DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-12 are pending.
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
WO 2012118432 and WO 2020183258, cited in the IDS filed 8/5/2025, were not considered because copies of the references were not provided.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 6, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 2, “motorised” should be changed to --motorized--.
In claim 2, last line, it appears that “a longitudinal direction in said central hub (17) of said shutter (16)” should be changed to --a longitudinal direction of said shutter (16)-- to refer to the longitudinal direction of the shutter rather than the central hub 17 of the shutter 16.
In claim 3, lines 2-3, “a said longitudinal axis” should be changed to --a longitudinal axis--.
In claim 3, line 8, “realise” should be changed to --realize--.
In claim 4, line 4, “a cross-sectional area and variable” should be changed to --a variable cross-section-- or --variable cross-sectional area-- like the similar limitation in claim 3 and the similar recitations in the specification.
In claim 6, line 4, “cartridge body (12) coupled” should be changed to --cartridge body (12) and coupled--.
In claim 11, line 11, “lift” should be changed to --to lift-- or --lifting--.
In claim 11, line 14, “thereof and” should be changed to --thereof, and-- (i.e. a comma is added) to separate limitations.
In claim 11, lines 14-15, “and that said shutter” should be changed to --and said shutter--.
In claim 11, line 16, “said inner end of the stem” should be changed to --said first inner end of the stem-- to maintain consistency in naming the structure.
In claim 11, line 16, “stem (14) and comprises” should be changed to –stem (14), and said shutter comprises-- to separate limitations.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-12 are rejected (wherein claim 12 inherits its rejection due to its dependency) 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 3 recites the limitation "the diametrical circumference" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As understood, this is the first recitation of the structure, so “the” should be changed to --a--.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the diametrical circumference" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As understood, this is the first recitation of the structure, so “the” should be changed to --a--.
In claim 5, it is unclear how “said stem (14) comprises an elastic element (40)” and the elastic element also being “disposed between said stem (14) and said cartridge body (12).” As understood, the elastic element is separate from the stem, so “wherein said stem (14) comprises an elastic element, coaxially” should be changed to --wherein an elastic element (40) is coaxially--.
In claim 6, lines 2-3, it is unclear if “a connection end” of the stem is different from the “first inner end of the stem” introduced in claim 1 as connecting with the central hub 17 of the stem. As understood, the structures are the same, so a common name should be used.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "said spring element" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As understood, this is the first recitation of the structure, so “said” should be changed to --a--.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the diametral end of the shutter" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As understood, the recitation refers to an end of shutter, and specifically intended to refer to the end that selectively seats on an inner wall 112 of the valve.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the valve body" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As understood, this is the first recitation of the structure, so “the” should be changed to --a--.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the valve body" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As understood, this is the first recitation of the structure, so “the” should be changed to --a--.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "said diametral portion thereof" in lines 17-18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As understood, this is the first recitation of the diametral portion of the shutter, so “said” should be changed to --a--.
In claim 11, last two lines, it is unclear what is meant by the assembly being “configured to operating on said passage opening (114).” As understood, the recitation refers to the assembly being configured to control flow through the passage opening 114 or the assembly being configured to selectively seal on the passage opening 114, and the recitation should be amended to such operation.
In claim 11, last line, given that the reference numbers in the claims aren’t given patentable weight, it is unclear which of the passage openings antecedently recited – refers to said passage opening 114 on the inner wall 112 or said further fluid passage opening created by the alignment of the first and second radial openings 13, 18 – “said passage opening” refers to. As understood, the recitation refers to the passage opening 114 on the inner wall 112, and the recitation should be amended to clarify the specific passage opening.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jorgensen (US 2011/0068284).
Regarding claim 1, Jorgensen discloses in Figs. 1-7 a control cartridge assembly for a valve configured to be motorised or actuated by a thermal head (wherein “configured to be motorized or actuated by a thermal head” recites an intended use that isn’t seen as defining over the structure of the prior art, see MPEP 2111.02), comprising:
a cartridge body 3 within which a stem 10 is slidingly arranged, and
a linear shutter 2 fixed to a first inner end of said stem 10 which is configured for being connected to a linear actuator 13 in such a manner as to regulate the lift of said shutter 2 and configured for regulating a first passage fluid area of the valve;
wherein said cartridge body 3 has a cup shape and comprises at least a first radial opening (comprising the opening formed by the “material removed” disclosed in the abstract) formed on a diametral portion thereof and that said shutter 2 having has a hollow shape and comprises a drilled through central hub (through which the end of the stem 10 passes with bore 12) for connection with said inner end of the stem 2 and comprises at least a pass-through second radial opening (comprising the opening formed by the “material removed” disclosed in the abstract) in said diametral portion thereof, said shutter 2 being coaxially and slidingly arranged with respect to said cartridge body 3 in a telescopic manner so that upon an alignment in cooperation of said first radial opening and said second radial opening defines a further fluid passage opening (abstract).
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 10-11 (alternatively: 1; as understood: 10-11) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koplin (US 1,859,876) in view of LaCoste (US 4,834,133).
Regarding claim 1, Koplin discloses in Figs. 1-2 a control cartridge assembly for a valve configured to be motorised or actuated by a thermal head (wherein “configured to be motorized or actuated by a thermal head” recites an intended use that isn’t seen as defining over the structure of the prior art, see MPEP 2111.02), comprising:
a cartridge body (O) within which a stem (Z) is slidingly arranged, and
a linear shutter (T) fixed to a first inner end of said stem (Z) which is configured for being connected to a linear actuator (comprising rod (t), which reciprocates in a linear motion to move the stem (Z) via lever (s) and gear (r))) in such a manner as to regulate the lift of said shutter (T) and configured for regulating a first passage fluid area of the valve;
wherein said cartridge body (O) comprises at least a first radial opening (P) formed on a diametral portion thereof and that said shutter (T) having has a hollow shape and comprises a drilled through central hub (X) for connection with said inner end of the stem (Z) and comprises at least a pass-through second radial opening (U, V) in said diametral portion thereof, said shutter (T) being coaxially and slidingly arranged with respect to said cartridge body (O) in a telescopic manner so that upon an alignment in cooperation of said first radial opening (P) and said second radial opening (U, V) defines a further fluid passage opening.
Koplin lacks teaching that the cartridge body has a cup shape.
LaCoste teaches in Figs. 1-2 a cartridge body 22, 38, 60 (because all of the structures are rigidly fastened together) that has a cup shape.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cartridge body disclosed by Koplin to be cup shaped, with the cartridge body being rigidly fastened to the end wall through which the stem passes, as LaCoste teaches, so that the cartridge body can be held stationary relative to the shutter to adjust flow as intended by said relative movement.
Regarding claim 2, Koplin discloses in Figs. 1-2 a compensation chamber 5 configured to be placed in fluid connection by means of at least one passage channel (Y) formed in a longitudinal direction in said central hub (X) of said shutter (T). LaCoste teaches in Figs. 1-2 that said shutter 80 defines, in cooperation with said cartridge body 22, 38, 60, a compensation chamber configured to be placed in fluid connection by means of at least one passage 90 formed in a longitudinal direction in said central hub of said shutter 80. In modifying Koplin in view of LaCoste to have the cartridge body be formed with the end wall through which the stem passes, so that the cartridge body is cup shaped, the compensation chamber in the modification would be defined by shutter in cooperation with the cartridge body.
Regarding claim 10, Koplin discloses in Figs. 1-2 removable fixing means (j) for fixing to the valve body (comprising side wall (K) and end wall (R), and any structure connected to the walls (K, R)) of the valve.
Regarding claim 11, Koplin discloses in Figs. 1-2 a motorizable hydraulic valve (wherein “motorizable hydraulic” is only seen as a name for the valve rather than necessarily further defining structure or function) comprising:
a valve body (comprising side wall (K), end wall (R), and the surrounding structures connected to said walls (K, R), including pipe (f)) having an inlet opening (in pipe (f)), an outlet opening (L), a manoeuvring opening (comprising the chamber/opening in formed by the side wall (K) and end wall (R)) and comprising an inner wall (R) with a passage opening (g);
a cartridge regulating assembly comprising:
a cartridge body (O) within which a stem (Z) is slidingly arranged, and
a linear shutter (T) fixed to a first inner end of said stem (Z) which is configured for being connected to a linear actuator (comprising rod (t), which reciprocates in a linear motion to move the stem (Z) via lever (s) and gear (r)) in such a manner as to regulate lift of said shutter (T) and configured for regulating a first passage fluid area of the valve;
wherein said cartridge body (O) comprises at least a first radial opening (R) formed on a diametral portion thereof and that said shutter (T) has a hollow shape and comprises a drilled through central hub (X) for connection with said inner end of the stem (Z) and comprises at least a pass-through second radial opening (U, V) in said diametral portion thereof, said shutter (T) being coaxially and slidingly arranged with respect to said cartridge body (O) in a telescopic manner so that upon an alignment in cooperation of said first radial opening (P) and said second radial opening (U, V) defines a further fluid passage opening,
wherein said cartridge regulating assembly is arranged in said manoeuvring opening (within walls (K, R)) and configured to operating on said passage opening (g).
Koplin lacks teaching that the cartridge body has a cup shape.
LaCoste teaches in Figs. 1-2 a cartridge body 22, 38, 60 (because all of the structures are rigidly fastened together) that has a cup shape.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cartridge body disclosed by Koplin to be cup shaped, with the cartridge body being rigidly fastened to the end wall through which the stem passes, as LaCoste teaches, so that the cartridge body can be held stationary relative to the shutter to adjust flow as intended by said relative movement.
Claims 3-4 (as understood: both) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koplin in view of LaCoste as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Linga et al. (US 5,971,604).
Regarding claim 3, Koplin discloses a cartridge assembly arranged with a valve body (comprising end wall (R) and side wall (K)), but lacks teaching that the cartridge assembly is to be rotatably arranged within the valve body about a said longitudinal axis, wherein said first radial opening of said cartridge body has a variable cross-section along the diametral circumference of said cartridge body and defines when aligned in cooperation with said second radial opening of said shutter a configurable variable fluid passage area or cross-section by means of an angular rotation with respect to said longitudinal axis in such a manner to realise a preregulation of the maximum fluid flow rate suitable to pass through said valve.
Linga teaches in Figs. 1-10 (specifically the embodiment in Fig. 8) a cartridge assembly comprising cartridge body 5 that is to be rotatably arranged within a valve body 2 about a said longitudinal axis (col. 2, lines 53-59 and col. 4, lines 39-50), wherein said first radial opening 7B of said cartridge body 5 has a variable cross-section along the diametral circumference of said cartridge body 5 (such as the circular shape disclosed for the flow channels in col. 3, lines 43-45) and defines when aligned in cooperation with said second radial opening 7A of said shutter 4 a configurable variable fluid passage area or cross-section by means of an angular rotation with respect to said longitudinal axis in such a manner to realise a preregulation of the maximum fluid flow rate suitable to pass through said valve.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cartridge body in the combination of Koplin and LaCoste to be rotatable so that the flow rate therethrough can be further adjusted and/or more finely, as Linga teaches ((col. 2, lines 53-59 and col. 4, lines 39-50).
Regarding claim 4, Koplin discloses in Figs. 1-2 said first radial opening (P) being configured to define in cooperation with a third radial opening (L) of an inner wall of said valve body (portion K) a fluid passage area.
Koplin lacks teaching that the cartridge assembly is to be rotatably arranged within a valve body about a longitudinal axis, wherein said first radial opening of said cartridge body has a cross-sectional area and variable along the diametrical circumference of said cartridge body, said first radial opening being configured to define in cooperation with a third radial opening of an inner wall of said valve body, when aligned, a variable fluid passage area or cross-section configurable by means of an angular rotation with respect to said longitudinal axis, so as to be able to realize a pre-regulation of the maximum fluid flow rate suitable to pass through said valve.
Linga teaches in Figs. 1-10 (specifically the embodiment in Fig. 8) a cartridge assembly comprising cartridge body 50 configured to be rotatably arranged within a valve body 2 about a longitudinal axis (col. 2, lines 53-59 and col. 4, lines 39-50), wherein said first radial opening 7B of said cartridge body 5 has a cross-sectional area and variable along the diametrical circumference of said cartridge body 5 (such as the circular shape disclosed for the flow channels in col. 3, lines 43-45), said first radial opening 7B being configured to define in cooperation with a third radial opening 23 of an inner wall of said valve body, when aligned, a variable fluid passage area or cross-section configurable by means of an angular rotation with respect to said longitudinal axis, so as to be able to realize a pre-regulation of the maximum fluid flow rate suitable to pass through said valve.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cartridge body in the combination of Koplin and LaCoste to be rotatable so that the flow rate therethrough and to the third radial opening in the valve body can be further and/or more finely adjusted, as Linga teaches (col. 2, lines 53-59 and col. 4, lines 39-50).
Claim 8 (as understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koplin in view of LaCoste as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou (11,092,260).
Regarding claim 8, Koplin discloses a shutter as previously discussed, but lacks teaching that said shutter comprises fluidic sealing means including annular seals or O-rings, arranged on the diametral end of the shutter and arranged on the diametral portion of said shutter before and after said at least one second radial opening, in such a manner as to prevent fluid leakage between said shutter and said cartridge body.
Zhou teaches in Figs. 2-4 a shutter 207 that comprises fluidic sealing means 224, 228 including annular seals 224, 228 or O-rings, arranged on the diametral end of the shutter 207 and arranged on the diametral portion of said shutter 207 before and after said at least one second radial opening 222, in such a manner as to prevent fluid leakage between said shutter 207 and said cartridge body 206.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly in the combination of Koplin and LaCoste to include annular rings on opposite sides of the second radial opening(s) to prevent effectively close shut off flow when intended and to prevent fluid leakage between the shutter and the cartridge body when the valve is opened, as Zhou teaches (col. 5, lines 43-53 and col. 6, lines 13-25), so that the intended amount of fluid accurately and efficiently flows through the radial openings.
Claim 9 (as understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koplin in view of LaCoste as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cyvas (US 4,971,099).
Regarding claim 9, Koplin discloses in Figs. 1-2 a valve body (comprising walls (K, R)), but lacks teaching that said cartridge body comprises fluidic sealing means with said valve body, including annular seals, O-rings or watertight threads.
Cyvas teaches in Figs. 2-3 a cartridge body 34 that comprises fluidic sealing means 70 with said valve body 32, including annular seals 70, O-rings 70 or watertight threads.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly in the combination of Koplin and LaCoste to include fluidic sealing means, including annular seals/O-rings, as Cyvas teaches, to avoid leakage out of the assembly.
Claim 12 (as understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koplin in view of LaCoste as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Giubertoni (US 9,983,594).
Regarding claim 12, Koplin and Purton teach a valve as previously discussed, but lack teaching that there is a further opening in said valve body and a balancing or dynamic pressure compensation assembly arranged in the further opening.
Giubertoni teaches in Figs. 1-7 a valve comprising a further opening (in which the balancing or dynamic pressure assembly, comprising structures 9, 11, 14, is disposed) in said valve body (comprising inlet 2, outlet 3, and central body 4) and a balancing or dynamic pressure compensation assembly (comprising structures 9, 11, 14) arranged in the further opening.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve in the combination of Koplin and LaCoste to include a balancing or dynamic pressure compensation assembly to maintain a constant pressure between the inlet and outlet, as Giubetoni teaches, to avoid excessive differential pressure that could hinder efficient fluid flow, operation of the valve, or structures of the valve.
Claims 1, 5, and 7 (alternatively: 1; as understood: 5 and 7) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molina (WO 2020/183258 A1) in view of Koplin.
Regarding claim 1, Molina discloses in Figs. 1-10 a control cartridge assembly for a valve configured to be motorised or actuated by a thermal head (wherein “configured to be motorized or actuated by a thermal head” recites an intended use that isn’t seen as defining over the structure of the prior art, see MPEP 2111.02), comprising:
a cartridge body 12, 20 (because the structures 12, 20 are fastened together) within which a stem 14 is slidingly arranged, and
a linear shutter 16 fixed to a first inner end of said stem 14 which is configured for being connected to a linear actuator (inherently at the opposite end of the shutter 16) in such a manner as to regulate the lift of said shutter 16 and configured for regulating a first passage fluid area of the valve;
wherein said cartridge body 12, 20 has a cup shape and comprises at least a first radial opening 22 formed on a diametral portion thereof and that said shutter 16 having has a hollow shape and comprises a drilled through central hub (through which the stem 14 passes) for connection with said inner end of the stem 14, said shutter 16 being coaxially and slidingly arranged with respect to said cartridge body 12, 20 in a telescopic manner.
Molina lacks the shutter comprising at least a pass-through second radial opening in said diametral portion thereof so that upon an alignment in cooperation of said first radial opening and said second radial opening defines a further fluid passage opening.
Koplin teaches in Figs. 1-2 a shutter (T) comprising at least a pass-through second radial opening (U, V) in said diametral portion thereof so that upon an alignment in cooperation of said first radial opening (P) and said second radial opening (U, V) defines a further fluid passage opening.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly disclosed by Molina so that the shutter comprises at least a pass-through second radial opening in said diametral portion thereof that selectively aligns with the first radial opening in the cartridge body to change flow therethrough, as the shutter moves, so that fluid flow can be quickly and easily established by minimal movement of the shutter, as Koplin teaches (pg. 2, lines 76-120).
Regarding claim 5, Molina discloses in Figs. 1-10 that said stem 14 comprises an elastic element 18, coaxially disposed between said stem 14 and said cartridge body 12, 20.
Regarding claim 7, Molina discloses in Figs. 1-10 that said stem 14 and said spring element 18 are held in position in the cartridge body 12, 20 by a ring nut 19.
Claims 1 and 6 (alternatively: 1; as understood: 6) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaCoste in view of Koplin.
Regarding claim 1, LaCoste discloses in Figs. 1-2 a control cartridge assembly for a valve configured to be motorised or actuated by a thermal head (wherein “configured to be motorized or actuated by a thermal head” recites an intended use that isn’t seen as defining over the structure of the prior art, see MPEP 2111.02), comprising:
a cartridge body 22, 38, 60 (because all of the structure 22, 38, 60 are rigidly fastened together) within which a stem 98 is slidingly arranged, and
a linear shutter 80 fixed to a first inner end of said stem 98 which is configured for being connected to a linear actuator (inherently at the top of the stem 98) in such a manner as to regulate the lift of said shutter 80 and configured for regulating a first passage fluid area of the valve;
wherein said cartridge body 22, 38, 60 has a cup shape and comprises at least a first radial opening 66 formed on a diametral portion thereof and that said shutter 80 having has a hollow shape and comprises a drilled through central hub (through which the end of the stem 98 passes) for connection with said inner end of the stem 98, said shutter 80 being coaxially and slidingly arranged with respect to said cartridge body 22, 38, 60 in a telescopic manner.
LaCoste lacks the shutter comprising at least a pass-through second radial opening in said diametral portion thereof so that upon an alignment in cooperation of said first radial opening and said second radial opening defines a further fluid passage opening.
Koplin teaches in Figs. 1-2 a shutter (T) comprising at least a pass-through second radial opening (U, V) in said diametral portion thereof so that upon an alignment in cooperation of said first radial opening (P) and said second radial opening (U, V) defines a further fluid passage opening.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly disclosed by LaCoste so that the shutter comprises at least a pass-through second radial opening in said diametral portion thereof that selectively aligns with the first radial opening in the cartridge body to change flow therethrough, as the shutter moves, so that fluid flow can be quickly and easily established by minimal movement of the shutter, as Koplin teaches (pg. 2, lines 76-120).
Regarding claim 6, LaCoste discloses in Figs. 1-2 that said stem 98 comprises a threaded portion at a connection end with said shutter 80, said stem 98 being rotatably disposed in the cartridge body 22, 38, 60 coupled in cooperation with a threaded element 38 integral with said cartridge body 22, 38, 60, in such a manner to, in response to a rotation of the stem 98, corresponds to an axial translation of the shutter 80 with respect to the cartridge body 22, 38, 60.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Jonathan Waddy, whose telephone number is 571-270-3146. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (10:00AM-6:00PM EST).
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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/J. W./
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights