DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-8 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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because “72,” which is supposed to designate a chamber defined by the cavities 36, 49 of the male valve body 30 and female valve body 48 apparently points to different structures other than said chamber in Figs. 3-5. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraph 42, “210” designating the pin, should be changed to --220--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 1, “a pumper fire trucks” should be changed to --a pumper fire truck--.
In claim 4, “wherein positioning pin” should be changed to --wherein the positioning pin--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8 are rejected (wherein claims 3-8 inherit their rejections due to their dependencies) 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 1 recites the limitation "the first cavity" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As understood, this is the first recitation of the structure, so “the” should be changed to --a--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the valve body" in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As understood, the recitation refers to the valve housing.
In claims 1 and 2, it is unclear what the relative angles recited refer to, including the first angle, the second angle, “0 degrees,” “180 degrees,” and “30 degrees,” because the angle formed by the bend in the housing portions 210, 211 would remain the same regardless of the relative rotational positions of the housing portions 210, 211, and the recitations of the angles do not recite a reference point/position with which the angles are related. As understood from the recitations of the relative positions of the first coupling to the second coupling being 0 degrees, 15 degrees, 30 degrees, and 180 degrees, the angles refer to relative rotational positions of parts/housing portions/couplings. Furthermore, it is unclear how changing the relative position of the first coupling to the second coupling from 0 degrees to 180 degrees, causes the first coupling to be positioned “at twice the first angle relative to the second coupling.”
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.
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 1-4 and 8 (as understood: all) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Istre, Jr. (US 7,040,339) in view of Wolford (US 1,857,420).
Regarding claim 1, Istre discloses in Figs. 1-5 an adjustable automatic inlet suction valve used with a pumper fire trucks (abstract), comprising:
a valve housing having a male body portion 30 and a female body portion 48 defining a chamber 72;
a first coupling 32/39’/39’’ on the male body portion 30 for coupling with a source of water and a second coupling 18/20 on the female body member 48 for coupling with a pumper booster tank on the fire truck;
a valve element 104 in the first cavity 36, the valve element 104 being seated against a valve seat 107 adjacent to the first coupling 32/39’/39’’ via a biasing spring 106;
a valve support 74 with an axial hole 102 therethrough, the valve support 74 being disposed in the chamber 72, the valve support 74 having openings (between struts 75, 76, 77) therethrough allowing water to flow freely;
a valve stem 100 connected to the valve element 104 and extending back through the axial hole 102 in the valve support 74;
a drain valve (comprising either of valves 121, 132, like the applicant’s valves 121/132/221/222) through a lower portion of the valve housing (because the valve can be oriented in any orientation and still function) to drain water from the valve body; and
a vent valve (comprising either of valves 121, 132, like the applicant’s valves 121/132/221/222) through the valve housing to selectively permit passage of air wherein the female body portion 48 is disposed at a first angle with respect to the second coupling 18/20 (wherein the first angle refers to an angle of the relative rotational position of the female body portion 48 to the second coupling 18/20).
Istre lacks the body portions being joined with a rotatable element to permit relative rotation, and the male body portion is disposed at the first angle with respect to the rotatable element and is configured to be rotationally positioned in a first position where the first coupling is at 0 degrees relative to the second coupling and a second position 180 degrees from the first position where the first coupling is at twice the first angle relative to the second coupling.
Wolford teaches in Figs. 1-9 body portions (25, B) being joined with a rotatable element (comprising collars 9, 10 and any other structures used to connect the body portions 25, B, like the applicant’s alleged rotatable element 224 used in the bayonet-style coupling halves/body portions 210, 211) to permit relative rotation (during coupling, like the applicant’s body portions 210, 211 and alleged rotatable element 224 in said coupling), and the male body portion (comprising either of the coupling halves 25, B because “male” is broadly seen as a name for the structure and not necessarily defining structure or function) is disposed at the first angle with respect to the rotatable element (wherein the first angle refers to an angle of the relative rotational position of the female body portion 25/B to the second coupling comprising teeth 30 or the conduit attached to the teeth 30 on the second body portion 25/B) and is configured to be rotationally positioned in a first position where the first coupling (comprising the teeth 30 on either of the coupling halves B, 25, or the conduit to which the teeth 30 connect) is at 0 degrees relative to the second coupling (wherein the position pin 11 is disposable in a first one of the two holes 3) and a second position 180 degrees from the first position where the first coupling is at twice the first angle relative to the second coupling (because the body portions 25, B are lockable in either of four rotary positions, as indicated by the four holes 3 located 90 degrees from each other, which includes two holes 3 located 180 degrees from each other).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve disclosed by Istre to include a rotatable element that joins the male and female body portions while permitting relative rotation, as Wolford teaches, as a coupling method that is quicker to perform than the use of the plurality of bolts disclosed by Istre.
Regarding claim 2, Wolford teaches in Figs. 1-9 that the first angle is 15 degrees (i.e. an arbitrary portion of a first part being 15 degrees relative to an arbitrary portion of a second part about an axis of rotation passing through the two parts) such that the first and second couplings are configured to be rotationally positioned at either 0 degrees or 30 degrees (because the body portions 25, B, on which the first and second couplings are located, can be rotated either 0 degrees or 30 degrees during the coupling or uncoupling process, which is the same process in which the applicant’s parts are understood to be rotated).
Regarding claim 3, Wolford teaches in Figs. 1-9 that a positioning pin 11 on the male body portion 25 (which is similar to the applicant’s “sexless” portion 211 on which the positioning pin 220 is disposed and which similarly comprises interior lugs for coupling with exterior lugs on the other “sexless” portion 211) is configured to engage holes 3 180 degrees apart from one another on the female body portion B (which is similar to the applicant’s “sexless” portion 210 with holes to receive the positioning pin 220 on the other coupling portion 211).
Regarding claim 4, Wolford discloses in Figs. 1-9 that the positioning pin 11 is spring-biased (via spring 15).
Regarding claim 8, Wolford teaches in Figs. 1-9 that relative rotation between the male body portion and the female body portion is provided by a sexless joint (in the same manner as the applicant’s device, which comprises one portion with external lugs 210 that fit into another portion 211 with internal lugs) that permits joining in the first and second positions.
Claim 5 (as understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Istre in view of Wolford, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sime (US 3,566,907).
Regarding claim 5, Istre discloses a valve housing, as previously discussed, but lacks teaching that the valve housing includes a transparent window parallel to the valve stem, and further comprising an indicator element fixed at a first end to the valve element and including a second end visible through the transparent window to indicate a position of the valve element.
Sime teaches in Figs. 8-10 the valve housing includes a transparent window 93 parallel to the valve stem 71, and further comprising an indicator element 80, 91 fixed at a first end to the valve element 68, 73 and including a second end visible through the transparent window 93 to indicate a position of the valve element 68, 73.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve housing in the combination of Istre and Wolford to include a transparent window with which the position of the valve element can be indicated via an indicator element 80, 91 fixed to the valve element, as Sime teaches (col. 5, lines 18-20), so the user can know the position and status of the valve at any time, and know whether or not the valve is operating as intended.
Claim 7 (as understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Istre in view of Wolford, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kinzie (US 2,269,671).
Regarding claim 7, Istre discloses an axial hole, as previously discussed, but lacks teaching that the axial hole includes a self-lubricating bushing.
Kinzie teaches in Fig. 1 an axial hole (in the valve support 11 for the valve stem 12) including a self-lubricating bushing 13.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the axial hole in the combination of Istre and Wolford to include a self-lubricating bushing, as Kinzie teaches, to facilitate smooth and consistent reciprocation of the valve stem through the valve support.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 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: the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious, in combination with the other limitations recited in claim 6, that the transparent window includes graduations indicative of flow rate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Jonathan Waddy, whose telephone number is 571-270-3146. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (10:00AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. 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. 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.
/J. W./
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KEVIN F MURPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights