DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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.
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 statements filed on 5/24/2025 is acknowledged by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barley US 3807691 (“Barley”) in view of Smith US 5234194 (“Smith”), in further view of Mitton et al. US PG PUB 20090065724 (“Mitton”).
Regarding Claim 1, Barley discloses a rotary valve (10, fig. 1) for enhancing aerodynamic stability, comprising: a stator (11); a rotor (16); a valve core (14); a rotating assembly (17); and an elastic pressing assembly (21.sub.C) (col. 4 lines 31-63 “In FIG. 4 . . . the inward face of the shank portion 21.sub.A of nut 21 and the inward face of shank portion 18.sub.A of shank 18 are each provided with a projecting lip, or relatively sharp cutting edge, or ridge 21.sub.C,18.sub.C, which extends around the circumference of the face of each of said members to form, with the plug 14, a particularly effective seal for preventing leakage of fluid into the annular space between the inside wall of tubular housing 11 and the external side of plug 14 in contact therewith”); an outer wall of the valve core (14) is provided with gas groove (15) along a circumferential direction (see figures) of the valve core (14); and the valve core (14) is fixed to an outer wall of the rotor (rotor 16 has a square shaped shaft that fits with the square shaped opening in valve core 14); the stator (11) is provided with a first chamber (ann. fig. 4); the rotor (16) is coaxially provided within the first chamber (ann. fig. 4); and the outer wall of the valve core (14) is in contact with an inner wall of the first chamber (ann. fig. 4); the stator (11) is provided with a plurality of gas holes (12, 23, see figs. 2 and 3) uniformly distributed along a circumferential direction of the stator (11); and any adjacent two of the plurality of gas holes are communicated through the curved gas grooves (15); the stator (11) is further provided with a second chamber (ann. fig. 4) above the first chamber (ann. fig. 4); the second chamber (ann. fig. 4) is communicated with the first chamber (ann. fig. 4); and the elastic pressing assembly (21.sub.C) (col. 4 lines 31-63) is provided within the first chamber (ann. fig. 4) and is configured to elastically pressure the rotor (16) to achieve sealing between the outer wall of the valve core (14) and an inner wall of the stator (11); a third chamber (ann. fig. 4) is provided below the first chamber (ann. fig. 4), and is communicated with the first chamber (ann. fig. 4); the rotating assembly (17) is provided within the third chamber (ann. fig. 4), and is fixedly connected to a lower portion of the rotor (22); the rotating assembly (17) is configured to drive the rotor (16) to rotate around its own axis by a predetermined angle to perform valve switching; and a diameter of each of the plurality of gas holes (12, 13) is D; each of the at least curved gas grooves (15) has a first side wall and a second side wall parallel to the first side wall; a distance between the first side wall and the second side wall is L; and a ratio of L to D is 0.8-1.2 (see ann. fig. 4 which illustrates the smooth fluid transition between stator 11 flow passages 12 and 13 and grooves 15).
PNG
media_image1.png
197
359
media_image1.png
Greyscale
BARLEY – ANNOTATED FIGURE 4
Barley discloses the claimed invention, except an inverted cone shape; wherein the valve core has an inverted truncated-cone structure; the first chamber (ann. fig. 4) is in an inverted truncated-cone shape; and the valve core is provided with at least two curved gas grooves uniformly distributed along a circumferential direction of the valve core.
Smith teaches an inverted cone shape (fig. 2); wherein a valve core (11) has an inverted-cone structure; and chambers (fig. 2 illustrates three chambers) are inverted-cone shape.
PNG
media_image2.png
538
424
media_image2.png
Greyscale
SMITH – FIGURE 1
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date to have modified the cylindrical stator and core shape, as disclosed by Barley, by using an inverted-cone shape, as taught by Smith, for the simple reason that both valve shapes are commonly used in the area of rotational valves.
Barley as modified above discloses the claimed invention, except the valve core is provided with at least two curved gas grooves uniformly distributed along a circumferential direction of the valve core.
Mitton teaches at least two curved gas grooves (52) uniformly distributed along a circumferential direction of a vale core (50).
PNG
media_image3.png
242
212
media_image3.png
Greyscale
MITTON – FIGURE 19
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date to have modified the valve core with a single groove, as disclosed by Barley, by using multiple grooves, as taught by Mitton, for the purpose of using grooves that meet a system requirement for number of inlets, outlets, and fluid characteristics, such as pulsing fluid through a valve core (para 0028).
Regarding Claim 2, Barley discloses the ratio of L to D is 1.2; the first side wall and the second side wall are both configured as arc-shaped flat wall surfaces; each of the at least two curved gas grooves (15) further has a third side wall and a fourth side wall, and the third side wall and the fourth side wall are both configured as arc- shaped curved wall surfaces (ann. fig. 4); two ends of a bottom wall of each of the at least two curved gas grooves are configured as concave spherical wall surfaces; and a portion of the bottom wall between two concave spherical wall surfaces is configured as an arc- shaped concave wall surface; and a curvature of each of the two concave spherical wall surfaces ( 15, see ann. fig. 4) is equal to the diameter (see ann. fig. 4) of each of the plurality of gas holes (12, 13); and a central axis of each of the plurality of gas holes is configured to pass through the two concave spherical wall surfaces.
Barley discloses the claimed invention, except the ratio of L/D. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use L/D ratio of 1.2 since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Here, Applicant’s Specification para 0017 relies upon “experimental results” which is the discovery of the optimum valve. Additionally, the Specification does not include a reason for criticality for L/D ratio.
Regarding Claim 3, Barley discloses the ratio of L to D is 1 (see ann. fig. 4; see ann. fig. 4 which illustrates the smooth fluid transition between stator 11 flow passages 12 and 13 and grooves 15); the first side wall and the second side wall are both configured as arc-shaped flat wall surfaces; a third side wall and a fourth side wall of each of the at least two gas grooves are both configured as arc-shaped curved wall surfaces; and a bottom wall of each of the at least two gas grooves (15) is configured as an arc-shaped concave wall surface.
Regarding Claim 4, Barley discloses each of the at least two curved gas grooves (15). Barley discloses the claimed invention, except gas grooves has a radius R of 0.4±0.05 mm and a depth H of 0.65±0.05 mm; and each of the plurality of gas holes has a diameter D of 0.75+0.05 mm and a depth of 1.85+0.05mm. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the radius R, diameter D, and depth as recited in the claims, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Here, Applicant’s Specification para 0017 relies upon “experimental results” which is the discovery of the optimum valve. Additionally, the Specification does not include a reason for criticality for these dimensions.
Regarding Claim 5, Barley discloses the claimed invention, except the valve core is fixed to the outer wall of the rotor by in-situ injection molding. The limitation “in-situ injection molding” renders this claim a product by process claim. 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, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113.
Barley discloses a valve core that is fixed to the outer wall (16) of rotor (see ann. fig. 4).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barley US 3807691 (“Barley”) in view of Smith US 5234194 (“Smith”), in further view of Mitton et al. US PG PUB 20090065724 (“Mitton”) in further view of Sciuto et al. US PG PUB 20140000731 (“Sciuto”)
Regarding Claim 6, Barley discloses the claimed invention, except valve core is made of a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-polyetheretherketone (PEEK) composite material and the PTFE-PEEK composite material comprises 10-30% by weight of PTFE.
Sciuto teaches valve core (valve member) is made of a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-polyetheretherketone (PEEK) composite material and the PTFE-PEEK composite material comprises 10-30% (20% para 0023) by weight of PTFE.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date to have modified a valve core, as disclosed by Barley, by using a combination of PEEK with a 20% PTFE, as taught by Sciuto, for the purpose of “better lubricity is provided and/or burrs are eliminated” (para 0023).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barley US 3807691 (“Barley”) in view of Smith US 5234194 (“Smith”), in further view of Mitton et al. US PG PUB 20090065724 (“Mitton”), in further view of Kaiser US 1499663 (“Kaiser”).
Regarding Claim 9, Barley discloses the claimed invention, except the rotating assembly is provided with a limiting pin; the third chamber is provided with a limiting notch; and the limiting pin is configured to engage with the limiting notch in response to a case that the rotating assembly rotates by the predetermined angle.
Kaiser discloses a rotating assembly (7) is provided with a limiting pin (6); a third chamber (3) is provided with a limiting notch (5); and the limiting pin (6) is configured to engage with the limiting notch (5) in response to a case that the rotating assembly rotates by the predetermined angle.
PNG
media_image4.png
227
159
media_image4.png
Greyscale
KAISER – FIGURE 5
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date to have modified the stator and rotating assembly, as disclosed by Barley, to include a slot in a stator and a pin in a rotating assembly , as taught by Mitton, for the purpose of creating a lock that is inexpensive to manufacture and efficient to operate (p. 1 lines 15-18).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Franklin US 12569253, Collins et al. US 12584562, Sykora US 1493133, Rovinsky US 2067346, Birchall, Jr. et al. US 2876985, and De Angelis US 3698683 disclose rotary valves.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daphne Barry whose telephone number is (571)272-9966 and fax number is (571) 273-9966. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 9 AM-6 PM (eastern).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor either Kenneth 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/DAPHNE M BARRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
