DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 were filed with the amendment dated 06/02/2026. Claim 21 was previously canceled.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 06/02/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments overcome the previously set forth 35 USC 112 rejections.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks and Amendments, filed 06/02/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. Pub. NO. 2021/0033201 (“Yan”) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0213962 (“Ludwig”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2003/0098077 (“McLane”) as set forth below.
The rejection is made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the inner duct” in line 3 should be changed to “the duct” to correct improper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-7, 11-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0213962 (“Ludwig”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2003/0098077 (“McLane”).
With regard to claim 1, Ludwig discloses a hydraulic rotary distributor (Fig 12) including a case (3) and a core (5), said case (3) comprising a lateral wall (outer circumferential wall of 3), two end walls (top and bottom walls) defining a hydraulic chamber (81), wherein the core (5) capable of rotating in said chamber (81) about an axis of rotation (“R”, para [0064]) is housed, at least one supply orifice (7, 11), and at least one outlet orifice (9, 10; para [0086]), which open(s) into the hydraulic chamber (81), the core (5) including a lateral surface (23) facing the lateral wall of the case (see Fig 12), an inlet opening (front opening of 79 in Fig 12), at least one lateral outlet (other opening and opposite end of 79 in Fig 12) and a duct or a chamber (duct between opening ends of 79, see Fig 12) that connects said inlet opening (front opening of 79) and said lateral outlet (opposite opening of 79) and that allows a supply of each of said outlet orifices (9, 10) according to the angular position of the core (5) in the case (3) (see Fig 12), the core (5) further including at least one seal (25, para [0083], best shown in Figs 8 and 9 for details of seal 25) for sealing between the lateral surface (23) of the core and an outlet orifice (9, 10) of the lateral wall of the case (3), each seal (25) being non-removable with respect to the core (5) (“the seal 25 is secured against removal from the seal support 26 or away from the valve member 5 via the form-fit engagement of the seal 25” para [0082]), each seal (25) also including one or more fastening and/or injection lug(s) (103/109) (see Figs 8-9 and Fig 12) in the lateral surface of the core (5), said lugs (103/109) forming one piece with the seal (para [0084]).
PNG
media_image1.png
724
756
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
896
722
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ludwig discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing the seal is comprised of a different material from the rest of the core.
Ludwig does disclose that the seal (25) is injection molded with a plastic material (paras [0013] [0014]). Ludwig is silent as to the material of the core.
McLane discloses a rotary coolant control valve, similar to that of Ludwig, and teaches that it is known in the art to make the valve core from a material different from that of the seal (flexible seal 70 is shown in Fig 7 as being a different material than valve 28; McLane teaches that different materials, such as plastics, polymer, or metal may be used for different components; para [0044]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make the material of the valve core of Ludwig any suitable material, such as a polymer or other plastic, with the seal being a different material, such as taught by McLane, since the valve component materials are known equivalents and the use of which would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (See MPEP 2144.07).
With regard to claim 2, Ludwig (as modified above) discloses that each seal (25) is connected to, or is directly bonded with, the lateral surface (23) of the core by chemical and/or mechanical bonding and/or integral with the core (mechanical bonding by hook/barb shapes of 103/109, para [0082]) and integral because “form fit locking” paras [0013] [0014]).
With regard to claim 3, Ludwig (as modified above) discloses that each fastening and/or injection lug (103/109) resulting from the same manufacturing method as the seal (25) (all through injection molding, paras [0013] [0017]).
With regard to claim 4, Ludwig (as modified above) discloses that the lateral surface (23) of the core includes at least one hollow housing (26, 95 opening), each containing or receiving said seal or one of said seal(s) (25) (para [0081]; Fig 12).
With regard to claim 5, Ludwig (as modified above) discloses that at least one housing (26) includes a recessed zone (recessed zone is grooves shown in Fig 7a and annotated Fig 12) located recessed with respect to the outer surface of the core (23), and which helps seal the outlet orifice (see Fig 12).
With regard to claim 6, Ludwig (as modified above) discloses at least one housing (95) includes an element (105), referred to as holding element (105), extending from a bottom surface of the housing (best shown in Fig 8), and helping hold the seal (25) in the housing (holds 101/103 to 5).
With regard to claim 7, Ludwig (as modified above) discloses that the, or each, seal (25) including a lip (best shown in annotated Fig 9) forming a closed contour and of a size greater than that of the outlet orifice (9, 10) to be sealed by the seal (25) (see Fig 12).
With regard to claim 11, Ludwig (as modified above) discloses that said at least one supply orifice (7, 11) is in the lateral wall (outer circumferential wall) of the case (3).
With regard to claim 12, Ludwig (as modified above) discloses that the lateral wall (outer circumferential wall) of the case (3) including a plurality of outlet orifices (9, 10), the core (5) including a plurality of seals (25) (two seals shown in Fig 12) for sealing between the lateral surface of the core and one of the outlet orifices (9, 10) of the lateral wall of the case (3), each seal (3) being non-removable with respect to the core and being disposed to seal one of the outlet orifices in a given position of the core (“the seal 25 is secured against removal from the seal support 26 or away from the valve member 5 via the form-fit engagement of the seal 25” para [0082]) (see also Fig 12).
With regard to claim 13, Ludwig (as modified above) discloses that the lateral wall (outer circumferential wall) of the case (3) including 2 outlet orifices (9, 10), the core (5) including 2 seals (two seals 25 shown in Fig 12) for sealing between the lateral surface of the core (5) and one of the 2 outlet orifices (9, 10) of the lateral wall of the case (3), each seal (25) being non- removable with respect to the core and being disposed to seal one of the 2 outlet orifices in a given position of the core (“the seal 25 is secured against removal from the seal support 26 or away from the valve member 5 via the form-fit engagement of the seal 25” para [0082]) (see also Fig 12).
With regard to claim 14, Ludwig (as modified above) discloses that each of the 2 seals (25, 25, Fig 12) being disposed on one side (outer side) of the lateral outlet (at opposite end of 79) of the core (5) (see Fig 12).
With regard to claim 15, Ludwig (as modified above) discloses an actuator (“actuator” para [0066]) driving the core (5) in rotation (para [0066]).
With regard to claim 16, Ludwig (as modified above) discloses the actuator including an output shaft (17) aligned along the axis of rotation (“R”) (see Fig 12 and para [0066]).
With regard to claim 19, Ludwig (as modified above) discloses a method for distributing a fluid using a hydraulic rotary solenoid distributor according to claim 15 (method inherent in apparatus shown in Fig 12), the fluid being introduced by the supply orifice (7, 11), and being guided by the duct (79) of the core (5) towards the lateral outlet (opposite end opening of 79) of the latter then, according to the orientation of the core (5) in the case, towards one and/or the other of the outlet orifices (9, 10) (see Fig 12, para [0078]).
With regard to claim 20, Ludwig (as modified above) discloses that the fluid being a mixture of water and of glycol or a coolant of a fuel cell (“coolant” – see Abstract and para [0002]).
Alternatively, claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0213962 (“Ludwig”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2003/0098077 (“McLane”) as set forth above for claim 19 and further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0036121 (“Hermann”).
With regard to claim 20, Ludwig does disclose that the fluid is a coolant (Abstract and para [0002]). If it is not considered to be a coolant of a fuel cell, then the following alternative rejection is offered.
Hermann teaches that it is known in the art to modify a rotary valve for cooling to include a fluid that comprises a mix of water and glycol (para [0087]: “cooling media, for example, water or water-alcohol mixtures such as, for example, glycols”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize any suitable coolant, such as a mixture of water and glycol as taught by Hermann, in the valve of Ludwig, since the cooling fluids are known equivalents and the use of which would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 8, 9, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0213962 (“Ludwig”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2003/0098077 (“McLane”) as set forth above for claim 1 and further in view of DE 202016105607 (“Gruning”) (see Translation filed with IDS dated 04/21/2025).
With regard to claim 8, Ludwig (as modified by McLane above) discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing wherein the case is made of plastic material.
Gruning teaches that it is known in the art to modify a rotary valve distributor, similar to that of Ludwig, and to make the case made of plastic material (see para [0013])
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a case made of a plastic material as taught by Gruning in place of the valve case material of Ludwig, since the valve materials are known equivalents and the use of which would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art, and because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (See MPEP 2144.07).
With regard to claim 9, Ludwig (as modified by McLane above) discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing each seal is made of an elastomeric material; - and/or the core is made of thermoplastic material, of PPS (polyphenylene sulphide), or PA (polyamide) or POM (polyoxymethylene or polyformaldehyde or polyacetal), or PA66 (polyamide incorporating nylon) type.
Note: the claim only requires the features in the alternative with the use of “or”.
Gruning teaches that it is known in the art to modify a rotary valve distributor, similar to that of Ludwig, and to make the core out of thermoplastic material, of PPS (polyphenylene sulphide), or PA (polyamide) or POM (polyoxymethylene or polyformaldehyde or polyacetal), or PA66 (polyamide incorporating nylon) type (polyamide, POM; see para [0013] of Gruning).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make the core of Ludwig out of any suitable material, such as polyamide or POM as taught by Gruning in place of the material of Ludwig, since the valve materials are known equivalents and the use of which would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art, and because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (See MPEP 2144.07).
With regard to claim 17, Ludwig (as modified by McLane above) discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing this method including: - a step of bi-material injection of an assembly including the core and the seal(s).
Ludwig discloses a step of introducing the core (5) and the seal(s) (25) into the case (3) (as shown in Fig 12).
Gruning teaches that it is known in the art to modify a method of making valve components by having bi-material injection (see para [0012]: “two-component injection molding is particularly preferred in order to produce in particular the base body and the seal arranged on it in one process”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make the core and seals of Ludwig from bi-material injection, such as taught by Gruning, for the purpose of providing a method of production in a faster time by making in one process (see para [0012]).
With regard to claim 18, Ludwig (as modified above) discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing each seal is made of an elastomeric material; - and/or the core is made of thermoplastic material, of PPS (polyphenylene sulphide), or PA (polyamide) or POM (polyoxymethylene or polyformaldehyde or polyacetal), or PA66 (polyamide incorporating nylon) type.
Note: the claim only requires the features in the alternative with the use of “or”.
Gruning teaches that it is known in the art to modify a rotary valve distributor, similar to that of Ludwig, and to make the core out of thermoplastic material, of PPS (polyphenylene sulphide), or PA (polyamide) or POM (polyoxymethylene or polyformaldehyde or polyacetal), or PA66 (polyamide incorporating nylon) type (polyamide, POM; see para [0013] of Gruning).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make the core of Ludwig out of any suitable material, such as polyamide or POM as taught by Gruning in place of the material of Ludwig, since the valve materials are known equivalents and the use of which would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art, and because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (See MPEP 2144.07).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious "wherein a cross sectional opening of each of said at least one supply orifice is in one of the end walls of the case and the end wall extends substantially perpendicularly to said axis of rotation" in combination with the other limitations set forth in the independent claims.
59. The closest prior art reference of record is U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0033201 ("Yan") and U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0213962 ("Ludwig"). However, neither Yan nor Ludwig disclose that the cross sectional opening of each supply orifice is in one of the end walls of the case, and the one end wall is perpendicular to the axis of rotation. It would not have been obvious to modify Yan or Ludwig to move the supply orifice to be in an end wall that is perpendicular to the axis of rotation without improperly changing the principle of operation or without improper hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 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
Prosecution Insights