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 .
Acknowledgement is made of the preliminary amendment filed on 1/10/2025. Claims 1-18 are cancelled. Claims 19-36 are new. Accordingly, claims 19-36 are pending for consideration on the merits in this Office Action.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Germany on 7/14/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 102022117626.6 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/10/2025 was filed on or after the mailing date of the application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “edge flanging” recited in at least claim 24 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s); therefore, the “different shank diameters having at least one groove on an outer circumference” must be shown or the features canceled from at least claim 30.
No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The substitute specification filed 1/10/2025 has not been entered because it does not conform to 37 CFR 1.125(b) and (c) because a clean copy of the substitute specification has not been supplied.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract uses language which can be implied. For example, the abstract recites “…. The invention relates to a valve device.” Additionally, the abstract uses language which is imprecise. For example, the abstract recites “…wherein the capsule element can be fastened to the valve block.” A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 19-36 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 19, the recitation of “…wherein the capsule element can be fastened to the valve block by means of an actuator,” renders the claim unclear because the language is not concise. For example, it is unclear if the capsule element is affirmatively fastened to the valve block.
Thus, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Please amend for clarity.
Regarding Claim 21, the recitation of “…wherein the sleeve element is a threaded ring with an external thread which, for fastening the capsule element, is guided over the capsule element and, supported on the capsule element collar of the capsule element, can be screwed to an internal thread formed in the valve block, wherein a seal is arranged between an axially aligned end face of the capsule element collar and the valve block,” renders the claim unclear because the language is not concise. See the use of the limitation “can.”
For example, it is unclear if the capsule element is affirmatively fastened an internal thread formed in the valve block.
Thus, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Please amend for clarity.
Regarding Claim 22, the recitation of “…wherein a fastening plate with at least two screw passages can be used as the sleeve element, which is guided over the capsule element for fastening the capsule element and, supported on the capsule element collar, can be screwed to the valve block, wherein a corrosion protection element is arranged between the fastening plate and the valve block,” renders the claim unclear because the language is not concise. See the use of the limitation “can.”
For example, it is unclear if the capsule element is affirmatively fastened to the valve block.
Thus, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Please amend for clarity.
Regarding Claim 30, the recitation of “…wherein the valve body bushing has different shank diameters in the first axial section, wherein each of the different shank diameters has at least one groove which is formed on an outer circumference and has a seal for internal sealing with respect to the valve block,” renders the claim unclear.
A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty.
In this instance, the specification and drawing do not provide sufficient detail such that one skilled in the art would necessarily know when infringement occurs. 0018 of the disclosure mentions the recited limitation but does not provide sufficient detail.
Thus, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Please amend for clarity.
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.
Claim(s) 19, 24, 26, 27 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harada et al. (US2015/0276082).
Regarding Claim 19, Harada teaches a valve device for operation with a refrigerant in a motor vehicle heat pump system [fig 1], the valve device comprising:
a valve body bushing [14] with a first axial section [at least the lower portion of tubular retention member 14] provided for insertion into a valve block [13], in which a valve body chamber with a valve needle [20] guided axially therein is formed [0034-0038; fig 1],
a spindle drive with a magnetized rotor shaft [46, 49], which is supported by an anti-friction bearing [15] and coupled to the valve needle [20] in such a way that a rotation of the rotor shaft causes an axial movement of the valve needle in the valve body bushing [0042-0046; fig 1], and
a capsule element [58] which has an opening formed on one side, in which the spindle drive [46, 49] and a second axial section of the valve body bushing [at least the upper portion of tubular retention member 14] are received, wherein the capsule element is fastened to the valve block by means of an actuator [50] receiving it for driving the rotor shaft in such a way that the first axial section is received in the valve block in a fluid-tight manner [0037; 0041; fig 1].
Regarding Claim 24, Harada teaches the invention of claim 19 above and Harada teaches wherein the anti-friction bearing is received in the valve body bushing and is fixed by edge flanging [0037; fig 1].
Regarding Claim 26, Harada teaches the invention of claim 19 above and Harada teaches wherein the valve body bushing has a stop rib [Drawing I] which is formed on an outer circumference and which limits an axial insertion depth into the capsule element [Drawing I].
Regarding Claim 27, Harada teaches the invention of claim 19 above and Harada teaches wherein the valve needle has at least one groove [Drawing I] which is formed on an outer circumference and has a seal for internal sealing with respect to the valve body bushing [Drawing I].
PNG
media_image1.png
826
808
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Drawing I
Regarding Claim 30, the absence of an art‐based rejection for claim 30 is not an indication of allowable subject matter, but rather, is an indicium of the indefiniteness of the claims. Without a clear understanding of what the claims are intended to encompass, the examiner cannot apply prior art to the claims without undue speculation.
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.
Claim(s) 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al. (US2015/0276082) in view of Narukawa (US2018/0066765).
Regarding Claim 20, Harada teaches the invention of claim 19 above but does not explicitly teach wherein the opening of the capsule element has a stepped edge in a form of a capsule element collar pointing radially outwards, which cooperates with a superposed sleeve element for fastening the capsule element.
However, Narukawa teaches a flow control valve [fig 1] having wherein the opening of a capsule element [36] has a stepped edge [36a] in a form of a capsule element collar pointing radially outwards, which cooperates with a superposed sleeve element [39] for fastening the capsule element [0035; 0036; fig 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide structure that realizes attachment of the sleeve to the valve body [0035; 0036].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Harada to have wherein the opening of the capsule element has a stepped edge in a form of a capsule element collar pointing radially outwards, which cooperates with a superposed sleeve element for fastening the capsule element in view of the teachings of Narukawa where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide structure that realizes attachment of the sleeve to the valve body.
Regarding Claim 21, Harada, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 20 above and Narukawa teaches wherein the sleeve element [39] is a threaded ring with an external thread which, for fastening the capsule element, is guided over the capsule element [36], supported on the capsule element collar [36a] of the capsule element, can be screwed to an internal thread formed in a valve block [10], wherein a seal is arranged between an axially aligned end face of the capsule element collar and the valve block [0034-0037; fig 1].
Claim(s) 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al. (US2015/0276082) and Narukawa (US2018/0066765) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al. (US2014/0245778).
Regarding Claim 22, Harada, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 20 above but does not explicitly teach wherein a fastening plate with at least two screw passages can be used as the sleeve element, which is guided over the capsule element for fastening the capsule element and, supported on the capsule element collar, can be screwed to the valve block, wherein a corrosion protection element is arranged between the fastening plate and the valve block.
However, Suzuki teaches an expansion valve [fig 1] having wherein a fastening plate [56] with at least two screw passages [see fig 1] can be used as the sleeve element, which is guided over a capsule element [553] for fastening the capsule element and, supported on the capsule element collar, can be screwed to the valve block, wherein a corrosion protection element [57] is arranged between the fastening plate and the valve block [51; 0061-0065; fig 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide structure that realizes attachment of the sleeve element to the valve body [0061-0065].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Harada to have wherein a fastening plate with at least two screw passages can be used as the sleeve element, which is guided over the capsule element for fastening the capsule element and, supported on the capsule element collar, can be screwed to the valve block, wherein a corrosion protection element is arranged between the fastening plate and the valve block in view of the teachings of Suzuki where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide structure that realizes attachment of the sleeve element to the valve body.
Regarding Claim 23, Harada, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 22 above and Suzuki teaches wherein the fastening plate [56] serves as a holder for fastening an actuator [55; 0061-0065; fig 1].
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al. (US2015/0276082) in view of Hayashi (US2009/0293519).
Regarding Claim 25, Harada teaches the invention of claim 19 above but does not teach wherein the capsule element has a sliding bearing which serves as an additional bearing for the rotor shaft.
However, Hayashi teaches an expansion valve [fig 2] having wherein a capsule element [62] has a sliding bearing [64] which serves as an additional bearing for the rotor shaft [61; 0034-0036; fig 2] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide structure that realizes an anti-friction component within the system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Harada to have wherein the capsule element has a sliding bearing which serves as an additional bearing for the rotor shaft in view of the teachings of Hayashi where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide structure that realizes an anti-friction component within the system.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al. (US2015/0276082) in view of Bryant et al. (US2023/0151894).
Regarding Claim 28, Harada teaches the invention of claim 27 above and whereas Harada teaches a seal [Drawing I], Harada does not explicitly teach wherein the seal is formed as a combination seal with an O-ring and a PTFE-ring which is arranged on the O-ring and points radially outwards.
However, Bryant teaches a modulating valve [fig 5] having wherein the seal is formed as a combination seal with an O-ring and a PTFE-ring which is arranged on the O-ring and points radially outwards [see 60, 62; 0037; fig 5] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provides a durable low friction, sliding surface and thereby improves the valve system [0037].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Harada to have wherein the seal is formed as a combination seal with an O-ring and a PTFE-ring which is arranged on the O-ring and points radially outwards in view of the teachings of Bryant where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provides a durable low friction, sliding surface and thereby improves the valve system.
Claim(s) 29, 31 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al. (US2015/0276082) in view of Dong et al. (CN216789271U).
Regarding Claim 29, Harada teaches the invention of claim 19 above but does not explicitly teach wherein the valve body bushing in the first axial section has at least one groove which is formed on an outer circumference and has a seal for internal sealing with respect to the valve block.
However, Dong teaches an expansion valve [0001] having wherein the valve body bushing in the first axial section [at least the section of valve seat 6 having guide ring 9] has at least one groove [at A2] which is formed on an outer circumference and has a seal for internal sealing with respect to the valve block [see 0069; fig 2] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provides a dynamic sealing structure [0070].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Harada to have wherein the valve body bushing in the first axial section has at least one groove which is formed on an outer circumference and has a seal for internal sealing with respect to the valve block in view of the teachings of Dong where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provides a dynamic sealing structure.
Regarding Claim 31, Harada teaches the invention of claim 19 above but does not explicitly teach wherein the valve body bushing in the second axial section has at least one groove which is formed on an outer circumference and has a sealing ring for internal sealing with respect to the capsule element.
However, Dong teaches an expansion valve [0001] having wherein the valve body bushing in the second axial section [at A3] has at least one groove [at A3] which is formed on an outer circumference and has a sealing ring for internal sealing with respect to the capsule element [see 0053; fig 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provides a dynamic sealing structure [0070].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Harada to have wherein the valve body bushing in the second axial section has at least one groove which is formed on an outer circumference and has a sealing ring for internal sealing with respect to the capsule element in view of the teachings of Dong where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provides a dynamic sealing structure.
Regarding Claim 32, Harada teaches the invention of claim 19 above but does not explicitly teach wherein a guide disc is pressed into the valve body bushing, and wherein the guide disc has an opening cross-section which receives the valve needle and axially guides the valve needle.
However, Dong teaches an expansion valve [0001] having wherein a guide disc [11] is pressed into the valve body bushing, and wherein the guide disc has an opening cross-section which receives the valve needle [8] and axially guides the valve needle [see 0070; fig 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. axially limits the sealing retainer ring [0070].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Harada to have wherein a guide disc is pressed into the valve body bushing, and wherein the guide disc has an opening cross-section which receives the valve needle and axially guides the valve needle in view of the teachings of Dong where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. axially limits the sealing retainer ring.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al. (US2015/0276082) in view of Liu et al. (CN204387344U).
Regarding Claim 33, Harada teaches the invention of claim 19 above but does not explicitly teach wherein a seal in a form of a sealing ring is arranged between the capsule element and the actuator.
However, Liu teaches an expansion valve [0002] having wherein a seal [31] in a form of a sealing ring is arranged between a capsule element [at least the assembly of components 54, 44, 45; see fig 2] and the actuator [see 0048-0050; fig 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provides a better sealing effect [0049].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Harada to have wherein a seal in a form of a sealing ring is arranged between the capsule element and the actuator in view of the teachings of Liu where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provides a better sealing effect.
Claim(s) 34 -36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al. (US2015/0276082) in view of Wiechard et al. (US2018/0135903).
Regarding Claim 34, Harada teaches the invention of claim 19 above but does not explicitly teach wherein the valve body bushing and the valve needle are formed in such a way that there is a pressure bypass to the valve body chamber in a closed state of the valve device.
However, Wiechard teaches an expansion valve [0002] having wherein a valve body bushing and the valve needle are formed in such a way that there is a pressure bypass to the valve body chamber in a closed state of the valve device [see 0031; fig 3] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. where it is possible to guarantee a full, comparatively large flow diameter in both directions [0031].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Harada to have wherein the valve body bushing and the valve needle are formed in such a way that there is a pressure bypass to the valve body chamber in a closed state of the valve device in view of the teachings of Wiechard where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide where it is possible to guarantee a full, comparatively large flow diameter in both directions.
Regarding Claim 35, Harada, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 34 above and Wiechard teaches wherein when the refrigerant is R744, and a free diameter for pressure equalization in the pressure bypass is increased [0005; 0015].
Regarding Claim 36, Harada, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 35 above and Wiechard teaches wherein a diameter of the valve needle is dimensioned smaller for use with the R744 than for use with the refrigerant being R1234yf or R134a [0005; 0015; 0016; 0031].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY L FURDGE whose telephone number is (313)446-4895. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6a-3p; F 6a-10a.
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, Jerry Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. 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.
/LARRY L FURDGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights