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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement dated 11/14/2025 has been received and considered.
The information disclosure statement filed 5/30/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the lined through information referred to therein has not been considered.
English abstracts of foreign references DE102017104032 and DE10223824 are found in the file wrapper. However, the actual references do not appear to be in the file wrapper. It is noted while the actual reference for DE102013101497 does not appear to be in the file wrapper, as the U.S. equivalent U.S. 2014/0224348 was cited, the DE102013101497 reference has not been lined through.
It is noted to the applicant that copies of the DE102017104032 reference and machine translation were retrieved and included in an 892 with this action.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 4 be found allowable, claim 5 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 8 be found allowable, claim 9 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 13 be found allowable, claim 14 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 15, line 2, “a valve body” should be --the valve body--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 6 and 13-14 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 6 recites the limitation "the vertical plane" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the third central longitudinal axis" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the central longitudinal axis" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the central longitudinal axis" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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: drive mechanism in claim 15, corresponding in structure to a pneumatic drive, magnetic drive, or electric drive per paragraph 100.
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 § 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) 1-6, 8-12, and 15, claim 6 as far as it is definite, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Buerkert Werke GmbH and Co KG (DE102017104032)(reference and machine translation included herewith and referred to below)(hereinafter “Buerkert”).
Buerkert discloses a valve body for a diaphragm valve (figs. 1-12b), the valve body comprising: a process fluid channel (10, 12) extending along a first central longitudinal axis (horizontally in figs. 7-8); a valve seat (26) accessible via an opening of the valve body (the upper opening that is closed by diaphragm 20) that is configured to be closed by a valve diaphragm (20); and a recess (the area of 28, 30 generally around L1 in fig. 8) arranged between the opening and the process fluid channel.
Regarding claim 2, Buerkert further discloses a valve chamber (the area of 48, 50) that connects the process fluid channel to the valve seat in a fluid-conducting manner (figs. 7-8), the valve chamber extending along a second central longitudinal axis (along L2), wherein the recess extends along a third central longitudinal axis (along L1), and wherein an obtuse angle between the third central longitudinal axis and the first or second central longitudinal axis is greater than an obtuse angle between the first and second central longitudinal axes (as L1 is less steep than L2, an obtuse angle from the first longitudinal axis (which is horizontal 90 degrees) at the 180 degree mark to L1 (third central longitudinal axis) is greater than an obtuse angle between the first longitudinal axis at the 180 degree mark to L2).
Regarding claim 3, Buerkert further discloses wherein the recess is aligned with a central longitudinal axis of a valve chamber (area of 48, 50) lying in a plane defined by the first central longitudinal axis and an adjusting axis (a plane defined by the first central longitudinal axis which is horizontal in figures 7-8 and another axis which will be considered the adjusting axis that has the recess aligned with a central longitudinal axis of the valve chamber, especially as the adjusting axis can be any cartesian axis).
Regarding claim 4, Buerkert further discloses wherein a central portion of the recess and a central portion of the valve seat are spaced apart along the first central longitudinal axis (fig. 8).
Regarding claim 5, Buerkert further discloses wherein a central portion of the recess and a central portion of the valve seat are spaced apart along the first central longitudinal axis (fig. 8).
Regarding claim 6, Buerkert further discloses wherein the central portion of the recess in the vertical plane of the third central longitudinal axis is less curved than the central portion of the valve seat in a corresponding vertical plane of the first central longitudinal axis (as the central portion of the recess at the area of 28, 30 generally around L1 is linear and the area of the seat is curved as best shown in figs. 11 and 7-8, the recess area is less curved than the seat area).
Regarding claim 8, Buerkert further discloses wherein the valve seat includes a seating surface (the surface of the seating area), and wherein a transition region between the seating surface and an inner surface of a valve chamber (the lower area of 56, 58) includes a faceted geometry (the region between the valve seating surface and the lower are of 56 and 58 has faceted portions such as 84, 82, 44, 48, etc.).
Regarding claim 9, Buerkert further discloses wherein the valve seat includes a seating surface (the surface of the seating area), and wherein a transition region between the seating surface and an inner surface of a valve chamber (the lower area of 56, 58) includes a faceted geometry (the region between the valve seating surface and the lower are of 56 and 58 has faceted portions such as 84, 82, 44, 48, etc.).
Regarding claim 10, Buerkert discloses a valve body for a diaphragm valve (figs. 1-12b), the valve body comprising: two process fluid connections (the connections at the left and right ends of 10, 12); two process fluid channels (10, 12), each configured to connect a respective process fluid connection to an associated valve chamber in a fluid-conducting manner (fig. 8); two valve chambers (the areas of 48 and 50, also 56, 58, optionally including 44 and 46); and a valve seat (26) arranged between the valve chambers, the valve seat being accessible via an opening of the valve body (the upper opening that is closed by diaphragm 20) and configured to be closed by a valve diaphragm (20); wherein the valve seat follows a linear contour that extends from one side of the opening to an opposite side of the opening (fig. 9, vertically in the figure); wherein the valve seat includes a seating surface (the surface of 26 at the peak of the seating area, shown at numeral 26 in fig. 11) extending along the linear contour (fig. 9); and wherein a transition region between the seating surface and a surface of one of the valve chambers includes a faceted geometry (the region between the valve seating surface and the lower are of 56 and 58 has faceted portions such as 84, 82, and the curved portions at 102, 104, 106, etc., the curved portions being considered chamfers per paragraph 48 of the applicant’s specification which, together, form a faceted geometry per paragraph 44 of the applicant’s specification which states the faceted geometry is chamfered surface geometry).
Regarding claim 11, Buerkert further discloses wherein the faceted geometry includes a plurality of chamfers (the curvatures at 106, 104, and 102, which, per applicant’s specification at paragraph 48, can be curved).
Regarding claim 12, Buerkert further discloses wherein, in a longitudinal section along a central longitudinal axis of one of the process fluid channels (horizontal axis), an obtuse angle between the seating surface and an adjacent chamfer (from the horizontal seating surface to 106) is greater than an obtuse angle between the surface of the valve chamber and an adjacent chamfer (at 102, as the area of the chamfer at 102 is steeper, which, when measured from the horizontal axis at the 180 degree mark, will be a greater obtuse angle than at the area of 106).
Regarding claim 15, Buerkert discloses a diaphragm valve comprising: a valve body according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above) ;a valve diaphragm (20) configured to close the opening of the valve body; a drive rod (24) coupled to the valve diaphragm; and a drive mechanism coupled to the drive rod and configured to move the drive rod along an adjusting axis (not particularly depicted but necessarily present in order to move the drive rod).
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) 7 and 12-14, claims 13-14 as far as it is definite, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buerkert.
Buerkert discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose wherein the central portion of the recess, measured perpendicular to the first central longitudinal axis, is at least half as large as a diameter of the process fluid channel.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Buerkert such that the central portion of the recess, measured perpendicular to the first central longitudinal axis, is at least half as large as a diameter of the process fluid channel, since it has been held that a change of relative size of a component generally involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.04. The motivation for doing so would be to have the central portion of the recess be of a size to accommodate a particular desired amount of fluid flow for a particular application desired by a user.
Regarding claim 12, in the event applicant is not convinced that Buerkert discloses wherein, in a longitudinal section along a central longitudinal axis of one of the process fluid channels, an obtuse angle between the seating surface and an adjacent chamfer is greater than an obtuse angle between the surface of the valve chamber and an adjacent chamfer, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Buerkert such that wherein, in a longitudinal section along a central longitudinal axis of one of the process fluid channels, an obtuse angle between the seating surface and an adjacent chamfer is greater than an obtuse angle between the surface of the valve chamber and an adjacent chamfer, since it has been held that a change of relative size/shape of a component generally involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.04. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a particularly desired flow pattern through the valve, such as more laminar flow, by a user for a particular application.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Buerkert discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the transition region parallel to the central longitudinal axis of one of the process fluid channels is dimensioned larger than the seating surface.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Buerkert such that wherein the transition region parallel to the central longitudinal axis of one of the process fluid channels is dimensioned larger than the seating surface, since it has been held that a change of relative size/shape of a component generally involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.04. The motivation for doing so would be to have the central portion of the recess be of a size to accommodate a particular desired amount of fluid flow and/or fluid flow pattern for a particular application desired by a user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hagbi et al. (U.S. 12,650,174) discloses a diaphragm valve with various surface shapes/contours for the fluid passages leading to and from the valve seat.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R REID whose telephone number is (313)446-4859. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-5pm est.
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 can be reached by phone. Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607, or Ken 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, 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.
/MICHAEL R REID/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights