DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-13 were filed with the Preliminary Amendment dated 09/12/2025.
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 .
Drawings
Figures 1a, 1b, 2, 5, 6, and 7 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because Figure 6 shows a sectional view, but do not include the required hatching (see 37 C.F.R. 1.84(h)(3)).
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2012/0152645 (“Matthias”).
With regard to claim 1, Matthias discloses a modified umbrella valve (Figs 3-4) comprising a solid shaft (36) having a first end (bottom end in Fig 3) and a second end (top end in Fig 3), wherein at the first end (bottom end of Fig 3) of the shaft (36) is situated a flexible umbrella (18, para [0044]), wherein at the second end (top end in Fig 3) of the shaft (36) is situated a stop element (“mushroom” para [0044]) having an enlarged diameter compared to the diameter of the shaft (36; see Fig 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
784
1088
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, Matthias discloses the length of the shaft (36) lies in the range from 20% to 50% of the diameter of the umbrella (18) (shaft length is 3-8 mm; umbrella diameter is 10-30 mm; para [0063]); 3 mm is 30% of 10 mm).
With regard to claim 3, Matthias discloses that the diameter of the umbrella (18) lies in the range from 9.5 mm to 10.5 mm (10-30 mm; “10” is within the range) and the shaft (36) is at least 2 mm long (3-8 mm; para [0063]).
With regard to claim 4, Matthias discloses that the diameter of the umbrella (18) lies in the range from 9.5 mm to 10.5 mm (10-30 mm; 10 is within the range; para [0063]) and the shaft (36) is at least in the range from 3 mm to 4 mm long (3-8 mm, para [0063]).
With regard to claim 5, Matthias discloses that the umbrella (18) is composed of flexible materials selected from the group consisting of silicone, thermoplastic elastomers (TPE), and thermoplastic urethans TPU) (“silicone” para [0061]).
With regard to claim 7, Matthias discloses that the umbrella (18) is formed integrally with the shaft (36) (integral, one piece shown in Fig 3).
With regard to claim 8, Matthias discloses a system for controlling flow in a flow path (Figs 3-4) comprising a gas channel (channel from 23 to 42, Fig 3); a perforated plate (26/16, see Fig 3) situated in the gas channel (23 to 42) and having a central hole (27, para [0042]); a modified umbrella valve (18+36) mounted in the central hole (27, see Fig 3) of the perforated plate (26/16); wherein the modified umbrella valve (18+36) comprises a solid shaft (36) having a first end (bottom end in Fig 3) and a second end (top end in Fig 3), wherein at the first end (bottom end) of the shaft (36) is situated a flexible umbrella (18), and at the second end of the shaft (top end in Fig 3 of 36) is situated a stop element (“mushroom”, para [0044]) having an enlarged diameter compared to the diameter of the shaft (see Fig 3, mushroom second end larger diameter than remainder of shaft 36).
With regard to claim 9, Matthias discloses the diameter of the flexible umbrella (18) corresponds to the diameter of the gas channel (“corresponds to” is a broadly recited recitation; the diameter of the umbrella 18 corresponds to the diameter of the gas channel at the portion of ring 30, see Fig 3).
With regard to claim 10, Matthias discloses that the diameter of the stop element (mushroom portion at second end of 36) is greater than the diameter of the central hole (27) of the perforated plate (26/16) into which it is inserted (see Fig 3).
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 6,065,493 (“Friedman”).
With regard to claim 1, Friedman discloses a modified umbrella valve (Figs 2-4) comprising a solid shaft (53) having a first end (bottom end in Fig 4) and a second end (top end in Fig 4), wherein at the first end (bottom end of Fig 4) of the shaft (53) is situated a flexible umbrella (60; flexible material diaphragm 60 is attached to bottom of 53, best seen in Fig 2; see also col. 4, lines 51-60), wherein at the second end (top end in Fig 4) of the shaft (53) is situated a stop element (head 52, col. 4, lines 45-46) having an enlarged diameter compared to the diameter of the shaft (diameter of 52 clearly larger than diameter of 53, see Fig 4).
With regard to claim 6, Friedman discloses that the shaft (53) consists of a metal or of a hard plastic, the hard plastic is PEEK or PC (“metal”; col. 4, lines 45-50).
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 is 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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2012/0152645 (“Matthias”) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 6,065,493 (“Friedman”)
With regard to claim 6, Matthias discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that the shaft consists of metal or of a hard plastic, wherein the hard plastic is PEEK or PC.
Friedman discloses a modified umbrella valve with a shaft (53) and flexible umbrella (60) similar to that of Matthias and teaches that it is known in the art to modify the shaft to be made out of metal (col. 4, lines 45-50).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a modified umbrella valve with a shaft made out of metal as taught by Friedman in place of the modified umbrella valve of Matthias, since the umbrella valves are known equivalents and the use of which would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2012/0152645 (“Matthias”) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 4,986,310 (“Bailey”).
With regard to claim 11, Matthias discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing the length of the shaft is between 1.2 to 5 times the thickness of the perforated plate.
Matthias does disclose that the shaft (36) length is between 3 and 8 mm (para [0063]), but is silent as to the thickness of the perforated plate (16/26). Fig 3 of Matthias does show that the length of the shaft (36) is bigger than the thickness of the perforated plate (Fig 3).
Bailey teaches that it is known in the art to modify an umbrella valve, similar to that of Matthias, by varying the length of the shaft to any desired length in order to adjust the preload on the flexible umbrella (col. 5, lines 21-26).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the length of the shaft of Matthias to be any suitable length, such as 1.2 to 5 times the thickness of the plate, such as taught by Bailey, for the purpose of adjusting the preload pressure on the umbrella (col. 5, lines 21-26).
With regard to claim 12, Matthias discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing the length of the shaft is between 2 and 4 times the thickness of the perforated plate.
Matthias does disclose that the shaft (36) length is between 3 and 8 mm (para [0063]), but is silent as to the thickness of the perforated plate (16/26). Fig 3 of Matthias does show that the length of the shaft (36) is bigger than the thickness of the perforated plate (Fig 3).
Bailey teaches that it is known in the art to modify an umbrella valve, similar to that of Matthias, by varying the length of the shaft to any desired length in order to adjust the preload on the flexible umbrella (col. 5, lines 21-26).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the length of the shaft of Matthias to be any suitable length, such as between 2 and 4 times the thickness of the plate, such as taught by Bailey, for the purpose of adjusting the preload pressure on the umbrella (col. 5, lines 21-26).
With regard to claim 13, Matthias discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing the length of the shaft is between 2 and 3 times the thickness of the perforated plate.
Matthias does disclose that the shaft (36) length is between 3 and 8 mm (para [0063]), but is silent as to the thickness of the perforated plate (16/26). Fig 3 of Matthias does show that the length of the shaft (36) is bigger than the thickness of the perforated plate (Fig 3).
Bailey teaches that it is known in the art to modify an umbrella valve, similar to that of Matthias, by varying the length of the shaft to any desired length in order to adjust the preload on the flexible umbrella (col. 5, lines 21-26).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the length of the shaft of Matthias to be any suitable length, such as between 2 and 3 times the thickness of the plate, such as taught by Bailey, for the purpose of adjusting the preload pressure on the umbrella (col. 5, lines 21-26).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2009/0018513 discloses a flexible umbrella valve.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA CAHILL whose telephone number is (571)270-5219. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 to 3:00.
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) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-60073607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/JESSICA CAHILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights