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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5 Dec 2025 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 19 has been amended to incorporate new matter in the form of the cutting surface 101 absent in the originally filed drawings.
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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, line 4 “at least two of the passages” should likely read “at least two of the plurality of passages”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 22-23 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.
Claims 22-23 recites the limitation “an opening … with the opening configured with a cutting surface”. This amendment appears to lack support in the application as originally filed and therefore would qualify as new matter. Applicant relies on Original Figure 24 for the cutting surface 100 for these limitations and further amends the Specification to include the cutting surface 100. However, Original Figure 24 shows a triangular element identified as “100”. In the Specification as originally filed at ¶ 56, element “100” is identified as a radial seal. No cutting surface is shown or identified in Original Figure 24. Additionally, no “opening” is shown or identified in the application as originally filed. Therefore, this limitation appears to lack support in the application as originally filed and therefore would qualify as new matter.
Applicant attempts to rectify this by amending Figures 19 and 24 and amending the Specification to provide for a cutting surface 101. However, as originally filed, Original Figure 24 shows a triangular element identified as “100”. In the Specification as originally filed at ¶ 56, element “100” is identified as a radial seal. Therefore, Claims 22-23 are still interpreted as qualifying as new matter.
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 1-23 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 “wherein each gate is configured with a unitary planar body having a solid section with a first face and a second face opposite the first face, to coincide with the through bore and restrict passage therethrough”. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if the solid section restricts passage through itself or restricts passage through the through bore. Additionally, it is unclear what is restricted therethrough. For purposes of examination, it will be interpreted that the solid section restricts the passage of fluid through the gate.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “a gate”, “each gate”, “at least one gate” and “the gate”. Therefore it is unclear which “a gate”, “each gate”, “at least one gate” “the gate” refers to. The specification discloses a plurality of gates, each positioned within a transverse passage. Therefore for purposes of examination, a gate and at least one gate will be interpreted as referring to a singular of a plurality of gates. Claims 2, 4, 7-10, 12-13 and 16 are also unclear for the same reason.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “at least one seal”. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if this is a different seal than “a first seal assembly” from Claim 1 or “a second seal assembly” from Claim 1 or if the “at least one seal” is part of the either seal assembly. For purposes of examination the at least one seal of Claim 2 will be interpreted as forming a part of the seal assembly as supported by Figure 4 and the specification at ¶ 44.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the respective transverse passage" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “at least one gate” in line 1. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if this is the same “at least one gate” from Claim 1 or a different “at least one gate”. For purposes of examination the “at least one gate” from Claim 3 will be interpreted as being the same as Claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “at least one seal”. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if this is a different seal than “a first seal assembly” from Claim 1 or “a second seal assembly” from Claim 1 or if the “at least one seal” is part of the either seal assembly. For purposes of examination the at least one seal of Claim 3 will be interpreted as forming a part of the seal assembly as supported by Figure 4 and the specification at ¶ 44.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “at least one gate” in line 1. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if this is the same “at least one gate” from Claim 1 or a different “at least one gate”. For purposes of examination the “at least one gate” from Claim 3 will be interpreted as being the same as Claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “at least one seal”. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if this is a different seal than “a first seal assembly” from Claim 1 or “a second seal assembly” from Claim 1 or if the “at least one seal” is part of the either seal assembly. For purposes of examination the at least one seal of Claim 4 will be interpreted as forming a part of the seal assembly as supported by Figure 4 and the specification at ¶ 44.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “at least one gate” in line 2. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if this is the same “at least one gate” from Claim 1 or a different “at least one gate”. For purposes of examination the “at least one gate” from Claim 11 will be interpreted as being the same as Claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the respective transverse passage" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “fluid” in line 2. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if this is the same fluid from Claim 1 or a different fluid.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the respective transverse passage" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “multiple internal passages” in line 1. It is unclear if these passages are the same “multiple internal passages” from Claim 12 or another set of multiple internal passages.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “fluid” in line 2. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if this is the same fluid from Claims 1 or 12 or a different fluid.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the respective transverse passage" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “at least one gate” in line 1. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if this is the same “at least one gate” from Claim 1 or a different “at least one gate”. For purposes of examination the “at least one gate” from Claim 14 will be interpreted as being the same as Claim 1.
Claim 14 recites the limitations “a first seal” in line 1 and a “a second seal” in line 2. These limitations are unclear because it is unclear if this is a different seal than “a first seal assembly” from Claim 1 or “a second seal assembly” from Claim 1 or if the first and second seals are part of the either seal assembly. For purposes of examination the first and second seals will be interpreted as forming a part of the seal assembly as supported by Figure 4 and the specification at ¶ 44. Claim 15 is also unclear for the same reason.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “wherein each of the first gate and the second gate is configured with a unitary planar body having a solid section with a first face and a second face opposite the first face, to coincide with the through bore and restrict passage therethrough”. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if the solid section restricts passage through itself or restricts passage through the through bore. Additionally, it is unclear what is restricted therethrough. For purposes of examination, it will be interpreted that the solid section restricts the passage of fluid through the gate.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the valve body" in line 1. 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 16-21 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 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);
at least two of the passages transverse to the through bore (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 between a position to permit fluid flow along the through bore (in Figure 8, the bottom two gates 34) and a position to restrict fluid flow along the through bore(in Figure 7 all the gates 34);
but fails to expressly disclose wherein each gate is configured with a unitary planar body having a solid section with a first face and a second face opposite the first face to coincide with the through bore and restrict passage therethrough; wherein at least one gate is configured with an opening formed therethrough between the first face and the second face to coincide with the through bore and allow fluid flow therethrough; a first seal assembly configured to restrict fluid flow between the through bore and the transverse passage along the first face of the at least one gate with the opening and a second seal assembly configured to restrict fluid flow between the through bore and the transverse passage along the second face of the at least one gate; and wherein each gate is configured for motion along the transverse passage in one direction in response to a first force acting on the gate and in another direction in response to a second force acting on the gate.
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 solid section (the section of 24 shown inserted in Figure 1 to block passage of fluid through the pipe) with a first face (the face facing left as seen in the orientation of Figure 1) and a second face (the face facing right as seen in the orientation of Figure 1) opposite the first face to coincide with the through bore and restrict passage therethrough (Figure 1);
wherein at least one gate (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) to coincide with the through bore and allow fluid flow therethrough (page 3, first column, lines 18-21);
a first seal assembly (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) along the first face of the at least one gate with the opening (Figure 1) and a second seal assembly (26) configured to restrict fluid flow between the through bore and the transverse passage along the second face of the at least one gate (Figure 1).
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 configured for motion along the transverse passage between a position to permit fluid flow along the through bore (Figure 3) and a position to restrict fluid flow along the through bore (Figure 1); and
wherein the gate (40 generally) is configured for motion along the transverse passage in one 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) and in another direction in response to a second force acting on the gate (from 111 to move the gate to the left to open the bore 12).
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 comprises at least one seal to restrict fluid flow between the through bore and the respective transverse passage.
Smith teaches where each gate (40 generally) comprises at least one 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 at least one gate comprises at least one seal configured for energization.
Smith teaches where at least one gate (40 generally) comprises at least one 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 where the body is configured with multiple internal passages to channel fluid to apply the first force on each gate to move the gate along the respective transverse passage.
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, each of which has the internal passage 110 as taught by Smith) to channel fluid to apply the first force on each gate to move the gate along the respective transverse passage (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 where the body is configured with multiple internal passages to channel fluid to apply the second force on each gate in opposition to the first force to move the gate along the respective transverse passage.
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) to channel fluid to apply the second force on each gate to move the gate along the respective transverse passage (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 at least one gate (11; where Christopherson et al discloses a plurality of gates (34; ¶ 46)) is configured with a first seal (27) disposed on the first face surrounding the solid section (see Annotated Figure A) and a second seal (26) disposed on the second surface surrounding the solid section (see Annotated Figure A).
PNG
media_image1.png
662
974
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure A
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 is configured for motion free of any mechanical linkage.
Smith teaches a gate (40 generally) where the gate 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).
Regarding Claim 17, Christopherson et al disclose a method of operating a valve (34 in Figures 3-4) having a body (40) with a through bore (42) for fluid passage therethrough (¶ 42) and a plurality of passages transverse to the through bore 52, 54 and 56, comprising:
actuating a first gate (34 in 52) entirely contained in a first passage (52; Figure 7; where the gate is entirely located in the first passage 52) transverse to the through bore (Figure 7);
actuating a second gate (34 in 54) entirely contained in a second passage transverse (54; Figure 7; where the gate is entirely located in the first passage 54) to the through bore (42); and
wherein actuation of the first gate and/or the second gate affects fluid flow along the through bore (Figures 7-8);
but fails to expressly disclose actuating a first gate for motion in one direction via a first force acting on the first gate and in another direction via a second force acting on the first gate; actuating a second gate for motion in one direction via a first force acting on the second gate and in another direction via a second force acting on the second gate and wherein each of the first gate and the second gate is configured with a unitary planar body having a solid section with a first face and a second face opposite the first face, to coincide with the through bore and restrict passage therethrough; wherein at least one of the first gate or the second gate is configured with an opening formed therethrough between the first face and the second face to coincide with the through bore and allow fluid flow therethrough, with a first seal assembly configured to restrict fluid flow between the through bore and the transverse passage along the first face and a second seal assembly configured to restrict fluid flow between the through bore and the transverse passage along the second face.
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 solid section (the section of 24 shown inserted in Figure 1 to block passage of fluid through the pipe) with a first face (the face facing left as seen in the orientation of Figure 1) and a second face (the face facing right as seen in the orientation of Figure 1) opposite the first face to coincide with the through bore and restrict passage therethrough (Figure 1);
wherein at least one gate (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) to coincide with the through bore and allow fluid flow therethrough (page 3, first column, lines 18-21);
a first seal assembly (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) along the first face of the at least one gate with the opening (Figure 1) and a second seal assembly (26) configured to restrict fluid flow between the through bore and the transverse passage along the second face of the at least one gate (Figure 1).
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 configured for motion along the transverse passage between a position to permit fluid flow along the through bore (Figure 3) and a position to restrict fluid flow along the through bore (Figure 1); and
wherein the first and second gate (40 generally) are configured for motion along the transverse passage in one 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) and in another direction in response to a second force acting on the gate (from 111 to move the gate to the left to open the bore 12).
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 18, Christopherson et al disclose at least one port (62) formed thereon (on the body 40) linked to the through bore (¶ 45).
Regarding Claim 19, Christopherson et al disclose where the actuation of the first gate and/or the second gate permits fluid flow into or out of the through bore via the at least one port (Figures 6-7).
Regarding Claim 20, Christopherson et al disclose where the actuation of the first gate and/or the second gate restricts fluid flow via the through bore (Figure 7).
Regarding Claim 21, Christopherson et al disclose where the actuation of the first gate and/or the second gate affects fluid flow into or out of a first end or a second end of the through bore (Figures 7-8).
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 at least one gate is configured with a closed internal fluid circuit to energize and/or de-energize at least one seal disposed on the gate.
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 at least one seal (18) disposed on the gate (page 2, col 1, lines 17-26).
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 is configured with a closed internal fluid circuit to energize and/or de-energize the first seal surrounding the solid section and the second seal surrounding the solid section.
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 first seal surrounding the solid section (as taught by Hamer as discussed above) and the second seal (18) surrounding the solid section (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 a selected position within the respective 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 a selected position (shown closed in Figure 2) within the respective 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).
Claim(s) 22-23 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 Hoang et al (US 10,533,667).
Regarding Claim 22, 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 of the first gate or the second gate with the opening is configured with a cutting surface.
Hoang et al teach a gate (Figure 50 in Figure 2; Christopherson et al discloses at least one of the first gate or the second gate as discussed above) comprises an opening formed thereon (into which blade 102 is inserted as shown in Figure 2) to coincide with the through bore (84) with the opening configured with a cutting surface (a blade 102; Col 4, lines 4-9).
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 gate valve of Christopherson et al, as modified by Hamer and Smith with the shearing blade as taught by Hoang et al for the advantage of cutting an obstruction within the flow path that would otherwise prevent closure of the valve, as taught by Hoang et al (Col 2, lines 15-28).
Regarding Claim 23, 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 with the opening is configured with a cutting surface.
Hoang et al teach at least one gate (Figure 50 in Figure 2) comprises an opening formed thereon (into which blade 102 is inserted as shown in Figure 2) to coincide with the through bore (84) with the opening configured with a cutting surface (a blade 102; Col 4, lines 4-9).
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 gate valve of Christopherson et al, as modified by Hamer and Smith with the shearing blade as taught by Hoang et al for the advantage of cutting an obstruction within the flow path that would otherwise prevent closure of the valve, as taught by Hoang et al (Col 2, lines 15-28).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5 Dec 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As discussed above, Christopherson et al, as modified by Hamer and Smith teach all amended limitations of Claims 1 and 17.
First, Applicant argues that Christopherson et al discloses the use of traditional rams with external actuators. However, in at least ¶ 46, Christopherson et al disclose the use of gates instead of rams. Thus Hamer and Smith modify the disclosed gates of Christopherson et al and not the rams.
Additionally, Claims 1 and 17 require having a gate entirely contained therein the transverse passage, which is disclosed in Christopherson et al. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a valve actuator entirely contained within the transverse passage) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Next, Applicant argues that the combination of Christopherson et al, as modified by Hamer would require substantial reconstruction and redesign. However, as discussed above, Christopherson et al disclose use of a gate. Hamer teaches the structure of the gate. Therefore, the combination would not require substantial reconstruction and redesign and this argument is unpersuasive.
As discussed above, Hamer teaches the gate having a unitary planar body, Smith is not relied upon to teach these features and therefore this argument us unpersuasive.
Further, Applicant argues that modification of Christopherson et al to incorporate the teachings of Smith change the principle of operation of the rams of Christopherson et al and would be contrary to the teachings of Christopherson et al. However, Christopherson et al disclose the use of gates instead of rams. 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).
Applicant argues that Smith teaches away from the combination of Schmidt et al since in the disclosure of Smith, Smith describes prior art valves, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would be discouraged from any combination between Schmidt et al and Smith. However, Smith describing the state of the art does not constitute a teaching away. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Therefore, these arguments are unpersuasive.
Conclusion
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