DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the application filed on September 22, 2023 and any subsequent filings.
Claims 1-23 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: the typographical error of "floatation" . However, in the specification the term flotation is used throughout and the term floatation is missing. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
Claims 1-7, 10, 12,13, 15, 19,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gauss (EP 2191175B1) (appears on the PTO-892). The machine translation for Gauss is used in this office action in regards to claim mapping and a copy of the machine translation used is attached in this office action.
Regarding Claim 1, Gauss discloses a control valve( coxial valve, Gauss, Pr 27, Figure 1) for controlling a gas throughflow having: an elongate housing (valve housing 1, Gauss, Pr 28, Figure 1) which delimits a flow channel (flow channel 25, Gauss, Pr 28, Figure 1) and which is divided into an inflow portion (inlet opening E, Gauss, Pr 28, Figure 1), a drive portion (drive 4, Gauss, Pr 36, Figure 1) and an outflow portion (outlet opening A, Gauss, Pr 28, Figure 1) which are arranged beside each other along a longitudinal axis (Gauss, Pr 3, Figure 1). Gauss teaches the gas flows (flow channel 25, Gauss, Pr 28, Figure 1) during operational use of the control valve through the flow channel (flow channel 25, Gauss, Pr 28, Figure 1) from the inflow portion (inlet opening E, Gauss, Pr 28, Figure 1) via the drive portion (drive 4, Gauss, Pr 36, Figure 1) to the outflow portion (outlet opening A, Gauss, Pr 28, Figure 1), a gear mechanism device which is provided inside the drive portion (drive sleeve 9, Gauss, Pr 42) and which has a drive shaft (spindle 13, Gauss, Pr 42) which can be driven from the exterior (drive motor, Gauss, Pr 18) and which is parallel with the longitudinal axis (Gauss, Pr 18, Figure 1), and a round slider element (main seal 23, 24, Gauss, Pr 35, Figure 1) which is arranged in a displaceable manner along the longitudinal axis via the output shaft and which has an external valve seat (metal housing, Gauss, Pr 35, Figure 1) face which closes an annular gap (secondary leakage paths, Gauss, Pr 35, Figure 1) which is defined between itself and an internal face of the outflow portion by longitudinal displacement in a flow direction (Gauss, Pr 18 and 35, Figure 1) a flow element which is provided on the drive mechanism device at the end thereof facing the inflow portion and which has a spherical-cap-like (Spherical cap segment 11 and 14, Gauss, Pr 39-41, Figure 1) external face which directs the gas (transmits a force, Gauss, Pr 41) which comes from the inflow portion into an annular gap between the gear mechanism device and the internal face of the drive portion (drive sleeve 9, Gauss, Pr 38, Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 2, Gauss teaches a control valve where the gear mechanism device has a drive shaft which extends perpendicularly to the output shaft (annular spindle 13, Gauss, Pr 39, Figure 1) and which is connected thereto via a gear mechanism, wherein one end of the output shaft is located outside the housing and can be connected to a drive device (annular spindle 13, Gauss, Pr 39, Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Gauss teaches a control valve where the gear mechanism is in the form of a redirecting gear mechanism (recirculating-ball gear mechanism, Gauss, column 15, line 30-35, Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 4, Gauss teaches a control valve where the round slider element is constructed in a conical manner with a circular base face (conical base section 36, Gauss, Pr 32, Figure 1) and a covering face which is provided between the valve seat face (cylindrical shoulder section 38, Gauss, Pr 32, Figure 1) preferably in the form of a sealing ring (main seal 23, 24, Gauss, Pr 35, Figure 1), and the tip of the round slider element (main seal 23, 24 with sliding bearing function, Gauss, Pr 35, Figure 1), where a blind hole which extends parallel with the longitudinal axis is provided at the tip of the round slider element (main seal 23, 24 with sliding bearing function, Gauss, Pr 35, Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 5, Gauss teaches a control valve where there is provided in the outflow portion, concentrically relative to the longitudinal axis (outlet opening A, Gauss, Pr 28, Figure 1) an annular element which has at least two radially extending spokes which retain a pin which extends parallel with the longitudinal axis (annular spindle 13, Gauss, Pr 39, Figure 1), where the pin (pin 13, Gauss, Column 16, line 53-56, Figure 1), engages in the blind hole in order to support and guide the round slider element (Gauss, Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 6, Gauss teaches a control valve where a covering line (cover parts 27, 28, Gauss, Pr 30, Figure 1) of the covering face of the round slider element (end face cover part 27, 28, Gauss, Pr 30, Figure 1) is a non-linear curve and the internal face of the outflow portion has a control contour (outlet opening A, Gauss, Pr 30, Figure 1) the control contour and the valve seat face (main seal 23, 24 are provided with sealing seats formed, Gauss, Pr 35, Figure 1) are adapted to each other in such a manner that the change of the cross section of the annular gap being flowed through between the internal face and the valve seat face is adapted relative to an adjustment path of the round slider element in a longitudinal direction so that a substantially linear operating characteristic line is obtained (main seal 23, 24 are provided with sealing seats formed, Gauss, Pr 35, Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 7, Gauss teaches a control valve where the control contour has at least one control contour end region which is constructed in such a manner that it at least partially supports the valve seat face (plain bearings 23, 24 are provided with sealing seats formed, Gauss, Pr 34, Figure 1) of the round slider element in a flow direction in the closed state of the control valve and cooperates with it in a sealing manner (main seal 23, 24 with sliding bearing function, Gauss, Pr 35, Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 10, Gauss teaches a control valve where the gear mechanism device (recirculating-ball gear mechanism, Gauss, column 15, line 30-35, Figure 1) has a gear mechanism covering which has a flow-optimized external face, wherein the gear mechanism covering (housing section 18, Gauss, Pr 38, Figure 1) surrounds both the drive shaft (Gauss, Pr 42) and the output shaft (annular spindle 13, Gauss, Pr 39, Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 12, Gauss teaches a control valve where the inflow portion has a cylindrical flow channel (flow channel 25, Gauss, Pr 39, Figure 1) which has a constant diameter substantially over the entire longitudinal extent and which widens conically (conical base section 36, Gauss, Pr 32, Figure 1) at the transition to the drive portion (Gauss, Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 13, Gauss teaches a control valve where the drive portion has a flow channel (flow channel 25, Gauss, Pr 39, Figure 1), the diameter of which initially widens conically (conical base section 36, Gauss, Pr 32, Figure 1) when viewed in the flow direction and subsequently remains substantially constant (Gauss, Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 19, Gauss teaches a control valve where the drive device is in the form of a hydraulic drive device or pneumatic drive device (pneumatic actuator, Gauss, Pr 4, Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 20, Gauss teaches a control valve where the drive device is in the form of an electric drive device (electric actuator, Gauss, Pr 1, Figure 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 8, 9, 11 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of International Publication No. EP 2191175B1 ("Gauss") in view of Canjuga, et al. U.S. Patent No. 11,359,735 B2 ("Canjuga"), in further view of “Effects of the geometrical features of flow paths on the flow capacity of a control valve trim.” Asim, et al ("Asim"). The machine translation for Gauss is used in this office action in regards to claim mapping and a copy of the machine translation used is attached in this office action.
Regarding Claim 8, Gauss discloses the control valve according to claim 7 and the control contour. Gauss does not teach control contour that is non-rectilinear.
Canjuga discloses a control contour that has a non-rectilinear extent (outer valve body 1, Canjuga, Column 11, line 61-66, Figure 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the control valve of Gauss with the control contour of Canjuga, because the reference of Canjuga because a control contour is its flow characteristic that is also know as the control valve trim. Asim teaches that flow paths dictate the flow capacity of the trim. Reducing the size of flow paths increases the flow capacity of the trim (Effects of the geometrical features of flow paths on the flow capacity of a control valve trim, Asim, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 9, the control valve of Gauss outlined in paragraph 8 of the office action is used to achieve the control valve of claim 1. The control valve of Gauss, the control valve of Canjuga, and motivation for combining references are outlined in = paragraphs 23-26 of this office action. The combination of references discloses the output shaft in the form of a spindle (annular spindle 13, Gauss, Pr 39, Figure 1), preferably a trapezoidal threaded spindle, and cooperates with a spindle nut, where the spindle nut (nut 44, Gauss, Pr 37, Figure 1) is connected to the round slider element (Canjuga, Column 15, line 59-62, Figure 22).
Regarding Claim 11, the control valve of Gauss outlined in paragraph 8 of the office action is used to achieve the control valve of claim 1. The control valve of Gauss, the control valve of Canjuga, and motivation for combining references are outlined in paragraphs 23-26 of this office action. The combination of references discloses the inflow portion (central valve body 2, Canjuga), the drive portion (mechanical actuator 4-b, Canjuga) and the outflow portion (central valve body 2, Canjuga) each have at the longitudinal ends thereof a flange and are releasably connected to each other via the flange (special flange 4.1-a, Canjuga) (Canjuga, Column 12, line 3-19, Figure 18).
Regarding Claim 14, the control valve of Gauss outlined in paragraph 17 of the office action is used to achieve the control valve of claim 13. The control valve of Gauss, the control valve of Canjuga, and motivation for combining references are outlined in paragraphs 23-26 of this office action. The combination of references discloses the flow channel (flow channel 25, Gauss, Pr 39, Figure 1) has in the drive portion at least partially two (purality of ribs 1.1, Canjuga, Column 11, line 61-66, Figure 12) mutually separate circular-ring-segment-like channels.
Regarding Claim 15, using the control valve of Gauss and Canjuga and motivation for combining references outlined in paragraphs 23-28 of this office action to achieve the control valve of claim 11. The combination of references discloses the outflow portion has in an upstream region a circular-ring-like flow channel (flow channel 25, Gauss, Pr 39, Figure 1), the diameter of which in the flow direction initially corresponds to the diameter (flow channel 25, Gauss, Pr 39, Figure 1) of the adjacent drive portion and subsequently tapers conically to a diameter which substantially corresponds to the diameter of the inflow portion, where the circular-ring-like flow channel merges into a circular flow channel (Channel 7, Canjuga, Column 12, line 9-12, Figure 12).
Regarding Claim 16, the control valve of Gauss outlined in paragraph 13 of the office action is used to achieve the control valve of claim 6. The control valve of Gauss, the control valve of Canjuga, and motivation for combining references are outlined in paragraphs 23-26 of this office action. The combination of references discloses a control contour (outer valve body 1, Canjuga, Column 12, line 3-5, Figure 12) is located in the conically tapering region of the outflow portion (Canjuga, Figure 12).
Regarding Claim 17, the control valve of Gauss outlined in paragraph 8 of the office action is used to achieve the control valve of claim 1. The control valve of Gauss, the control valve of Canjuga, and motivation for combining references are outlined in paragraphs 23-26 of this office action. The combination of references discloses at least one opening is provided in the inflow portion for introducing at least one measuring element (internal sensor mechanism with feedback, Canjuga, Column 5, line 31-33, Figure 10), preferably a throughflow measuring element (Canjuga, Figure 10).
Regarding Claim 18, the control valve of Gauss outlined in paragraph 16 of the office action is used to achieve the control valve of claim 12. The control valve of Gauss, the control valve of Canjuga, and motivation for combining references are outlined in paragraphs 23-26 of this office action. The combination of references discloses a flow modulating element (flow control valve with hydraulic drive of the actuator, Canjuga, Column 6, line 62-67, Figure 2), preferably a perforated disc, is provided in the inflow portion at the downstream end (Canjuga, Figure 2).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of International Publication No. EP 2191175B1 ("Gauss") in view of Ringer, et al. U.S. Patent No. 9657849 B2 ("Ringer"), in further view of “Process/Industrial instruments and control handbook.” McMillan, et al ("McMillan"). The machine translation for Gauss is used in this office action in regards to claim mapping and a copy of the machine translation used is attached in this office action.
Regarding Claim 21, using the control valve of Gauss to achieve the control valve of claim 1. Gauss discloses a control valve; however, Gauss does not disclose dimensions in a pipeline having a nominal width between DN50 and DN200.
Ringer teaches a control valve where it has dimensions that can be used in a pipeline having a nominal width between DN50 and DN200 (DN40 through DN200, Ringer, Column 2, line 9-11, Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the control valve of Gauss with the nominal width of Ringer, because McMillian teaches different control valves and the range of applicable sizes. Table 1 shows pipe sizes ranging from DN 100-200 allows for improved shutoff capability, high flow rangeability, large temperature range applicability, and the ability to operation at low to high pressure ranges (McMillan, Table 1, pg 9.6-9.7).
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of International Publication No. EP 2191175B1 ("Gauss") in view of Lakanen, et al. U.S. Patent No. 20170197221 A1 ("Lakanen"), Canjuga, et al. U.S. Patent No. 11,359,735 B2 ("Canjuga"), in further view of “The Froth Flotation Process: Past, Present and Future- In Brief.” Kitchener, et al ("Kitchener"). The machine translation for Gauss is used in this office action in regards to claim mapping and a copy of the machine translation used is attached in this office action.
Regarding Claim 22, using the control valve of Gauss to achieve the control valve of claim 1. Gauss discloses a control valve; however, Gauss does not disclose a floatation installation for separating solids, in particular ore, having a plurality of tanks and at least one line for supplying gas to each tank or a control valve that controls the gas flow into each tank.
Lakanen discloses a floatation installation for separating solids, in particular ore, (mineral flotation process, Lakanen, Pr 21, Figure 1) having a plurality of tanks (flotation cell unit 11-15, Lakanen, Pr 57) and at least one line for supplying gas to each tank (gas feed manifold 21-25, Lakanen, Pr 57), where a control valve according to claim 1 (contol valve, Lakanen, Pr 57) is provided in the line to a respective tank in order to control the gas flow into each tank (Lakanen, Pr 57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the control valve of Gauss with the flotation process of Lakanen, because the flotation process of Lakanen can improve the restricting of the gas flow and prevent backflow of gas (Lakanen, Abstact), because back flow can occur in a control valve (Canjuga, Figure 6-9 and 37-39). Flotation process improves the separation or grade especially when an acid is added in the slurry (Kitchener, Pg 4 and 18), control when used in conjunction with a frother (Kitchener, Pg 11), recovery of valuable minerals (Kitchener 18), and collision efficiency (Kitchener, Pg 31) reducing the clogging and backflow of the process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DeMarkus J Hodge whose telephone number is (571)272-3593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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 supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/DeMarkus Jerrell Hodge/Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779