DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4 are pending.
This is in response to the amendment filed 7/8/2026.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument that the Keeper reference does not provide, the stem is provided separately from the piston, as required in claim 1, because the piston 46 is integral with the stem 48, is not persuasive. Keeper in Figure 3, discloses that the piston 44,44a is separate from the stem 47,48, as shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
869
891
media_image1.png
Greyscale
When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). See MPEP 2125.
In response to applicant's arguments against the reference, Bernhardt et al., individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Since applicant’s amendments and arguments are not persuasive the action has been made Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments overcome the claim rejection.
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keeper et al. (US 8602052) in view of Bernhardt et al. (US 10294905).
Regarding claim 1, Keeper et al. disclose a diaphragm valve (10) comprising: a stem (47,48); a piston (44,44a,51) configured to press the stem in a valve-closing direction; a diaphragm (42); a valve seat (40); a diaphragm piece 52 arranged so as to freely abut on a tip (the bottom end of 48) of the stem wherein the diaphragm valve is configured to cause a valve-close state in which the diaphragm 42 is caused to abut on the valve seat 40 via the diaphragm piece pushed by the stem in the valve-closing direction, wherein the stem is provided separately from the piston, the stem has a tip surface (the surface of 48 abutting 52) forming a shape, the diaphragm piece is provided with a recessed portion (the inner bore of 52 surrounding the bottom end of 48) where a portion (the bottom end of 48) of the tip of the stem is placed, and the recessed portion has an inner bottom surface (the bottom inner horizontal surface of 52), the inner bottom surface having a radius of curvature that is larger than a radius of curvature of the tip surface of the stem (the outermost radius of the inner bottom surface is larger than the outermost radius of the bottom end of the tip surface of the stem as clearly shown below).
PNG
media_image2.png
784
646
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Keeper et al. have disclosed all of the features of the claimed invention, including, the stem having the tip surface being forming a round shape, although are silent to having the stem having the tip surface being forming a spherical shape, and the inner bottom surface forming a spherical shape with a center portion as a lowermost surface.
Bernhardt et al. discloses a reciprocating actuator connected to an engine valve that teaches the use of a contact region having a recess 72 and mating rod/stem 20,86 with spherical contacting surfaces having smaller and larger contacting spherical surfaces (see Fig. 3-5, col. 9, lns. 22-27), which meets the limitations of, the stem having the tip surface being forming a spherical shape, and the inner bottom surface forming a spherical shape with a center portion as a lowermost surface.
PNG
media_image3.png
1067
799
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the spherical contact surfaces as taught by Bernhardt et al. for the flat mating surfaces in Keeper et al. to have the stem having the tip surface being forming a spherical shape, and the inner bottom surface forming a spherical shape with a center portion as a lowermost surface, in order to improve service life and have reductions in cost (Bernhardt et al., col. 10, lns. 29-36).
Additionally, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the spherical contact surfaces as taught by Bernhardt et al. for the flat mating surfaces in Keeper et al. to have the stem having the tip surface being forming a spherical shape, and the inner bottom surface forming a spherical shape with a center portion as a lowermost surface, since it has been held, that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component (one mating contact joint means for another) or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. Additionally, the well-known expected outcome of translating the valve in a reciprocating motion would have resulted from the combination.
Regarding claim 2, Keeper et al. disclose the inner bottom surface of the recessed portion is formed at a deepest position at which a predetermined strength can be ensured. (Inherently the bottom surface depth of the recess portion is chosen based on the operating pressure requirement for the valve based on the material used for the diaphragm piece 52).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Keeper et al. disclose a retaining member (70) for movably retaining the diaphragm piece in an axial center direction of the diaphragm piece, wherein the diaphragm piece has a height (the lower height of the wall of 52 within the inner diameter of 70 through its opening and closing motion of travel) in the axial center direction so as to be able to be guided by the retaining member in the axial center direction with a side-portion outer circumferential surface (the outer diameter of 52) of the diaphragm piece as a sliding surface.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references disclose similar diaphragm valves.
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 Craig Price, whose telephone number is (571)272-2712 or via facsimile (571)273-2712. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:00AM-4:30PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3607, 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.
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 Form at;
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/CRAIG J PRICE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights