DETAILED ACTION
Non Final
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/19/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, 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, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
It is noted that upon review, no claim terminology was determined to be of sufficient means plus function nonce/style language so as to invoke 35 USC 112 6th paragraph. Any generic terms appeared to be sufficiently modified by their either prepository terms, modifiers or use in the art to take any generic terms out of potential scope of 112 6th. It is noted that during prosecution the claim language may change and thus there is no final disposition on such interpretation until time as the claims may issue.
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) 1-4, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibaike (WO 2007086290) and further in view of Ulevich (US 4979355);
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibaike in view of Ulevich, as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Miller (US 7828077);
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibaike in view of Ulevich, as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Laurie (US 2009/0145268);
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibaike in view of Ulevich, as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Hui (US 7334506);
Claim(s) 11, 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibaike in view of Ulevich, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alexander (US 2014/0374513.)
Shibaike discloses in claim 1: (see at least annotated figures 2 and 3 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
538
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
490
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A service valve (1 figures 1-3) for an air conditioner (the phrase considered a statement of intended use as it adds no meaningful limitation to the body of the claimed apparatus, MPEP 2114, nonetheless, see ph 0004-0006) comprising: a body (body of 1); a fluid passage (via 3/4/5) configured to penetrate the body (as shown for carrying fluid therein); a spindle receiving part (body threads for receiving threads 28) configured to communicate with the fluid passage (they volumes communicate); a spindle screw (2) connected (via male/female threaded connection at 2852) to the spindle receiving part and configured to open and block the fluid passage (via axial rotatable reciprocation to and from the valve seat 5); a guard hole (at 27) configured at a depth on an upper surface (at 2002) of the spindle; and a wrench [surface (of 27) defined via] the guard hole (the hole defines an axially defined surface wall for receiving a wrench tool); Shibaike does not disclose: a wrench guard disposed at least partially in the guard hole; but Ulevich certainly teaches: a wrench guard (at 18 figures 1-3 that is…) disposed at least partially in the guard hole (at 16 and provided for the purpose of for example a snug fit with a tool head or wrench/spanner.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Shibaike as taught in Ulevich with a wrench guard that is disposed at least partially in the guard hole of Shibaike as taught in Ulevich, all provided for the purpose of for example a snug fit with a tool head or wrench/spanner.
Shibaike discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 2: The service valve for an air conditioner of claim 1, wherein the wrench guard is formed in a sleeve shape (section 22/28 is sleeved and is…) including a through hole (via 22), and a cross-section of the through hole is a regular hexagon (figure 1 and 2.)
Shibaike discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 3: The service valve for an air conditioner of claim 2, wherein the guard hole is formed as a polygonal hole (Shibaike .27 is a hex shape or polygonal and Ulevich.16 is hex shape or polygonal), and an outer circumferential surface of the wrench guard is configured as a polygon corresponding to the polygonal hole of the guard hole (as shown as modified above.)
Shibaike discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 4: The service valve for an air conditioner of claim 3, wherein the polygonal hole (16) is formed as one of (alt grouping under MPEP 2131): a square hole, a hexagonal hole (hex hole), and a polygonal star hole.
Shibaike discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 5: The service valve for an air conditioner of claim 2, wherein the guard hole is configured as [a hexagonal] hole, and an outer circumferential surface of the wrench guard is configured as [a hexagonal] shape corresponding to the elliptical hole of the guard hole; Shibaike does not disclose: an elliptical guard hole or shape; but Miller teaches: an elliptical hole and shape (about 22c, and provided for the purpose of translating rotational force between parts that are also able to axially reciprocate relative to one another (Col 4 ln 5-13);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Shibaike’s guard hole and wrench guard a shape as taught in Miller as an elliptical hole and shape as taught in Miller, all provided for the purpose of translating rotational force between parts that are also able to axially reciprocate relative to one another, where it is noted that a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Shibaike discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 6: The service valve for an air conditioner of claim 2, wherein the wrench guard includes a stopper (24) provided at an upper end of the wrench guard (end at 18), and the wrench guard is fixed to the guard hole by at least the stopper (to wrap the upper end of the guard hole 27 of Shibaike as taught in Ulevich, for the purpose of maintaining a secure connection and for the reasons mentioned above.)
Shibaike discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 7: The service valve for an air conditioner of claim 2, wherein the wrench guard includes [with] an outer circumferential surface, the wrench guard is fixed to the guard hole (as shown); Shibaike/Ulevich does not disclose: a fixing protrusion to fix the wrench guard to the guard hole; but Laurie teaches: a fixing protrusion (locking bearing 296 figure 17-21 and see ph 0092) to fix the wrench guard to the guard hole (for the purpose of maintaining a secure fit and rotational engagement between the surfaces.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Shibaike/Ulevich as taught in Laurie with a fixing protrusion such as a locking bearing as taught in Laurie, to fix the wrench guard to the guard hole, and all for the purpose of maintaining a secure fit and rotational engagement between the surfaces.
Shibaike discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 8: The service valve for an air conditioner of claim 2, further comprising: a hole (at 2004) formed below the guard hole; but Shibaike does not disclose: a wrench hole below the guard hole, although Hui teaches: a wrench hole (10a) below the guard hole (2a), provided for example, for the purpose of alternative tool engagement for adaptability to accessible tools to operate the valve.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Shibaike as taught in Hui with a wrench hole below the guard hole as taught in Hui and provided for example, for the purpose of alternative tool engagement for adaptability to accessible tools to operate the valve.
Shibaike discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 9 : The service valve for an air conditioner of claim 8, wherein a length of the wrench guard (as modified by Ulevich as discussed above) is equal to or greater than a depth of the wrench hole (2004 where the guard hole length 27 has a longer axial distance than that of 2004.)
Shibaike discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 10: The service valve for an air conditioner of claim 9, wherein the length of the wrench guard is [sufficient to support a tool] Shibaike/Ulevich does not disclose: the wrench guard is at least 5 mm in length; but considering that Shibaike/Ulevich does teach sufficient length to support a tool (for the purpose of rotational engagement); one of ordinary skill in the art would consider providing a sufficient standard length for engagement of for example about 0.2 inches or about 5 mm, all for the purposes discussed above; accordingly,
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Shibaike/Ulevich as suggested therein and as one of ordinary skill in the art would consider, a sufficient standard length for engagement of for example about 0.2 inches or about 5 mm, all for the purposes of sufficient rotational engagement with a tool head.
Shibaike discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 11: The service valve for an air conditioner of claim 1, wherein a material of the body comprises (PPS, ph 0023 to be resistant to fridge machine oil), and a material of the wrench guard comprises (aluminum per claim 3); but Shibaike/Ulevich does not disclose: the use of brass nor stainless steel, but Alexander does teach: the use of brass and stainless steel (for the purpose of providing a valve material that is resistant to corrosion in a fluid environment ph 0030, 0034, 0044); Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Shibaike/Ulevich in lieu of PPS and aluminum materials, the use of brass and stainless steel, all for the purpose of providing a valve material that is resistant to corrosion in a fluid environment.
Shibaike discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 12: The service valve for an air conditioner of claim 11, wherein a length of the wrench guard is at least ½ of a depth of a brass wrench hole (as modified for the reasons discussed above, the guard is at least ½ or more (in this case the entire length of the wrench hole.)
Shibaike discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 13: The service valve for an air conditioner of claim 1, wherein the body is configured in a cross shape (cross t-shape), the fluid passage is on an inside of a leg (3), a center portion (5), and a right arm (4) of the body, and the spindle receiving part (at 28) is configured to connect an upper surface (at 2006) of a head of the body and the center portion.
Shibaike discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 14: The service valve for an air conditioner of claim 13, wherein the spindle receiving part includes a female screw portion (opposed female threads at 28), and the spindle includes a screw portion (28) fastened to the female screw portion.
Shibaike discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 15: The service valve for an air conditioner of claim 11, wherein a thickness of the wrench guard is from 0.3 mm to 0.5 mm (i.e. 0.0118 inches to about 0.02 inches, where 22 is about 0.02 inches in thickness Col 3 ln 37 of Ulevich.)
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 MATTHEW W JELLETT, whose telephone number is 571-270-7497. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Ken Rinehart can be reached at (571)-272-4881, or Craig Schneider can be reached 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 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.
/Matthew W Jellett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights