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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 10, “this passage” should be changed to --the passage--.
In claim 1, line 11, “this passage” should be changed to --the passage--.
In claim 11, last line, “this flow member” should be changed to --the flow member--.
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 4 and 9-12 are rejected (wherein claims 10-12 inherit their rejections due to their dependencies) 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.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 9, lines 3-4, it is unclear what occurs with the dedicated member of the valve in the selection step. As understood, in the selection step the dedicated member of the valve is selected from the one or more sealing members or the one or more flow members, as suggested by the deleted limitation and the similar language in claim 1.
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
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 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozeki et al. (US 2018/0119836) in view of Ma (US 2021/0332911).
Regarding claim 1, Ozeki discloses in Figs. 1-10 a fluid-dispensing motorized valve, including:
- a housing (comprising the casing 21 for the valve 8, the inherent housing for the pump 3, and the contiguous housing and conduits of structures and conduits connecting the valve 8 to the pump 3) that includes a body and defining an internal volume through which a fluid passes through the housing, this internal volume being connected to an outside of the housing by an inlet of the housing (comprising the inlet to the inherent housing of the pump 3, or the inlet conduit to the pump 3), through which the fluid enters the internal volume, and by at least two outlets of the housing (comprising any of the outlet ports 55, 56, 66, 41a, 41b), through which the fluid exits the internal volume,
- an electric pump 3, which is arranged in a first sub-volume of the internal volume, and which is provided with an intake (comprising the inherent inlet to the pump), opening into the inlet of the housing (comprising the inherent inlet port of the housing for the intake of the pump), and a discharge, opening into a passage 37a of the internal volume (paragraph 107), this passage 37a connecting the first sub-volume to a second sub-volume of the internal volume by opening into this second sub-volume along a passage axis (along the one arrow shown in Fig. 5 that points to thermostat 45),
- a shutter 22, which is arranged in the second sub-volume in a movable manner relative to the body of the housing to control the opening and closing of all or part of the at least two outlets of the housing, and
- an electromechanical actuation device 23, which is carried by the housing, and which is suitable for driving the shutter 22 in movement relative to the body of the housing,
wherein the body of the housing defines an opening 41a:
- by which the second sub-volume is directly connected to the outside of the body,
- being aligned with the passage 37a along the passage axis (Fig. 5), and
- at which a dedicated member (such as thermostat 45, connecting tube 44, and/or port 41) of the valve is disposed, selectively chosen from one or more sealing members (comprising the thermostat 45 because it can selectively seal the opening 41a, paragraph 69), each suitable for sealing the opening in a fluid-tight manner, and one or more flow members (comprising connecting tube 44, port 41, and/or the thermostat 45), each suitable for allowing fluid to flow through the opening, forming one of said at least two outlets of the housing.
Ozeki lacks teaching that the body is made of molded plastic material and that the opening is formed by molding-demolding of the housing body.
Ma discloses in Figs. 1-17 a similar rotary valve comprising a housing body 2 made of molded plastic material (paragraph 18). With regard to the recitation that the opening “is formed by molding-demolding of the housing body,” the limitation is a recitation of a process of making the structure, which isn’t seen as defining over the structure of the prior art (MPEP 2113).
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 body disclosed by Ozeki to be made of molded plastic material, as Ma teaches (paragraph 18), to provide a durable housing that is simple and cheap to make.
Regarding claim 2, Ozeki discloses in Figs. 1-10 that the dedicated member is attached to the body of the housing in a sealed manner (inherently so that fluid doesn’t leak external to the flow path of which the thermostat 45 or connecting tube 44 are a part, or because the thermostat 45 selectively opens and closes said flow path, paragraph 69).
Regarding claim 3, Ozeki discloses in Figs. 1-10 that one or more of the sealing members 45 is a non-instrumented plug (because the thermostat 45 is a valve that obstructs flow through the opening 41a, either fully when closed or partially regardless of its position, and doesn’t include any instruments, such as electrical instruments for measuring conditions).
Regarding claim 5, Ozeki discloses in Figs. 1-10 that the one or more of the flow members is a connecting tube 44.
Regarding claim 6, Ozeki discloses in Figs. 1-10 that the dedicated member 42 is assembled to the body of the housing by welding the dedicated member 42 to the body (paragraph 121), but is silent with regard to the material of the dedicated member, including that it is plastic.
Ma teaches in 1-17 that a similar dedicated member 203 in the form of a connecting tube 203 is a plastic part welded to the body 2 of the housing (paragraph 77).
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 dedicated member/connecting tube in the combination of Ozeki and Ma to be plastic, as Ma teaches, so that the material of the dedicated member/connecting tube is the same plastic as the body of the housing to simplify manufacturing, and so that the two materials will easily weld together.
Regarding claim 7, Ozeki discloses in Figs. 1-10 that the dedicated member 42 is assembled to the body of the housing with an interposition of a sealing joint (comprising the weld/joint between the dedicated member/connecting tube 42 and the body of the housing, as disclosed in paragraph 121).
Regarding claim 8, Ozeki discloses in Figs. 1-10 one or more of the flow members 41 is a connecting tube 41 (i.e. a port in the form of a conduit), formed monolithically with the body of the housing. In modifying Ozeki in view of Ma so that the body of the housing is made of moldable plastic, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the connecting tube be molded with the body of the housing, because the structures are monolithically formed.
Claims 4 and 12 (as understood: both) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozeki in view of Ma, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Yajima (US 2012/0312884).
Regarding claim 4, Ozeki discloses a sealing member in the form of a thermostatic valve 45, as previously discussed, but together with Ma, lacks the one or more of the sealing members integrates a measuring instrument suitable for measuring a physicochemical property of the fluid in the second sub-volume, such as temperature, and to transmit the corresponding measurement outside the housing.
Yajima teaches in Figs. 1-4 one or more sealing members (comprising the assembly of the thermostatic valve 10, like the thermostatic valve disclosed by Ozeki, cap 3, temperature sensor 20, and biasing spring 4 between the cap 3 and thermostatic valve 10, which fit in the flow path like a cartridge assembly) integrating a measuring instrument 20 suitable for measuring a physicochemical property of the fluid in the second sub-volume, such as temperature (because the measuring instrument 20 is a temperature sensor 20), and to transmit the corresponding measurement outside the housing (via leads 25).
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 one or more sealing members in the combination of Ozeki in view of Ma to include a measuring instrument in the form of a temperature sensor to ensure that the thermostatic valve making up the sealing member works properly, as Yajima teaches (paragraph 54).
Regarding claim 12, Yajima teaches in Figs. 1-4 that a physiochemical property of the fluid (measured by the measuring instrument in the form of a temperature sensor 20) is temperature.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozeki in view of Ma as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Shen et al. (US 2018/0313457).
Regarding claim 7, alternative to the weld joint disclosed by Ozeki, as discussed the rejection above, Shen teaches in Figs. 1-10 that the dedicated member 17, in the form of a connecting tube 17, is assembled to the body of the housing 10 with an interposition of a sealing joint provided by sealing member 17b.
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 Ozeki and Ma to include an interposing sealing joint in the form of a separate sealing member between the connecting tube making up the dedicated member and the body of the housing to ensure leakage is prevented, as Shen teaches (paragraph 33). Also, it would have alternatively be obvious to additionally have the connecting tube be bolted onto the body of the housing, as Shen teaches via bolts 17a, so that the valve is more modular and repairs/replacements are easier compared to the welding of the connecting tube to the body as Ozeki discloses.
Claims 9-11 (as understood: all) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozeki in view of Ma as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Islam et al. (US 11,821,393).
Regarding claim 9, Ozeki in view of Ma teaches a method for manufacturing a valve according to any one of the preceding claims, this method comprising:
- a selection step, wherein the dedicated member of the valve (is selected),
- a first manufacturing step, wherein plastic material is introduced into a mold to form the body of the housing by molding (which Ma teaches, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above), and
- a second manufacturing step, wherein the dedicated member selected in the selection step is formed at the opening 41a (wherein “formed at the opening” can also be interpreted as meaning “attached,” as claim 10 further defines the limitation).
Ozeki in view of Ma lacks teaching a molding core as claimed.
Islam teaches in Fig. 6 introducing material, in the mold 602, surrounds a molding core 610 extending along the passage axis (extending between the aligned ports of the valve) to form the passage (between the ports) and the opening (comprising one of the ports), then the mold 602 and the molding core 610 are removed to release the housing body 204 (inherently so that the valve is operational to allow flow therethrough).
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 Ozeki and Ma to be created through the use of a removable molding core separate from the surrounding mold and extending along the passage axis to form the passage and opening, as Islam teaches, because Ozeki and Ma are silent with regard to such detail of manufacturing. Furthermore, the use of a molding core that is separate from the surrounding mold allows for the creation of a monolithic housing body, which provides a strong and durable construction, as opposed to using only one mold, with which only a housing body made from multiple parts could be made, which would provide for a less strong and durable construction because of the seams between the parts.
Regarding claim 10, Ozeki discloses in Figs. 1-10 that the dedicated member (such as connecting tube 44) selected in the selection step is to be attached to the body of the housing, the second manufacturing step is implemented after the first manufacturing step and includes assembling the dedicated member to the housing body in a sealed manner.
Regarding claim 11, Ozeki discloses in Figs. 1-10 that the dedicated member 41 (i.e. a port in the form of a conduit, as discussed in the rejection of claim 8 above) selected in the selection step is one or more of the flow members 41, which is to be integrated in one piece with the body of the housing, the second manufacturing step is implemented simultaneously with the first manufacturing step and includes molding this flow member together with the housing body (in view of the plastic molding taught by Ma).
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
/KEVIN F MURPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights