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 .
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by CN114576385 (“Xu”).
Regarding claim 1, Xu discloses an indexable valve comprising:
a valve assembly including a valve housing (mainly defined by “1”) having a first alignment protrusion (one of annular protrusion(s) received by one of alignment collar(s) “32”; see cross-section of fig. 2) formed on an outer surface of the valve housing; and
an alignment collar (“32”) including:
a first receiving feature (annular groove of alignment collar “32” receiving upstream or downstream end of valve housing “1”) adapted to matingly receive the first alignment protrusion; and
a flange (flange disposed on upstream or downstream end of alignment collar “32”; see annotated fig. 1, below) including outwardly protruding bosses (six bosses “35” defined around a circumference of flange; see annotated fig. 1, below), wherein the outwardly protruding bosses protrude axially from the flange in a direction (bosses “35” extend in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of alignment collar “32” ) away from the valve assembly (“1”) when the first receiving feature is received by the first alignment protrusion (see cross-section of fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
611
920
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Xu discloses the valve housing (“1”) further includes a fluid channel (fluid channel controlled by ball valve “2”) formed therein, the fluid channel having opposing first and second openings (upstream and downstream openings communicating with alignment collar(s) “32”).
Regarding claim 8, Xu discloses a valve control (“2”) disposed in the fluid channel (channel extending through valve housing “1”; see fig. 2); and an actuation device (“13”) adapted to actuate the valve control.
Regarding claim 9, Xu discloses the valve control (“2”) is a ball valve (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Xu discloses the first receiving portion (annular groove receiving upstream or downstream end of valve housing “1”) further comprises a plurality of receiving edges (internal edges defined by receiving portion of alignment collar “32” receiving upstream or downstream end of valve housing “1”; see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, Xu discloses the first alignment protrusion (one of annular protrusion(s) received by one of alignment collar(s) “32”) further comprises a plurality of alignment surfaces (see surfaces of right end of valve housing “1”, which engages alignment collar “32” in fig. 2), and wherein the plurality of receiving edges (internal edges defined by receiving portion of alignment collar “32” receiving upstream or downstream end of valve housing “1”; see fig. 2) are adapted to receive the plurality of alignment surfaces.
Regarding claim 16, Xu discloses the valve body (“1”) and the alignment collar (“32”) are adapted to rotate together along a central axis (valve body “1” and alignment collar “32” are slidingly connected; see English translation) when the first alignment protrusion (one of annular protrusion(s) received by one of alignment collar(s) “32”) is received by the first receiving portion (annular groove of alignment collar “32” receiving upstream or downstream end of valve housing “1”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7, 10, 11 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 17-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 3-6, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious the indexable valve, wherein the first opening of the valve housing includes a set of internal threads, in combination with the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim(s).
Regarding claim 7, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious the indexable valve, further comprising: a set of external threads projecting outwardly from the first end of the valve housing; and a coupling nut including a set of internal threads adapted to threadably engage the set of external threads, in combination with the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim(s).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious the indexable valve, further comprising a gasket including through holes, in combination with the limitations of the base claim.
Regarding claim 13, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious the indexable valve, wherein a first portion of the outwardly protruding bosses have a first height and a second portion of the outwardly protruding bosses have a second height which is shorter than the first height, in combination with the limitations of the base claim.
Regarding claims 17-20, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious then indexable valve, wherein the first opening including a set of internal threads; a first portion of the outwardly protruding bosses have a first height and a second portion of the outwardly protruding bosses have a second height which is shorter than the first height; the gasket including through holes; and the set of external threads of the fitting is adapted to threadably engage the internal threads of the valve housing, in combination with the remainder limitations of the base claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 6, 2026, have been fully considered.
With regards to the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, interpretation of the limitation “actuation device” in claim 8, Applicant’s arguments are persuasive, and the limitation “actuation device” is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, interpretation.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments concerning the prior art rejection of claim 1 over Xu, and relative dependents thereof, under a different adaptation of Xu, Xu discloses a flange (flange disposed on upstream or downstream end of alignment collar “32”; see annotated fig. 1, below) including outwardly protruding bosses (six bosses “35” defined around a circumference of flange; see annotated fig. 1, below), wherein the outwardly protruding bosses protrude axially from the flange in a direction (bosses “35” extend in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of alignment collar “32” ) away from the valve assembly (“1”).
Since the only arguments concerning the rejection(s) of claims 2, 8, 9, 12 and 14-16 over Xu pertain only to the independent claim, they are addressed in the response above.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments concerning the prior art rejection of claims 1-2, 8, 9, 12, 14 and 15 over Prato, Applicant’s amendments have overcome this rejection and is now withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. KR950010518 discloses an insulating ring having a flange with a plurality of bosses extending therefrom.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hailey K. Do whose direct telephone number is (571)270-3458 and direct fax number is (571)270-4458. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00AM-5:00PM ET) and Friday (8:00AM-12:00PM ET).
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, Kenneth Rinehart at 571-272-4881, or Craig M. Schneider 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAILEY K. DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights