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 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“actuating element” in claim 1, line 7, the corresponding structure for which can be found in the specification paragraph [0017];
“resetting element” in claim 1, line 7, the corresponding structure for which can be found in the specification paragraphs [0017] and [0018].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the membrane is connected to a plunger which, because of a spring force in the unactuated state of the actuator, is pressed against the fluid drainage opening to close the fluid drainage opening and, in the actuated state of the actuator, is pushed away from the fluid drainage opening by a fluid flow through the fluid supply opening and opens the fluid drainage opening” in lines 14-18; however, the plunger (“S”) of the present invention does not press against the fluid drainage opening (“R”). The fluid drainage opening (“R”; see fig. 1 and figs. 14-17) remains unobstructed at all times.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because they depend on a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the passage opening” in line 2; however, the claim is unclear as to if this recitation refers to one, some or all of the “at least one passage opening” recited in parent claim 1, line 21. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that the recitation “the passage opening” in claim 2, line 2, should read –the at least one passage opening--.
Similarly, claims 3-6 recite the limitation “the passage opening” and are rejected for the same reasons as claim 2, above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by DE20201807073 (“Afmeier”).
Regarding claim 1, Afmeier discloses (see fig. 4) a pneumatic valve comprising:
a housing (mainly defined by “8”) defining a fluid supply port (“40”), a fluid outlet port (“50”), and a fluid drainage opening (“24”);
a valve chamber (chamber within which valve member “4” is disposed, at least partially defined by “64”) having a fluid supply opening (“42”) connected to the fluid supply port, a fluid outlet opening (“44”) connected to the fluid outlet port, and a trigger opening (opening defined by seat against which seal “26” abuts, and in direct fluid connection with fluid drainage opening “24”; see fig. 4) connected to an actuator chamber (“22”) which is connected to the fluid drainage opening;
an actuator formed with an SMA wire (“28”), an actuating element (“38”), a resetting element (“34”), and a printed circuit board (“76”), the actuator disposed in the actuator chamber, wherein a sealing element (“26”) is arranged on the actuating element, the sealing element pressed against the trigger opening by the resetting element in the non-actuated state of the actuator (see fig. 4) and opening up the trigger opening in the actuated state of the actuator;
a membrane (“46”) dividing the valve chamber into a first region (region disposed above diaphragm “46”, relative to the orientation of fig. 4) connected to the trigger opening and a second region (region disposed below diaphragm “46”, relative to the orientation of fig. 4) connected to the fluid supply opening;
wherein the membrane is connected to a plunger (“38”) which, because of a spring force (force of spring “34”) in the unactuated state of the actuator, is pressed against the fluid drainage opening to close the fluid drainage opening (see fig. 4) and, in the actuated state of the actuator (where seal “26” is lifted away from its seat to open flow through fluid drainage opening “24”), is pushed away from the fluid drainage opening by a fluid flowing through the fluid supply opening and opens the fluid drainage opening;
wherein the membrane has an edge (radially outer edge of membrane “46”) clamped between a cup-shaped element (recess formed by housing “8” which receives membrane “46”) forming the valve chamber and a cover element (“10”) inserted therein, and wherein, in the region of the clamping, at least one passage opening (“20” is formed between the first region and the second region, through which fluid can flow from the first region into the second region.
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.
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.
Claims 2-4 and 6, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afmeier, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US6457697 (“Kolze”).
Regarding claim 2, Afmeier discloses the invention as claimed except for the membrane defining at least one groove forming the passage opening and surrounding the edge thereof in the region of the cup-shaped element and the cover element.
Kolze teaches (see figs. 1 and 7-9) a valve having a membrane (“36”) defining at least one groove (“90”; see fig. 9) forming a passage opening (“90”) and surrounding a clamped edge (radially inner edge of membrane bead “54”) thereof in a region of a cup-shaped element (recess within which membrane bead “54” is clamped; see fig. 9) and a cover element (“30”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the invention of Afmeier by configuring the membrane to define at least one groove forming the passage opening and surrounding the edge thereof in the region of the cup-shaped element and the cover element, as taught by Kolze, to more easily access the passage opening in case of blockage or for repairs.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Afmeier and Kolze discloses the membrane (Afmeier, “46”, as modified by Kolze, “36”, above) includes at least one bead (Kolze, “54”) producing the passage opening (Kolze, “90”) in the clamped state and surrounding the edge (Kolze, radially inner edge of membrane bead “54”) thereof in the region of the cup-shaped element (Afmeier, recess formed by housing “8” which receives membrane “46”, or Kolze, recess formed by body “12” which receives membrane “36”) and the cover element (Afmeier, “10”, or Kolze, “30”).
Regarding claims 4 and 6, Afmeier discloses the invention as claimed except for the cup-shaped element and the cover element, in their regions surrounding the edge of the membrane, defining at least one groove forming the passage opening; and
channels forming the passage opening being defined by the cup-shaped element and the cover element.
Kolze teaches (see figs. 1 and 10-13) teaches a valve, wherein a cup-shaped element (recess formed by body “12” which receives membrane “36”) and a cover element (“30”), in their regions surrounding an edge (radially inner clamped edge of membrane bead “54”) of a membrane (“36”), define at least one groove (“67”, “68”, “75”, “76”, “98” and/or “92”) forming a passage opening (fluid passage extending between inlet chamber “14” and diaphragm chamber “34”); and
channels (channels formed by grooves “67”, “68”, “75”, “76”, “92”, “98” and/or “102”, and bores “91”, “100” and “104”) forming the passage opening (fluid passage extending between inlet chamber “14” and diaphragm chamber “34”) defined by the cup-shaped element and the cover element (see figs. 10-13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the invention of Afmeier by configuring the cup-shaped element and the cover element, in their regions surrounding the edge of the membrane, define at least one groove forming the passage opening, and comprising channels forming the passage opening defined by the cup-shaped element and the cover element, as taught by Kolze, to more easily access the passage opening in case of blockage or for repairs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Regarding claim 5, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious, as best understood, the pneumatic valve, wherein the cup-shaped element and the cover element, in their regions surrounding the edge of the membrane, include at least one bead producing the passage opening in the membrane in the clamped state, in combination with the limitations of the base claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. DE10201807073, DE10202404956, WO2015015351, US4128128, US4561627, US11077781, US11859727, US12553532 and US20260029063 disclose a valve actuated by an actuator comprising a temperature responsive element.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hailey K. Do whose direct telephone number is (571)270-3458 and direct fax number is (571)270-4458. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00AM-5:00PM ET) and Friday (8:00AM-12:00PM ET).
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 supervisors, Kenneth Rinehart at 571-272-4881, or Craig M. Schneider 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAILEY K. DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights