DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 2 and 4 are pending and claim 3 has been cancelled.
This action is in response to the amendment filed 3/31/2026.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that Cleaver does not provide, each said corner bounded by two port walls such that a diagonal span is defined between said port walls at each of said corners, and, each said corner section having a width greater than each said diagonal span , and each corner section ends extending beyond said diagonal span to thereby extend laterally into one of said ports, is not persuasive since Greco, discloses these features are shown below, where, a valve housing (28) having four ports (21-24) and four corners (at 78, see Fig. 4), each said corner bounded by two port walls (as shown below in amended Fig. 3B) such that a diagonal span (as shown below) is defined between said port walls at each of said corners, said valve housing including a curved corner section (the surface at 78, see col.7, lns. 37-38 “rounded corners 78”), each said curved corner section formed within said valve housing between each of said ports, each said corner section having a width greater than each said diagonal span (as shown below in amended Fig. 3B, the overall width of the corner section is greater than the diagonal span); each said curved corner section has two corner section ends (the left/right ends of upper and lower ends of each section that extend beyond the width as shown clearly), said corner section ends extending beyond said diagonal span to thereby extend laterally into one of said ports.
PNG
media_image1.png
863
1003
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Since applicant’s arguments and amendments are not persuasive and the new amendments necessitated the new grounds for rejection, this action has been made Final.
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 width and diagonal span for the corner section (claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
Applicant’s Figure 11 shows the ends 5b for the corner section 5a, however no width or diagonal are shown.
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.
Specification
The cancellation of claim 3 overcomes the specification objection.
The amendment to the specification has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said corner section" in line 5.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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. 102a1 as being unpatentable over Greco (US 11079107). The claim being rejected as best understood based on the 112 above.
Regarding claim 1, Greco discloses an indexing valve (20 see Fig. 2), comprising:
a valve housing (28) having four ports (21-24) and four corners (at 78, see Fig. 4), each said corner bounded by two port walls (as shown below in amended Fig. 3B) such that a diagonal span is defined between said port walls at each of said corners, said valve housing including a curved corner section (the surface at 78, see col.7, lns. 37-38 “rounded corners 78”), each said curved corner section formed within said valve housing between each of said ports, each said corner section having a width greater than each said diagonal span (as shown below in amended Fig. 3B, the overall width of the corner section is greater than the diagonal span);
each said curved corner section has two corner section ends (the left/right ends of upper and lower ends of each section that extend beyond the width as shown clearly), said corner section ends extending beyond said diagonal span to thereby extend laterally into one of said ports (see amended Figure 3B below);
a diverter assembly (the pipe 27 within 26, Fig. 2,3A,B, and Fig. 5) within said valve housing, said diverter assembly further comprising:
a pipe shaft (the shaft of 27) having two pipe shaft ends, said pipe shaft disposed through said valve housing (see Fig. 2);
a diverter blade subassembly (26) connected to said pipe shaft between said pipe shaft ends, said diverter blade subassembly further comprising a pair of opposing diverter plates (70,71), wherein an inlet plenum is defined between said diverter plates for receiving fluid flow from one of said ports, each said diverter plate having two end edges (at the outer ends where 76 is located);
a seal retainer subassembly (at 76) at each of said end edges of said diverter plates, said seal retainer subassembly including a seal (76 “brush seals”, col.7, lns. 37-38), said seal positioned to seal against said curved corner section; and,
a gear motor (44,42,48) attached to said stub shaft for rotating said diverter blade subassembly within said valve housing to thereby divert said fluid flow.
PNG
media_image2.png
864
1341
media_image2.png
Greyscale
When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). See MPEP 2125.
Here, the drawings clearly show the width extending beyond the diagonal span in the Greco reference in amended Figure 3B above.
PNG
media_image3.png
791
937
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
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) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greco (US 11079107) in view of Cleaver et al. (US 3973592).
Regarding claim 2, Greco has disclosed all of the features of the claimed invention although is silent to having the corner section ends are chamfered to limit wear of said seal.
Cleaver et al. disclose that the corner section ends (at ends of 34) are chamfered (as shown above each of the ends are angled and therefore considered as being “chamfered”) to limit wear of said seal.
PNG
media_image4.png
652
737
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the end shape of the corner end section as taught by Cleaver et al. for the end section in Greco to have the corner section ends are chamfered, since it has been held, that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component (one valve end seat shape for another) or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter the existing straight end to a chamfer since it has been held, that a change in form, proportions, or degree “will not sustain a patent” Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) and In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) (“It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greco (US 11079107) and Cleaver et al. (US 3973592) in view of Flower (US 5474305).
Regarding claim 4, Greco and Cleaver et al. have disclosed all of the features of the claimed invention, including a seal retainer (the bolted structures near 76 in Fig. 4), although are silent to having the seal retainer subassembly is S-shaped formed of an elongate brace, said elongate brace transitioning to an upstanding retainer lip overhanging said elongate brace, thereby defining a seal housing for said seal.
Flower teaches the use of a seal retainer (52, in Fig. 9) , the seal retainer subassembly is S-shaped (in as much as applicant’s device) formed of an elongate brace, said elongate brace transitioning to an upstanding retainer lip (the upper vertical section of 52 that bolt 53 passes through) overhanging said elongate brace, thereby defining a seal housing for said seal.
PNG
media_image5.png
325
291
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute seal retainer as taught by Flower for the seal retainer in the combined device of Greco and Cleaver et al. to have the seal retainer subassembly is S-shaped formed of an elongate brace, said elongate brace transitioning to an upstanding retainer lip overhanging said elongate brace, thereby defining a seal housing for said seal, in order to permit easily changing of the seal and to have a means to retain the seal in the channel (Flower, col.3, lns. 44-51), and, since it has been held, that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component (one retaining means for another) or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. Additionally, the well-known expected outcome of holding the seal in place, would result from the combination.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 Craig Price, whose telephone number is (571)272-2712 or via facsimile (571)273-2712. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:00AM-4:30PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3607, 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.
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 Form at;
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/CRAIG J PRICE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights