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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/3/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There is insufficient support for “devoid of any flange protruding from said free ends”. Although Applicant does not illustrate a flange in the drawings, drawings alone are not seen as capable of providing sufficient support for a negative limitation, because by their nature they can illustrate only what is present, rather than what is absent (that is to say, an absence can not be drawn). Moreover, Applicant’s absence of a disclosure in the written description of this feature is seen as evidence of Applicant’s absence of contemplation of that feature, at least as much as it is seen as evidence of Applicant’s contemplation of that feature’s absence.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 13-15 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 6,178,638) in view of Gillen (US 5,673,896).
1. A ball valve, comprising:
- a body (2) delimiting an internal cavity (the space therein),
- a plug (1) configured to be permanently connected to said body (via 132, 2111) for partially closing said internal cavity,
said body (2) being configured to (the following element is not positively recited, but rather defines a capability of the body) house in said internal cavity a ball shutter (such as ball valve E, FIG 6) which can be rotated around an actuation axis (such as by using a handle at 3),
wherein said body (2) comprises a first connecting element (read as the entirety of 2 as similarly required of claim 2; alternatively read as the right side of 2 which forms 22, as shown in FIG 5) configured as a hollow tubular element in fluid communication with said ball shutter,
and wherein said plug (1) comprises a second connecting element (read as the entirety of 1 as similarly required of claim 2; alternatively the right side of 1, FIG 5) configured as a hollow tubular element which, when said plug is constrained to said body (via 132, 2111), is in fluid communication with said ball shutter (see the common flow path therethrough),
wherein said body (2) and said first connecting element together define a monobloc and continuous body without welds (see FIGS 5, 6, monobloc and continuous with no welds illustrated) formed by a single lost-wax molding process (product-by-process limitation does not define over the unitary structure of the body and first connecting element) and wherein said plug (1) and said second connecting element define together a monobloc and continuous body without welds (see FIGS 5, 6, monobloc and continuous with no welds illustrated) formed by a single lost-wax molding process (product-by-process limitation does not define over the unitary structure of the plug and second connecting element), and
wherein
an axial length of the first connecting element (from left to right sides thereof, FIG 5) is longer than a diameter of the first connecting element (read as either: a) the outside diameter of 2 taken to the left of the connecting flange, or b) the diameter of 22 which is an inside diameter of the first connecting element), and
an axial length of the second connecting element (from left to right sides thereof, FIG 5) is longer than a diameter of the second connecting element (read as either: a) the outside diameter of 1 taken to the right of the connecting flange, or b) the diameter of 11 which is an inside diameter of the second connecting element).
Wu discloses said body and plug to be made of metal (e.g., see the hatching pattern), but does not specifically discuss the body and plug to be made of steel. Gillen teaches that it was known in the art before the effective filing date to form a similar body and plug of steel (col. 6 lines 19-22). In order to create a reliable, strong, and/or corrosion-resistant rendition of Wu’s valve, it would have been obvious to form the body and plug of steel, as claimed by Applicant and taught by Gillen.
4. The ball valve according to claim 1, wherein said first connecting element and said second connecting element protrude from opposite ends (right and left) of said valve (see FIG 6), mutually aligned along a flow direction (from left to right, as seen in FIG 6).
6. The ball valve according to claim 1, wherein said first connecting element has a connecting portion (the left side of 2, FIG 5) which extends for at least a portion of said first connecting element, wherein said connecting portion has an external diameter and a smaller thickness with respect to an external diameter and to a thickness of said first connecting element along a section without said connecting portion (the left side of 2 has a lip which engages with 1, where this lip is thinner and has a smaller outside diameter than the rest of 2).
13. The ball valve according to claim 1, wherein said first connecting element (of 2) configured as said hollow tubular element is further configured as an elongated hollow tubular element (it is considered elongated in comparison to a shorter piece which does not extend as far along the axis of the flow channel).
14. The ball valve according to claim 1, wherein said second connecting element (of 1) configured as said hollow tubular element is further configured as an elongated hollow tubular element (it is considered elongated in comparison to a shorter piece which does not extend as far along the axis of the flow channel).
Regarding claim 15, see the analyses of claims 13 and 14 above.
Regarding claims 18-20, Wu discloses flanges at the free ends of the body and plug. However Gillen teaches that it was known in the art before the effective filing date to form a similar body and plug which are devoid of any flange and shaped as cylindrical tubes (e.g., see FIG 3, where the plug uses threads 46 at the free end and the body uses connector 59 at the free end). To allow quick attachment of non-flanged piping to the free ends of Wu’s body and plug, it would have been obvious to use non-flanged free ends of Wu’s body and plug that are shaped as cylindrical tubes, as claimed by Applicant and similarly taught by Gillen.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 13-15 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuhrmann (US 2014/0021176) in view of Wu, and alternatively over Fuhrmann in view of Wu and further in view of Gillen.
Regarding claim 1, Fuhrmann discloses a ball valve comprising:
- a body (12) delimiting an internal cavity (the space therein),
- a plug (10) configured to be permanently connected to said body (via 14, 16) for partially closing said internal cavity,
said body (12) being configured to house in said internal cavity a ball shutter (such as that labeled in the annotated Figure below) which can be rotated around an actuation axis (such as the dotted vertical line therethrough),
wherein said body (12) comprises a first connecting element configured as a hollow tubular element in fluid communication with said ball shutter (see annotated Figure below), and
wherein said plug (10) comprises a second connecting element configured as a hollow tubular element which (see annotated Figure below), when said plug is constrained to said body (via 14, 16), is in fluid communication with said ball shutter (see the common flow path therethrough), and
wherein said body (12) and said first connecting element together define a monobloc and continuous body without welds (see annotated Figure below, which discloses a monobloc and continuous body no welds between the body and first connecting element) formed by a single lost-wax molding process (product-by-process limitation does not define over the unitary structure of the body and first connecting element) and wherein said plug (12) and said second connecting element define together a monobloc and continuous body without welds (see annotated Figure below, which shows a monobloc and continuous body no welds between the plug and second connecting element) formed by a single lost-wax molding process (product-by-process limitation does not define over the unitary structure of the plug and second connecting element) (note that the presence of weld 14 between Fuhrmann’s body and the plug does not negate these features, just as Applicant discloses a weld 22 between the body and plug which does not negate these features),
Furhrmann does not disclose an axial length of the first connecting element is longer than a diameter of the first connecting element and an axial length of the second connecting element is longer than a diameter of the second connecting element, however Wu teaches that it was known in the art before the effective filing date to form connecting elements with these features (see the anticipation analysis of claim 1 above, over Wu). To reduce the diameter of Fuhrmann’s valve and thereby reduce material costs, or to increase the axial length of Fuhrmann’s valve and thereby span a larger distance without the need for additional piping, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form an axial length of Fuhrmann’s first connecting element to be longer than a diameter of the first connecting element and an axial length of the second connecting element to be longer than a diameter of the second connecting element, as claimed and taught by Wu.
Fuhrmann also does not disclose where the body and plug are made of steel. However steel was well-known in the art before the effective filing date (taken as admitted prior art because Applicant did not adequately traverse the prior assertion of well-known status, per MPEP 2144.03 C), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form Fuhrmann’s body and plug from steel as claimed for the purpose of creating a strong and durable valve. Alternatively, should it be determined for whatever reason that Applicant did not admit as prior art forming the body and plug of steel, then see Gillen, which teaches that it was known in the art before the effective filing date to form a similar body and plug of steel (col. 6 lines 19-22). In order to create a reliable, strong, and/or corrosion-resistant rendition of Fuhrmann’s valve, it would have been obvious to form the body and plug of steel, as claimed by Applicant and taught by Gillen.
PNG
media_image1.png
803
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
3. Ball valve according to claim 1, wherein said body (12) and said plug (10) are mutually sealed by means of a circumferential welding (14).
4. Ball valve according to claim 1, wherein said first connecting element and said second connecting element protrude from opposite ends of said valve (see annotated Figure above), mutually aligned along a flow direction (from left to right, as seen in the annotated Figure).
6. Ball valve according to clam 1, wherein said first connecting element has a connecting portion which extends for at least a portion of said first connecting element (see annotated Figure 1 above), wherein said connecting portion has an external diameter and a smaller thickness with respect to an external diameter and to a thickness of said first connecting element along a section without said connecting portion (see annotated Figure above, where the first connecting element includes a portion toward the ball shutter which is thicker than the connecting portion thereof).
13. The ball valve according to claim 1, wherein said first connecting element configured as said hollow tubular element (see annotated FIG above) is further configured as an elongated hollow tubular element (it is considered elongated in comparison to a shorter piece which does not extend as far along the axis of the flow channel).
14. The ball valve according to claim 1, wherein said second connecting element configured as said hollow tubular element (see annotated FIG above) is further configured as an elongated hollow tubular element (it is considered elongated in comparison to a shorter piece which does not extend as far along the axis of the flow channel).
Regarding claim 15, see the analyses of claims 13 and 14 above.
Regarding claims 18-20, see the obviousness analysis of claim 1 above which results in the modification of Fuhrmann such that an axial length of the first connecting element is longer than a diameter of the first connecting element and an axial length of the second connecting element is longer than a diameter of the second connecting element. Note that this modification does not involve importation of Wu’s flanges onto Fuhrmann’s connecting portions. Accordingly, the free ends of the body and plug would continue to be devoid of any flange and shaped as cylindrical tubes.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Gillen as set forth above and further in view of either Sav (GB 2 573 776 A) or Rodriguez (US 2016/0238138); and alternatively over Fuhrmann taken with Wu (with or without Gillen) as set forth above and further In view of Sav or Rodriguez.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Wu in view of Gillen (alternatively, Fuhrmann taken with Wu with or without Gillen) disclose (render obvious) the invention as claimed with exception to a hydraulic connecting element which extends from and is in fluid communication with the first connecting element, and which together form a monobloc body without welds. Both of Sav (FIG 2, para. 0062) and Rodriguez 8 (Figs 4-9, para. 0031) each independently teach that it was known in the art before the effective filing date to form a hydraulic connecting element which extends from and is in fluid communication with a similar first connecting element, and which together form a monobloc body without welds. To measure a fluid parameter or otherwise access the fluid in Wu’s or Fuhrmann’s conduit, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to form a hydraulic connecting element which extends from and is in fluid communication with the first connecting element, and which together form a monobloc body without welds, as claimed by Applicant and disclosed by either of Sav and Rodriguez.
Regarding claim 10, each of Sav and Rodriguez further teach said at least one hydraulic connecting element to be made along a section without the connecting portion, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to do the same in either Wu’s device or Fuhrmann’s device in order to ensure fluid communication to the hydraulic connecting element after connection to a pipe (so the inserted pipe doesn’t extend over the hole and block fluid communication through the hydraulic connecting element).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Gillen as set forth above and further in view of Sav; and alternatively over Fuhrmann in view of Wu (with or without Gillen) as set forth above and further in view of Sav.
Regarding claim 11, see the analysis of claim 8 above which relies on Sav (not Rodriquez). Further, Sav teaches a closing element (85, 86) configured to be connected to a free end of said at least one hydraulic connecting element and to seal it off. To prevent entry of dirt and debris into Wu’s or Fuhrmann’s system, it would have been obvious to include a closing element with the hydraulic connecting element, as claimed by Applicant and taught by Sav.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the drawings showing support for a negative limitation are not persuasive. A drawing can only show what is present, not what is absent. What is more, the written description makes no mention of the absence of a flange. In fact there was no explicit mention of an absent flange until the time came for Applicant to overcome the prior art that has flanges.
Applicant argues that the references do not teach a monobloc body. In response, Applicant is arguing more than what is claimed and disclosed in the Application. Applicant’s body (which includes a “first connecting element” as a part thereof) is disclosed and claimed to be “monobloc” itself, and Applicant’s plug (which includes a “second connecting element” as a part thereof) is separately disclosed and claimed to be “monobloc” itself. Applicant’s body is formed separately from, and then connected to the plug, by a weld (22), much the same as Fuhrmann’s monobloc body (12) is connected to a monobloc plug (10) by a weld at 16, for example, and much the same as Wu’s monobloc body (2) is connected to a monobloc plug (1) by threads at 132, for example.
Note that the limitation “formed by lost-wax molding” is similar to the “monobloc” and “without welds” limitations, in that it defines either the body or the plug, and therefore does not structurally define over the prior art.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM M MCCALISTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1869. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 7am to 6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CRAIG SCHNEIDER, can be reached at telephone number 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.
/WILLIAM M MCCALISTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
8/6/26
Prosecution Insights