DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16 were filed with the amendment dated 07/22/2026.
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 without traverse of Species A (Figures 2-6B) in the reply filed on 07/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant states that claims 8-11 are withdrawn and that claims 1-7 and 12-16 read on the elected species. The examiner disagrees. Claims 12-16 require the pressure transmission prevent means to include a fixing portion and a cover portion. The fixing portion and cover portion are only found in unelected Figs 10-14 (see Application at page 16, lines 5-11; and page 16, lines 19-23). Therefore, claims 12-16 are also withdrawn from examination.
Claims 8-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/22/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure(s) 1A, 1B, 2,6A, 6B, 7, 9A, 9B, 10, and 12 are sectional views, but do not include the required hatching (see 37 C.F.R. 1.84(h)(3)).
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.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: pressure transmission prevention means in claim 1. The specification describes the pressure transmission prevention means “may include: a flap including a plate-shaped member configured to move upward or downward…an extension member…and a flap guide” (page 3, last paragraph).
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR20-0259949 (hereinafter referred to as “KR949”) as evidenced by the translation attached.
With regard to claim 1, KR949 discloses a device for preventing breakage of a diaphragm (see Figs 2-6). The phrase “for a normal-open solenoid valve” is a statement of intended use and the preamble and not given patentable weight (intended use of an apparatus does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art. See MPEP 2114). The device comprising: a valve cover (100+200) having a center hole (221) formed through the valve cover (100+200), provided between a water inlet portion (110; “water”), through which water (para [0030]) is introduced, and a water outlet portion (120), through which the introduced water is discharged, configured as a center passageway through which the water flows (IF, see arrows in Fig 4), and configured to be adjusted to be opened or closed by a diaphragm (DP) so that the water introduced into the water inlet portion is selectively discharged to the water outlet portion (see para [0066]), the valve cover (100+200) having a square hole (224/223; para [0049] [0050]) provided at one side of the valve cover (100+200), formed through the valve cover (100+200), and configured as a passageway configured to communicate with a space in which the diaphragm (DP) is installed (see Fig 4); and a pressure transmission prevention means (400) installed in an inlet region of the square hole (223/224) and configured to prevent pressure, which is generated by a fluid, from being transmitted to the diaphragm (DP) in order to prevent the diaphragm (DP) from being broken by pressure applied to the diaphragm (DP) by the fluid introduced through the center hole (221) and passing through the square hole (223/224) (see Figs 4-5; para [0055]).
PNG
media_image1.png
524
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20-0259949 (hereinafter referred to as “KR 949”) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 0,209,740 (“Williams”).
With regard to claim 2, KR 949 discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing wherein the pressure transmission prevention means comprises: a flap comprising a plate-shaped member configured to move upward or downward so as to selectively come into contact with a peripheral edge portion of the square hole and having a diameter relatively larger than a diameter of the square hole, and an extension member extending by a predetermined length from a lower portion of the plate-shaped member, configured to be inserted into the square hole, and having a communication space; and a flap guide installed above the flap and configured to guide and restrict the upward and downward movements of the flap.
Williams discloses a pressure transmission prevention means that includes a check valve, similar to that of KR 949, and teaches that it is known in the art to modify the pressure transmission prevention means to include a flap (E) comprising a plate-shaped member (b) configured to move upward or downward so as to selectively come into contact with a peripheral edge portion of the square hole (at surface at a) and having a diameter relatively larger than a diameter of the square hole (see annotated Fig 4), and an extension member (d) extending by a predetermined length from a lower portion of the plate-shaped member (b), configured to be inserted into the square hole (at A), and having a communication space (communication space is space between curved triangular portions of extension member d, see annotated Fig 2); and a flap guide (D) installed above the flap (E) and configured to guide and restrict the upward and downward movements of the flap (E) (see Fig 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
759
581
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 pressure transmission prevention means as taught by Williams in place of the pressure transmission prevention means of KR 949, since the valves/pressure transmission prevention means are known equivalents and the use of which would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claim 3, the combination of KR 949 and Williams discloses the communication space is formed by partially cutting a lateral surface of the extension member (d) in a height direction so that a part of the square hole is opened when the plate-shaped member (b) is separated from the peripheral edge portion (a) of the square hole (see annotated Fig 2; opening/space is created by inwardly cutting/curvature in radial direction that extends along the axial length of the extension member d).
With regard to claim 5, the combination discloses that the flap guide (D) comprises: a support member (vertical legs) having a predetermined height (height shown in Fig 4) and configured to be brought into contact with and supported on an upper peripheral surface of the square hole (hole in A) around a peripheral edge portion of the flap (E; see Fig 4); and a restriction member (horizontal walls) provided at an upper end of the support member (vertical legs) and configured to restrict a height by which the flap moves upward or downward (horizontal walls provides a limit for movement of E, see Fig 4).
With regard to claim 6, the combination discloses that a height of the support member (vertical legs) formed on the flap guide (D) is relatively smaller than a length of the extension member (d) (see Fig 4).
Alternatively, if it is successfully argued that Williams is not considered to show that the height of the support member is smaller than a length of the extension member, then the following alternative rejection is offered.
In Williams, the support member (vertical walls/legs of D) appears to be smaller in height than a length of the extension member (d)
One of ordinary skill in the art of valve design would have arranged the relative heights/lengths in any suitable size.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the relative height of the support member to be smaller than a length of the extension member of Williams as an engineering expedient in order to arrange ensure that the extension member provides the necessary weight and guidance of the flap (E), such as taught by Williams (page 2, col. 2, lines 9-16), and because the Federal Circuit has also held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 7 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DE3023515 and FR2492042 each disclose a solenoid valve with a diaphragm.
U.S. Pat. Nos. 0833560 1,160,707 each disclose a pressure transmission prevention means with a flap and flap guide.
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