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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 7 July 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-14 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 8 April 2026.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rice (US 2471285).
Regarding Claim 1, Rice discloses a valve assembly (Figures 1-2) for cooling fluid1 comprising:
a valve housing (10) comprising a valve chamber (into which sleeve 20 is mounted), the valve housing further comprising an inflow port (15; Col 2, lines 3-12), a first outflow port (17 via 13; Col 2, lines 3-12), and a second outflow port (16 via 12; Col 2, lines 3-12), wherein a first flow path is formed between the inflow port and the first outflow port (Figure 1) and a second flow path is formed between the inflow port and the second outflow port (Figure 1),
a valve body (25) arranged within the valve chamber and configured to be movable between a first end position (rightward of the orientation of Figure 1 to allow communication from 15 to 17 via 13) for enabling the first flow path (Figure 1), a second end position (leftward of the orientation of Figure 1 to allow communication from 16 to 16 via 12) for enabling the second flow path (Figure 1) and a central position (shown in Figure 1) for blocking the inflow port (Figure 1) to close both the first flow path and the second flow path (to 16 or 17 as seen in Figure 1; where the inflow port 15 block fluid for via the flow paths).
Regarding Claim 2, Rice discloses where the valve body (25) is formed by a valve piston (Figure 1) linearly displaceable between the first end position and the second end position (Col 2, lines 23-24).
Regarding Claim 3, Rice discloses where the valve piston (25) comprises a first sealing portion (26; at least the rib 26 to the left as seen in the orientation of Figure 1) sealing against the valve housing (via the sleeve 20 which is also sealed against the housing as seen in Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 12, Rice discloses where the inflow port (15) is formed by a round or polygonal, triangular or trapezoidal, opening of the valve housing (at least a round opening of Figures 1).
Regarding Claim 13, Rice discloses where the valve assembly is of pressure-equalized design (via 25, 30 and 31).
Regarding Claim 14, Rice discloses where the valve piston (25) comprises a through-opening (25) for pressure equalization (via 31, 30).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice (US 2471285) in view of Smyers Jr (US 3497179).
Regarding Claim 4, Rice discloses where the first sealing portion (26) extends annularly around the valve piston (Figure 1) but fails to expressly disclose where the first sealing portion comprises a length along a valve piston longitudinal axis (L) of the valve piston which is greater than a length of an inflow geometry of the inflow port.
Smyers Jr teach a valve (Figure 1) with a sealing portion (24) where the sealing portion comprises a length along a valve piston (11) longitudinal axis (L) of the valve piston which is greater than a length of an inflow geometry of the inflow port (of 12 as seen in Figure 1).
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 first sealing portion of Rice with the sealing portion as taught by Smyers Jr for the advantage of protecting the o-ring by maintaining contact with the seal, as taught by Smyers Jr (Col 3, lines 53-57).
Regarding Claim 5, Smyers Jr teaches where the first sealing portion comprises a sealing element (24) for engagement with a valve chamber wall (Figure 1 of 10) and biasing means (27; Col 3, lines 36-39) for radially positioning the sealing element against the valve chamber wall (Col 3, lines 36-39).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Rice (US 2471285) in view of Smyers Jr (US 3497179).
Regarding Claim 6, Rice, as modified by Smyers Jr teach a first biasing element (27) but fails to expressly teach where the biasing means comprises a second biasing element, the first biasing element and the second biasing element arranged at a distance from one another in a direction of a valve piston longitudinal axis (L).
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 biasing element to include a second biasing element, the first biasing element and the second biasing element arranged at a distance from one another in a direction of a valve piston longitudinal axis (L) since a mere duplication of essential working part of device involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to secure biasing along a greater area of the sealing element.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice (US 2471285) in view of Jackson (US 4220178).
Regarding Claim 7, Rice discloses where the inflow port comprises:
a first opening contour configured to open the second flow path with a first slope (S1) of a flow cross-section expansion when the valve piston is moved into the second end position (Figure 1), and
a second opening contour configured to open the first flow path with a second slope (S2) of a flow cross-section expansion when the valve piston is moved into the first end position (Figure 1), but fails to expressly disclose where the first slope (S1) being different from the second slope (S2).
Jackson teaches a valve (Figure 1) with a spool (11 generally) with a modified spool shape such that a slope of a flow cross section expansion changes (Figure 1).
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 spool of Rice with the spool as taught by Jackson for the advantage of balancing the pressure drop across the spool land, as taught by Jackson (Col 1, lines 15-21).
Therefore, by modifying the shape of the spool of Rice, the first slope (S1) will be different from the second slope (S2).
Regarding Claim 8, Rice discloses an annular groove (11) in the valve chamber wall (Figure 1) is assigned to at least one of the first opening contour or the second opening contour, the annular groove being connected to the inflow port (to both opening contours as it connects to with 12 or 13).
Regarding Claim 9, Jackson teaches where a cross-section geometry of the inflow port is configured to be non-uniform in a direction of a valve piston longitudinal axis (L) (Figure 1 as the inflow port opens up by moving 14).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice (US 2471285) in view of Tucker (US 1785289).
Regarding Claim 10, Rice discloses all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose the valve piston comprises a third opening contour.
Tucker teaches a valve (Figure 1) with a valve piston (21) where the valve piston comprises a third opening contour (at 12 with port 11).
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 piston of Rice with the valve piston as taught by Tucker for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (a piston seat within a valve body) to yield predictable results (to open flow between ports of a valve assembly).
Regarding Claim 11, Tucker teaches where the valve piston (21) comprises a piston tip (at 12), the third opening contour being formed by a conical or frusto-conical tapering of the piston tip (Figure 1) or by at least one radial recess in the piston tip extending as far as an axial end face of the piston tip.
Response to Arguments
Applicant amends Claim 1 to incorporate the limitations “a central position (M) for blocking the inflow port to close both the first flow path and the second flow path” and argues that the prior art fails to teach or disclose these limitations since fluid within the valve is able to enter the connection area at the inflow port 15 and therefore does not block the inflow port.
However, as discussed above Rice discloses a central position (shown in Figure 1) for blocking the inflow port (Figure 1) to close both the first flow path and the second flow path (to 16 or 17 as seen in Figure 1; where the inflow port 15 block fluid for via the flow paths). Therefore the central position block the inflow port to close both the first and second flow path as required by the claims.
Therefore, these arguments are unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NICOLE GARDNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-4PM 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, KENNETH RINEHART (571-272-4881) or CRAIG SCHNEIDER (571-272-3607) can be reached by telephone. 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.
/NICOLE GARDNER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
1 The recitation “for cooling fluid” has not been given patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Additionally, the recitation of the actual fluid handled has been given no patentable weight in the apparatus claims, MPEP 2115.
Prosecution Insights