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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 11 June 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. The Office notes that while the applicant filed English abstracts for these references, they failed to include a copy of the foreign documents (see for example NL277329 which only show bibliographical data of the document and a short abstract without showing a copy of the document). The Office suggests that the references that were not cited by the examiner are listed in a new IDS and that each of these references include a full copy of the foreign patent document and an English translation of the document.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Content of Specification
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION: See 37 CFR 1.72(a) and MPEP § 606. The title of the invention should be placed at the top of the first page of the specification unless the title is provided in an application data sheet. The title of the invention should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive, preferably from two to seven words. It may not contain more than 500 characters.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS: See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211 et seq.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT: See MPEP § 310.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT. See 37 CFR 1.71(g).
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM: The specification is required to include an incorporation-by-reference of electronic documents that are to become part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application. See 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5) and MPEP § 608.05. See also the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System posted on the USPTO website (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019LegalFrameworkPES.pdf) and MPEP § 502.05
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR. See 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 37 CFR 1.77.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(c). The specification should set forth the Background of the Invention in two parts:
(1) Field of the Invention: A statement of the field of art to which the invention pertains. This statement may include a paraphrasing of the applicable U.S. patent classification definitions of the subject matter of the claimed invention. This item may also be titled “Technical Field.”
(2) Description of the Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98: A description of the related art known to the applicant and including, if applicable, references to specific related art and problems involved in the prior art which are solved by the applicant’s invention. This item may also be titled “Background Art.”
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(d). A brief summary or general statement of the invention as set forth in 37 CFR 1.73. The summary is separate and distinct from the abstract and is directed toward the invention rather than the disclosure as a whole. The summary may point out the advantages of the invention or how it solves problems previously existent in the prior art (and preferably indicated in the Background of the Invention). In chemical cases it should point out in general terms the utility of the invention. If possible, the nature and gist of the invention or the inventive concept should be set forth. Objects of the invention should be treated briefly and only to the extent that they contribute to an understanding of the invention.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S): See MPEP § 608.01(f). A reference to and brief description of the drawing(s) as set forth in 37 CFR 1.74.
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(g). A description of the preferred embodiment(s) of the invention as required in 37 CFR 1.71. The description should be as short and specific as is necessary to describe the invention adequately and accurately. Where elements or groups of elements, compounds, and processes, which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art, they should not be described in detail. However, where particularly complicated subject matter is involved or where the elements, compounds, or processes may not be commonly or widely known in the field, the specification should refer to another patent or readily available publication which adequately describes the subject matter.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i) - (p).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE: See 37 CFR 1.72 (b) and MPEP § 608.01(b). The abstract is a brief narrative of the disclosure as a whole, as concise as the disclosure permits, in a single paragraph preferably not exceeding 150 words, commencing on a separate sheet following the claims. In an international application which has entered the national stage (37 CFR 1.491(b)), the applicant need not submit an abstract commencing on a separate sheet if an abstract was published with the international application under PCT Article 21. The abstract that appears on the cover page of the pamphlet published by the International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is the abstract that will be used by the USPTO. See MPEP § 1893.03(e).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING: See 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825 and MPEP §§ 2421 - 2431. The requirement for a sequence listing applies to all sequences disclosed in a given application, whether the sequences are claimed or not. See MPEP § 2422.01.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
---Notice that the specification does not include the appropriate sections in order and with the appropriate section headings. Currently, the specification only includes a single header called “Description” and fails to outline the various portions of the specification. This is most notable in at least pages 12-13 of 27 where there is no clear demarcation between what should be “BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION”, “BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S)” and “DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION”. The Office suggests that the specification is amended to include the applicable specification sections and headers as described in the guidelines above.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 66 and 75 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
---Claim 66 recites the following:
66. The inner body of claim 60, wherein the obstruction portion comprises a dry-side coupling portion configured for force-transmitting connection to a drive-side counter- coupling portion.
Notice the lack of the indefinite article “a” before “force-transmitting connection”.
The Office suggests that claim 66 is amended as follows:
66. The inner body of claim 60, wherein the obstruction portion comprises a dry-side coupling portion configured for a force-transmitting connection to a drive-side counter- coupling portion.
---Claim 75 recites the following:
75. The inner body of claim 60, wherein a support portion rigidly connected to the dry-side coupling portion supports the flex portion in at least one position of the obstruction portion along the adjustment axis.
Notice the lack of antecedent basis for “the dry-side coupling portion” and “the flex portion”.
The Office suggests that claim 75 is amended as follows:
75. The inner body of claim 60, wherein a support portion rigidly connected to [[the]] a dry-side coupling portion supports [[the]] a flex portion in at least one position of the obstruction portion along the adjustment axis.
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.
Claim 82 is rejected 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.
---Claim 82 recite the following:
82. A process valve or valve assembly comprising: an inner body according to claim 60; and a rigid, multi-part outer body having a counter-contour to an outer contour of the inner body, wherein: the inner body is received in the counter-contour in a form-fitting manner; at least one drive is rigidly arranged on the outer body; and a drive rod of the at least one drive, the drive rod being movable along the adjustment axis, protrudes through an adjustment opening of the outer body and is connected in a force-transmitting manner to the obstruction portion of the valve portion of the inner body.
Notice the limitations of “an inner body” and “a rigid, multi-part outer body” are already recited in intervening claim 60 with “an inner body” in L1 and “an outer body” in L2 of claim 60 which makes it unclear and indefinite if the latter recitations of claim 82 are in addition to those already recited in claim 60 or if they are the same. Based on the disclosure, the Office will assume that they are the same as the previous limitations.
If so, the Office suggests that claim 82 is amended to the following:
82. A process valve or valve assembly comprising: [[an]] the inner body according to claim 60; and the outer body, wherein the outer body is a rigid, multi-part outer body having a counter-contour to an outer contour of the inner body, wherein: the inner body is received in the counter-contour in a form-fitting manner; at least one drive is rigidly arranged on the outer body; and a drive rod of the at least one drive, the drive rod being movable along the adjustment axis, protrudes through an adjustment opening of the outer body and is connected in a force-transmitting manner to the obstruction portion of the valve portion of the inner body.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 60-63, 66, 68-70, 72-76 and 80-81 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tchikango EP-2894379 in view of Grinnell GB-982873.
Regarding claims 60-63, 66, 68-70, 72-76 and 80-81, Tchikango EP-2894379 teaches in Figs. 1-7 (see at least Figs. 3-4) of an inner body (300 of Tchikango) for controlling a process fluid (322 of Tchikango), the inner body comprising at least one valve portion (the interior portion of the valve of Tchikango including the flexible wall 312 and the portion of the body 302 forming the valve seat to selectively control fluid flow) arranged along an imaginary flow path (324 of Tchikango) between at least two process fluid ports of the inner body (inlet 308 and outlet 310 of Tchikango), the valve portion comprising: a seat portion (see the portion of the body 302 of Tchikango that is engaged by the flexible wall 312) that is stationary during operation and has a seat surface delimiting an interior of the inner body (see at least Fig. 3 of Tchikango); and an obstruction portion (the portion of the flexible wall 312 of Tchikango that reciprocates and selectively engages the valve seat) that is connected to and opposite the seat portion, the obstruction portion having an obstruction surface delimiting the interior of the inner body and being movable (see at least Fig. 3 of Tchikango), at least during operation and at least in part, along an imaginary adjustment axis toward and away from the seat surface (see at least Fig. 3 of Tchikango). The device of Tchikango fails to disclose the limitation of “wherein the inner body is adapted to be detachably arranged in an outer body”. However, ways for detachably enclosing an interior body with an outer body is known in the art.
Grinnell GB-982873 teaches in Figs. 1-6 (see at least Fig. 1 and 3) of an inner body 26 that is detachably encased in a rigid, two-part outer body 12a, 12b. This type of construction allows the inner body to be made of a first material whereas the outer body is made of a stronger/rigid material which aids in protecting the inner body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was effectively filed to modify the valve assembly 300 of Tchikango to be at least partially and detachably encased by a rigid, two-part outer body 12a, 12b in a similar manner as taught by Grinnell since such a modification aid in protecting the structural integrity of the inner valve assembly.
As such, the device of the combination of Tchikango EP-2894379 in view of Grinnell GB-982873 teaches the limitations of:
---Claim 60. An inner body (300 of Tchikango as modified by Grinnell) for controlling a process fluid (322 of Tchikango), wherein the inner body is adapted to be detachably arranged in an outer body (see at least Figs. 1 and 3 of Grinnell teaching of a rigid, two-part outer body 12a, 12b for protecting the inner body 26), the inner body comprising at least one valve portion (the interior portion of the valve of Tchikango including the flexible wall 312 and the portion of the body 302 forming the valve seat to selectively control fluid flow) arranged along an imaginary flow path (324 of Tchikango) between at least two process fluid ports of the inner body (inlet 308 and outlet 310 of Tchikango), the valve portion comprising: a seat portion (see the portion of the body 302 of Tchikango that is engaged by the flexible wall 312) that is stationary during operation and has a seat surface delimiting an interior of the inner body (see at least Fig. 3 of Tchikango); and an obstruction portion (the portion of the flexible wall 312 of Tchikango that reciprocates and selectively engages the valve seat) that is connected to and opposite the seat portion, the obstruction portion having an obstruction surface delimiting the interior of the inner body and being movable (see at least Fig. 3 of Tchikango), at least during operation and at least in part, along an imaginary adjustment axis toward and away from the seat surface (see at least Fig. 3 of Tchikango).
---Claim 61. The inner body of claim 60, wherein the valve portion further comprises an intermediate portion (see the upper portion of body 302 of Tchikango that interconnects the flexible wall 312 with the seat portion) connecting the seat portion to the movable obstruction portion, and wherein the seat portion, the obstruction portion, and the intermediate portion together define the interior of the inner body with their respective inner surfaces (see at least Fig. 3 of Tchikango).
---Claim 62. The inner body of claim 60, wherein a wall of the inner body that defines the interior surface is made entirely from a single material (see at least Fig. 3 of Tchikango).
---Claim 63. The inner body of claim 60, wherein at least the seat surface and the obstruction surface of the valve portion deviate from a cylindrical jacket shape (see at least Fig. 3 of Tchikango).
---Claim 66. The inner body of claim 60, wherein the obstruction portion comprises a dry-side coupling portion (314 of Tchikango) configured for force-transmitting connection to a drive-side counter- coupling portion (320 of Tchikango, see at least Fig. 3 of Tchikango).
---Claim 68. The inner body of claim 60, wherein the seat surface defines an inner fluid opening that can be closed by the obstruction surface (see at least Fig. 3 of Tchikango).
---Claim 69. The inner body of claim 60, wherein the seat surface and the obstruction surface are rotationally or axially symmetrical relative to the adjustment axis (see at least Fig. 3 of Tchikango).
---Claim 70. The inner body of claim 60, wherein the obstruction portion extends longitudinally along the adjustment axis and is connected at an end facing away from the seat portion to a flex portion that connects the obstruction portion to the remainder of the inner body in a movable and integral manner (see at least Fig. 3 of Tchikango).
---Claim 72. The inner body of claim 70, wherein the flex portion is rotationally symmetrical with respect to the adjustment axis (see at least Fig. 3 of Tchikango).
---Claim 73. The inner body of claim 60, wherein the obstruction portion is projection-shaped, protrudes into a working space of the valve portion, and is movable along the adjustment axis within the working space (see at least Fig. 3 of Tchikango).
---Claim 74. The inner body of claim 60, wherein a compressor (320 of Tchikango) is arranged at least in part on a dry side within the obstruction portion and has a higher modulus of elasticity than the obstruction portion (see at least Fig. 3 of Tchikango).
---Claim 75. The inner body of claim 60, wherein a support portion rigidly connected to the dry-side coupling portion supports the flex portion in at least one position of the obstruction portion along the adjustment axis (see at least Fig. 3 of Tchikango see the portions of the flexible wall that are integrally attached to body 302 supporting the structure).
---Claim 76. The inner body of claim 60, wherein in an open state of the valve portion, the seat surface and the obstruction surface define a clear cross section that is larger perpendicular to the adjustment axis than along the adjustment axis (see at least Fig. 3 of Tchikango).
---Claim 80. The inner body of claim 60, wherein the obstruction portion is held on a holding portion of the inner body that is rigid or less flexible relative to the obstruction portion (see at least Fig. 3 of Tchikango).
---Claim 81. The inner body of claim 60, wherein the seat portion has an outer surface recessed relative to an imaginary plane that tangentially abuts portions adjacent to the valve portion (see at least Fig. 3 of Tchikango).
Claim(s) 82 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tchikango EP-2894379 in view of Grinnell GB-982873 as applied to claim 60 above, and further in view of Grimm US-12140235.
Regarding claim 82, the device of the combination of Tchikango EP-2894379 in view of Grinnell GB-982873 teaches of a process valve or valve assembly (the valve assembly including inner body 300 of Tchikango and encased by the rigid, multi-part outer body 12a and 12b of Grinnell) comprising: an inner body (300 of Tchikango as modified by Grinnell) according to claim 60; and a rigid, multi-part outer body (the rigid, multi-part outer body 12a and 12b as taught by Grinnell) having a counter-contour to an outer contour of the inner body (in order for the outer shells 12a, 12b as taught by Grinnell to protect the inner body, they each have similar shape/contours to allow the two components to fit together in a similar manner as shown in at least Fig. 3 of Grinnell), wherein: the inner body is received in the counter-contour in a form-fitting manner; at least one drive (actuator 304 of Tchikango); and a drive rod (320 of Tchikango) of the at least one drive, the drive rod being movable along the adjustment axis, protrudes through an adjustment opening of the outer body and is connected in a force-transmitting manner to the obstruction portion of the valve portion of the inner body (see at least Fig. 3 of Tchikango). The device of the combination of Tchikango in view of Grinnell fails to disclose the limitation of “at least one drive is rigidly arranged on the outer body”. However, such an arrangement is known in the art.
Grimm US-12140235 teaches in Figs. 1-3 (see at least Figs. 1-2) of a valve block assembly 10 comprising valve units 12 with each valve unit having a linear actuator 36 that pushes on diaphragm 24 for opening and closing a flow path. Notice that the actuators 36 are mounted to the valve assembly in a way that allows them to be stable during use while allowing them to be detachable for servicing the valve block.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was effectively filed to modify the actuator/drive of the device of the combination of Tchikango in view of Grinnell to be rigidly mounted to the outer body in a similar manner as taught by the actuators 36 as taught by Grimm, since such a modification ensures that that the drive is secured to the valve assembly allowing it to reliably function without the drive being inadvertently disengaged during use.
As such the device of the combination of Tchikango EP-2894379 in view of Grinnell GB-982873 and Grimm US-12140235 teaches the limitations of:
---Claim 82. A process valve or valve assembly (the valve assembly including inner body 300 of Tchikango and encased by the rigid, multi-part outer body 12a and 12b of Grinnell) comprising: an inner body (300 of Tchikango as modified by Grinnell) according to claim 60; and a rigid, multi-part outer body (the rigid, multi-part outer body 12a and 12b as taught by Grinnell) having a counter-contour to an outer contour of the inner body (in order for the outer shells 12a, 12b as taught by Grinnell to protect the inner body, they each have similar shape/contours to allow the two components to fit together in a similar manner as shown in at least Fig. 3 of Grinnell), wherein: the inner body is received in the counter-contour in a form-fitting manner; at least one drive (actuator 304 of Tchikango as modified by Grimm) is rigidly arranged on the outer body (see at least Fig. 1-2 of Grimm); and a drive rod (320 of Tchikango) of the at least one drive, the drive rod being movable along the adjustment axis, protrudes through an adjustment opening of the outer body and is connected in a force-transmitting manner to the obstruction portion of the valve portion of the inner body (see at least Fig. 3 of Tchikango).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 64-65, 67, 71 and 77-79 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior/relevant art are:
---References A (relevant but not “prior” art): Baumgartner EP-4663984.
---References B (diaphragm valves): Grimm US-12140235, Oshima US-12104713, Ono US-11867317, Glime US-11796077, Suenaga US-11773985, Smith US-11499650, Vu US-10113665, Fukano US-8353498, Iwabuchi US-7377483, Fedegari US-7311292, Meyers US-7004447, Kerg US-6860469, Satou US-6752376, Browne US-6394417, Muller US-5520213, Besombes US-5160117, Parkinson US-4421294, Payne US-4280680, Wurzer US-4251053, Miller US-4241761, Banon US-4072292, Summerfield US-3826461, Gregory US-3774881, Goto US-3768514, Chernak US-3426798, Schmitz US-3350053, Boteler US-3310280, Price US-3298660, Boteler US-3103342, Seltsam US-3081063, Geary US-3067764, Boteler US-3020020, Boteler US-2963266, Price US-RE24350, Seng US-2540298, Jacobsen US-2381544, Lee US-20200232568, Zuber US-20180195636, Baumgartner EP-3070381, Tchikango EP-2894379, Estrems FR-2816387 and Grinnell GB-982873.
References A teaches of a diaphragm valve assembly wherein the valve body assembly is composed of an inner body comprising the flow path and outer, multi-part shell that supports and protects the inner body similar to a key feature of the claimed invention. It is noted that this reference is by the same inventor/assignee within the grace period which are under the 35 USC 102b(1)(A)/102b(2)(A/C) exceptions and as such, this reference are not considered “prior art” under US patent laws. References B teaches the general state of the art of diaphragm valves which are valves that include some form of flexible membrane/diaphragm/tube that is moved by an actuator to control fluid flow. Notice that many of these references include basic structure claimed such as having some form of body/housing, a flow path, a valve seat, an actuator and a movable obstruction/diaphragm for controlling the flow similar to applicant’s invention. In particular, notice that at least Tchikango EP-2894379 and the rejections above that Tchikango teaches some of the features of the claimed invention in particular the idea of having the obturation/diaphragm portion being made an integral part of the inner body. However, notice that the closest prior art fails to disclose or render obvious the specific structure and function of the inner body 100, the support portion 1016, the outer connecting portion 1910, the inner portion of the process fluid port 1920, the seat portion 1010, the valve portion 1000 and the obturation portion 1050 and how these components are arranged in combination with all the limitations as claimed in 64-65, 67, 71 and 77-79 and as shown in at least Figs. 1a-1e of the application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID COLON-MORALES, whose telephone number is 571-270-1741 and fax number is 571-270-2741. If the applicant has authorized internet communications via the filling of form PTO/SB/439, the examiner can be reached via email at david.colon-morales@uspto.gov , email communication is not permitted if the applicant has not filed an authorization for internet communication (see MPEP 502.03 for more details on internet communications). The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (7:30AM-3:30PM 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. 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 published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID COLON-MORALES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights