DETAILED ACTION
Non Final
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) submitted on 06/17/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
It is noted that upon review, no claim terminology was determined to be of sufficient means plus function nonce/style language so as to invoke 35 USC 112 6th paragraph. Any generic terms appeared to be sufficiently modified by their either prepository terms, modifiers or use in the art to take any generic terms out of potential scope of 112 6th. It is noted that during prosecution the claim language may change and thus there is no final disposition on such interpretation until time as the claims may issue.
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 1-12 are 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.
The following Claims recite limitations which have insufficient antecedent basis. The Claims and respective limitations include the following: Claim 1, "the link member" in the last line; Claim 2, "the pressure" in line 3; 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) 1-4, 7-12 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino (US 11473682) and further in view of Yasue (JP 2006-194298);
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino in view of Yasue as applied to claims 1 and 4 (as indefinitely understood) above, and further in view of Yoshino (US 7487792) (herein after Yoshino ‘792.)
Yoshino discloses in Claim 1: (see annotated figure 9 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
740
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A linkage-type constant-pressure valve (10’, figure 9 and see abstract) comprising: a valve body (at 1002) formed with a first valve chamber (at 16) being in communication with an inlet flow passage (via 17), a second valve chamber (at 20) being in communication with an outlet flow passage (via 21), and a communication passage (at 22) communicating the first valve chamber and the second valve chamber with each other; a valve seat (23) formed in the communication passage; a valve mechanism (at 12) including a first diaphragm (24b of 24 per figure 8) attached to the valve body (at 24c,d) so as to face the first valve chamber and supporting a valve element portion (24a) movable in a direction of a movement axis (central axis of 10’) relative to the valve seat, and a second diaphragm (at 25b from figure 1) attached to the valve body (at 25c) so as to face the second valve chamber; a first force- applying mechanism (61) attached to the valve body and applying a force (spring force of 41) to the first diaphragm in a direction to bring the valve element portion closer to the valve seat (i.e. spring bias closed); and a second force-applying mechanism (at 60) attached to the valve body and applying a predetermined force (via port 28, Col 8 ln 15-21 working fluid feed port allows application of fluid pressure in chamber 31 above second diaphragm to move open valve) in a direction to bring the second diaphragm closer to the communication passage (id), said valve element portion moved relative to the valve seat in accordance with the pressure of a fluid in the second valve chamber (as discussed), wherein the first force-applying mechanism comprises a first mechanism housing (35/36) having a first mechanism accommodating chamber (39) formed therein, a first movable body (37) accommodated in the first mechanism accommodating chamber and movable in the direction of the movement axis, a biasing member (41) provided in the first mechanism accommodating chamber and biasing the first movable body in a direction to approach the communication passage, and a stem (38) extending from the first movable body through the first mechanism housing and connected (at 48) to the valve element portion of the first diaphragm, wherein the second force-applying mechanism comprises a second mechanism housing (11/13) having a second mechanism accommodating chamber (27 from figure 1 as applied in figure 9) formed therein, a second movable body (body of 25) accommodated in the second mechanism accommodating chamber and movable in the direction of the movement axis, an applied force adjustment mechanism (28/thru passage of 28/surface of 25) applying an adjustable predetermined force (a fluid force discussed above) to the second movable body in a direction to approach the communication passage, and a force transmission portion (25a) extending (downwards), and wherein a rod-shaped link member (70/47 are rodlike cylindrically shaped members that link 25a, 24a, and 37) is provided so as to be arranged between the first movable body and the second movable body and extend through the valve body (as shown via passage 22), so that the first movable body and the second movable body are moved in conjunction with each other via the link member. Yoshino does not disclose: a force transmission portion extending from the second movable body through the second mechanism housing and transmitting a force between the second movable body and the second diaphragm; a rod-shaped link member …is provided so as to …extend through the valve body outside the first valve chamber and the second valve chamber in the direction of the movement axis;
But Yasue teaches: a force transmission portion (at 35/36 of figure 1) extending from the second movable body (22) through the second mechanism housing (of 5) and transmitting a force between the second movable body and the second diaphragm (of 10); a rod-shaped link member (26/27 on each side of the valve body)…is provided so as to …extend through the valve body (2/3/4/5/6) outside the first valve chamber and the second valve chamber in the direction of the movement axis…and the rod-shaped link member is provided so as to be arranged between the first movable body (20) and the second movable body (24, and provided for the purpose of preventing debris or particle generation in the fluid passages at time of operation per abstract);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Yoshino as taught in Yasue with a force transmission portion that extends from the second movable body of Yoshino as taught in Yasue and then through the second mechanism housing for transmitting a force between the second movable body and the second diaphragm as taught in Yasue; and provide a rod-shaped link member on each side of the valve body as taught in Yasue…so as to …extend through the valve body of Yoshino as taught in Yasue outside the first valve chamber and the second valve chamber and in the direction of the movement axis…with the rod-shaped link member being provided and arranged arranged between the first movable body and the second movable body as taught in Yasue, and all provided for the purpose of preventing debris or particle generation in the fluid passages at time of operation as taught in Yasue.
Yoshino discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in Claim 2: The linkage-type constant-pressure valve according to claim 1, wherein the applied force adjustment mechanism is configured to apply to the second movable body a force greater than or equal to the pressure exerted by the fluid in the second valve chamber on the second diaphragm (i.e. to force the valve to an open position as is necessarily the case.)
Yoshino discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in Claim 3: The linkage-type constant-pressure valve according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of link members extend between the first movable body and the second movable body (there are at least two rod-shaped link members.)
Yoshino discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in Claim 4: The linkage-type constant-pressure valve according to claim 1, wherein the force transmission portion is configured to come in contact (36 of Yoshino/Yasue contacts the diaphragm 10) with the second diaphragm and transmit force between the second movable body and the second diaphragm.
Yoshino discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in Claim 5: The linkage-type constant-pressure valve according to claim 4, wherein the applied force adjustment mechanism includes a pressurizing fluid chamber (27 is a pressure chamber) Yoshino/Yasue does not disclose, although Yoshino’792 teaches: a pressurizing diaphragm (67 figure 7) provided adjacent to the pressurizing fluid chamber (63), and is configured to make the pressure of a pressurizing fluid adjustably supplied into the pressurizing fluid chamber to act on the second movable body (66) via the pressurizing diaphragm (for the purpose of for example pressure distribution across the entire second movable body, making for a more uniform applied force and consistent body movement.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Yoshino/Yasue as taught in Yoshino’792 with a pressurizing diaphragm provided adjacent to the pressurizing fluid chamber as taught in Yoshino’792, and able to make the pressure of a pressurizing fluid as taught in either Yoshino or Yoshino’792 be adjustably supplied into the pressurizing fluid chamber to act on the second movable body via the pressurizing diaphragm as taught in Yoshino’792, and all for the purpose of for example pressure distribution across the entire second movable body, making for a more uniform applied force and consistent body movement.
Yoshino discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in Claim 6: The linkage-type constant-pressure valve according to claim 5, wherein the pressurizing fluid comprises compressed air (Col 2 ln 58-63 where compressed air is used as the fluid force applicator.)
Yoshino discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in Claim 7: The linkage-type constant-pressure valve according to claim 1,wherein the force transmission portion is connected to the second diaphragm (integrally as taught in Yoshino, or as modified via Yasue via assembly of the parts to move as an integral unit.)
Yoshino discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in Claim 8: The linkage-type constant-pressure valve according to claim 7, wherein the applied force adjustment mechanism includes a recess provided on a surface of the second mechanism housing (at 27 or at 25c) facing the second diaphragm, and the second diaphragm covers the recess to form a pressurizing fluid chamber (inside of 31) when the second force-applying mechanism (as modified for the reasons discussed above) is attached to the valve body, and fluid pressure acting on the second diaphragm by pressurizing fluid adjustably supplied to the pressurizing fluid chamber is applied to the second movable body via the force transmission portion (bodily thereof.)
Yoshino discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in Claim 9: The linkage-type constant-pressure valve according to claim 8, wherein the pressurizing fluid comprises compressed air (Col 2 ln 58-63 where compressed air is used as the fluid force applicator.)
Yoshino discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in Claim 10: The linkage-type constant-pressure valve according to claim 1,wherein the biasing member comprises a coil spring (41 is a coil spring.)
Yoshino discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in Claim 11: The linkage-type constant-pressure valve according to claim 1, wherein the link member is held between the first movable body (37) and the second movable body (25a) to be able to come into and out of contact with the first movable body and the second movable body (when being assembled or disassembled.)
Yoshino discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in Claim 12: The linkage-type constant-pressure valve according to claim 1, wherein both ends of the link member are fixed to the first movable body and the second movable body, respectively (as discussed.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W JELLETT, whose telephone number is 571-270-7497. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Ken 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.
/Matthew W Jellett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights