DETAILED ACTION
Final
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 24-26, 28-51 are pending. Claims 24, 25 and 51 are currently amended. It appears that no new matter has been added.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
The amendments have required further search and consideration and adjustment of the rejections to meet the claim limitations. The remarks are not persuasive in part because AAPA in view of Smith is still applicable (the amendment obviating the secondary teaching Fields modifying AAPA, although it is utilized as a tertiary teaching reference for claim 47 seen below.) In particular, while the remarks address the body/housing portion of Smith, it is noted that AAPA teaches that which is argued against in Smith, and thus the remark cannot be found persuasive. It is also noted that Smith does maintain a fluidly containing body that can be considered a housing (i.e. the body of 30 of the tube of Smith) and thus it cannot be said the under a broad reasonable interpretation, especially considering AAPA teaches that which Smith arguably lacks in a narrow interpretation of the claim language. Applicant argues that exchanging the pourous (i.e. torturous pathway) of AAPA with that of Smith’s screw provided (i.e. torturous pathway) would make AAPA inoperable, although under a broad reasonable interpretation of the claim language in light of the prior art and the motivations discussed below, this cannot be found persuasive. It is also noted that it is merely an exchange of parts, which would be routine skill in the art.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant remarks appear to argue a lack of inherent functionality (i.e. that Smith’s screw arrangement cannot arrest flame.) But, all the structural limitations in the body of the apparatus claim are met by Smith, and all the limitations are arranged in the same way in relationship to one another as seen in Smith, and furthermore, such structure as embodied in Smith is arguably necessarily capable of performing the same gas propagation (a flame a result of a combustible gas) of the claimed invention, and so the remarks cannot be found persuasive. See MPEP 2112.01.
Applicant also argues that Smith does not disclose the flame arresting teaching, but this is provided by AAPA, and so the remarks amount to arguments against the references individually. And it is noted that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that the combination of AAPA in view of Smith is a recasting of Smith to meet the claim limitations (this amounts to both an argument of Smith being non-analogous to AAPA.) In respone to this argument, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In this case, as previously indicated in the combination of AAPA and Smith, they both deal with throttling gas fluid from an upstream pressure region to an exhaust to bleed off the gas in a controlled manner, and considering one of ordinary skill in the art would consider various throttling labyrinthine arrangements for fluid pressure control as taught in either of AAPA, and/or Smith it would have been obvious to provide the combination as previously indicated based on the factual teachings of Smith in consideration of the rationale/underpinning the combination (i.e. the fluid flow throttling of the combustible gas, prevention of flashback etc...)
The remarks regarding claim 34 are persuasive, and accordingly the rejection is withdrawn.
The remarks regarding the indefinites rejection of claim 35 are persuasive, and accordingly the implied rejection under 35 USC 112 second paragraph is withdrawn/clarified to not apply.
For these reasons and along with the amendments to the claims, the action must be made Final.
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) 24-26, 28-33, 36-39, 41-43, 45-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Smith (US 3196688);
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Smith as applied to claims 24, 28, 30 and 32 above, and further in view of Bossard (US 6113071);
Claim(s) 47, 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Smith as applied to claims 24, 28 and 46 above, and further in view of Fields (US 2016/0305653);
Claim(s) 40, 44 and 51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Smith as applied to claims 24, 28, 30, 37 and 41 above and further in view of Walish (US 4970898.)
AAPA discloses in claim 24: A solenoid operated gas admission valve (SOGAV) (at 400 figure 6 of the instant application) having a sealing element (406) in a housing (at 404) sealing solenoid coil leads (in 400) from a gas in the SOGAV, comprising: a leak detection passage (402) within the housing receiving a gas leak around or through the sealing element; a flame arrestor (408); wherein the leak detection passage receives the flame arrestor; AAPA does not explicitly disclose: a screw in the leak detection passage, and creating a circumferential gap between a cylindrical wall surface of the housing defining the leak detection passage and a cylindrical outermost surface of a solid portion of the screw to channel the gas into a through hole of the flame screw; but,
Smith discloses : (see at least partially annotated figures 2 and 3 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
619
937
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a screw (36 figure 2 and 3) in the leak detection passage (when open the bleed passage acts to relieve built up fluid/gas pressure that has accumulated therein and so can bleed or leak out), and creating a circumferential gap between a cylindrical wall surface of the housing (the body of 30 is essentially a housing with inner surface at 35 forming and containing the passage and screw and so…) defining the leak detection passage (35) and a cylindrical outermost surface of a solid portion of the screw (surface of 40 and threads at 42) to channel the gas into a through hole (48/46) of the screw (all for the purpose of for example, throttled bleeding of combustible gas fluid flow via labyrinthine fluid pathway pressure control.)
Considering that all of Smith and AAPA deal with throttling gas fluid from an upstream pressure region to an exhaust to bleed off the gas in a controlled manner, and considering one of ordinary skill in the art would consider various throttling labyrinthine arrangements for fluid pressure control as taught in either of AAPA, and/or Smith;
Accordingly, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide AAPA (in lieu of the Fields screw arrangement), with a screw as taught in Smith arranged in the leak detection passage of AAPA and when open, the passage acts to relieve built up fluid/gas pressure that has accumulated therein and so can bleed or leak out in a controlled manner, and provide a circumferential gap between a cylindrical wall surface of the housing where the body as taught in Smith forms such a housing with an inner surface to form and contain a flow passage and the screw so that it defines the leak detection passage as taught in Smith being upstream of a portion of the screw threads to channel the gas into a through hole as taught in Smith of the screw, and all for the purpose of for example, throttled bleeding of combustible gas fluid flow via labyrinthine fluid pathway pressure control, which for example, has the added benefit of preventing or reducing combustion flashback.
AAPA discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 25: The SOGAV of claim 24, wherein the circumferential gap is configured to permit the gas to pass along a longitudinal extension of the solid portion into the through hole (as taught in Smith as modifying AAPA for the reasons discussed above.)
AAPA discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 26: The SOGAV of claim 24, wherein the flame arrestor screw is threadingly received into the leak detection passage (where 42.Smith is threaded into 44.)
AAPA discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 28: The SOGAV of claim 24, wherein the flame arrestor screw comprises: a screw body (the body of 40/50.Smith ) having a first end (at end 50.Smith, ) and an open end (at end 36.Smith ); a first gas passage (of 43/46.Smith, ) extending from the open end along a longitudinal axis (central axis of 40.Smith) of the screw body and terminating at a terminal end (end terminating at 48.Smith) within the screw body; a first through hole (48.Smith,) extending through the screw body transverse to the gas passage and in fluid communication with the first gas passage (as shown.)
AAPA discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 29: The SOGAV of claim 28, wherein the screw body has a screw body length (at 1002) extending from the open end to the first end, the distance (at 1004) from the open end to a center axis (1006) of the first through hole being less than the screw body length; AAPA/Smith does not disclose: the distance being less than ½ the screw body length; but considering that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider lengthening or shortening the first gas passage distance dependent on the desired rate of fluid flow exhaust;
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide for AAPA/Smith, in lieu of a longer than ½ distance, a distance of less than ½ the screw body length for the distance claimed, for the purpose of providing an increased gas exhaust rate by shortening the first gas passage distance to be less than ½ of the screw body length, and especially since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
AAPA discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 30: SOGAV of claim 28, wherein the screw body includes a solid cylindrical portion (that of 40.Smith) that extends from the first end toward the open end to the first gas passage.
AAPA discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 31: The SOGAV of claim 30, wherein the solid cylindrical portion [is less than] (appears to be about ½ or less of…) a screw body length, the screw body length extending from the open end to the first end; AAPA/Smith does not disclose: the solid cylindrical portion having a length between 30 and 70 percent of the screw body length; but considering that the one of ordinary skill in the art would consider a length of the solid cylindrical portion of at least 50.percent. or half of the length of the screw body (which falls within the range of 30 to 70 percent), for the purpose of providing the necessary structure for effective operation of the regulating flow control of the screw,
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide as arguably taught in the figures of AAPA/Smith, a length of about 50.percent. of the screw body length, for the solid cylindrical portion, for the purpose of providing the necessary structure for effective operation of the regulating flow control of the screw; all especially considering that such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
AAPA discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 32: The SOGAV of claim 30, wherein the screw body has a first cylindrical portion (40 is cylindrical, and so is 50 in that it is annular about a central axis) that includes the solid cylindrical portion (40.diameter.x.length), wherein the first cylindrical portion and the solid cylindrical portion have a first outermost diameter (id), and wherein the first cylindrical portion extends from the first end toward the open end and terminates at a first interface (at 44) between the first portion and a second portion (at 42) of the screw body.
AAPA discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 33: The SOGAV of claim 32, wherein the second portion of the screw body has a second outermost diameter (42.diameter.) that is greater than the first outermost diameter (42.diam. is greater than 40.diam. with the outer most diameter of 42 having threads that exceed the outermost diameter of 40 so as to engage with the 35 wall.)
AAPA discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 35: The SOGAV of claim 32, wherein the second portion extends from the first interface toward the open end to a head portion circumscribed by [hex portion] (36/38); AAPA/Smith does not disclose: the head portion circumscribed by threads. Bossard teaches: the head portion circumscribed by threads (at 48 figure 1, including an interior tool engagement portion at 52, both provided for the purpose of providing rotational operation for threaded axial reciprocation of the screw further into the gas passage for example for a longer throttled passage control);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide for AAPA/Smith as taught in Bossard, the head portion circumscribed by threads as taught by Bossard and to include an interior tool engagement portion as taught by both Bossard and Smith, provided for the purpose of rotational operation and threaded axial reciprocal control of the screw further into and out of the gas passage for example for a longer throttled passage control.
AAPA discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 36: The SOGAV of claim 28, wherein the gas passage has a passage length extending from the open end to the terminal end that is [less than that] of a screw body length extending from the open end to the first end; AAPA/Smith does not disclose: the gas passage having a length between 30 and 70 percent of the screw body length; but considering that the one of ordinary skill in the art would consider a length of the gas passage of at least 50.percent. or half of the length of the screw body (which falls within the range of 30 to 70 percent), for the purpose of providing the necessary structure for effective fluid flow regulation of the screw,
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide as arguably taught in the figures of AAPA/Smith, a length of about 50.percent. of the screw body length, for the gas passage, for the purpose of providing the necessary structure for effective fluid flow regulation of the gas flow by the screw; all especially considering that such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
AAPA discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 37: The SOGAV of claim 28, wherein the first gas passage has a first passage cylindrical portion having a first passage inner diameter (46.first.inner.diam.), wherein the first passage cylindrical portion extends from the terminal end (at 48) toward the open end to a first transition area (at 1008) between the first passage cylindrical portion and an engagement portion (at 1010.)
AAPA discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 38: The SOGAV of claim 37, wherein the engagement portion has an engagement inner diameter (at 1012) that is greater than the first passage inner diameter.
AAPA discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 39: The SOGAV of claim 38, wherein the engagement portion is shaped to cooperate with a tool (wrench or screw driver) that may be inserted therein to permit clockwise and counter clockwise rotation of the screw body to permit tightening and loosening of the screw body when received into a threaded gas passage (Smith, Col 3 ln 14-18); and thus further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention, for the reasons discussed above and so as to further throttle the fluid flow there through for the purpose of as indicated above, fluid flow characterization.
AAPA discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 40: The SOGAV of claim 37, wherein the engagement portion has an outlet (center orifice of 43) to permit passage of a gas from the gas passage; AAPA/Smith does not disclose, although Walish teaches: passing gas to a manifold passage (at 44 figure 1) and to sensors (sensor assembly 40) for detecting the gas (via circuit 20 for pressure sensing purposes, Col 3 ln 20-37);
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention, to provide AAPA/Smith with an arrangement to pass gas to a manifold passage as taught in Walish and then onto sensors of a sensor assembly as taught in Walish, all for detecting the gas via a circuit for fluid pressure sensing purposes.
AAPA discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 41: The SOGAV of claim 30, wherein the screw body has a first cylindrical portion that includes the solid cylindrical portion (that of 40), wherein the first cylindrical portion and the solid cylindrical portion have a first outermost diameter (that of 40 and the inner groove of threads of 42), and wherein the first cylindrical portion extends from the first end toward the open end and terminates at drive head (38).
AAPA discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 42: The SOGAV of claim 41, wherein the first cylindrical portion has a threaded region (at 42) between the solid cylindrical portion and the drive head, and the drive head is free of threads.
AAPA discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 43: The SOGAV of claim 41, wherein the drive head has a second outermost diameter (for the hex) greater than the first outermost diameter.
AAPA discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 44: The SOGAV of claim 41, wherein the drive head includes an engagement portion (at 1008/1010) of the gas passage, the engagement portion including an outlet (of 1008) to permit passage of a gas from the first gas passage; AAPA/Smith does not disclose, although Walish (US 4970898) teaches: passing gas to a manifold passage (at 44 figure 1) and to sensors (sensor assembly 40) for detecting the gas (via circuit 20 for pressure sensing purposes, Col 3 ln 20-37);
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention, to provide AAPA/Smith with an arrangement to pass gas to a manifold passage as taught in Walish and then onto sensors of a sensor assembly as taught in Walish, all for detecting the gas via a circuit for fluid pressure sensing purposes.
AAPA discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 45: The SOGAV of claim 28, wherein the first end is a closed end (40/50 are closed solid body portions.)
AAPA discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 46: The SOGAV of claim 28, wherein the first end is a second open end (end at 1008.Smith is open ended.)
AAPA discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 47: The SOGAV of claim 46, AAPA/Smith does not disclose, although Fields teaches: (see annotated figure 1B below)
PNG
media_image2.png
830
884
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a second gas passage (at 2004 or 36b) within the screw body is separated from the first gas passage within the screw body by a solid portion (at 2006) of the screw body such that the first and second gas passage portions are not fluidly connected (and provided for the purpose of for example creating a torturous flow path to baffle the gas passing through the screw, so as to both reducing fluid flow and dissipate heat.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide AAPA/Smith as taught in Fields, with a second gas passage as taught in Fields within the screw body being separated from the first gas passage and arranged within the screw body by a solid portion as taught in Fields in the screw body such that the first and second gas passage portions are not fluidly connected, and all provided for the purpose of for example creating a torturous flow path to baffle the gas passing through the screw, so as to both reducing fluid flow and dissipate heat.
AAPA discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 50: The SOGAV of claim 47, wherein a threaded region (outer ends about AAPA/Fields 36a,b) surrounds at least a portion of the screw body surrounding the second gas passage.
AAPA discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 51: [An apparatus that performs] a method for detecting the gas leak in the SOGAV of claim 24, comprising the steps of: receiving a flow of the leaked gas into the leak detection passage of the housing of the SOGAV (via passage of 402 of AAPA); passing the flow along the circumferential gap (at 35/40.Smith) defined between the portion that is a solid cylindrical wall of the flame arrestor screw and a cylindrical wall of the housing (as modified above) defining the leak detection passage, the circumferential gap having a length (at 1002.Smith) configured to arrest a flame that may result from an explosion of the gas within the housing (as discussed as modified for the reasons above); receiving the flow into the through hole (48) extending through the solid cylindrical wall of the flame arrestor screw; passing the flow from the through hole to a gas passage (of 46) of the flame arrestor screw; AAPA/Smith does not disclose, although Walish (US 4970898) teaches: passing gas via passage (at 44 figure 1) and to a sensors (sensor assembly 40) out side of the flame arrestor screw for detecting the gas flow via pressure (via circuit 20 for pressure sensing purposes, Col 3 ln 20-37);
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention, to provide AAPA/Smith with an arrangement to pass gas to a manifold passage as taught in Walish and then onto sensors of a sensor assembly as taught in Walish, all for detecting the gas flow pressure via a circuit for fluid pressure sensing purposes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 48 and 34 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. Claim 49 depends from claim 48 and would be allowable merely due to its dependency.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious in claim 48: “…the second gas passage extends longitudinally from the second open end to a second through hole, the second through hole extending through the screw body transverse to the longitudinal extension of the second gas passage” in combination with the other limitations set forth in the independent claims.
Claim 34 is allowable based on the remarks in the response filed on 7/27/2026.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 MATTHEW W JELLETT, whose telephone number is 571-270-7497. 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. Ken Rinehart can be reached at (571)-272-4881, or 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 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.
/Matthew W Jellett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights