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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendment dated 7/23/2026. The previous specification objection has been withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment to the specification. The previous claim objections and 112 rejections have been withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment. Any new ground(s) of rejection below have been made due to applicant’s amendment. This action is Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 103 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara (GB1480299)(reference included herewith) in view of Dole et al. (U.S. 6,286,810).
Fujiwara discloses a rotary valve (in particular the embodiment of figs. 1-3) comprising: a body (1, 2, 6) having a stem shaft insertion portion (the upper portion); a valve (8) provided inside the body; a stem (12), one end of the stem being inserted into the stem shaft insertion portion and connected to the valve (fig. 1), and another end of the stem being connected to an operating portion (handle, see pg. 3, ll. 96-100), wherein the valve is rotatable via the stem by operation of the operating portion (as is known in the art as it is a rotary valve); a packing accommodation chamber (the chamber area for the lowest one of element 20 in fig. 1, alternatively the area for element 38) is provided inside the stem shaft insertion portion at a position that is closer to the operating portion than to the valve (fig. 1); a packing (the lowest one of element 20, alternatively 38) accommodated in the packing accommodation chamber (fig. 1); a diameter-reduced portion (14) provided on the stem at a position that is closer to the operating portion than to the valve; a diameter-enlarged portion (16) provided on the stem at a position that is closer to the valve than is the position of the diameter-reduced portion (fig. 1), the diameter-enlarged portion having a diameter which is larger than a diameter of the diameter-reduced portion (fig. 1, fig. 2); a diameter-reduced step surface formed at a boundary portion between the diameter-reduced portion and the diameter-enlarged portion (see the surface where 16 meets 14 forming a diameter-reduced step surface in the same manner as the applicant’s device); a gland (23) having a packing pressing portion provided on the stem at a position that is closer to the operating portion than is the position of the packing accommodation chamber (fig. 1); and an annular packing retaining member (any number of 20 except for the lowest instance of 20, alternatively every instance of 20 with element 38 being the packing) interposed between a lower end face of the packing pressing portion and an upper end face of the packing (fig. 1), wherein the diameter-reduced step surface is arranged at least lower than the packing retaining member and the packing accommodation chamber (fig. 1), the diameter-enlarged portion has an outer diameter that is larger than an inner diameter of the packing retaining member (fig. 1), the diameter-reduced step surface is configured such that when the stem rises in a direction toward the operating portion, the diameter-reduced step surface is locked to the packing retaining member so as to prevent pullout of the stem in the direction toward the operating portion (fig. 1, locked via spring 37, 38, 20, and 23), and a gap is provided between the diameter-reduced step surface and the packing accommodation chamber (the area between the diameter-reduced step surface which is where 16 meets 14 and the chamber in which the lowest of element 20 or alternatively 38 resides, the spring 37 being located in this gap in fig. 1).
Fujiwara does not appear to disclose the rotary valve being a disk. Rather, the valve is a ball (see fig. 3).
Dole teaches it was known in the art to have a rotary valve that can alternatively be a ball or a disk (col. 1, ll. 14-20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fujiwara by having the valve be a disk instead of a ball as Dole teaches these are functional, alternative equivalents and a disk can have a lower cost due to simpler construction and less weight (material).
Regarding claim 2, Fujiwara as modified further discloses wherein the diameter-reduced step surface is formed as a flat surface, a tapered surface, or a rounded surface (a flat surface, see figs. 1 and 2).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara in view of Dole as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hodebourg et al. (U.S. 9,121,511).
Fujiwara as modified discloses the claimed invention and further discloses wherein a diameter-reduced-shape portion (from 16 to 17, 18) is formed on a circumferential surface of the stem on a valve disk side of the diameter-reduced step surface.
Fujiwara does not appear to disclose a bearing attached to this diameter-reduced-shape portion.
Hodebourg teaches it was known in the art to have a bearing for a valve shaft on a lower end side (bearing 7 for shaft 4, notice in fig. 1 the bearing 7 being located on a narrower diameter portion as compared to a larger diameter portion near where numeral 12 is).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fujiwara by having a bearing at the diameter-reduced-shape portion as taught by Hodebourg in order to provide a smooth, low-friction interface between the shaft and housing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 MICHAEL R REID whose telephone number is (313)446-4859. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-5pm est.
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 571-272-3607, or Ken 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 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.
/MICHAEL R REID/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights