion.
PNG
media_image4.png
736
1088
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Graichen discloses the second fastening portion includes: a (2-1)-th insertion shaped portion (the upper side vertical wall portion of 38) that is formed in a straight area on the side of the valve seat, and vertically extends in the vertical direction of the valve seat; and a (2-1)-th stopper shaped portion (the inner vertical upper wall portion of 39 that is perpendicular to the (2-1)-th insertion shaped portion) that is formed in the inner direction of the second fastening portion at the end of the largest horizontal cross-section of the (2-1)-th insertion shaped portion.
PNG
media_image5.png
698
1310
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Graichen discloses the second fastening portion includes: a (2-2)-th insertion shaped portion (curved portion immediately below 38) that is formed in a curved area on the side of the valve seat and extends in a curved shape from the lower side of the (2-1)-th insertion shaped portion; and a (2-2)-th stopper shaped portion (the curved shaped portion of 22 immediately below the vertical wall of 39, as shown below) that extends in the inner direction of the second fastening portion at the end of the largest horizontal cross-section of the (2-1)-th insertion shaped portion.
Regarding claim 6, Graichen discloses the valve seat (20,22) is curved on both left and right sides to have a constant curvature based on a vertical centerline (in viewing item 20,22 in Fig. 1, both left and right sides at the bottom 41, have a constant curvature in as much as applicant’s device, as best understood).
Regarding claim 7, Graichen discloses the valve seat includes: a first wall portion (see Fig. 5,6, the uppermost top horizontal flat surface of 22 at the start of the lead line for 40) formed on its outside; and a second wall portion (the front face 45 of 22 surrounding 27,46) formed to surround a center hole (43) of the valve seat, and an insertion groove (the groove 46) is formed between the first wall portion and the second wall portion.
PNG
media_image6.png
855
563
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Graichen discloses a sealing portion (27) inserts into the insertion groove.
Regarding claim 9, Graichen discloses the sealing portion is an X-ring or an O-ring (since 25,27 has the shape of a circle, it is considered as an oring in the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding claim 10, Graichen discloses a valve seat assembly structure (see Fig. 1, below) comprising: a valve housing (60) including an inner wall (the inner wall of 60, having 70-77) and a single pair of first fastening portions (the wall structure on each side of the port 83 having 75,76) having a shape that protrudes from the inner wall and provided to face each other (surfaces 75 face each other);
a valve seat (20,22) formed with an insertion groove (at 46), provided between the single pair of first fastening portions, and
having a second fastening portion (at 38,39 on 22, see Fig. 5) to couple with the first fastening portion; and
a sealing portion (21) configured to insert into the insertion groove,
wherein the valve seat includes a closed portion (the wall that connects surface 45 to 46),
a first wall portion (at inner lip 44, see Fig. 4) formed on the outside based on the insertion groove, and a second wall portion (46) formed on the inner side than the first wall portion, a chamfer portion (the angled edge on the face of 22, laying between the lead lines for numeral 38,39 in Fig. 5) obliquely provided to face the first fastening portion is formed in a portion (the left face portion of 22 facing 25/29 in fig. 4) in which an outer portion (the surface of 45) of the closed portion and an outer portion (the thin vertical face of 44 facing 25,29 in Fig. 4) of the first wall portion are connected to each other, and a round portion (at 41) having a first curvature is formed in a portion (the lower portion of 22) in which the outer portion (the surface of 45) of the closed portion and an outer portion (the inner wall slot surface of 22 mating with 35,36) of the second wall portion are connected to each other.
PNG
media_image7.png
1481
1088
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Craig Price, whose telephone number is (571)272-2712 or via facsimile (571)273-2712. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:00AM-4:30PM EST).
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, 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.
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 Form at;
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/CRAIG J PRICE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753