DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-12 are pending.
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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “an abutment member configured to abut against the diaphragm and to receive the threaded shaft so that the threaded shaft is rotatable with respect to the stem body” (claims 2-4, 6-7, 9, and 10) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. See also the corresponding 112 issue below.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 6-7, 9, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, last line, “in up-down direction” should be changed to --in an up-down direction--.
In claim 6, line 2, “a stem body” should be changed to --the stem body--.
In claim 6, lines 2-3, “an abutment member” should be changed to --the abutment member--.
In claim 7, line 2, “a stem body” should be changed to --the stem body--.
In claim 7, lines 2-3, “an abutment member” should be changed to --the abutment member--.
In claim 7, last line, “in up-down direction” should be changed to --in an up-down direction--.
In claim 9, line 2, “a stem body” should be changed to --the stem body--.
In claim 9, lines 2-3, “an abutment member” should be changed to --the abutment member--.
In claim 9, last line, “in up-down direction” should be changed to --in an up-down direction--.
In claim 11, line 2, “a stem body” should be changed to --the stem body--.
In claim 11, lines 2-3, “an abutment member” should be changed to --the abutment member--.
In claim 11, last line, “in up-down direction” should be changed to --in an up-down direction--.
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.
Claims 2-12 are rejected (wherein claims 5, 8, 10, and 12 inherit their rejections due to their dependencies) 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.
In claims 2-4, 6-7, 9 and 11, it is unclear how the abutment member 45 receiving the threaded shaft 42 leads to the threaded shaft 42 being rotatable with respect to the stem body 41, as recited in the recitation, “an abutment member configured to abut against the diaphragm and to receive the threaded shaft so that the threaded shaft is rotatable with respect to the stem body.” As understood by the drawings, the stem body 41 and threaded shaft 42 are rigidly fixed together, and may even be two parts of a monolithic structure, as suggested by the cross-sections shown in Figs. 5-7, and the recitation refers to the threaded shaft 42 being rotatable with respect to the stem body 41, as is common in the art.
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.
Claims 1-2 (as understood: 2) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller (US 5,671,775).
Regarding claim 1, Miller discloses in Figs. 1-5 a diaphragm valve comprising:
a body 14a comprising a first channel 21, a second channel 23, and a valve seat 28;
a cover 14b screwed to be attached to the body 14a;
a rotatable valve shaft 51 screwed to the cover 14b (via threads 52) and configured to be movable up and down by rotating (via threads 52);
a stem 40 connected to the valve shaft 51 and provided with a threaded shaft 43 coaxial with the valve shaft 51;
a holder 31 screwed to the threaded shaft, the holder configured to selectably contact and separate from the valve seat to selectably open and close the first channel and the second channel; and
an annular diaphragm 20 through which the threaded shaft 43 penetrates, wherein
an outer peripheral portion of the diaphragm 20 is mechanically clamped in a fixed manner between the body 14a and the cover 14b, and
an inner peripheral portion of the diaphragm 20 is mechanically clamped in a fixed manner between the stem 40 and the holder 31.
Regarding claim 2, Miller discloses in Figs. 1-5 that the stem 40 includes: a stem body (above washer 75) provided with the threaded shaft 43 and an abutment member 46 configured to abut against the diaphragm 20 and to receive the threaded shaft 43 so that the threaded shaft 43 is rotatable with respect to the stem body, and an outer diameter of the abutment member 46 is identical to an outer diameter of the stem body.
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.
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.
Claims 3 and 6 (as understood: both) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Vasilli (US 4,231,549).
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Miller discloses in Figs. 1-5 the stem 40 includes: a stem body (above washer 75) provided with the threaded shaft 43 and an abutment member 46 configured to abut against the diaphragm 20 and to receive the threaded shaft 43 so that the threaded shaft 43 is rotatable with respect to the stem body, the outer peripheral portion of the diaphragm 20 is fixedly clamped by the body 14a and the cover 14b so that the diaphragm 20 extends obliquely upward toward the stem 40, and the abutment member 46 includes a flat receiver surface configured to receive the diaphragm 20.
Miller lacks the abutment member having a convex-curved surface continuous with an outer circumference of the receiver surface.
Vasilli teaches in Figs. 1-3 that the abutment member 114 includes a flat receiver surface 148 configured to receive the diaphragm 76 and a convex-curved surface (outside of edge 152) continuous with an outer circumference 152 of the receiver surface 148 (because the convex-curved surface is contiguous with the outer circumference 152 of the receiver surface 148).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the abutment member disclosed by Miller so that the abutment member includes a convex-curved surface continuous with an outer circumference of the receiver surface, and with which the diaphragm is claimed, as Vasilli teaches, which one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize as being to allow the diaphragm to elastically deform as the valve stem moves up and down without engaging sharp edges that could damage the diaphragm. Furthermore, the convex-curved surface of the abutment member reduces sharp edges, which are areas where stress on the abutment member can be concentrated and can lead to damage of the abutment member, such as chipping.
Claims 4 and 7 (as understood: both) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Vasilli and Souriau (US 3,574,310).
Regarding claims 4 and 7, Miller discloses in Figs. 1-5 that the stem 40 includes: a stem body (above washer 75) provided with the threaded shaft 43 and an abutment member 46 configured to abut against the diaphragm 20 and to receive the threaded shaft 43 so that the threaded shaft 43 is rotatable with respect to the stem body, the holder 31 includes a threaded hole to which the threaded shaft 43 is screwed, the threaded hole opened in an upper surface of the holder 31.
Miller lacks the abutment member includes a tapered surface slanted obliquely upward toward the threaded shaft, and a corner portion, at which the upper surface and the threaded hole of the holder meet, defines an acute angle and overlaps with the tapered surface in up-down direction.
Vasilli teaches in Figs. 1-3 the abutment member 114 includes a tapered surface 150 slanted obliquely upward toward the threaded shaft 106, and a corner portion (of the holder 62), at which the upper surface 68 (of the holder 62) and the threaded hole 70 of the holder 62 meet, defines an angle and overlaps with the tapered surface 150 in up-down direction. Vasilli is silent with regard to the angle of the cornered portion of the holder, but Souriau teaches in Fig. 4 (and shown in the annotation below) an acute angle defined in a corner portion of a holder at the meeting of the upper surface of the holder and the hole of the holder (for the bolt 29, similar to the threaded holes in the holders of Miller and Vasilli).
[AltContent: textbox (Holder)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Upper surface)][AltContent: textbox (Corner portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
594
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the abutment member and holder disclosed by Miller so that the abutment member includes a tapered surface slanted obliquely upward toward the threaded shaft and the holder includes a corner portion that overlaps/aligns with the tapered surfaces in the up-down direction, as Vasilli teaches. The tapered surface of the abutment member is provided as a chamfer that reduces sharp edges where stress is concentrated and can lead to damage, and the corner of the holder is vertically aligns with the tapered surface of the abutment member naturally because they are both provided in the respective holes in the abutment member and holder for the stem/threaded shaft. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to have the corner portion of the holder in the combination of Miller and Vasilli be defined as an acute angle, as Souriau teaches, because the angle of the corner portion disclosed by Vasilli isn’t clearly distinguished from being 90o, and an acute angle (i.e. less than 90o) is an obvious angle/shape (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)) given that the top surface of the holder that is contiguous with the corner portion is convex-shaped.
Claims 5 and 8 (as understood: both) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Vasilli and Souriau, as applied to claims 4 and 7 above, and further in view of Sobon (US 1,853,156).
Regarding claims 5 and 8, Miller discloses a diaphragm, as previously discussed, but lacks teaching that an original shape of the diaphragm is a flat annular disk, and the inner peripheral portion of the diaphragm is positioned above or below the outer peripheral portion of the diaphragm in accordance with an up-down movement of the stem and the holder.
Sobon teaches in Figs. 1-5 an original shape of the diaphragm 9 is a flat annular disk (pg. 2, lines 6-8), and the inner peripheral portion of the diaphragm 9 is positioned above or below the outer peripheral portion of the diaphragm in accordance with an up-down movement of the stem and the holder (inherently if the diaphragm is naturally flat).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diaphragm in the combination of Miller, Vasilli, and Souriau to be flat as an obvious alternative to a cup shape, as Sobon teaches (pg. 2, lines 6-8), and so that the diaphragm is easy to make and inspect for damage.
Claims 9 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Vasilli, as applied to claims 3 and 6 respectively above, and further in view of Souriau.
Regarding claims 9 and 11, Miller, Vasilli, and Souriau is seen as teaching the limitations recited, as discussed for claim 4 above, which recites the same limitations as claims 9 and 11.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Vasilli and Souriau, as applied to claims 9 and 11 respectively above, and further in view of Sobon (US 1,853,156).
Regarding claims 10 and 12, Miller, Vasilli, and Souriau is seen as teaching the limitations recited, as discussed for claim 5 above, which recites the same limitations as claims 10 and 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Jonathan Waddy, whose telephone number is 571-270-3146. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (10:00AM-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 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 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.
/J. W./
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KEVIN F MURPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
