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 07/03/2025 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 1-10 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 segments" in line 14, "the distance" in line 19; Claim 3"the spring cells" in line 2; Claim 4 "at least one spring arm" in line 4 (the limitation re-introduced causing ambiguity); Claim 5, "the spring arms" in line 2, “the cell” in line 3; Claim 7, "the segments" in line 2, “the at least one spring arm” in line 2; Claim 8 “each arch segment” in line 3, “the corresponding arch segment” in line 4, “the opposite cell section” in line 4; Claim 9 “each sector” in line 4, “the segments” in line 4; Claim 10 “the segments” in line 2, “the spring” in line 4, “the middle axis” in line 4. 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) 1-8 and 10 are is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boger (US 5190264) and further in view of Kawazoe (US 2022/0074459.)
Boger discloses in claim 1: (see at least annotated figure 3 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
404
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A valve (10 figure 1-3) including: a closure member (the plug of the plug shaft per Col 2 ln 50-60), a shaft (13) which is connected to the closure member (as discussed) for adjusting a position of the closure member and which has an end (25) protruding to an outside of the valve via a packing cavity (of 16 including volumes of 41/20/14/27) , a valve packing (11/27/19/21/17) arranged in the packing cavity to surround the shaft, and a spring [assembly] (21) provided in the packing cavity to contact the valve packing, wherein the spring comprises: an upper support surface (at 1002), a lower support surface (at 1004), at least two segments (3-21’s) arranged between the upper and the lower support surface, wherein at least one of the segments comprises a spring cell (each 21 can be considered a spring cell or unit, there being no requirement for a non linear or stacked arrangement), the spring cell having an upper section (at 1006) and an opposite lower section (at 1008), the upper section and the lower section comprising two opposite segments (1006/1008 are opposed to each other), and at least one compression limiter (42 or 53) extending from one of the upper and the lower support surface towards the other one of the upper and the lower support surface a part of the distance between the upper and the lower support surface (each limiter extends in the opposed axial direction to the other and the relative surfaces claimed.) Boger does not disclose: a spring cell upper section connection to an upper support surface; and an opposite lower section connection to a lower support surface, the upper section and the lower section comprising two opposite arch segments; but Kawazoe teaches: (see at least annotated figure 1 below)
PNG
media_image2.png
792
610
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a spring cell (along cells 2002 or cells 2004) upper section (10,10b figure 1) connection (at 21) to an upper support surface (10,10a); and a spring cell (along cells 2002 or cells 2004) opposite lower section (10,10f) connection (at 22) to a lower support surface (10,10g), the upper section and the lower section comprising two opposite arch segments (10f is oppositely directed to that of 10b) and Kawazoe also teaches: and at least one compression limiter (21/22) extending from one of the upper and the lower support surface towards the other one of the upper and the lower support surface a part of the distance between the upper and the lower support surface, all for the purpose of providing a reduced weight spring without compromising rigidity (ph 0007) of the spring for example to a specified deflection distance);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Boger as taught in Kawazoe with a spring cell upper section with a connection to an upper support surface, and with a spring cell opposite lower section with a connection to a lower support surface as taught in Kawazoe, where the upper section and the lower section can have two opposingly arranged arch segments that are oppositely directed from one another, and with the at least one compression limiters as taught in Kawazoe that can extend from one of the upper and the lower support surface towards the other one of the upper and the lower support surfaces a part of the distance between the upper and the lower support surface as taught in Kawazoe and in lieu of or in addition to the compression limiters of Boger, and provided all for the purpose of a reduced weight spring without compromising rigidity of the spring to a specified deflection distance.
Boger discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 3: The valve according to claim 1 wherein at least one of the spring cells connects to at least one of the upper and the lower support surface through a spring arm (via 2006a,b)
Boger discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 4: The valve according to claim 3, wherein at least one spring arm (2006a) extends between the upper section of the spring cell and the upper support surface, and at least one spring arm (2006b) extends between the lower section of the spring cell and the lower support surface.
Boger discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 5: The valve according to claim 3, wherein at least one of the spring arms is shaped as an arch curved around the cell (both 2006a,b are curved and form both curves or arches in the x/y plan and the axial direction) and connecting at both ends to the upper or the lower support surface (via 22 or 21 depending on the end.)
Boger discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 6: The valve according to claim 5, wherein the arch continues at both ends as a curve (as shown) turning towards the upper and respectively the lower support surface (in the axial direction at the transitions the curves turn and transition at 22 and 21.)
Boger discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 7: The valve according to claim 5, wherein the spring cell at each of the segments connects to the at least one spring arm at a middle section of the arch (the middle sections at the intermediate spring cells that connect at 21 or 22, such as 10c,d,e, and f.)
Boger discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 8: The valve according to claim 1, wherein both of the upper and the lower section of the spring cell comprise two opposite arch segments (as shown for sections 10b,g), wherein each arch segment connects to the corresponding arch segment of the opposite cell section at one end (the bottom 21/ top22 connections), and to the upper and respectively lower support surface (at the top21 and bottom22 connections) at another (axial) end.
Boger discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 9: The valve according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the upper support surface and the lower support surface is formed of a plurality of sectors separated by a gap, wherein each sector connects to at least one of the segments.
Boger discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 10: The valve according to claim 1, wherein the spring cell of the segments comprises four interconnected segments (i.e. 10d, 22.left, 10e, 22.right) configured to form a closed loop which is open towards a middle axis (at axis 2002 for example) of the spring and away from the middle axis (30) of the spring.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 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 “at least one of the upper support surface and the lower support surface is formed of a plurality of sectors separated by a gap, wherein each sector connects to at least one of the segments” in combination with the other limitations set forth above, there being a lack of teaching in the art of the above claimed arrangement.
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