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
Each information disclosure statement (IDS) as submitted on 02/04/2026 and 06/23/2025 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 1-4 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 elements" in line 4; Claim 3 "the first flow path and the second flow path of other valve units" in line 13, "the valve units" in line 15, "the valve units" in line 16 (not clear which are being referred to); 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(s) 1-2 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Morien (US 9500299).
Morien discloses in Claim 1: A flow path switching valve (10/310 figure 2, 11-13) configured to supply a fluid (coolant flow) to at least two elements (engine 2, fluid pump 4, radiator 6, cabin heat exchanger 8, Col 9 ln 42 – Col 10 ln 26) that use the fluid as a heat medium, the flow path switching valve having: a parallel mode (figure 11 where fluid from pump can be fed to both inlets 28 and 32 in parallel with outlet feed to individual elements 4, 6 or 8 as applied) in which the fluid is individually supplied to the elements; and a series mode (fluid supplied first from water pump 4 to radiator 6 to heat exchanger 8 in series) in which the fluid is supplied to the at least two elements in series.
Morien discloses in Claim 2: The flow path switching valve according to claim 1, wherein the at least two elements includes three elements (2/4/6/8), and the parallel mode and the series mode each have: a mode A in which the fluid is supplied to the three elements (each of 16 and 18 can supply fluid individually via outlets 36/38 to 4/6/8); and a mode B in which the fluid is supplied to two of the three elements (each of 16 and 18 can supply fluid individually via outlets 36/38 to 4/6 or 4/8.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 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. Claim 4 depends from claim 3 and would be allowable for the reason that it incorporates all the limitations of the parent 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 3 the following: “…the first flow path and the second flow path of other valve units are connected to the first flow path and the second flow path of the valve unit, to configure a first valve unit group in which four of the valve units are connected in series, a second valve unit group, in which three of the valve units are connected in series, is configured in addition to the first valve unit group, the second valve unit group is connected to the first valve unit group so as to overlap with the first valve unit group in a direction of a rotation axis of the valve element in the first valve unit group, and the flow path switching valve further comprises a rotation drive unit that is connected to the valve unit in the first valve unit group and that rotates two of the valve elements overlapping in the direction of the rotation axis in conjunction, such that a communicated state among the first inlet/outlet opening, the second inlet/outlet opening, and the third inlet/outlet opening is selectively switched through the flow path of the valve element” in combination with the other limitations set forth above, where it is noted that Morien additionally discloses a valve unit including: a valve body (12 figure 2) that includes a valve chest (chambers of 16 or 18) formed inside the valve body, and includes a first inlet/outlet opening (via 28/30/39 where the fluid enters into and exits out of each), a second inlet/outlet opening (via 28/30/36), and a third inlet/outlet opening (via 28/30/36) that are formed on a wall surface (of 12) forming the valve chest, and the fluid entering or (MPEP 2131 alternative language) exiting through each of the first inlet/outlet opening, the second inlet/outlet opening, and the third inlet/outlet opening; a valve element (40) that is rotatably disposed in the valve chest and at which a flow path is formed; a first flow path (28/30/36) that communicates with the first inlet/outlet opening; a second flow path (28/30/36) that is provided in parallel with the first flow path with the valve body interposed between the first flow path and the second flow path and that communicates with the second inlet/outlet opening; and a third flow path that communicates with the third inlet/outlet opening and has an opening at an opposite side from the third inlet/outlet opening;
And Morien suggests in Col 7 ln 13-16 that a plurality of isolated flow chambers can be provided with a plurality of inlets/outlets to allow different flow paths, but Morien and the cited and/or applied prior art of record lacks the above indicated claimed arrangement, and it would not have been obvious to provide such, especially without improper hindsight construction of the same.
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.
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