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 Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment to the claims dated 5/29/2025 has been received. Claims 2-4 were canceled. Claims 5-8 are newly presented. Claims 1 and 5-8 are being examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) dated 8/25/2025 and 10/10/2025 have been received and considered.
Drawings
Figures 4(1) and 4(2) should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 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) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (U.S. 2008/0237524).
Lee discloses a valve (the embodiment of fig. 1) comprising: a valve main body (1) that includes a valve chamber (within 1) communicably connecting an inlet passage (the unlabeled passage on the left or at the bottom of the figure) and an outlet passage (the other of the unlabeled passage on the left or at the bottom of the figure); a seat member (3) that has a cylindrical shape, that includes an inlet-side communicating passage communicably connected to the inlet passage (at 3a), an outlet-side communicating passage communicably connected to the outlet passage (at the area of 3b), and a valve seat (the point of contact with 7) provided at an outlet-side end of the outlet-side communicating passage (fig. 1), and that is disposed inside the valve chamber; and a valve body (7) that comes into abutment against and separates from the valve seat, wherein the inlet-side communicating passage opens to an outer peripheral surface of the seat member (fig. 1), and the inlet passage and the inlet-side communicating passage are communicably connected to each other via an annular space (see the oval shaped areas in the annotated figure below and in the same manner as the applicant’s device) formed between the outer peripheral surface of the seat member and an inner peripheral surface of the valve chamber.
PNG
media_image1.png
763
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Lee further discloses wherein a longitudinal cross-sectional area of the annular space is larger than a longitudinal cross-sectional area of the inlet-side communicating passage (see the annotated figure above, the oval areas are larger in cross-section than the area at 3a).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Gabriel et al. (U.S. 2022/0381367).
Lee discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose the inlet-side communicating passage having a cross-sectional shape that is an oval shape.
Gabriel teaches it was known in the art to have a similar type of valve with radial passages that are oval shaped (para. 16, 56 and claim 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee by having the communicating passage have an oval cross-sectional shape as taught by Gabriel in order to potentially increase the capacity for a maximum flow area (para. 16), potentially reduce noise if so desired (para. 16) and allow for specific flow characteristics desired by a user for a particular application (such as pressure, flow, etc.) and especially as it has been held that a change of shape of a component generally involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.04.
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Wears et al. (U.S. 7,854,239).
Regarding claims 6 and 8, Lee discloses the claimed invention and further discloses wherein the valve chamber includes a large-diameter portion that is communicably connected to the inlet passage (the larger portion in the area of 3a) and a small-diameter portion (the narrower portion around 3b) but does not appear to disclose the small-diameter portion an inner peripheral surface of which is provided with a female thread, and the seat member and the valve main body are fixed to each other by screwing a male thread provided on an outer peripheral surface of the seat member into the female thread.
Wears teaches it was known in the art to have a similar seat for a valve that is threadingly connected to a valve body via male threads for the seat and female threads on the valve chamber housing (threads 52 and 56 for the housing and seat 42, see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee by having the seat have male threads that are threaded into female threads of the body (and thus at the area of the small-diameter portion as the threads for Wears are towards the bottom and the small-diameter portion of Lee is towards the bottom) as taught by Wears in order to removably but securely couple the seat assembly to the valve body.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dvorak et al. (U.S. 5,931,445) discloses a valve with a seat having oval openings (fig. 13).
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