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 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, 3, 4, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Proudfoot et. al (US PG-pub 2019/0161245).
Regarding claim 1, Proudfoot teaches a valve body 302 (fig. 8), the valve body having a first axial end (nearest slits 304), a second axial end (nearest flange 326), and a valve passage running through the valve body from the first axial end to the second axial end (via slits), the first axial end and the second axial end being disposed opposite to each other, and an outer side portion in a circumferential direction of the valve body comprising a connecting portion 308 configured to connect the valve device to a part 222 to be connected; a valve passage on/off portion 304 connected to the first axial end of the valve body and made of a first material having elasticity (TPE, para. 0043), the valve passage on/off portion being deformable to open or close the valve passage; and a flange 318 connected to the second axial end of the valve body and obliquely extending outwardly in a direction toward the first axial end (flange slants towards the first axial end) such that a distal end of the flange is located outside the valve body in a radial direction of the valve device, wherein the distal end of the flange has a contact portion (portion that connects part 222); wherein the connecting portion is made of a second material (308 is made of PP, para. 0043), and the elasticity of the second material is less than that of the first material (TPE has a higher elasticity); wherein the flange 318 is made of the first material, or an elastic material apart from the first material; (claim 4), wherein the connecting portion is configured to be in connection with the part 222 to be connected
Regarding the recitation “… injection molding” and “snap-fit”, the term “injection molding” and “snap-fit” is considered to be directed to the method of manufacture of the claimed structure in this apparatus claim. As set forth in M.P.E.P. §2113:
“M.P.E.P. §2113 Product by Process Claims [ R-1 ]
PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE MANIPULATIONS OF THE RECITED STEPS, ONLY THE STRUCTURE IMPLIED BY THE STEPS
"Even though product-by process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe , 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted)
As set forth in the above explanation, the claimed structure finds their equivalents in the applied prior art. Thus the claim(s) are unpatentable even though potentially manufactured by a different process. Additionally, since the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. This difference as argued i.e. integral as being one piece verses multiple pieces, does not establish this distinction in view of the term "integral" being sufficiently broad to embrace constructions, e.g. multiple pieces, united by such means as fastening and welding either permanent or removeable, or a single piece.
Regarding claim 7, wherein the valve passage on/off portion 304 comprises a closure mouth having a slit at the distal end, the closure mouth comprises a pair of lips, each of the pair of lips having an inner side portion and an outer side portion, and the pair of lips being configured to be deformable, such that the slit is opened when the pair of lips is subjected to an outward pressure applied to the inner side portions (portions nearest flange), and the slit is closed when the pair of lips is subjected to an inward pressure applied to the outer side portions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5, 6, and 8-18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter (claim 2) the flange is made of the first material; (claim 5) a groove formed between the second connection portion segment; (claim 8) pressure balancing assembly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to P. MACADE NICHOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-5428. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00 P.M..
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 supervisor, 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.
/P. MACADE NICHOLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights