DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the initial filing dated 6/24/2025. Claims 1-22 are pending.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 6/24/2025 and 1/8/2026 are acknowledged and have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 6/24/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 9, 10, 13, and 15-17 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 9 recites the limitation "the clamping force transmission portions" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the plate-shaped contour" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the contact surface" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the drive carrier" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the contact surface" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-12 and 14-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roos et al. (US 20220389942).
Claim(s) 9, 10, and 15-17 will be treated as best understood in view of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above.
Regarding claim 1, the Roos et al. reference discloses a valve block body (100) comprising:
a monolithic main body (see at least figure 1 for the main body of the valve block body being monolithic) comprising:
a plurality of base portions (110a-d), each base portion including a valve seat (106a-106d) accessible via a seat opening (see at least figure 1);
a plurality of fastening portions (120a-d);
a plurality of process fluid connections (102, 104a-d);
a plurality of tubular walls (see the tubular walls that surround the process fluid connections 102, 104a-d), each tubular wall defining an interior of a process fluid channel extending from one of the seat openings toward at least one of the process fluid connections or another seat opening (see at least figure 1); and
a structure (considered the narrowed portions defined by the cut-outs 130c, 130d, 130b, 130a, 132b and 132a) that connects the base portions, the fastening portions, and the tubular walls.
Further, it is considered that the narrowing of the structure defines a “biomimetic” structure in as much as the structure (considered the narrowed portions defined by the cut-outs 130c, 130d, 130b, 130a, 132b and 132a) can be considered to be “inspired” by biological forms or patterns (see paragraph [0005] of the specification of the instant Application).
In regards to claim 2, the Roos et al. reference discloses wherein the structure has a variable density defined as a ratio of structural material to cavity per unit volume, and includes regions of increased density near the valve seats, the process fluid connections, or the fastening portions, and regions of reduced density between them (it is considered that the narrowing of the main body at the cutouts 130a-d, 132a and 132b provides the variable density as defined by a ratio of structural material to cavity per unit volume; see figure 1).
In regards to claim 3, the Roos et al. reference discloses wherein the structure includes a hierarchical support structure comprising main support elements (it is considered that the structure between the cutouts 130b, 130c and between the cutouts 130a, 130d defines a main support) that branch into smaller support structures (it is considered that the structure between the cutouts 132a, 132b defines a smaller support structure when compared to the main support) arranged in a branching pattern modeled after a tree branch structure (see figure 1).
In regards to claim 4, the Roos et al. reference discloses wherein the structure forms a three-dimensional network of interconnected structural elements configured to stabilize the tubular walls in multiple spatial directions, with the structural elements oriented along main operational force flows (it is considered that the structures (considered the narrowed portions defined by the cut-outs 130c, 130d, 130b, 130a, 132b and 132a) forms a three-dimensional network based on the shape of the block body 100 wherein the structure supports the tubular walls as depicted in figure 1).
In regards to claim 5, the Roos et al. reference discloses wherein at least two adjacent tubular walls (considered at least the tubular walls defining the ports 104a, 104b) are spaced apart by a continuous cavity (cutout 130a) such that a skeletal structure of the structure is formed between the tubular walls (it is considered that the narrowed portion defined between the cut-outs 130a and 130d is formed between the tubular walls defining the ports 104a, 104b).
In regards to claim 6, the Roos et al. reference discloses wherein the structure includes tubular support portions (at the cut-outs 130a-130d, 132a and 132b) connecting the tubular walls to the fastening portions (120a-120d) (see figure 3a).
In regards to claim 7, the Roos et al. reference discloses wherein the structure (considered the narrowed portions defined by the cut-outs 130c, 130d, 130b, 130a, 132b and 132a) includes clamping force transmission portions that connect the fastening portions (120a-d) to the base portions (110a-d) to transmit fastening forces (see at least figure 3a).
In regards to claim 8, the Roos et al. reference discloses a plurality of valve diaphragms (114a-d), each closing one of the seat openings (see figure 1).
In regards to claim 9, the Roos et al. reference discloses wherein the tubular support portions (at the cut-outs 130a-130d, 132a and 132b) and the clamping force transmission portions (considered the surfaces of the main body that interact with fastening sections 120a-120d) are formed by a network of connecting elements (it is considered that the structure between the base portions 110a-d defines a network of connecting elements) and nodes having a variable density, with higher density in regions near the fastening portions and base portions and lower density in central regions of the support and transmission portions (it is considered that the narrowing of the main body at the cutouts 130a-d, 132a and 132b provides the variable density as defined by a ratio of structural material to cavity per unit volume wherein a higher density / thickness is provided proximate the base portions 110a-d and fastening portions 120a-d and less /thinner in the central regions of the support (at the cut-outs 130a-130d, 132a and 132b); see figure 1) wherein the .
In regards to claim 10, the Roos et al. reference discloses wherein the density is further defined by the number of connecting elements per unit volume (it is considered that the structure between the base portions 110a-d defines a network of connecting elements which helps to define the density).
In regards to claim 11, the Roos et al. reference discloses a continuous or partially continuous plate-shaped contour (it is considered that the side wall of the main body of the valve block 100 in which the fluid connections 102, 104a-d defines a flat surface that is considered a plate-shaped contour) located between the process fluid connections and the base portions, wherein the plate-shaped contour is part of or adjoins the structure (see figure 1).
In regards to claim 12, the Roos et al. reference discloses wherein the fastening portions (120a-d) are arranged in a space (in the space 120a-b) between the process fluid connections and the base portions.
In regards to claim 14, the Roos et al. reference discloses wherein the monolithic main body comprises:
at least one contact surface configured to engage a drive carrier (200) (see figure 5); and
the fastening portions (120a-d) each including a clamping surface facing away from the contact surface for engaging a clamping device (220a-d), and each base portion providing at least a portion of the contact surface.
In regards to claim 15, the Roos et al. reference discloses wherein at least one clamping force transmission portion (considered the surfaces of the main body that interact with fastening sections 120a-120d) connects a fastening portion (120a-d) and an adjacent base portion (200), and the base portion provides the contact surface for engagement with [a] drive carrier (242).
In regards to claim 16, the Roos et al. reference discloses wherein the fastening portion (120a) is located between a first and a second base portion (between base portions 110a and 110b), a first clamping force transmission portion (considered the portion of the main body that extends between the fastening portion 120a and the first base portion 110a) connects the fastening portion to the first base portion, and a second clamping force transmission portion (considered the portion of the main body that extends between the fastening portion 120a and the second base portion 110b) connects the fastening portion to the second base portion.
In regards to claim 17, the Roos et al. reference discloses wherein each base portion comprises:
a valve seat (considered the surface on which the diaphragm 106a-d contacts in the closed position as depicted in figure 5);
a seat opening (218) through which the valve seat is accessible;
a diaphragm recess (see the recess in the block body 100 in which the diaphragms 106a-10d are received in figure 5) surrounding the seat opening for receiving a valve diaphragm (106a-d); and
a portion of the contact surface that at least partially surrounds the diaphragm recess (See at least figure 1 and figure 5).
In regards to claim 18, the Roos et al. reference discloses wherein the main body includes an outer housing (200) that at least partially encloses the structure.
In regards to claim 19, the Roos et al. reference discloses wherein the structure comprises a network of interconnected rod- or plate-shaped connecting elements (considered the edges of the structure at the narrowed portions defined by the cut-outs 130c, 130d, 130b, 130a, 132b and 132a that connect to the base portions 110a-d) and nodes (it is considered that the central portion of the structures at the narrowed portions defined by the cut-outs 130c, 130d, 130b, 130a, 132b and 132a defines a node), each node connecting at least two connecting elements (see figure 1).
In regards to claim 20, the Roos et al. reference discloses wherein the main body includes a suspension (220a-d) comprising a tab (the opening receiving the pin 224a-d is located on the tab) and a through-opening (considered the opening that receives the pin 224a-d) formed in the tab.
In regards to claim 21, the Roos et al. reference discloses a fitting assembly comprising:
the valve block body of claim 1 (See claim 1 above); and
a drive carrier (242) comprising a plurality of valve drives (202a-d) and a clamping device (220a-220d) having a plurality of movable clamping elements,
wherein in a first state (as depicted in schematic in figure 2a), the clamping elements release an assembly space for receiving the valve block body, and
in a second state (as depicted in schematic in figure 2b), the clamping elements apply a clamping force to the valve block body via the fastening portions (120a-d), thereby clamping the valve block body between the clamping elements and the drive carrier.
In regards to claim 22, the Roos et al. reference discloses wherein the clamping elements are actuated by a control carrier (242; it is considered that the drive carrier constitutes a control carrier supported the valve drives 202a-d) movable relative to the valve block body, the valve drives (202a-d) are rigidly mounted on the control carrier, and a clamping drive 240a-b) applies drive force to the control carrier to move it.
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.
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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roos et al. (US 20220389942).
Claim(s) 13 will be treated as best understood in view of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above.
In regards to claim 13, the Roos et al. reference discloses wherein a first volume defined by an outer shell of the base portions (considered the outer surfaces of the base portions 110a-d) and the fastening portions (120a-d) and a second volume defined by the process fluid connections (102, 104a-d) and an outer boundary of the fastening portions or by the plate-shaped contour and the outer boundary of the fastening portions (120a-d). It is considered that the first volume would have a first material-to-cavity ratio and that the second volume would have a second material-to-cavity ratio.
However, the Roos et al. reference does not expressly disclose wherein the first material-to-cavity ratio is at least 10 percent greater than the second material-to-cavity ratio.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to since it has been held that “where the only different between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimension of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In the instant case, the device of the Roos et al. reference would not operate differently with the claimed first ratio being at least 10 percent greater than the second ratio and since the amount of material of the first volume and the second volume provide the desired shape and structure of the main block and the process fluid connections to handle the desired fluid flow through the valve block body such that the device would function appropriately having the claimed the first material-to-cavity ratio is at least 10 percent greater than the second material-to-cavity ratio.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lundin et al. (WO 2020126639), McAden (US 6722388), Vu et al. (US 6394138), and Manofsky et al. (US 6068016) disclose various valve block body assemblies including a main body having a plurality of process fluid connections, and a plurality of tubular walls.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew J. Rost whose telephone number is (571) 272-2711. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 or 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 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.
/ANDREW J ROST/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights