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 .
Response to Amendment/Arguments filed 9/8/2026
Applicant’s Amendment has been considered. However, previously cited Dragojilov is seen to further disclose the amendment to claim 1. Furthermore, applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 are unpersuasive.
Applicant asserts that Dragojilov is silent regarding “the opening degree of the inner side sealing opening is the same as the opening degree of the corresponding housing outlet throughout rotation of the valve core”. While there could be functional differences in progressive positions of the valve between the application and Dragojilov, these are not seen to be required by the claim. In this limitation, the key relationship is between the inner side sealing opening and the corresponding housing outlet. In Dragojilov FIG 5B, the housing and sealing openings seen to be aligned. The rotational position of the valve core is not seen to affect this relationship as the housing and sealing device are static, like applicant’s FIG 5A. In other words, Dragojilov is seen to disclose the opening degree of the inner side sealing opening is the same as the opening degree of the corresponding housing outlet at all positions of the valve core, and therefore the claims remain rejected over prior art.
New claims 15-20 are considered and their status is shown below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dragojlov et al (US 20230279954).
Regarding claim 1, Dragojlov (FIGs 1-6b) discloses “A proportional regulating valve, comprising:
a housing (12) defining a mounting cavity (interior), the housing having at least two housing outlets (20d and c);
a valve core (16) arranged inside the mounting cavity and rotatable about an axis (18), the valve core comprising a circumferential side wall (22/42 blocking sections, including 30, 28a, 36a-c and 38a-l) extending in a circumferential direction of the valve core (see FIG 2A/B), the circumferential side wall having a valve core blocking wall (closed side defined by 36a/b and 38a-f) and a valve core outlet (28a), and the valve core being configured to be capable of adjusting the opening degrees of the at least two housing outlets by means of the valve core blocking wall and the valve core outlet with the rotation of the valve core, so as to regulate a proportion of flow between the at least two housing outlets (see FIGs 5B, 6B); and
a sealing device (42a, 42b) connected inside the housing and located between the valve core and the housing (see FIG 4b), the sealing device comprising at least two sealing cavities (46e/48e and 46f/48f), the at least two sealing cavities being arranged corresponding to the at least two housing outlets (20c and d), wherein each of the sealing cavities forms an inner side sealing opening in an inner surface of the sealing device (see FIG 5B), and the opening degree of the inner side sealing opening is the same as the opening degree of the corresponding housing outlet (see FIG 5B, housing and sealing openings seen to be aligned) throughout rotation of the valve core (this relationship between the housing and sealing device occurs at all positions of the valve core);
wherein the sealing device and the valve core are configured such that an effective operating angle of the valve core is greater than the sum of respective central angles of two housing outlets of the at least two housing outlets (inner edges of outlets 20c/d [i.e. the space between the outlets] are less than 90 degrees relative to the center of the device; 28a defined by the gap between 38a and 38f is greater than this as shown in FIG 6A), and wherein the effective operating angle of the valve core is an angle of rotation that enables the valve core outlet to be in communication with both of the two housing outlets and that changes the opening degree of at least one of the housing outlets (FIG 5B).”
Regarding claim 2, Dragojlov (FIGs 1-6b) discloses “wherein each of respective dimensions of the inner side sealing opening and the valve core outlet in a circumferential direction is larger than a respective dimension of each of the housing outlets (see FIG 5B).”
Regarding claim 11, Dragojlov (FIGs 1-6b) discloses “wherein the housing has a housing inlet (bottom opening of housing, corresponding to the bottom opening of valve 20e); and
wherein the valve core has a valve core inlet (bottom opening of 20e) and a valve core channel (20e itself), the valve core channel being in fluid communication with the valve core inlet and the valve core outlet (see FIG 5B), and the circumferential dimension of the valve core inlet is configured to enable the valve core inlet to fluidly communicate with the housing inlet with the rotation of the valve core (see FIGs 5B and 6B).”
Regarding claim 12, Dragojlov (FIGs 1-6b) discloses “wherein the valve core comprises an upper valve (22) core and a lower valve core (24) (upper and lower seen as a matter perspective, and the interpretation is proper as long as the spatial reference is consistent across the rejections), the valve core inlet is arranged in the upper valve core (see FIG 5B), the lower valve core has the circumferential side wall (via 36b), and the sealing device is arranged around the circumferential side wall of the lower valve core (see FIG 4B).”
Regarding claim 13, Dragojlov (FIGs 1-6b) discloses “wherein the valve core comprises a rotating shaft (where 16 is pointing in FIG 4B), the rotating shaft having the axis (see FIG 2B), wherein the rotating shaft is capable of being driven by an actuator to rotate (paragraph 6).”
Regarding claim 14, Dragojlov (FIGs 1-6b) discloses “wherein the valve core further comprises a valve core sealing strip (36b), the valve core sealing strip being arranged on an outer wall of the circumferential side wall (see FIG 2B), and the valve core sealing strip being configured to be capable of abutting against an inner wall of the sealing device (compare FIGs 4B and 5B).”
Regarding claim 15, Dragojlov (FIGs 1-6b) discloses “wherein the housing has a housing inlet (20g) arranged above the at least two housing outlets (aligned with 30, which is above 28a in FIG 1), and the at least two housing outlets are arranged at substantially the same height (seen to be level in FIG 5B).”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-10 and 17-18 are allowed.
Claims 16 and 19-20 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:
Claims 3-5 are allowed for analogous Reasons as set forth in the previous Office Action filed 6/5/2026. Claims 6-10 and 17-18 are allowable by virtue of their dependency on claim 5.
Regarding claim 16, Dragojilov is silent regarding “wherein the valve core channel extends longitudinally from the upper valve core to the lower valve core and has a substantially constant cross-sectional area in the upper valve core and in the lower valve core, and wherein an outer diameter of the upper valve core is greater than an outer diameter of the lower valve core.”
It would not be obvious to modify Dragojilov without undue hindsight reasoning.
Regarding claim 19, Dragojilov is silent regarding “wherein the circumferential dimension of the valve core outlet is substantially the same as the circumferential dimension of the inner side sealing opening of each sealing cavity, such that when the valve core outlet is aligned with a sealing cavity, the sealing cavity does not impede fluid flow from the valve core outlet and the opening degree of the corresponding housing outlet is 100%.”
It would not be obvious to modify Dragojilov without undue hindsight reasoning.
Regarding claim 20, Dragojilov is silent regarding “wherein the housing further comprises a securing shaft protruding inwardly from a bottom of the housing, and the valve core comprises a receiving sleeve at a bottom thereof configured to receive the securing shaft, the securing shaft and a rotating shaft of the valve core sharing a common axis to enable the valve core to rotate about the axis.”
It would not be obvious to modify Dragojilov without undue hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK C WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)431-0767. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 PM.
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.
/PATRICK C WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights