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 .
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.
The office notes that many of the Espacenet translations appear corrupted. Accordingly, these documents were only considered to the extent that the office reviewed the associated figures.
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) 16, 18, 29, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clay (U.S. Patent 3,587,632).
In regards to claim 1, Clay discloses a relief valve comprising: a base part (14) laid on an opening edge of a discharge hole (26) of a container (16) and including a valve hole (VH) facing the discharge hole (26); a fixing portion provided in the base part (14) to fix the base part (14) to the container (16); a valve seat (22) provided in the base part (14) to surround the valve hole (VH) at a position farther from the valve hole (VH) than the fixing portion; a valve body (20) disposed facing the valve hole (VH) and including an annular contact portion configured to move toward and away from the valve seat (22); and an annular seal member (17) sandwiched between the container (16) and the base part (14) to surround the valve hole (VH) at a position farther from the valve hole (VH) than the fixing portion, wherein the fixing portion includes a plurality of attachment holes through which a plurality of rod-shaped fasteners (18) passing through the container (16) are inserted.
PNG
media_image1.png
682
820
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 18, the valve body (14) has a shape, as a whole, bulging toward a side away from the valve hole (VH).
In regards to claim 29, a valve body surrounding wall (VBSW) protruding from the base part (14) to laterally surround the valve body (20), the valve body surrounding wall (VBSW) being open (O) on a side away from the base part (14).
In regards to claim 35, the valve hole (VH) is larger than the discharge hole (26), and the entire discharge hole (26) is disposed facing a portion of the valve hole (VH).
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) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clay in view of Hirota (JP 2022-087947).
For purposes of this rejection, the office references the U.S. Publication of Hirota (U.S. Pub. 2025/0207677).
Clay discloses all of the elements as discussed above.
Clay does not specifically disclose that the base part is a molded article in which a plurality of nuts are embedded, the plurality of rod-shaped fasteners are a plurality of bolts, andthe plurality of attachment holes include female threaded portions of the plurality of nuts to which the plurality of bolts are screwed.
Regarding "is a molded article", the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product in the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113).
Hirota teaches a pressure relief valve in which a base part (40) includes a plurality of embedded nuts (60) wherein a plurliaty of bolts a screwed to the nuts. See Figs. 2 and 3, and para. [0049]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have secured the base part of Clay utilizing nuts and bolts as taught by Hirota to facilitate singular fastener replacement and not necessitate base part replacement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-28 and 30-34 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.
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
