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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I and Sub-Species IB in the reply filed on 04/24/2016 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serous burden. This is not found persuasive because the search and/or examination burden is not limited exclusively to a prior art search but also includes that effort required to apply the art by making and discussing all appropriate grounds of rejection. Multiple inventions, such as those in the present application, normally require additional reference material and further discussion for each additional invention examined. Concurrent examination of multiple inventions would thus typically involve a significant burden even if all searches were coextensive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/24/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) was/were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) was/were 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 circumstance in which the orifice plate includes an outer seal boss and an inner seal boss wherein at least one of the outer seal boss or inner seal boss is non-circular must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
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.
Claim 23 is 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.
Claim 23 necessitates that “the inner seal boss is circular and the outer seal boss is circular.” Claim 23 depends from claim 14. Claim 14 necessitates that, “the inner seal boss and/or the outer seal boss is non-circular.” Claim 14 necessitates that at least one of the inner seal boss and outer seal boss is non-circular. However, claim 23 conflicts with claim 14, necessitating that both the inner and outer seal boss be circular.
For purposes of examination, the office regards claim 23 as depending from claim 10.
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.
Claim(s) 10, 23 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hakoda et al. (U.S. Publication 2017/0248238), hereinafter “Hakoda”.
In regards to claim 10, Hakoda discloses a valve comprising: an orifice plate (24) comprising at least one orifice (28) surrounded by an orifice plate seal surface (24a); a seal plate (22) comprising: an outer seal boss having an outer seal boss surface that faces the orifice plate; an inner seal boss having an inner seal boss surface that faces the orifice plate (see para. [0045] which discloses that grooves 50 may be formed on the valve plug 22; see also Fig. 3 which illustrates a plurality of radially spaced bosses and pockets); and a pocket between the inner and outer seal bosses that overlays the at least one orifice (28), the pocket defined by a recessed surface that is surrounded by the inner and outer seal bosses and displaced from the inner and outer seal boss surfaces along an axis; and an actuator (16) configured to move the seal plate (22) relative to the orifice plate (24) along the axis to transition the valve between open and closed states, wherein: the inner and outer seal boss surfaces (50) engage the orifice plate seal surface (24a) and block a flow of fluid through the at least one orifice (28) when the valve is in the closed state; and the inner and outer seal boss surfaces (50) are displaced from the orifice plate seal surface (24a) and do not block a flow of fluid through the at least one orifice (28) when the valve is in the open state; the inner seal boss is circular or non-circular; and the outer seal boss is circular or non-circular.
In regards to claim 23, the inner seal boss is circular and the outer seal boss is circular.
In regards to claim 25, the at least one orifice (28) comprises a circular orifice.
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.
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) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagstrom et al. (U.S. Publication 2019/0301628), hereinafter “Hagstrom” in view of Hakoda.
In regards to claim 10, Hagstrom discloses a valve comprising: an orifice plate (108) comprising at least one orifice (116) surrounded by an orifice plate seal surface; a seal plate (106); and an actuator (104) configured to move the seal plate (106) relative to the orifice plate (108) along the axis to transition the valve between open and closed states
Hagstrom does not specifically disclose an outer seal boss having an outer seal boss surface that faces the orifice plate; an inner seal boss having an inner seal boss surface that faces the orifice plate; and a pocket between the inner and outer seal bosses that overlays the at least one orifice the pocket defined by a recessed surface that is surrounded by the inner and outer seal bosses and displaced from the inner and outer seal boss surfaces along an axis, wherein: the inner and outer seal boss surfaces engage the orifice plate seal surface and block a flow of fluid through the at least one orifice when the valve is in the closed state; and the inner and outer seal boss surfaces are displaced from the orifice plate seal surface and do not block a flow of fluid through the at least one orifice when the valve is in the open state; the inner seal boss is circular or non-circular; and the outer seal boss is circular or non-circular.
Hakoda teaches a valve having an outer and inner seal boss arrangement as necessitated by the claims and discussed above.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the seal plate of Hagstrom to include the outer and inner bosses to ensure smooth valve opening operation as taught by Hakoda (para. [0037]).
In regards to claim 11, the at least one orifice (116) comprises a plurality of orifices.
In regards to claim 12, the actuator (104) comprises a small displacement actuator that is configured to move the seal plate relative to the orifice plate no more than 100 micrometers along the axis.
In regards to claim 13, the small displacement actuator (104) comprises a piezoelectric actuator.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakoda in view of Kingsford (U.S. Publication 2007/0019503).
Hakoda discloses all of the elements as discussed above.
Hakoda does not specifically disclose that the at least one orifice comprises a non-circular orifice.
Kingsford teaches a valve wherein fluid passages may have circular or non-circular configurations (see para. [0036]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have substituted the circular orifice configuration for a non-circular configuration as the simple substitution of one known passageway shape for another with predicable results as evidenced by Kingsford.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-17, 21, 22, 24, and 27 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to R.K. Arundale whose telephone number is 571-270-3453. 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. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881, and 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ROBERT K ARUNDALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights