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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) dated 5/29/2025 has been received and considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 4, the last two lines of the claim, --in--- should be inserted between “which is not” and “front of”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: drive arrangement in claim 7, corresponding in structure to a spindle 48, spindle nut 50, magnetic coupling 44, and external drive per paragraph 33.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Usry (U.S. 3,700,209).
Usry discloses a valve (fig. 5) for regulating a fluid flow between a first (58) and a second port (56) of a valve housing, said valve comprising a piston (54, 62) movably arranged within a valve cylinder (44), the piston comprising a front surface (the surface for 54 near the point where the lead line is for 74 extending upward to the shoulder area that tapers inward at a 90 degree angle near numeral 72 in fig. 5, forming the cone shaped front surface), the piston being axially movable within the valve cylinder at least between an opened position in which said fluid can flow between said first and second ports and a closed position in which the front surface of the piston blocks a flow of the fluid (as is known in the art), a balance chamber (50) being arranged behind the piston, opposite to the front surface, and wherein the front surface of the piston comprises at least a first opening (67) with a first channel (the channel for the opening of 67 leading to 72) connected to the balance chamber and a second opening (69) with a second channel (the channel for the opening 69 leading to 72) connected to the balance chamber, each of said first and second opening being arranged at a distance from a center of the front surface of the piston, wherein the first opening is arranged at a first radial distance from the center of the front surface of the piston (fig. 5), and the second opening is arranged at a second radial distance from the center of the front surface of the piston (fig. 5), wherein the first distance is greater than the second distance (notice that, from the radial center, which is an axis extending vertically in fig. 5, the radial distance of the first opening (67) is greater than the radial distance of the second opening (69) due to the conical shape).
Regarding claim 3, Usry further discloses wherein the piston has a radial extension (such as at the very tip near 74) measured at the front surface, wherein each of the first radial distance and the second radial distance are at least 40% of the radial extension (as the radial distances for the first and second openings are larger than the radial extension, they are at least 40% of the radial extension).
Regarding claim 4, Usry further discloses wherein the valve cylinder comprises one or more window openings (such as 68), wherein one of the first and second openings is arranged at a first position within the front surface of the piston which is in front of one of the window openings (69 is closer to the tip 74 which is in the front of 68), and wherein the other one of the first and second openings is arranged at a second position within the front surface of the piston which is not front of one of the window openings (67 is located more toward the rear and thus not in front of 68).
Regarding claim 5, Usry further discloses wherein the first and second openings are arranged at positions within the front surface of the piston defining a first radius from the center of the front surface of the piston to the first opening and a second radius from the center of the front surface of the piston to the second opening (fig. 5), wherein an angle formed between the first and second radii is greater than 20 degrees and less than 160 degrees (see the conical surface in fig. 5 along which 67 and 69 are located, the angle being approximately 70 degrees +/- 10 degrees which is well within the range of greater than 20 degrees and less than 160 degrees).
Regarding claim 6, Usry further discloses wherein the piston comprises a hollow space (72), and the channels connect the first and second opening to the hollow space.
Regarding claim 7, Usry further discloses wherein a drive arrangement (shaft 60) is provided to control an axial position of the piston.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usry.
Usry discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose the first distance at least 3% greater than the second distance.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Usry such that the first distance at least 3% greater than the second distance (for instance, by changing the degree of angle for the conical head portion), since it has been held that a change of size/shape of a component generally involves only routine level of skill in the art. MPEP2144.04. The motivation for doing so would be to have a desired shape and size for the conical valve head to provide flow characteristics desired by a user for a particular application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Banks (U.S. 3,318,577) discloses a balanced valve.
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