DETAILED ACTION
Non Final
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/10/2025 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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 3 “at least one bypass channel in the housing” in line 2;
Claim 13 “a biased hinge…a poppet…a compressible polymer” for the biasing means;
Claim 16 “a swing check valve…a butterfly check valve…a tilting disk check valve”;
Claim 18 “an electrochemical device”;
Claim 19 “an electrolyser”;
Claim 20 “a purge line of the electrolyser”;
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 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 § 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 1-16 and 18-21 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.
The following Claims recite limitations which have insufficient antecedent basis. The Claims and respective limitations include the following: Claim 1, "the housing" in line 3 (and throughout the dependent claims), "the valve" in line 7; Claims 2-16, "A check valve" in line 1 (where the limitation for each dependent claim is reintroduced in the preamble, making the metes and bounds of the respective claims unclear if a new limitation is being introduced or merely a typographical error); Claim 6, "the interior" in line 2; Claims 19-21, "A system" in line 1, where the limitation is reintroduced making it unclear if a new claimed invention is being introduced or merely a dependent claim (as has been taken); Claim 18 “a check valve” introducing the limitation again from claim 1; Appropriate correction is required.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 15 recites the broad recitation “diameter between 1 and 100 microns”, and the claim also recites “1 and 50 microns”; “1 and 20 microns” and “5 and 15 microns” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claims 8, 13, 15, each recite the term "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the term/phrase are part of the claimed invention (or merely preferred to the previous recitation.) See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 (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.
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 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) 1-7, 9-13, 16 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Parker (US 2318962);
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker as applied to claims 1 and 7 (as indefinitely understood) above, and further in view of Fischer (US 6877525);
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker as applied to claims 1 and 12 (as indefinitely understood) above;
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker as applied to claims 1 (as indefinitely understood) above, and further in view of Avis (US 6920895);
Claim(s) 18-21 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker as applied to claims 1 (as indefinitely understood) above, and further in view of McElroy (US 4657829.)
Parker discloses in claim 1: A check valve (12 figure 1 and 4) comprising: a valve housing (10/11/12); a valve member (24) within the housing, the valve member being movable between an open position and a closed position (via fluid pressure/spring bias action for reciprocal axial movement of the valve 24); and at least one restricted channel (at 33) through the valve member, wherein, in the closed position, the at least one restricted channel is arranged to allow a restricted backflow of fluid through the valve (Col 4 ln 42 – 65.)
Parker discloses in claim 2: A check valve according to claim 1, comprising at least one further channel (30/30a) arranged to allow fluid flow through or around the valve member when the valve member is in the open position (Col 3 ln 40-42).
Parker discloses in claim 3: A check valve according to claim 2, wherein the at least one further channel is at least one bypass channel in the housing (flow path when valve 24 is open, and is between 24 and 11 at 23 and the return inside of 11a figure 4) arranged to provide a fluid flow path around the valve member.
Parker discloses in claim 4: A check valve according to claim 2, wherein the at least one further channel is at least one throughflow channel (30 that is passing fluid) through the valve member arranged to provide a fluid flow path through the valve member.
Parker discloses in claim 5: A check valve according to claim 2, wherein the at least one further channel has a larger cross sectional area that the at least one restricted channel (30 is a larger flow path cross sectional area than that of 33.)
Parker discloses in claim 6: A check valve according to claim 1, wherein the valve member is arranged to extend (transversely/radially) across the interior of the housing.
Parker discloses in claim 7: A check valve according to claim 1, wherein the valve member comprises sealing means (interpreted under MPEP 2181, where the structure of the sealing surface of 24 opposed to 23, is functionally equivalent to the sealing means in figure 1 element 13, where the surfaces act equivalently to seal in the same general way so as to provide the same result of closing and opening the fluid valve…) for sealing the valve member against a part of the housing in the closed position.
Parker discloses in claim 8: A check valve according to claim 7, Parker does not disclose, although Fischer teaches: the sealing means is a gasket, preferably an O-ring gasket (51 figure 2 and see Col 3 ln 44-53, provided for the purpose of maintaining a fluid tight seal at the interface.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Parker a taught in Fischer with a sealing means such as a gasket, preferably an O-ring gasket as taught in Fischer, all provided for the purpose of maintaining a fluid tight seal at the interface.
Parker discloses in claim 9: A check valve according to claim 7, wherein the sealing means is arranged on the valve member (the outer surface of 24 is on the outside and facing 23 so as…) to surround an inlet or outlet of the at least one restricted channel.
Parker discloses in claim 10: A check valve according to claim 7, wherein the sealing means is arranged to prevent fluid flow from an inlet of the valve housing through or around the valve member when the valve member is in the closed position (as shown and discussed above.)
Parker discloses in claim 11: A check valve according to claim 1, wherein the at least one restricted channel is arranged in the centre of the valve member (33 is centered in the valve 24.)
Parker discloses in claim 12: A check valve according to claim 1, comprising a biasing means (27 is a coil spring…) within the housing arranged to bias the valve member into the closed position.
Parker discloses in claim 13: A check valve according to claim 12, wherein the biasing means comprises at least one of (the following considered an alternative grouping under MPEP 2131): a spring, preferably a coil spring (27); a biased hinge; a poppet; and/or a compressible polymer.
Parker discloses in claim 14: A check valve according to claim 12, wherein the biasing means is calibrated such that the valve member is arranged to move between from the open position to the closed position at a [certain spring force] pressure; Parker does not disclose: a pressure of below 0.5 bar; but recognizing that Parker is fluid pressure balanced via the bleed passage 33, and considering that the opening and closing of the spring is a direct measure of the spring force opposed to the fluid pressure controlled there through; One of ordinary skill in the fluid art would consider providing a spring with a nominal force in a fluid pressure balanced valve of about for example 5 N/cm2 applicable to the spring seat, all for the purpose of assuring for example a certain measure of closing force, while taking into account the fluid pressure upstream of the valve during pressurization;
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Parker as one of ordinary in the art would consider, a spring with a nominal force in a fluid pressure balanced valve as taught in Parker, for example of about 5 N/cm^2 (which is at or below about 0.5 bar) to be applied for closing the spring seat, all for the purpose of assuring for example a certain measure of closing force, while taking into account the fluid pressure above 5 N/cm^2 upstream of the valve during pressurization and to open the valve.
Parker discloses in claim 15: A check valve according to claim 1, wherein the at least one restricted channel has a [small] diameter; but Parker does not disclose, although Avis teaches: diameter of [the channel/bypass] (38 figure 1) between 1 and 100 microns (0.001 inches which is about 25 microns, Col 11 ln 34-47, and provided for the purpose of reducing the fluid pressure balancing of the valve to a desired measurable rate based on the viscosity and pressure of the fluid), preferably between 1 and 50 microns, more preferably between 1 and 20 microns, and yet more preferably between 5 and 15 microns;
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Parker as taught in Avis, with a diameter of the channel/bypass of about 25 microns or 0.001 inches, provided for the purpose of for example, reducing the fluid pressure balancing of the valve to a desired measurable rate based on the viscosity and pressure of the fluid.
Parker discloses in claim 16: A check valve according to claim 1, wherein the check valve is one of (MPEP 2131 alternative grouping): a swing check valve; a lift check valve (24 is a lift check valve); a butterfly check valve; a stop check valve; or a tilting disk check valve.
Parker discloses in claim 18: the check valve is connected to an outlet pipeline (as necessarily the case) but Parker does not disclose, although McElroy (US 4657829) teaches: A system (figure 2) comprising: an electrochemical device (electrolyzer 40); and a check valve (43) provided to maintain a certain level of fluid pressure into the system from the pump.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide the check valve of Parker as taught in McElroy in an electrolyzer system/device for the purpose of maintaining for example, a certain level of fluid pressure into the system from the pump for system operation.
Parker discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 19: A system according to claim 18, wherein the electrochemical device is an electrolyser (as discussed above.)
Parker discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 20. A system according to claim 19, wherein the outlet pipeline is a purge line of the electrolyser (the check valve is arranged in the purge valve of both the hydrogen and oxygen tank lines of the electrolyzer of Parker/McElroy.)
Parker discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 21: A system according to claim 18, wherein the check valve comprises at least one further channel (30 Parker) arranged to allow fluid flow through or around the valve member when the valve member is in the open position (as discussed above); Although Parker does not explicitly disclose, although appears to suggest: the total cross sectional area of the at least one further channel is more than or equal to the cross sectional area of the outlet pipeline (the cross sectional area of the 5-30 channels as seen in figure 3 visually appear to approach the total cross sectional areal of the passage 16 or 17, as the channel areas extend outwards to circumscribe the outlet pipleline, for the purpose of for example, maintaining fluid flow rate and equivalent pressure through the valve when fully open);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide as arguably taught in or suggested by Parker, providing the total cross sectional area of the at least one further channel to be more than or equal to the cross sectional area of the outlet pipeline of Parker where the cross sectional area of the further channels can be sized to approach or equal or exceed the total cross sectional areal of the outlet pipeline passage, where the further channel areas can extend outwards to circumscribe the outlet pipleline as taught in Parker, and all for the purpose of for example, maintaining fluid flow rate and equivalent pressure through the valve when fully open, all especially since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
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 MATTHEW W JELLETT, whose telephone number is 571-270-7497. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Ken Rinehart can be reached at (571)-272-4881, or Craig Schneider can be reached 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 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.
/Matthew W Jellett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights