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 .
Status of the claims
Claim(s) 14, 18 is/are amended. Currently claims 1-25 are pending in this application.
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) 1-6, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Houston (4671313).
Regarding claim 1, Houston discloses valve comprising: a valve body defining a valve port 28 and a guide channel (path of gate 18 and stem 22); a gate 18 configured to slide along the guide channel in the valve body between an open configuration and a closed configuration; a guide assembly comprising a track 76,72,36 mounted in the guide channel and configured to couple a portion 40 of the gate in the guide channel, the track comprising an adjustment plate 36 (adjusting clearance 38 by means of shims, col 3, line 3-7) coupled to the track 76,72; and a seat 48 that engages and seals the gate in the closed configuration.
As to claim 2, Houston discloses guide assembly as a first guide assembly (left side assembly in Fig 2), and the guide channel is a first guide channel (left side portion of valve movement path in Fig 2), further comprising a second guide channel (right side portion of valve movement path in Fig 2) in the valve body oriented opposite from the first guide channel, wherein a second guide assembly (right side assembly in Fig 2) comprising a track 76,72,36 is mounted in the second guide channel, and wherein the first guide assembly is oriented opposite from the second guide assembly.
As to claim 3, Houston discloses a stem 22 coupled to the gate and configured to attach to an actuator 12, wherein the adjustment plate 36 extends in a horizontal direction (when oriented such that stem 22 is horizontal) and supports the gate 18 when the gate moves from the open configuration to the closed configuration.
As to claim 4, Houston discloses sealed bonnet (right side portion of valve body in Fig 1 seen as sealing the valve from that side) coupled to the valve body and capturing a stem 22,20 coupled to the gate, wherein the sealed bonnet receives the gate 18 (gate moves rightward in Fig 1 in open configuration) in the open configuration and is configured to maintain a fluid-tight seal (valve housing is sealing upstream side of valve body from the downstream side of valve body in closed position) the between the gate 18 and the valve body in the closed configuration.
As to claim 5, the guide assembly further comprises fasteners 56 that couple the adjustment plate 36 to the track 76,72, and wherein the fasteners 56 are evenly spaced along a length of the adjustment plate (shown in Fig 3).
As to claim 6, a base plate (shim for adjustment, col 3 line 3-7) is interposed between and coupled to the track 76,72 and the adjustment plate 36.
As to claim 12, a guide cap (liner 20 over valve disc shown in Fig 6) is coupled to the gate and configured to slidably seal the gate with the adjustment plate 36 of the track.
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.
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houston (4671313).
As to claims 8, Houston fails to disclose track, the base plate, and the adjustment plate made of stainless steel. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made track, the base plate, and the adjustment plate in the device disclosed by Houston using stainless steel since it has been held that selecting a particular known material is within the general skill of a worker in the art on the basis of its suitability for the intended as a material of obvious design choice use based upon particular application requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 14-25 is/are allowed. Claim(s) 7, 9-11, 13 is/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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Houston that “Houston fails to define what reference element 48 is in the description. It may be understood from FIG. 6 below and the written description that element 48 is related to element 46 due to its proximity and likeness to element 46, which is disclosed as a refractory material. Thus, as shown in the figures, element 48 is not a seat because it does not appear to engage the gate nor does it seal the gate” are not persuasive since the function of throat (reference 32) is described as a gate or disc … movable … to open, close or partly open or close the throat of the slide valve. As such the throat performs the function of flow opening/closing in conjunction with valve gate. Since element 48 (seen in Fig 6 to be in contact with gate 20) is the closest part of throat (48 is labeled as 44 in Specification), it provides the function of sealing seat of the gate.
Applicant’s arguments regarding zzz that “Houston teaches a slide valve made of steel that may be subjected to more heat and higher temperatures. Therefore, Houston is not an "instant and unquestionable demonstration as to defy dispute" that stainless steel tracks, base plates, and adjustment plates for a fluid utility line gate valve are well known in the art. For the foregoing specific and particular reasons, it is not well known in the art to use a track, base plate, or adjustment plate made of stainless steel” are not persuasive since nothing in Houston teaches against using stainless steel and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made track, the base plate, and the adjustment plate in the device disclosed by Houston using stainless steel since it has been held that selecting a particular known material is within the general skill of a worker in the art on the basis of its suitability for the intended as a material of obvious design choice use based upon particular application requirements.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Atif Chaudry at phone number 571-270-3768. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-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 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.
/ATIF H CHAUDRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights