DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 8 July 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-16 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the drawings overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 8 Jan 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1-2, 4, 7-13 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, lines 17, 19, 21, 26 and 30 “the at least two transverse passages” should likely read “the at least two of the plurality of transverse passages”.
In Claim 2, line 1 “the at least two transverse passages” should likely read “the at least two of the plurality of transverse passages”.
In Claim 4, line 1 “the at least two transverse passages” should likely read “the at least two of the plurality of transverse passages”.
In Claim 7, line 2 “the at least two transverse passages” should likely read “the at least two of the plurality of transverse passages”.
In Claim 8, line 1 “the at least two transverse passages” should likely read “the at least two of the plurality of transverse passages”.
In Claim 9, line 1 “the at least two transverse passages” should likely read “the at least two of the plurality of transverse passages”.
In Claim 10, line 1 “the at least two transverse passages” should likely read “the at least two of the plurality of transverse passages”.
In Claim 11, line 2 “the at least two transverse passages” should likely read “the at least two of the plurality of transverse passages”.
In Claim 12, line 2 “the at least two transverse passages” should likely read “the at least two of the plurality of transverse passages”.
In Claim 13, line 2 “the at least two transverse passages” should likely read “the at least two of the plurality of transverse passages”.
In Claim 16, line 1 “the at least two transverse passages” should likely read “the at least two of the plurality of transverse passages”.
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 1-16 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 1 recites the limitation "the transverse passage" in lines 14, 28 and 31. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the transverse passage" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein each gate … comprises a seal to restrict fluid flow between the through bore and the transverse passage”. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if this is the same seal as the seal from Claim 1 (“at least one of the gates … having a seal configured to restrict fluid flow between the through bore and the transverse passage”) or a different seal. For purposes of examination, they will be interpreted as being the same seal.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the transverse passage" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the transverse passage" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the transverse passage" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims not specifically referenced are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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) 1-3, 6-10, 12-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christopherson et al (US 20200032608) in view of Hamer (US 2242467) in further view of Smith (US 4010928).
Regarding Claim 1, Christopherson et al disclose a valve (34 in Figures 7-8). The valve comprising:
a body (40) having a first side (the left side as seen in the orientation of Figure 7) and a second side (the right side as seen in the orientation of Figure 7) opposite the first side (Figure 7), with a through bore (42) for fluid passage therethrough (¶ 42);
the body (40) having a plurality of passages (52, 54 and 56) transverse to the through bore (transverse to 42 shown in Figures 7-8);
wherein each of the plurality of transverse passages (52, 54 and 56) is formed with an entire extension from the first side of the body to the second side of the body (Figures 7-8 on each 52, 54 and 56);
each of the plurality of transverse passages (52, 54 and 56) being configured with an internal first surface (the top surface of each 52, 54 and 56 shown in the orientation of Figure 7) and an internal second surface (the bottom surface of each 52, 54 and 56 shown in the orientation of Figure 7),
wherein the internal first surface (the top surface of each 52, 54 and 56 shown in the orientation of Figure 7) and the internal second surface (the bottom surface of each 52, 54 and 56 shown in the orientation of Figure 7) of each of the plurality of transverse passages (52, 54 and 56) is formed uniformly parallel and equally spaced apart from one another for the entire extension from the first side of the body to the second side of the body (Figures 7-8);
at least two of the plurality of transverse passages (52, 54 and 56) each having a gate (34; ¶ 46) entirely contained therein (Figures 7-8 with the entirety of the gate within passages 52, 54 or 56) and configured for motion along the transverse passage (Figures 7-8),
but fails to expressly disclose wherein each gate in the at least two transverse passages is configured with a unitary planar body having a first face and a second face opposite the first face to coincide with the internal first surface and the internal second surface of the at least two transverse passages; wherein each gate in the at least two transverse passages is configured with an opening formed therethrough between the first face and the second face and a solid section adjacent to the opening at least one of the gates in the at least two transverse passages having a seal configured to restrict fluid flow between the through bore and the transverse passage; and wherein each gate in the at least two transverse passages is configured for motion along the transverse passage between a position wherein the opening on the gate becomes coincident with the through bore to permit passage of a fluid via the opening and the through bore and a position wherein the solid section on the gate restricts passage of the fluid via the gate and the through bore.
Hamer teaches a valve (Figure 1) with a gate (11), wherein the gate (11; where Christopherson et al discloses a plurality of gates (34; ¶ 46)) is configured with a unitary planar body (24 generally in Figure 1) having a first face (to the left as seen in the orientation of Figure 1) and a second face (to the right as seen in the orientation of Figure 1) opposite the first face (Figure 1) to coincide with the internal first surface and the internal second surface of the at least two transverse passages (where Christopherson et al disclose the top surface and bottom surface of each 52, 54 and 56 shown in the orientation of Figure 7 as the internal first surface and the internal second surface respectively);
wherein each gate in the at least two transverse passages (11; where Christopherson et al discloses a plurality of gates (34; ¶ 46)) is configured with an opening (through 25) formed therethrough between the first face and the second face (Figure 1) and a solid section (24) adjacent to the opening at least one of the gates in the at least two transverse passages having a seal (27) configured to restrict fluid flow between the through bore and the transverse passage (with Christopherson et al teaching the transverse passage and the first seal assembly 27 of Hamer positioned to prevent fluid from leaking out of the connection with pipes A and B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Christopherson et al with the gate as taught by Hamer for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the gate structure of Hamer for the gate disclosed by Christopherson et al) to yield predictable results (to close the through bore to restrict the passage of fluid through the system).
Smith teaches a valve (Figure 1) with a body (10), a through bore (12) and a transverse passage (14) with a gate (40 generally) disposed therein wherein each gate in the at least two transverse passages (where Christopherson et al disclose transverse passages 52, 54 and 56) is configured for motion along the transverse passage between a position wherein the opening on the gate becomes coincident with the through bore to permit passage of a fluid via the opening (Figure 3) and the through bore and a position wherein the solid section on the gate restricts passage of the fluid via the gate and the through bore (Figure 2).
Since Christopherson et al disclose providing a gate (¶ 46), but is moot to the structure of the gate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Christopherson et al, as modified by Hamer, with the gate as taught by Smith for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the gate structure of Smith for the gate disclosed by Christopherson et al) to yield predictable results (to close the through bore to restrict the passage of fluid through the system).
Regarding Claim 2, Christopherson et al, as modified by Hamer teach all essential elements of the current invention but fails to expressly disclose where each gate in the at least two transverse passages comprises a seal to restrict fluid flow between the through bore and the transverse passage.
Smith teaches where each gate in the at least two transverse passages (40 generally) comprises a seal (68 or 69; Col 5, line 5) to restrict fluid flow between the through bore (through 12 as seen in Figure 2) and the respective transverse passage (14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Christopherson et al with the gate seal as taught by Smith for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the seal structure of Smith for the gate disclosed by Christopherson et al) to yield predictable results (to close the through bore to restrict the passage of fluid through the system).
Regarding Claim 3, Christopherson et al as modified by Hamer teach all essential elements of the current invention but fails to expressly disclose where the seal is configured for energization.
Smith teaches where at least one gate (40 generally) comprises the seal (68 or 69; Col 5, line 5) configured for energization (via the Belleville washer 48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Christopherson et al with the gate seal as taught by Smith for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the seal structure of Smith for the gate disclosed by Christopherson et al) to yield predictable results (to close the through bore to restrict the passage of fluid through the system).
Regarding Claim 6, Christopherson et al disclose at least one port (62) formed thereon (on the body 40) linked to the through bore (¶ 45).
Regarding Claim 7, Christopherson et al disclose where the at least one port (62) is disposed on the body (40) between the at least two transverse passages (at least in between 52 and 54 as seen in Figure 7) having the gate disposed therein (34 in Figure 7).
Regarding Claim 8, Christopherson et al disclose where each gate (34) is disposed in the at least two transverse passages (Figure 7 in 52, 54 or 56) is configured for selective activation to permit fluid flow into or out of the through bore via the at least one port (¶ 45).
Regarding Claim 9, Christopherson et al disclose where each gate (34) disposed in the at least two transverse passages (52, 54 or 56) is configured for selective activation to restrict fluid flow via the through bore (Figure 7 which shows all gates closed thereby restricting fluid flow via the through bore 42).
Regarding Claim 10, Christopherson et al disclose where each gate (34) disposed in the at least two transverse passages (52, 54 or 56) is configured for selective activation to affect fluid flow into or out of a first end or a second end of the through bore (¶ 45 and Figure 8).
Regarding Claim 12, Christopherson et al as modified by Hamer teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose wherein each gate in the at least two transverse passages is configured to move along the transverse passage in a first direction in response to a first force applied on the gate.
Smith teaches a gate (40 generally) where the body is configured with multiple internal passages (Smith teaches passage 110; Col 4, lines 58-63 and Christopherson et al disclose where there are multiple internal passages because there are multiple gates) where wherein each gate in the at least two transverse passages (40 generally) is configured for motion along the transverse passage in a first direction in response to a first force acting on the gate (from 110 to move the gate to the right to close the bore 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Christopherson et al with the gate as taught by Smith for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the gate structure of Smith for the gate disclosed by Christopherson et al) to yield predictable results (to close the through bore to restrict the passage of fluid through the system).
Regarding Claim 13, Christopherson et al as modified by Hamer teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose wherein each gate in the at least two transverse passages is configured to move along the transverse passage in a second direction opposite to the first direction in response to a second force applied on the gate.
Smith teaches a gate (40 generally) where the body is configured with multiple internal passages (Smith teaches passage 111; Col 4, lines 58-63 and Christopherson et al disclose where there are multiple internal passages because there are multiple gates, each of which has the internal passage 111 as taught by Smith) wherein each gate in the at least two transverse passages is configured to move along the transverse passage in a second direction opposite to the first direction in response to a second force applied on the gate (from 111 to move the gate to the left to open the bore 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Christopherson et al with the gate as taught by Smith for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the gate structure of Smith for the gate disclosed by Christopherson et al) to yield predictable results (to close the through bore to restrict the passage of fluid through the system).
Regarding Claim 14, Hamer teaches wherein the at least one gate (11; where Christopherson et al discloses a plurality of gates (34; ¶ 46)) having the seal (27) is configured with the seal disposed thereon surrounding the solid section (area 24) of the gate.
Regarding Claim 16, Christopherson et al as modified by Hamer teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fail to expressly disclose where each gate in the at least two transverse passages is configured for motion free of any mechanical linkage.
Smith teaches a gate (40 generally) where the gate in the at least two transverse passages is configured for motion free of any mechanical linkage (Figure 1; motion is translated by pressure within either 27 or 29; Col 4, lines 31-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Christopherson et al with the gate as taught by Smith for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the hydraulic gate of Smith for the gate disclosed by Christopherson et al) to yield predictable results (to close the through bore to restrict the passage of fluid through the system).
Claim(s) 4-5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christopherson et al (US 2020/0032608) in view of Hamer (US 2,242,467) in further view of Smith (US 4,010,928) in further view of Schmidt et al (US 2,325,802).
Regarding Claims 4, Christopherson et al, as modified by Hamer and Smith, teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above, but fails to expressly disclose where the at least one gate in the at least two transverse passages having the seal is configured with a closed internal fluid circuit to energize and/or de-energize the seal.
Schmidt et al teach a gate (16; Figure 1), where the at least one gate in the at least two transverse passages having the seal (page 2, col 1, lines 17-26) is configured with a closed internal fluid circuit (via 26 and 27) to energize and/or de-energize the seal (18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the seal of Smith with the fluid circuit as taught by Schmidt et al for the advantage of securing the seal against the seat, even in the event of changes of temperature which may affect the seal at the seat, as taught by Schmidt et al (page 2, col 2, lines 22-25).
Regarding Claim 5, Schmidt et al teach where the at least one gate (Figure 1) comprises at least one intensifier element (41) to affect fluid pressure in the closed internal fluid circuit (page 2, col 1, lines 17-26).
Regarding Claims 15, Christopherson et al, as modified by Hamer and Smith, teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above, but fails to expressly disclose wherein the at least one gate having the seal is configured with a closed internal fluid circuit to energize and/or de-energize the seal.
Schmidt et al teach a gate (16; Figure 1), the gate configured with a closed internal fluid circuit (via 26 and 27) to energize and/or de-energize the seal (as taught by Hamer as discussed above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the seal of Smith with the fluid circuit as taught by Schmidt et al for the advantage of securing the seal against the seat, even in the event of changes of temperature which may affect the seal at the seat, as taught by Schmidt et al (page 2, col 2, lines 22-25).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christopherson et al (US 2020/0032608) in view of Hamer (US 2,242,467) in further view of Smith (US 4,010,928) in further view of Penick et al (US 2,224,446).
Regarding Claim 11, Christopherson et al, as modified by Hamer and Smith, teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above, but fails to expressly disclose where the body comprises at least one locking element to retain at least one gate in the at least two transverse passages in a selected position within the transverse passage.
Penick et al teach a gate (Figures 1-2) where the body (1) comprises at least one locking element (30) to retain at least one gate in the at least two transverse passages in a selected position (shown closed in Figure 2) within the transverse passage (page 2, col 1, lines 25-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Christopherson et al, as modified by Smith with the lock as taught by Penick et al for the advantage of locking the gate valve in the closed position to allow for repair or replacement, as taught by Penick et al (page 2, col 1, lines 25-27).
Response to Arguments
Applicant amends Claim 1 to incorporate the limitations “wherein each of the plurality of transverse passages is formed with an entire extension from the first side of the body to the second side of the body; each of the plurality of transverse passages being configured with an internal first surface and an internal second surface, wherein the internal first surface and the internal second surface of each of the plurality of transverse passages is formed uniformly parallel and equally spaced apart from one another for the entire extension from the first side of the body to the second side of the body;” and argues that the prior art fails to teach or disclose these limitations.
However, as discussed above, Christopherson et al disclose wherein each of the plurality of transverse passages (52, 54 and 56) is formed with an entire extension from the first side of the body to the second side of the body (Figures 7-8 on each 52, 54 and 56);
each of the plurality of transverse passages (52, 54 and 56) being configured with an internal first surface (the top surface of each 52, 54 and 56 shown in the orientation of Figure 7) and an internal second surface (the bottom surface of each 52, 54 and 56 shown in the orientation of Figure 7),
wherein the internal first surface (the top surface of each 52, 54 and 56 shown in the orientation of Figure 7) and the internal second surface (the bottom surface of each 52, 54 and 56 shown in the orientation of Figure 7) of each of the plurality of transverse passages (52, 54 and 56) is formed uniformly parallel and equally spaced apart from one another for the entire extension from the first side of the body to the second side of the body (Figures 7-8). Therefore, these arguments are unpersuasive.
Additionally, as discussed above, Christopherson et al, as modified by Hamer and Smith teach all essential elements of Claim 1.
Therefore, these arguments are unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NICOLE GARDNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-4PM EST.
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) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors, KENNETH RINEHART (571-272-4881) or CRAIG SCHNEIDER (571-272-3607) can be reached by telephone. 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.
/NICOLE GARDNER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
