DETAILED ACTION
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 are objected to because as stated in MPEP 608.02Vm, shading is only allowed when it aids in the understanding of the invention. The figures appear to be completely and darkly shaded, which makes the drawings unclear. Cross-hatching should be used in cross-sectional views.
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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the adaptor is listed as 14a-14e, however, only 14a and 14b are shown in the drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2 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.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “the first protrusion” is unclear and indefinite. Claim 2 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 states “a protrusion”, not multiple protrusion, so it is therefore unclear and indefinite if the first protrusion from claim 2 is the same protrusion from claim 1. For examination purposes, the limitation will be read as the same protrusion.
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(s) 1-4 and 6-14, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aoyama (U.S. 2012/0097881).
PNG
media_image1.png
462
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4 from Aoyama.
Regarding claim 1, Aoyama discloses:
A valve (1) comprising:
an adaptor 71 (see paragraph 0059)
a first port 41 (see paragraph 0060)
a second port 42 (see paragraph 0060)
a fluid path extending between the first port (41) and the second port 42 (see Figure 1)
a plunger (60, 65, 66) situated in the fluid path between the first port (41) and the second port (42), the plunger (60, 65, 66) selectively and linearly movable between a closed position blocking the fluid path and an open position (see paragraph 0067)
a valve seat assembly (40, 43, 44, 51, 52) in the fluid path, the valve seat assembly (40, 43, 44, 51, 52) comprising: (see paragraphs 0059-0062)
a gasket (51, 52) and a frame (40) having a seat 43, 44 (see paragraphs 0059-0062; see Figures 1 and 4)
wherein the gasket (51, 52) is separate from the adaptor (71) and the seat (43, 44) and is interposed between the adaptor (71) and the seat 43, 44 (see Figure 1)
wherein the adaptor (71) has a first aperture having a first diameter and wherein the gasket (51, 52) has a second aperture having a second diameter (see Figure 1)
wherein the first diameter is larger than the second diameter (see Figure 1)
wherein in the open position the plunger (60, 65, 66) is detached from the gasket (51, 52) to enable a flow of a fluid through the second aperture and along the fluid path
wherein in the closed position the plunger (60, 65, 66) abuts the gasket (51, 52) to prevent the flow of the fluid through the second aperture and along the fluid path
wherein the seat (43, 44) comprises a seat surface (see Figure 4)
wherein a protrusion (44) projects from the seat surface and imbeds itself into the gasket 51, 52 (see Figure 4)
Regarding claim 2, Aoyama discloses:
wherein the protrusion (44) comprises at least one of: an edge, an annular edge, a circular edge, a rim, an annular rim, and a circular rim (see Figure 4)
Regarding claim 3, Aoyama discloses:
wherein the protrusion (44) projects at least 0.2 millimetres from the surface of the seat 43, 44 (see paragraph 0077)
Regarding claim 4, Aoyama discloses:
wherein the protrusion (44) is formed in the surface of the seat 43, 44 (see Figure 4)
Regarding claim 6, Aoyama discloses:
wherein: a first portion (see annotated figure above) of the surface of the seat (43, 44) and a first portion (see annotated figure above) of the surface of the gasket (51, 52) are each substantially perpendicular to an axis defined by linear movement of the plunger 60, 65, 66 (see Figure 4)
the first portion (see annotated figure above) of the surface of the seat (43, 44) abuts the first portion (see annotated figure above) of the surface of the gasket 51, 52 (see Figure 4)
Regarding claim 7, Aoyama discloses:
wherein: the first portion (see annotated figure above) of the surface of the seat (43, 44) is flat (see Figure 4)
wherein the first portion (see annotated figure above) of the surface of the gasket (51, 52) is flat (see Figure 4)
Regarding claim 8, Aoyama discloses:
wherein the first portion (see annotated figure above) of the surface of the seat (43, 44) is substantially parallel to the first portion (see annotated figure above) of the surface of the gasket 51, 52 (see Figure 4)
Regarding claim 9, Aoyama discloses:
wherein: a second portion (see annotated figure above) of the surface of the seat (43, 44) is different from the first portion (see annotated figure above) of the surface of the seat 43, 44 (see Figure 4)
a second portion (see annotated figure above) of the surface of the gasket (51, 52) is different from the first portion (see annotated figure above) of the surface of the gasket 51, 52 (see Figure 4)
the second portion (see annotated figure above) of the surface of the seat (43, 44) and the second portion (see annotated figure above) of the surface of the gasket (51, 52) are each substantially perpendicular to the axis (see Figure 4)
the second portion (see annotated figure above) of the surface of the seat (43, 44) abuts the second portion (see annotated figure above) of the surface of the gasket 51, 52 (see Figure 4)
Regarding claim 10, Aoyama discloses:
wherein: the second portion (see annotated figure above) of the surface of the seat (43, 44) is flat (see Figure 4)
wherein the second portion (see annotated figure above) of the surface of the gasket (51, 52) is flat (see Figure 4)
Regarding claim 11, Aoyama discloses:
wherein the second portion (see annotated figure above) of the surface of the seat (43, 44) is substantially parallel to the second portion (see annotated figure above) of the surface of the gasket 51, 52 (see Figure 4)
Regarding claim 12, Aoyama discloses:
wherein the protrusion (44) is interposed between the first portion (see annotated figure above) of the surface of the seat (43, 44) and the second portion (see annotated figure above) of the surface of the seat 43, 44 (see Figure 4)
Regarding claim 13, Aoyama discloses:
wherein the protrusion (44) and the first portion (see annotated figure above) of the surface of the seat (43, 44) and the second portion (see annotated figure above) of the surface of the seat (43, 44) have rotational symmetry about the axis (see Figure 1)
Regarding claim 14, Aoyama discloses:
wherein the first portion (see annotated figure above) of the surface of the seat (43, 44) and the first portion (see annotated figure above) of the surface of the gasket (51, 52) and the second portion of the surface of the seat (43, 44) and the second portion of the surface of the gasket (51, 52) are substantially parallel to one another (see Figure 4)
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.
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) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoyama in view of Fujita et al. (U.S. 2016/0115845).
Regarding claim 5, Aoyama discloses the invention as essentially claimed, but fails to disclose wherein: the protrusion comprises an end pointing toward the gasket; the protrusion tapers toward the end at an obtuse angle; and the obtuse angle is between 105 and 150 degrees.
Fujita teaches a sealing interface wherein: a protrusion (303) comprises an end pointing toward a gasket 109 (see Figure 9); the protrusion (303) tapers toward the end at an obtuse angle (see Figure 9); and the obtuse angle is between 105 and 150 degrees (see Figure 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectilvey filed to have modified Aoyama to provide wherein: the protrusion comprises an end pointing toward the gasket; the protrusion tapers toward the end at an obtuse angle; and the obtuse angle is between 105 and 150 degrees, as taught by Fujita. Doing so would further attach the protrusion into the gasket.
Regarding claim 15, Aoyama discloses the invention as essentially claimed, but fails to disclose wherein: a second protrusion projects from the seat surface and imbeds itself into the gasket; and the second protrusion is different from the protrusion.
Fujita teaches a sealing interface wherein: a second protrusion (32) projects from a seat surface and imbeds itself into a gasket 9 (see paragraph 0051; see Figures 3 and 4); and the second protrusion (32) is different from a protrusion 31 (see Figures 3 and 4; see paragraph 0051).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Aoyama to provide wherein: a second protrusion projects from the seat surface and imbeds itself into the gasket; and the second protrusion is different from the protrusion, as taught by Fujita. Doing so would provide further adhesion between the gasket and valve seat.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN 116906656 discloses a valve comprising: an adaptor; a first port; a second port; a fluid path extending between the first port and the second port; a plunger situated in the fluid path between the first port and the second port, the plunger selectively and linearly movable between a closed position blocking the fluid path and an open position; a valve seat assembly in the fluid path, the valve seat assembly comprising: a gasket and a frame having a seat; wherein the gasket is separate from the adaptor and the seat and is interposed between the adaptor and the seat (15); wherein the adaptor has a first aperture having a first diameter and wherein the gasket has a second aperture having a second diameter; wherein the first diameter is larger than the second diameter; wherein in the open position the plunger is detached from the gasket to enable a flow of a fluid through the second aperture and along the fluid path; wherein in the closed position the plunger abuts the gasket to prevent the flow of the fluid through the second aperture and along the fluid path; wherein the seat comprises a seat surface; and wherein a protrusion projects from the seat surface, but fails to disclose the protrusion imbedded into the gasket.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY E CARY whose telephone number is (571)272-9427. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-5:30pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at (571)-272-3607 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.
/KELSEY E CARY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights