DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-17 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
EP 4264092, cited in the IDS filed 9/4/2025, was not considered because a copy of the reference was not provided.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the figure numbers should be on the same page as their corresponding figures (see Figs. 3, 5, 7, and 9). 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 6, 9, 12, 14, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 9, “it” should be changed to --the at least one locking element--.
In claim 1, line 10, “it” should be changed to --the at least one locking element--.
In claim 2, line 1, “the or” should be deleted.
In claim 3, line 1, “the or” should be deleted.
In claim 6, line 1, “the or” should be deleted.
In claim 6, line 1, “have an” should be changed to --has an--.
In claim 9, line 2, “through it” should be changed to --therethrough-- or --through the thinned portion--.
In claim 12, lines 2-3, “at least two” should be changed to --each of at least two--.
In claim 14, line 3, “these barrels” should be changed to --the barrels--.
In claim 17, line 6, “a new one” should be changed to --a new diaphragm--.
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 9 and 13-16 are rejected (wherein claims 15-16 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.
In claim 9, line 3, it is unclear which of the locking elements antecedently recited “the locking element” refers to. As understood, the recitation refers to respective locking elements of the thinned portions of the two locking elements, so it is suggested that recitation be changed to --respective locking elements--.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the articulation" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As understood, this is the first recitation of the feature, so “the” should be changed to --an--, and the articulation refers to the articulation/pivoting of the locking elements 15.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the axis of the fastening element" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As understood, this is the first recitation of the feature, so “the axis” should be changed to --an axis--.
In claim 14, it is unclear what is specifically being claimed by the recitation of “screws of the ISO CHC standard,” standards may change. As understood, the standards recited refer to current standards, however, for clarity and in case of changes to standards, specific dimensions should be recited.
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 1-8, 10-11, and 13 (as understood: 13) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwetz et al. (US 2015/0354718) in view of Matalon (US 2022/0128162).
Regarding claim 1, Schwetz discloses in Figs. 2, 4, and 6 a valve comprising:
- a valve body 28 with openings (comprising recesses 52 for tongues 50 of the diaphragm 20, and/or the openings at the top and bottom of the body 28) passing through it,
- a shut-off diaphragm 20,
- a cap 10 attached to the shut-off diaphragm 20,
- a plurality of fastening elements 94 fastened to the cap 10 (whether by monolithic construction or by being separate “screws” fastened to the cap 10, paragraph 55), each having a head extending beyond a corresponding opening of the valve body 28 (because the heads of two fastening elements 94 extend beyond respective openings 52 of the body 28, relative to the rest of said two fastening elements 94, or because the heads extend beyond a common corresponding opening of the valve body 28 that consists of one of the openings 52 or the bottom, central opening of the valve body 28), and
- at least one locking element (comprising bayonet cap 30, or the individual hooks 90 on the bayonet cap 30) for at least one of said fastening elements 94, held captive on the valve body 28, able to move between an unlocked position in which it 30/90 allows the passage of the head of the one or more corresponding fastening elements 94 and a locked position in which it 30/90 engages beneath the head of the one or more fastening elements 94 to allow the fastening of the cap 10 on the valve body 28.
Schwetz lacks teaching that the fastening elements are able to be tightened, such that tightening of the one or more fastening elements fastens the cap on the valve body.
Matalon teaches in Figs. 1-5 fastening elements 46 that are able to be tightened (paragraphs 21), such that tightening of the one or more fastening elements 46 fastens the cap 40 on the valve body (comprising any of the structures above the diaphragm 50).
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 fastening elements disclosed by Schwetz to be separately formed from the cap, such that fastening elements can be tightened, as Matalon teaches (paragraph 21), so that the assembly is more modular, which makes replacement of a damaged fastening element easier.
Regarding claim 2, Schwetz discloses in Figs. 2, 4, and 6 that the or each locking element 30/90 is mounted so as to be able to slide on the valve body 28 (wherein “slide” is broadly interpreted as relative movement of one structure adjacent to another structure, which is shown for the locking element(s) 30/90 rotating adjacent to the valve body 28 in Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 3, Schwetz discloses in Figs. 2, 4, and 6 that the or each locking element 30/90 is arranged to engage simultaneously beneath the heads of two fastening elements 94 in the locked position.
Regarding claim 4, Schwetz discloses in Figs. 2, 4, and 6 four fastening elements 94 disposed in pairs on either side of a bulge (comprising the central, vertical pillar of the valve body 28 that extends along the spindle 72) of the valve body 28 (such as left and right sides of said central, vertical pillar of the valve body 28, or on the left and right halves of said cylindrical pillar), each locking element 90 being mounted on one side of said bulge.
Regarding claim 5, Schwetz discloses in Figs. 2, 4, and 6 that the locking elements 90 are mounted symmetrically (as much as the applicant’s locking elements 15, which aren’t physically symmetrical, but are symmetrically distributed) with respect to a longitudinal axis of the valve (comprising a central axis extending through the central bore of the valve body 28 and along the longitudinal axis of the spindle 72, like the applicant’s longitudinal axis X).
Regarding claim 6, Schwetz discloses at least one locking element, as previously discussed, but lacks each locking element have an opening allowing the passage of the head of one of the fastening elements in the unlocked position.
Matalon teaches in Figs. 1-5 each locking element 12/250 have an opening 255 allowing the passage of the head 210 of one of the fastening elements 46 in the unlocked position (paragraph 22).
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 locking element(s) disclosed by Schwetz to be formed with an opening through which the head can pass in the unlocked position such that the locking element(s) still surround a portion of the head of the fastening element(s), as taught by Matalon, to provide greater protection for fastening element(s), even in the unlocked position, including against damage and tampering.
Regarding claim 7, Schwetz discloses in Figs. 2, 4, and 6 that the locking element 30/90 is mounted so as to rotate on the valve body 28.
Regarding claim 8, Schwetz discloses in Figs. 2, 4, and 6 that there two locking elements 90 mounted so as to rotate about a common axis of rotation (comprising the axis of rotation of bayonet cap 30).
Regarding claim 10, Schwetz discloses in Figs. 2, 4, and 6 that there are two pairs of locking elements 90 disposed on either side of a bulge (comprising the central, vertical pillar of the valve body 28 that extends along the spindle 72) of the valve body 28 (such as left and right sides of said central, vertical pillar of the valve body 28, or on the left and right halves of said cylindrical pillar).
Regarding claim 11, Schwetz discloses in Figs. 2, 4, and 6 that the locking element 30/90 is arranged to engage simultaneously beneath all the heads of the fastening elements 94.
Regarding claim 13, Schwetz discloses in Figs. 2, 4, and 6 that the locking element 30/90 has, at at least one opening 92 intended to receive a fastening element 94 to be locked.
Schwetz lacks the locking element having a retaining relief opposing a movement of the locking element towards the unlocked position, wherein said retaining relief is formed by the contour of a counterbore centred on the axis of the fastening element and of sufficient diameter to receive said head.
Matalon teaches in Figs. 1-5 a retaining relief 280 opposing a movement of the locking element 12/250 towards the unlocked position, wherein said retaining relief 280 is formed by the contour of a counterbore 280 centred on the axis of the fastening element 46 and of sufficient diameter to receive said head 210.
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 locking elements in the combination of Schwetz and Matalon to include retaining reliefs in the form of counterbores centered on respective fastening elements in the locked position to receive the head of the respective fastening heads, as Matalon teaches, so that the heads are surrounded and less likely to be unintendedly tightened/untightened.
Claim 14 (as understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwetz in view of Matalon, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Naor et al. (US 2019/0257438).
Regarding claim 14, Schwetz and Matalon teach a cap and diaphragm, as previously discussed, but lacks teaching that the cap has internally tapped barrels, passing through corresponding holes in the diaphragm, and the fastening elements being screws of the ISO CHC standard, screwed into these barrels.
With regard to the barrels, Naor teaches in Figs. 1-10 the cap 22 has internally tapped barrels 70, passing through corresponding holes in the diaphragm 35 (Fig. 7B), and into which fastening elements are screwed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the cap in the combination of Schwetz and Matalon to include internally tapped barrels that pass through corresponding holes in the diaphragm, as Naor teaches, to guide the fastening elements through the diaphragm so that they don’t damage diaphragm.
With regard to the recitation of “the fastening elements being screws of the ISO CHC standard, screwed into these barrels,” such a limitations is seen as being indefinite, as discussed in the corresponding 112 rejection above, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the fastening elements used in the combination of Schwetz, Matalon, and Naor be made according to common engineering standards, including ISO CHC standards, to conform to best practices in the industry for an engineered product, and which can also be used for advertising the product.
Claim 15 (as understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwetz in view of Matalon and Naor, as applied to claim 14 above, and taken with Ozagir et al. (US 4,884,834).
Regarding claim 15, Naor teaches barrels, as previously, but is silent with regard to the shape of the free end(s) of the barrels, including whether the barrels have a free end of frustoconical shape.
Ozagir teaches in Figs. 3-4 a barrel 1 having a free end (with spring fingers 8) of frustoconical shape (as shown in the drawings).
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 free end of the barrels in the combination of Schwetz, Matalon, and Naor to be frustoconical shape, as Ozagir teaches, an obvious shape for the barrel because Naor is silent with regard to such detail. Furthermore, the frustoconical shape provides a chamfered surface that one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize as being useful for preventing snagging and/or causing damage when assembling the diaphragm and valve body to the cap, such as the diaphragm catching on a corner of barrel and tearing.
Claim 16 (as understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwetz in view of Matalon and Naor, as applied to claim 14 above, and taken with Singer (US 3,076,475).
Regarding claim 16, Naor teaches a barrel extending from the cap, as previously discussed, but Schwetz, Matalon, and Naor, lack teaching that barrels are made in a single piece monolithically with the cap.
Singer teaches in Figs. 1-2 a barrel 39 made in a single piece monolithically with a first structure 34 (col. 2, lines 32-45) layered with a diaphragm 51 and another structured 18 layered on the side of the diaphragm 51 from the first structure 34, like the cap and valve body disclosed by Schwetz.
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 barrel in the combination of Schwetz, Matalon, and Naor to be monolithic with the cap, as Signer teaches with the barrel and similar structure from which it extends, as an obvious integration of parts (MPEP 2144.04(V)(B)) because the applicant merely discloses the feature without disclosing criticality (pg. 5, line 3). Furthermore, the integration of parts simplifies assembly by reducing the number of parts.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 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, and any claim objections set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 12 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objections 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:
regarding claim 9, the thinned portions of the locking elements are superposed at an articulation while at the same time allowing the locking elements to pivot in one and the same plane;
regarding claim 12, the locking element has, when viewed from below, the overall shape of an H, with four branches and a central articulation, at least two diametrically opposite branches having a notch arranged to allow the passage of the head of a corresponding fastening element via an axial movement, all the branches having a generally U-shaped opening defining a support for the head of a respective fastening element once the locking element has been brought into the locked position; and
regarding claim 17, the fastening elements pass through the openings of the valve body.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Eldrige (US 558,050) teaches in Figs. 1-3 unscrewing fastening elements (B) in less than ten turn to release fastened structures (A, D) (pg. 1, lines 60-62).
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
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights