DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment to the claims and specification has been received and accepted. Claims 1-15 are being examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because hatching has not been shown to indicate sectional portions of the figures in accordance with 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3). See figures 3 and 4.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 3, “a through hole of the retaining portion” should be --the through hole of the retaining portion” as the limitation of the retaining portion having a through hole has already been recited in claim 1, line 3.
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 11-12 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.
Claim 11 is indefinite as the scope of the claim is unclear. Per the preamble, the claim is directed to a valve stem sealing apparatus. However, the body of the claim recites features that appear to be outside of the scope of the valve stem sealing apparatus. Lines 5-6 recite the sealing apparatus “fitted on the valve stem of the exhaust gas recirculation valve” and the retaining member “pressing against the valve stem”, thus positively reciting the valve stem and valve in addition to the sealing apparatus. It is unclear if the applicant is only intending to claim the structure of the valve stem sealing apparatus or if the applicant is intending to claim the combination of the valve stem sealing apparatus as well as the valve stem and valve.
Claim 12 is indefinite as the scope of the claim is unclear. Per the preamble, the claim is directed to a valve stem sealing apparatus. However, the body of the claim recites features that appear to be outside of the scope of the valve stem sealing apparatus. Line 3 recites the sealing rings arranged “around the valve stem”, thus positively reciting the valve stem in addition to the sealing apparatus. It is unclear if the applicant is only intending to claim the structure of the valve stem sealing apparatus or if the applicant is intending to claim the combination of the valve stem sealing apparatus as well as the valve stem.
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(s) 1-5, 7-10, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Siver (U.S. 3,219,311).
Siver discloses an integrated bushing (38), which is used for an exhaust gas recirculation valve (intended use which has not been given patentable weight), the integrated bushing comprising: a retaining portion (40), the retaining portion being formed with a through hole (for the stem 28) and being configured for mounting and fixing of the integrated bushing; and an insulating portion (the portion at and near 38 in fig. 1 and extending downward to the area near 52), the insulating portion being formed with a through hole (for the stem 28) and extending from the retaining portion, wherein the retaining portion and the insulating portion are integrally formed as an integral structure (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Siver further discloses wherein the retaining portion comprises a flange (at 40 in fig. 1), and the flange is arranged around a through hole of the retaining portion (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Siver further discloses wherein the insulating portion comprises a first end (the end near 40 in fig. 1) and a second end opposite the first end (the end at and near 38 in fig. 1 and extending downward to the area near 52), the first end being formed integrally with the retaining portion, and the second end being a free end (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Siver further discloses wherein the second end is configured to surround and be close to a valve stem of the exhaust gas recirculation valve when cooperating with the valve stem (the second end is capable of surrounding and being close to a valve stem, especially as shown in fig. 1 it is close to and surrounds stem 28).
Regarding claim 5, Siver further discloses wherein an inner wall of the through hole of the insulating portion is configured such that, when cooperating with a valve stem of the exhaust gas recirculation valve, an accommodating space is formed between the inner wall of the through hole of the insulating portion and the valve stem (see counterbore 83 forming an accommodating space).
Regarding claim 7, Siver discloses a valve stem sealing apparatus (fig. 1), which is used for an exhaust gas recirculation valve (intended use which has not been given patentable weight), the valve stem sealing apparatus comprising: the integrated bushing according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above); and a sealing assembly (including components such as 84, etc.) the sealing assembly and the integrated bushing being configured to cooperate with each other to seal a valve stem of the exhaust gas recirculation valve (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Siver further discloses wherein the retaining portion or the insulating portion is formed with an accommodating part, and the sealing assembly is configured to fit in the accommodating part (see 83, which 84 is located in).
Regarding claim 9, Siver discloses a valve stem sealing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the retaining portion is formed with a protruding part extending radially inward from an inner wall of the through hole of the retaining portion, and/or the insulating portion is formed with a protruding part (see the radially inward protruding part of 38 at 80 in fig. 1 as part of the insulating part, extending inward to abut against the stem 28) extending radially inward from an inner wall of the through hole of the insulating portion, and wherein the sealing assembly is configured to fit on the protruding part (fig. 1, the sealing assembly including 84 fitted on top of the protruding part).
Regarding claim 10, Siver further discloses a valve stem sealing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the dimensions of the through hole of the retaining portion and/or the through hole of the insulating portion are configured such that the sealing assembly is pushed toward the valve stem of the exhaust gas recirculation valve when the valve stem sealing apparatus is fitted on the valve stem (the insulating portion provides a radial retention of the sealing assembly which, in conjunction with 90, will push the sealing assembly toward the valve stem, see col. 7, ll. 61-64 and fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Siver discloses an exhaust gas recirculation valve comprising the valve stem sealing apparatus according to claim 7 (see the rejection of claim 7 above and fig. 1 showing the overall valve, to the extent that applicant recites “exhaust gas recirculation”, this is an intended use which has not been given patentable weight).
Regarding claim 14, Siver further discloses an exhaust gas recirculation valve according to claim 13, further comprising a valve housing (12, 2, 62, 74, 76), a mounting recess being formed on the valve housing (the void area within the housing), wherein the retaining portion is configured to be mounted in the mounting recess (fig. 1), such that the integrated bushing is fixed to the valve housing (fig. 1).
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siver in view of Johnson (U.S. 4,640,305).
Siver discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose the retaining portion and insulating portion made of stainless steel.
Johnson teaches it was known in the art to have a similar valve stem packing assembly with a bushing made of stainless steel (lowermost bushing element 16 is stainless steel, see col. 1, ll. 67 – col. 2, ll. 2).
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 bushing of Siver such that it is stainless steel as taught by Johnson as the cross-section of the bushing of Siver indicates the material is a metal but is silent as to the type of metal and stainless steel provides erosion and corrosion resistance and a higher strength metal, increasing its durability and especially as it has been held that selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.07.
Claim(s) 11, as far as it is definite, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siver in view of Holtz (U.S. 1,589,696).
Siver discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose where in the sealing assembly comprises a sealing member and a retaining member, the sealing member being arranged around the retaining member on a radial outer side of the retaining member, and, when the valve stem sealing apparatus is fitted on the valve stem of the exhaust gas recirculation valve, the retaining member pressing against the valve stem.
Holtz teaches it was known in the art to have a similar stem sealing assembly with a sealing member (26) and a retaining member (27), the sealing member being arranged around the retaining member on a radial outer side of the retaining member (fig. 1), and, when the valve stem sealing apparatus is fitted on the valve stem of the exhaust gas recirculation valve, the retaining member pressing against the valve stem (notice the contact with the stem 14 in fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Siver by having the stem sealing assembly have a sealing member and retaining member with the sealing member being arranged around the retaining member on a radial outer side of the retaining member such that the retaining member presses against the valve stem (the examiner notes this could be done by additional components or modifying one or more of the sealing rings 84 of Siver) as taught by Holtz in order to be able to provide an increased sealing effect with the valve stem, especially if components such as ring 31 of Holtz were additionally included, see pg. 2, ll. 4-24 of Holtz describing tighter engagement with the stem which allows for a self adjustment and wear compensation.
Claim(s) 12, as far as it is definite, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siver in view of Mohr (U.S. 1,995,395).
Siver discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose at least two sealing rings that are arranged around the valve stem of the exhaust gas recirculation valve, a sleeve for the valve stem being arranged between the at least two sealing rings and the sealing assembly, and a retaining frame provided between the at least two sealing rings.
Mohr teaches it was known in the art to have a valve stem sealing assembly with at least two sealing rings that are arranged around the valve stem of the exhaust gas recirculation valve, a sleeve for the valve stem being arranged between the at least two sealing rings and the sealing assembly, and a retaining frame provided between the at least two sealing rings (see the sealing rings 16a in fig. 1 totaling at least 9 rings, two of them considered to be sealing rings, one of them being considered a sleeve, and one of them being considered a retaining frame, in the arrangement as claimed by the applicant).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Siver by having at least two sealing rings that are arranged around the valve stem of the exhaust gas recirculation valve, a sleeve for the valve stem being arranged between the at least two sealing rings and the sealing assembly, and a retaining frame provided between the at least two sealing rings as taught by Mohr as Siver shows a plurality of stacked rings (84) but is silent as to the quantity and providing at least 4 of these sealing rings, with two being sealing rings, one being a sleeve, and one being a retaining frame provides for a better, more redundant sealing at the valve stem to better prevent unwanted leakage.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siver in view of Nimberger (U.S. 4,597,581).
Siver discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose the retaining portion configured to be mounted in the mounting recess by an interference fit.
Nimberger teaches it was known in the art to have a similar component for a stem sealing assembly that is interference (press) fit into a recess of a valve housing (70 is press fit into the housing assembly including the bonnet, see col. 4, ll. 56-58).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Siver such that the bushing, which includes the retaining portion, is press fit into the recess of the housing as taught by Nimberger in order to more securely couple the bushing to the housing assembly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ikushima (U.S. 11,384,862) discloses in figures 4-6 a bushing with various shapes for a valve stem, including a tapered opening (figure 4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R REID whose telephone number is (313)446-4859. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-5pm est.
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 571-272-3607, or Ken 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 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.
/MICHAEL R REID/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights