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 06/20/2025 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 1-21 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 connection state" in line 8, "the center axis direction" in line 10, "the inner wall part" in line 13; Claim 2, "the facing direction" in line 3, “the inner wall part” in line 5; Claim 3, "the tip end part" in line 5, “the opposing direction” in line 5; Claim 4, "the inside" in line 2, “the inner wall part” in line 3, 4, 5 (and the antecedent issue for this limitation persists throughout the claims); Claims 5 and 6 “the ports” in lines 4 and 5 respectively; Claim 6 “a space” in line 3, where the limitation is reintroduced from dependent claim 5 making the metes and bounds indeterminate; Claim 9 “the plurality of biasing members” in line 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “one of the plurality of biasing members provided at a position in the center axis direction with a large pressure-receiving area of the valve body that receives the pressure of the fluid has a larger biasing force than the other biasing members provided at a position in the center axis direction with a small pressure-receiving area”. It is unclear and/or uncertain (i.e. there appears to be a zone of uncertainty) from a reading of the claim as to what is intended by the term/phrase/idea and how such a term/phrase/idea should be interpreted. In other words, it is unclear from a reading of the claimed phrase how or in what way the plurality of biasing members can be provided in the center axis direction and receive both a large and small pressure for a larger biasing force member and a smaller biasing force member, or is this merely a matter of fluid pressure differential during action of the valve as the fluid pressure varies during rotation and the springs compensate for the various rotational forces, or should the claim limitations be construed as merely large and small pressure receiving areas with large and small biasing members? In the interest of compact prosecution, the term/phrase will be given its broadest reasonable interpretation. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 11-13, 15, 16 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Parker (US 2314512);
Claim(s) 3, 16 (in the alternative), 18 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker as applied to claim 1, 2 and 15 (as indefinitely understood) above, and further in view of Williams (US 5188149);
Claim(s) 8, 9, 10, 14 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker as applied to claim 1, 2 and 4 (as indefinitely understood) above;
Claim(s) 19, 20 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker as applied to claim 1 (as indefinitely understood) above, and further in view of Dolejs (US 4569371);
Parker discloses in claim 1: (see at least annotated figures 7 and 8 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
542
918
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A flow path switching valve (figures 7 and 8), comprising: a housing (35) including a main body part (id) having a cylindrical inner wall part (66) and a plurality of ports (37/38/68/69) opening in a circumferential direction, a bottom part (70) covering a first end of the main body part in a center axis direction (along 42), and a cover part (at 1002) covering a second end (top end) of the main body part in the center axis direction; a valve body (at 1004) stored inside the housing so as to be rotatable about the center axis, the valve body including a set of a first valve body (64 left) and a second valve body (64 right) positioned around the center axis, the valve body being in (rotatable) sliding contact with the inner wall part to switch the connection state between the plurality of ports; a rotating shaft (42) extending in the center axis direction, connecting (at least at the top) the first valve body and the second valve body so as to be movable in a radial direction (via spring biasing of 65), and switching rotational position of the first valve body and the second valve body by rotating the rotating shaft (page 3 col 2 ln 19-21); and a biasing member (65) that biases the first valve body and the second valve body toward the inner wall part (page 3 col 2 ln 32-42.)
Parker discloses in claim 2: The flow path switching valve according to claim 1, wherein the first valve body and the second valve body are provided at positions facing each other about the center axis (64 are diametrically opposed) and are movable in the facing direction (as discussed above to seal against the inner wall); and the biasing member (65) is provided between the first valve body and the second valve body, and biases both the first valve body and the second valve body toward the inner wall part (as discussed.)
Parker discloses in claim 3: The flow path switching valve according to claim 2, wherein the first valve body and the second valve body [together form] an insertion hole (a rectilinear opening) into which the rotating shaft is inserted (as seen at 1006); when the rotating shaft is inserted into the insertion hole, a gap (at 1008) is provided between the tip end part (1010) of the rotating shaft and the insertion hole in the opposing direction (to provide for biasing movement along the axial direction of the springs 65 for opposing bias of the valve bodies); and the tip end part of the rotating shaft and the insertion hole [appear to] abut against each other without a gap in a direction perpendicular to the direction in which the first valve body and the second valve body face each other (as the spring movement is in the diametric direction and not in the direction normal thereto.) Parker does not disclose: the first and second valve bodies each have an insertion hole into which the rotating shaft is inserted; but Williams teaches: providing an insertion hole (23a,b figure 6 to the stem 20a) in the first and second valve bodies (10a,b,c via slot therein) for the rotating shaft to be inserted into so as to impart for example, radial guiding motion to the valve body during rotation so as to accurately maintain position of the valve body during rotation and control of the fluid.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Parker as taught in Williams with an insertion hole as taught in Williams where the stem can be inserted into the first and second valve bodies via slot as taught in Williams for the rotating shaft portions to be inserted into for the purpose of for example, imparting, radial guiding motion to the valve body during rotation so as to accurately maintain position of the valve body during rotation and control of the fluid.
Parker discloses in claim 4: The flow path switching valve according to claim 2, wherein the inside of the housing is partitioned into: a first space (67 left) enclosed by the first valve body and the inner wall part, a second space (67 right) enclosed by the second valve body and the inner wall part, and a third space (at 36) enclosed by the first valve body, the second valve body, and the inner wall part.
Parker discloses in claim 5: The flow path switching valve according to claim 4, wherein the first valve body has a first seal part (66 left), and the first space (67 left) is enclosed by the first seal part and the inner wall part so as to form a first flow path that is a space through which a fluid flows (fuel); the ports include a first port (38/68) and a second port (38/68) provided at a prescribed angle relative to each other (90.deg.) about the rotating shaft; and the first valve body switches between a first state in which the first port and the second port mutually connect through the first flow path, and a second state in which the first port and the second port do not mutually connect, by rotation of the rotating shaft (when turned 90.deg. to allow for switching.)
Parker discloses in claim 6: The flow path switching valve according to claim 5, wherein the second valve body has a second seal part (66 right), and the second space (67 right) is enclosed by the second seal part and the inner wall part so as to form a second flow path that is a space through which a fluid flows; the ports further include a third port (37/69) and a fourth port (37/69) that are provided symmetric to the first port and the second port (as shown) with respect to the center axis, and that are provided at a prescribed angle (90.deg.) to each other around the rotating shaft; and in the first state, the second valve body connects with the third port and the fourth port through the second flow path, and in the second state (when rotted 90.deg.), the second valve body does not connect between the third port and the fourth port.
Parker discloses in claim 8: The flow path switching valve according to claim 4, wherein at least one of the first space and the second space is provided to connect with each [at least a majority] of the plurality of ports that are provided at different positions in the center axis direction; and the biasing member (65) is provided in plurality at two locations (upper and lower, and end to end to be…) spaced apart in the center axis direction;
Parker does not disclose: connecting each of the plurality of ports via at least one of the first space and the second space; but one of ordinary skill in the art would consider: providing a rotational limit stop of at least 180.deg. to connect each of the plurality of ports via at least one of the first space and the second space (for the purpose of for example, allowing fluid flow conduit connections between all of the ports for fluid flow routing control.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Parker as suggested by one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a rotational limit stop of at least 180.deg. so as to to connect each of the plurality of ports via at least one of the first space and the second space, and all for the purpose of for example, allowing fluid flow conduit connections between all of the ports for fluid flow routing control.
Parker discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 9: The flow path switching valve according to claim 8, wherein the center axes of the plurality of biasing members are provided such that the position in the center axis direction matches a center axis of the port (when 41 is rotated to block ports 68/69 then the central axis (see figure 9) of the spring 65 lines up with the central axis of ports 37/38, and it is noted that this is in congruence with applicants disclosure where the springs 25 are laterally off to the sides of the ports when the springs are parallel to the central axis of respective ports.)
Parker discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 10: The flow path switching valve according to claim 9, wherein one of the plurality of biasing members provided at a position in the center axis direction (upper and lower 65) with a large pressure-receiving area of the valve body that receives the pressure of the fluid has a larger biasing force than the other biasing members provided at a position in the center axis direction with a small pressure-receiving area (as best understood, when the valve rotates between ports, during rotation at an intermediate position, there will be larger pressure on one side than the other, depending upon fluid flow in the system, thus requiring the springs to adjust force based on the fluid pressure to maintain contact with the inner wall.)
Parker discloses in claim 11: The flow path switching valve according to claim 1, wherein the valve body has an edge part (66) facing the inner wall part, and only a portion of the inner circumferential side (at 1012) in a thickness direction (of the valve body) abuts against the inner wall part to form a seal surface (as shown).
Parker discloses in claim 12: The flow path switching valve according to claim 1, wherein the housing has a sliding resistance reducing part (43/44 of figure 7 are bushings as applied to figure 8, and at 54 and 1016 provides for fluid ) that reduces sliding resistance between the inner wall part where the port is formed and the valve body in the inner wall part at another position opposite to the inner wall part where the port is formed sandwiching the rotating shaft (for the purpose of maintaining rotational balance and reducing off center wear.)
Parker discloses in claim 13: The flow path switching valve according to claim 12, wherein the sliding resistance reducing part is a slit (at ports 37 and 38 extend axially beyond the restriction of the port itself, and 1016 is a slit that provides for what appears to be fluid lubrication) extending in the center axis direction on the inner wall part of the housing.
Parker discloses in claim 14: The flow path switching valve according to claim 4, wherein at least one of the first space and the second space is provided to connect with each [at least a majority] of the plurality of ports that are provided at different positions in the center axis direction; and at least one of the first valve body and the second valve body is provided outside the first space and the second space (at 1014) so as to be aligned with a portion of the first space and the second space in the center axis direction, and has a sliding part that slides against the inner wall part.
Parker does not disclose: connecting each of the plurality of ports via at least one of the first space and the second space; but one of ordinary skill in the art would consider: providing a rotational limit stop of at least 180.deg. to connect each of the plurality of ports via at least one of the first space and the second space (for the purpose of for example, allowing fluid flow conduit connections between all of the ports for fluid flow routing control.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Parker as suggested by one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a rotational limit stop of at least 180.deg. so as to to connect each of the plurality of ports via at least one of the first space and the second space, and all for the purpose of for example, allowing fluid flow conduit connections between all of the ports for fluid flow routing control.
Parker discloses in claim 15: The flow path switching valve according to claim 1, wherein the valve body is displaceable in a radial direction relative to the rotating shaft (via spring biased fluid pressure responsiveness for sealing effectiveness.)
Parker discloses in claim 16: The flow path switching valve according to claim 15, wherein the rotating shaft has an arm part (52 is a part means for connecting to the operator/actuator for imparting rotation to the stem/shaft) extending outward from the rotating shaft to transmit a rotational force to the valve body. Parker does not disclose in the alternative for example: an arm or armature extending from the shaft, but Williams teaches: connecting an armature or arm (23a,b figure 6 to the stem 20a) and to guide the first and second valve body (10a,b,c via slot therein) so as to impart for example, radial guiding motion to the valve body during rotation so as to accurately maintain position of the valve body during rotation and control of the fluid;
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Parker as taught in Williams, with a connecting armature or arm as taught in Williams to guide the first and second valve body as taught in Williams via a slot in the valve body as taught in Williams for the purpose of imparting for example, radial motion guidance to the valve body during rotation so as to accurately maintain position of the valve body during rotation and control of the fluid.
Parker discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 18: The flow path switching valve according to claim 16, wherein the arm parts are provided as a pair (left/right extensions of 23a,c) so as to extend from the rotating shaft in a radial direction of the rotating shaft; and the pair of arm parts are connected to the first valve body and the second valve body via the biasing member (forcibly.)
Parker discloses in claim 19: The flow path switching valve according to claim 1, wherein the first valve body and the second valve body are [different] than the main body part; Parker does not disclose: the first and second valve body parts are softer materials than the main body part; but Dolejs teaches: the first and second valve body parts (48/56 best seen in figures 6 and 9, and see Col 9 ln 40-43 where they are made of soft elastomeric material and so…) are softer materials than the main body part (made of a metal, and all for the purpose of maintaining a fluid tight seal.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Parker as taught in Dolejs, with the first and second valve body parts as taught in Dolejs, where they can be made of soft elastomeric material and are softer materials than the main body part made of a metal, and all for the purpose of maintaining a fluid tight seal.
Parker discloses in claim 20: The flow path switching valve according to claim 1, Parker does not disclose, although Dolejs teaches: the first valve body (48/56 best seen in figures 6 and 9, and see Col 9 ln 40-43 where they are made of soft elastomeric material and so…) and the second valve body are softer than the rotating shaft (a metal is harder than an elastomeric seal.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Parker as taught in Dolejs, with the first and second valve body parts as taught in Dolejs, where they can be made of soft elastomeric material and are softer materials than the rotating shaft part made of a metal, and all for the purpose of bodily maintaining a fluid tight seal.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 17 and 21 each would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 prior art fails to disclose or render obvious in Claim 7 the following: “the third space forms a third flow path through which a fluid flows between the first valve body, the second valve body, and the inner wall part; the ports further include a fifth port provided between the first port and the third port, and a sixth port provided between the second port and the fourth port; and the third flow path connects with the fifth port and the sixth port” in combination with the other limitations set forth above, where it is noted that McDonald (US 2856150) discloses a flexible rotor flow over arrangement with a third space for flow path through the chamber and not the valve (figures 5 and 6), but to provide such for Parker would make the valve of parker inoperable for its distribution, and require improper road mapping of the claim;
Claim 17 the following: “and a first connection surface that is connected to the second valve body via the biasing member; and the second arm part has a second contact surface that contacts the second valve body and a second connection surface that is connected to the first valve body via the biasing member” in combination with the other limitations set forth above, the being a lack of teaching in the art or suggestion to provide such a claimed arrangement;
Claim 21 the following: “three or more valve bodies including the first valve body and the second valve body are provided so as to be aligned around the rotating shaft; the arm parts each extend between adjacent valve bodies in a rotational direction; and one side of the arm part in the rotation direction is connected to the adjacent valve body in the one direction of the rotation direction via the biasing member, and the other side of the arm in the rotation direction is in contact with the valve body or is connected to the adjacent valve body in the other direction of the rotation direction via the biasing member” in combination with the other limitations set forth above, the being a lack of teaching in the art or suggestion to provide such a claimed arrangement in combination with the remaining claim limitations;
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Andersen (US 5613511) discloses a rotary distribution valve with 8 ports and spring biased closed valve for 7 of the 8; Schmitt (US 1205031) discloses a rotary faucet valve with spring biased closed valve heads and fluid mixing; Whitaker (US 9371921) discloses a rectilinear shaft receiving valve body;
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