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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species I, Figures 1-8 in the reply filed on 7/13/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 10-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/13/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/17/2021 was filed prior to the mailing date of the mailing of this action. The submission complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “22” has been used to designate both the housing in Figure 6 without a groove and figure 10 with a groove (it is suggested to re-number Figure 20 housing to 22’ with the appropriate change to the specification.
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. 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: in claim 1, “substantially independent of one another”, and in claim 7, “substantially flat”, lacks support in the originally filed specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the seal is interference fit, should be, - - the seal is in an interference fit - -. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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) 1-6,8,9,16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Erlich (US 3640310).
Regarding claim 1, Erlich discloses a multi-way valve (see Fig. 1-5b) comprising
a valve housing (1,10) including a seal groove (43), the valve housing shaped to define a valve cavity (10a) and a plurality of apertures (11-15) that open into the valve cavity,
a valve flow controller (2,7) including a valve rotor (2) arranged in the valve cavity of the valve housing and configured to rotate relative to the valve housing about a reference valve axis (the inherent centerline axis vertically through 7) and an actuator (5) coupled to the valve rotor to drive rotation of the valve rotor about the reference valve axis, wherein the valve rotor cooperates with the valve housing to define a plurality of flow paths when the valve rotor is rotated about the reference valve axis to a plurality of different predetermined positions (see Fig. 1 for different positions) to control a flow of fluid through the valve housing, and
a sealing system (4,6) configured to seal between the valve rotor and the valve housing in the valve cavity, the sealing system including a seal (4, see Fig. 5b) and a bias member (6), the seal arranged in the seal groove of the valve housing, and the bias member configured to apply an axial force to the valve rotor to urge the valve rotor into engagement with the seal to seal therebetween,
wherein the seal is shaped to include an outer portion (41) that extends out of the seal groove of the valve housing toward the valve rotor and includes an outer contact surface (uppermost surface of 41) that engages the valve rotor to block movement of the fluid out of the plurality of flow paths between the outer contact surface and the valve rotor, an inner portion (42) opposite the outer portion and located in the seal groove, and a mid-portion (44) extending between the outer portion and the inner portion and located in the seal groove, the mid-portion including a groove side contact surface (the outermost surface of the bottom arm 44) that engages the seal groove of the valve housing to block movement of the fluid out of the plurality of flow paths between the groove side contact surface and the valve housing,
wherein compressive forces applied to the outer contact surface by the valve rotor and compressive forces applied to the groove side contact surface by the valve housing are substantially independent of one another so that the compressive forces applied to the groove side contact surface by the valve housing are not transferred to the outer contact surface in order to avoid inducing excess friction on the valve rotor that would resist rotation of the valve rotor (the functional limitations are met by the outer portion 41 and the mid portion outer surface 44, in as much as applicants invention).
PNG
media_image1.png
712
1341
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Erlich discloses the seal is an integral component (as shown above it is integral with the housing).
Regarding claim 3, Erlich discloses the seal is formed of thermoplastic vulcanizates (col.8, lns. 28-29, neoprene is considered as being made through a vulcanization process, and therefore is formed of thermoplastic vulcanizates).
Regarding claim 4, Erlich discloses the seal is shaped to include an outer ring extending around the reference valve axis, an inner ring (the smaller inner ring) extending around the reference valve axis and arranged radially inward of the outer ring, and a plurality of divider members (the spokes of 4 as shown below) extending radially between and interconnecting the inner ring and the outer ring.
PNG
media_image2.png
866
729
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Erlich discloses the seal groove (43) is defined by a first sidewall (left vertical wall of 43), a second sidewall (right vertical wall of 43) spaced apart from the first sidewall, and a bottom wall (at start of lead line 43) extending between and interconnecting the first sidewall and the second sidewall, and wherein the groove side contact surface (outermost surface of bottom arm 44) of the mid-portion of the seal includes a first groove side contact surface (left outermost surface of bottom 44) that engages the first sidewall and a second groove side contact surface (right outermost surface of bottom 44) that engages the second sidewall.
PNG
media_image3.png
310
258
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Erlich discloses the inner portion (at 42, as shown above) of the seal does not contact the first sidewall of the seal groove or the second sidewall of the seal groove.
Regarding claim 8, Erlich discloses the mid-portion of the seal (at 44) is wider than the outer portion of the seal and the inner portion of the seal (as shown in Fig. 5b above).
Regarding claim 9, Erlich discloses “the seal is interference fit” with the seal groove (as shown in Figure 5b, the outer portions of 44 abut with the walls of the groove).
Regarding claim 16, Erlich discloses a multi-way valve (see Fig. 1-5b) comprising a valve housing (1,10) shaped to define a valve cavity (10a) and a plurality of apertures (11-15) that open into the valve cavity,
a valve flow controller (2,7) including a valve rotor (2) arranged in the valve cavity of the valve housing and configured to rotate relative to the valve housing about a reference valve axis (the inherent centerline axis vertically through 7) and an actuator (5) coupled to the valve rotor to drive rotation of the valve rotor about the reference valve axis, wherein the valve rotor cooperates with the valve housing to define a plurality of flow paths when the valve rotor is rotated about the reference valve axis to a plurality of different predetermined positions (see Fig. 1 for different positions) to control a flow of fluid through the valve housing, and
a sealing system (4,6) including a seal (4) located axially between the valve rotor and the valve housing in the valve cavity and a bias member (6) configured to apply an axial force to the valve rotor to urge the valve rotor into engagement with the seal to seal therebetween, wherein the seal is shaped to include an outer portion (at 41) that extends toward the valve rotor outwardly beyond the valve housing and includes an outer contact surface (uppermost surface of 41) that engages the valve rotor, an inner portion (42) opposite the outer portion, and a mid-portion (44) extending between the outer portion and the inner portion, the mid-portion including a side contact surface (the outermost surface of the bottom arm 44) that engages the valve housing.
Regarding claim 17, Erlich discloses the seal is an integral component (as shown above it is integral with the housing).
Regarding claim 18, Erlich discloses the seal is shaped to include an outer ring extending around the reference valve axis, an inner ring (the smaller inner ring) extending around the reference valve axis and arranged radially inward of the outer ring, and a plurality of divider members (the spokes of 4 as shown below) extending radially between and interconnecting the inner ring and the outer ring.
Regarding claim 20, Erlich discloses the valve housing includes a seal groove (43) to receive the seal (6) therein, and wherein the outer portion (41, see Fig. 5b) of the seal extends out of the seal groove of the valve housing toward the valve rotor, the inner portion of the seal is located in the seal groove, and the mid-portion of the seal is located in the seal groove so that the side contact surface engages the seal groove.
PNG
media_image3.png
310
258
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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) 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erlich ‘310 in view of Giambrone et al. (US 12027809).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Erlich discloses the seal has the outer portion (41) that extends from the mid-portion of the seal to the outer contact surface of the outer portion of the seal, and wherein the outer contact surface of the outer contact surface of the seal is perpendicular to the reference valve axis, although is silent that the seal tapers as the outer portion extends from the mid-portion and wherein the outer contact surface of the outer portion of the seal is substantially flat and perpendicular to the reference valve axis, and the outer portion of the seal tapers as the outer portion extends from the mid-portion of the seal to the outer contact surface of the outer portion of the seal.
Giambrone et al. teach the seal (16) tapers as the outer portion (the angled and flat end portion, note that the seal is symmetrical) extends from the mid-portion and wherein the outer contact surface of the outer portion of the seal is substantially flat and perpendicular to the reference valve axis, and the outer portion of the seal tapers as the outer portion extends from the mid-portion of the seal to the outer contact surface of the outer portion of the seal.
PNG
media_image4.png
807
1347
media_image4.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 an outer portion as taught by Giambrone et al. for outer seal portion in Ehrlich to have the seal tapers as the outer portion extends from the mid-portion and wherein the outer contact surface of the outer portion of the seal is substantially flat and perpendicular to the reference valve axis, and the outer portion of the seal tapers as the outer portion extends from the mid-portion of the seal to the outer contact surface of the outer portion of the seal, since it has been held, that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component (one valve sealing portion device for another) or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious.
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 an outer portion as taught by Giambrone et al. for outer seal portion in Ehrlich to have the seal tapers as the outer portion extends from the mid-portion and wherein the outer contact surface of the outer portion of the seal is substantially flat and perpendicular to the reference valve axis, and the outer portion of the seal tapers as the outer portion extends from the mid-portion of the seal to the outer contact surface of the outer portion of the seal, since, by routine optimization, it has been held that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
Claim(s) 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erlich ‘310 in view of Chapman (US 12486911).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Erlich discloses a spring (6) that is spring is located axially between the valve housing and the valve rotor, and the spring extends circumferentially about the reference valve axis, although is silent that the bias member is a wave spring.
Chapman teaches the bias member being a wave spring (49, col.9, lns. 41-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a wave spring as taught by Chapman for the coil spring in Ehrlich to have a wave spring, since it has been held, that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component (one biasing device for another) or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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