CTNF 18/996,698 CTNF 87913 DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-10 were filed with the Preliminary Amendment dated 05/22/2025. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 01/17/2025 and 04/17/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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. 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: “control assembly” in claim 1; and “reset device” in claim 3; “first control structure” in claim 4; and “second control structure” in claim 4. 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. The specification describes the “control assembly” as comprising a shaft rod 108, sleeve 122, and reset device 126 (para [0030]). The specification describes the “reset device” as a torsion spring (para [0006]). The specification describes the “first control structure” as a shaft rod guide bar and a sleeve guide groove (para [0008]). The specification describes the “second control structure” as sleeve guide bar and a cover guide groove (para [0010]). If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim 1-3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by JP2012247012 (hereinafter “Keihin”) (cited on IDS dated 01/17/2025) (Translation provided on PTO 892) . With regard to claim 1 , Keihin discloses a valve (40b; Figs 1-4; paras [0024] [0025]), comprising: a housing (44, para [0027]), wherein the housing (44) defines a housing channel (70); a first valve body (ball valve 50) arranged in the housing channel (70) in a rotatable manner (paras [0028] [0013]), wherein the first valve body (50) defines a valve body channel (72, para [0034]), and the first valve body (50) is configured to connect or disconnect the housing channel (70) (paras [0054], see also Figs 3a-3e); a second valve body (52) arranged in the valve body channel (72, see fig 1; para [0033]) in a rotatable manner and configured to connect or disconnect the valve body channel (72) (para [0053]); and a control assembly (shaft 76, gear 90, spring 94, para [0040]) configured to control rotation of the first valve body (50) and the second valve body (52) (see para [0040] and see also Figs 3a-3e). PNG media_image1.png 508 785 media_image1.png Greyscale With regard to claim 2 , Keihin discloses that the second valve body (52) has a first position (Fig 3c; “substantially closed” para [0060]), a second position (Fig 3d; open; para [0062]) and a third position (Fig 3e; rotated counterclockwise 90 degrees, para [0063]; closed) and is rotatable between the first position, the second position and the third position (compare Figs 3c-3e), and the first valve body (50) has an open position (Figs 3c and 3d) and a closed position (Fig 3e) and is rotatable between the open position and the closed position (compare Figs 3a-3e); the control assembly (76, 90, 94), the first valve body (50) and the second valve body (52) are configured such that, during rotation of the second valve body (52) between the first position (Fig 3c) and the second position (Fig 3d), the first valve body (50) is in the open position (paras [0060] [0062]), and, during rotation of the second valve body (52) from the second position (Fig 3d) to the third position (Fig 3e), the second valve body (52) drives the first valve body (50) to rotate from the open position to the closed position (see Fig 3e and para [0063]: “the rotation direction of the rotation drive source 56 is reversed from the previous direction, causing the shaft axis 76 to rotate approximately 90 degrees counterclockwise. In this case, the engaging portion 76a of the engaging mechanism 75 comes into contact with the engaging projection 79 and presses against the engaging projection 79, causing the shaft 76 and the valve body 74 of the ball valve 50 to rotate together by approximately 90 degrees in a counterclockwise direction”). PNG media_image2.png 613 828 media_image2.png Greyscale With regard to claim 3 , Keihin discloses that the valve (40b) further comprises: a reset device (spring 94) configured such that, during rotation of the second valve body (52) from the third position (Fig 3e) to the second position (Fig 3d), the reset device (94) rotates the first valve body (50) from the closed position to the open position (spring 94 biases first valve body to the open position, see para [0044]). With regard to claim 10 , Keihin discloses that during rotation of the second valve body (52) between the first position (Fig 3c) and the second position (Fig 3d), the second valve body (52) is configured to regulate a flow rate of a fluid flowing through the valve (40b) (52 regulates by opening to allow fluid flow through 72, see also Fig 3d) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 4-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious “the control assembly comprises: a shaft rod connected to the second valve body and configured to rotate together with the second valve body; a sleeve extending about the shaft rod and configured to rotate together with the first valve body; and a cover arranged above the sleeve and connected to the housing, wherein the shaft rod and the sleeve are provided with a first control structure thereon, the first control structure is configured such that, during rotation of the second valve body from the second position to the third position, the second valve body drives the first valve body to rotate from the open position to the closed position, and wherein the cover and the sleeve are provided with a second control structure thereon, and the second control structure is configured to rotate the first valve body between the open position and the closed position” (claim 4) in combination with the other limitations set forth in the independent claim . JP 2012247012 (“Keihin”) and U.S. U.S. Pat. No. 2021/0381609 (“Inman”) are the closest prior art references of record. Keihin discloses a valve (40b) with a first valve body (50), a second valve body (52), and a control assembly (shaft 76, gear 90, spring 94). However, Keihin fails to teach or suggest the control assembly as required by claim 4. In Keihin, there is no first control structure on the shaft rod and sleeve, nor is there a second control structure on the cover and sleeve. Rather, Keihin discloses a control structure between the bottom of the shaft (at 76a) and a hole in the ball (79), as well as a control structure on portion (98) and portion of housing (96a of 44). It would not have been obvious to modify Keihin to arrive at the claimed subject matter without improperly changing the principle of operation of Keihin, or without improper hindsight reasoning. Inman discloses a valve (see Fig 7B) with a first valve body (50), and a second valve body (80), and a control assembly (stem 96). Inman does not teach or suggest a control assembly comprising a sleeve and cover, with first and second control structures. It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Inman to arrive at the claimed subject matter without improper hindsight reasoning . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Pat. No. 4,230,154 (“Kalbfleish”) discloses a valve with a first valve body (ball element 15) and a second valve body (butterfly 18). Kalbfleish discloses that the first valve body and second valve body are separately controlled (via handle 30 for ball 15; and handle 22 for butterfly 18) (col. 1, line 61 to col. 2, line 7) . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA CAHILL whose telephone number is (571)270-5219. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 to 3:00. 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 can be reached by phone. Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-60073607 or 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. /JESSICA CAHILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753 Application/Control Number: 18/996,698 Page 2 Art Unit: 3753 Application/Control Number: 18/996,698 Page 3 Art Unit: 3753 Application/Control Number: 18/996,698 Page 4 Art Unit: 3753 Application/Control Number: 18/996,698 Page 5 Art Unit: 3753 Application/Control Number: 18/996,698 Page 6 Art Unit: 3753 Application/Control Number: 18/996,698 Page 7 Art Unit: 3753 Application/Control Number: 18/996,698 Page 8 Art Unit: 3753 Application/Control Number: 18/996,698 Page 9 Art Unit: 3753 Application/Control Number: 18/996,698 Page 10 Art Unit: 3753
Prosecution Insights