DETAILED ACTION
The Response filed 17 July 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-7 and 14-24 are pending, with claims 21-24 being new. Claims 8-13 have been canceled.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons in view of Barnhouse, Jr. et al. (US 2023/0235730), Cornelson et al. (US 3,363,647), Handley (US 2,931,383), and Jackson (US 3,494,504).
The applicant argues with respect to claim 1 on pg. 9 of the Response that the prior art lacks the claim limitations recited regarding the receptacle opening, the rod relative to the receptacle openings and plates, and the extensions extending from the second plate. However, as discussed in detail in the rejections below, Barnhouse discloses in Figs. 3-13 the claimed rod 112, receptacle opening (comprising the central bore of various widths through the center of the valve cover 74), plates114/116, 106, and at least one extension 102 extending from the second plate 106.
Alternatively, Handley discloses in Fig. 7 the claimed rod 102, receptacle opening (comprising the central bore of various widths through the center of the valve cover 48’’), and plates comprising the widened, bottom end of the bolt 102 and plate 106. Jackson teaches in Figs. 1-6 one or more extensions 16 extending from the second plate 11 comprising a hex head variation similar to the second plate/hex head 106 disclosed by Handley, and it would be obvious to modify the second plate/hex head dislcosed by Handley to be like the second plate and extensions taught by Jackson, as discussed in detail in the rejections below.
The applicant argues with respect to claim 14 on pg. 9 of the Response that the prior art lacks the claims limitations recited. However, as discussed in detail in the rejections below, Barnhouse discloses the claim limitations recited.
The applicant argues with respect to claim 16 on pg. 9 of the Response that the prior art lacks the locking plate not directly contacting the actuator when in the locked position. However, Cornelson discloses in Figs. 1-5 an actuator 4 (wherein the packing energizer 4 which actuates/adjusts packing 31 and valve-biasing spring 14) and a locking plate 64 configurable in a locked position and an unlocked position, wherein the locked position prevents upward movement of the actuator 4 (because the locking plate 64 prevents removal of the body 60 from the lock ring 15, as well as the seal retainer 2 and packing energizer 4 below the body 60, as disclosed in col. 5, lines 1-5), and wherein the locking plate 64 does not directly contact the actuator 4 when in the locked position.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 21, line 2, “comprise” should be changed to --comprises--.
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.
Claim 24 is 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 24 recites the limitation "the safety device" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As understood, the recitation refers to the broad invention.
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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 14-15, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barnhouse, Jr. et al. (US 2023/0235730).
Regarding claim 1, Barnhouse discloses in Figs. 3-13 a safety device for fluid ends, comprising:
a valve cover 74 comprising an outer shoulder (comprising one of the outer corners of the valve cover 74) and a receptacle opening (comprising the central bore in the valve cover 74), wherein the receptacle opening comprises a first section (comprising the top, narrowest bore in the valve cover 74) forming an inner shoulder opposing the outer shoulder, a second section (comprising the middle, frustroconical bore, or a portion thereof, in the valve cover 74 and below the top, narrow bore) larger than the first section, and a third section (comprising the bottom, widest bore in the valve cover 74) larger than the second section; and
a jam structure movable in the receptacle opening of the valve cover, the jam structure comprising:
a first plate 114/116 (comprising portion 114 and/or flange 116),
a second plate 106,
a rod 112 having a first end coupled to the first plate 114/116 and having a second end coupled to the second plate 106, wherein the rod 112 is at least partially disposed in the receptacle opening and extends through the inner shoulder such that the first and second plates 114/116, 106 are disposed on opposite sides of the inner shoulder, and wherein the third section of the receptacle opening is sized and shaped to receive the first plate 114/116, and
one or more extensions 102 extending from the second plate 106.
Regarding claim 2, Barnhouse discloses in Figs. 3-13 that the first plate 114/116 and the second plate 106 are discal in shape, the rod 112 is cylindrical in shape, and the one or more extensions 102 have a rectangular cross section.
Regarding claim 3, Barnhouse discloses in Figs. 3-13 that there is a biasing element 108 positioned between the inner shoulder of the valve cover 74 and the first plate 106 of the jam structure.
Regarding claim 6, Barnhouse discloses in Figs. 3-13 that the rod 112 extends from a first side of the second plate 106, wherein the one or more extensions 102 extend relative to a second side of the second plate 106, and wherein the first section 114/116 of the receptacle opening forming the inner shoulder is sized and shaped to receive the rod 112 of the jam structure therethrough, and the first section is smaller than the second plate 106.
Regarding claim 14, Barnhouse discloses in Figs. 1-13 a fluid end assembly for pumping operations, comprising:
a body 16, 18, 20 comprising a plurality of bores formed therein and intersecting at a junction (as shown in the fluid end block 18 in Fig. 2);
an inlet valve (in inlet passage 38) disposed in at least one of the bores;
an outlet valve (in outlet passage 40) disposed in at least one of the bores;
a valve cover 74 coupled to the body 16, 18, 20 and covering the outlet valve;
a locking assembly 68, 69 locking the valve cover 74 to the body 16, 18, 20 (via the locking pin 122 on the rod 112 engaging the locking post 69 on the locking assembly 68, 69); and
a jam structure (comprising rod 112 with a first end 114/116) disposed at least partially between the valve cover 74 and the locking assembly 68, 69, the jam structure configured to restrict retraction of the locking assembly 68, 69 when a fluid flows through the outlet valve, wherein the jam structure comprises:
a first plate 114/116 (comprising portion 114 and/or flange 116);
a second plate 106;
a rod 112 having a first end coupled to the first plate 114/116 and having a second end coupled to the second plate 106; and one or more extensions 102 extending from the second plate 106.
Regarding claim 15, Barnhouse discloses in Figs. 1-13 that the valve cover 74 comprises an outer shoulder (comprising one of the outer corners of the valve cover 74) and a receptacle opening (comprising the central bore in the valve 74), wherein the receptacle opening comprises a first section (comprising the top, narrowest bore in the valve cover 74) forming an inner shoulder opposing the outer shoulder, wherein the rod 112 is at least partially disposed in the receptacle opening and extends through the inner shoulder such that the first and second plates 114/116, 106 are disposed on opposite sides of the inner shoulder.
Regarding claim 22, Barnhouse discloses in Figs. 1-13 that the rod 112 extends from a first side of the second plate 106, wherein the one or more extensions 102 extend from a second side of the second plate 106, and wherein the first section of the receptacle opening forming the inner shoulder is sized and shaped to receive the rod 112 therethrough, and the first section is smaller than the second plate 106.
Regarding claim 23, Barnhouse discloses in Figs. 1-13 that the receptacle opening further comprises a second section (comprising the middle, frustroconical bore, or a portion thereof, in the valve cover 74 and below the top, narrow bore) larger than the first section, and a third section (comprising the bottom, widest bore in the valve cover 74) larger than the second section, and wherein the third section of the receptacle opening is sized and shaped to receive the first plate 114/116.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cornelson et al. (US 3,363,647).
Regarding claim 16, Cornelson discloses in Figs. 1-5 a fluid end assembly for pumping operations, comprising: a locking assembly, comprising: an actuator 4 (wherein the packing energizer 4 which actuates/adjusts packing 31 and valve-biasing spring 14); and a lock ring 15 disposed about the actuator (wherein “about” is broadly interpreted as being “proximate to”), and a safety device, comprising: a locking plate 64 configurable in a locked position and an unlocked position, wherein the locked position prevents upward movement of the actuator 4 (because the locking plate 64 prevents removal of the body 60 from the lock ring 15, as well as the seal retainer 2 and packing energizer 4 below the body 60, as disclosed in col. 5, lines 1-5), and wherein the locking plate 64 does not directly contact the actuator 4 when in the locked position; and a first coupling (comprising fastener 66) that couples the locking plate 64 to the lock ring 15 and permits the locking plate 64 to move from the locked position to the unlocked position.
Regarding claim 17, Cornelson discloses in Figs. 1-5 that the first coupling is a swivel coupling (comprising the fastener 66 about which the locking plate 64 can freely rotate); and the locking plate 64 comprises a first end and a second end, the first end coupled to the lock ring 15 by the swivel coupling (comprising fastener 66) and the second end is rotatable between the locked position and the unlocked position, wherein the second end covers a portion of the actuator 4 in the locked position (because the second end of the locking plate 64 is positioned vertically above the actuator 4 in the locked position).
Regarding claim 18, Cornelson discloses in Figs. 1-5 that a second coupling 65 (comprising the serrated face 65 of the locking plate 64, which couples to the body 60) that couples the locking plate 64 to the lock ring 15 (indirectly because the serrations 65 couple to the actuator/body 60, which is coupled to the lock ring 15), wherein: the locking plate 64 comprises a first end and a second end, the first end is coupled to the coupling 66; the second end coupled to the second coupling 65; and a portion of the locking plate 64 covers a portion of the actuator 4 in the locked position (because the second end of the locking plate 64 is positioned vertically above the actuator 4 in the locked position).
Regarding claim 19, Cornelson discloses in Figs. 1-5 that the second end 65 comprises a slot (comprising one of the serrations 65); the coupling 66 is a swivel coupling and the second coupling 60 is a fixed coupling 60; and the slot 65 is coupled to the fixed coupling 60 in the locked position and the locking plate 64 is pivoted about the swivel coupling 66 to uncover the portion of the actuator 4 in the unlocked position.
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.
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.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornelson in view of Smith et al. (US 11,421,680).
Regarding claim 20, Cornelson discloses in Figs. 1-5 a locking plate 64 rotatable to selectively lock a retention sleeve 60, wherein the locking plate 64 comprises a first end coupled to a swivel coupling 66 and a second end coupled to another coupling in the form of the retention sleeve 60, and a portion of the locking plate 64 covers the actuator 4 in the locked position, as previously discussed, but Cornelson lacks a second similar locking plate comprising first and second ends for coupling to third and fourth couplings and covering a second portion of the actuator in the locked position. Specifically, Cornelson lacks “a second locking plate comprising a first end and a second end and configurable in a locked position and an unlocked position; a third coupling coupled to the first end of the second locking plate; a fourth coupling coupled to the second end of the second locking plate; and a portion of the second locking plate covers a second portion of the actuator in the locked position.”
Smith teaches in Figs. 1-12 using multiple locking plates (comprising locking mechanism 302, 304 in Figs. 1-11 or pawl 1202 in Fig. 12) that are independently rotatable to selectively lock a retention sleeve 204 (col. 10, lines 55-59) similar to the locking plate 64 and body 60 disclosed by Cornelson, wherein each locking plate would comprise a first end coupled to a swivel coupling and a second end coupled to another coupling in the form of the tip of the locking plate that fixes to the retention sleeve 204.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly disclosed by Cornelson to comprising a plurality of identical locking plates, as Smith teaches, as an obvious duplication of parts (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)), for distributing stress to avoid breaking/damage, and for redundancy in case any one of the locking plates break.
In modifying Cornelson in view of Smith, each locking plate would comprise a first end coupled to a swivel coupling and a second end coupled to another coupling in the form of the tip of the locking plate that fixes to the retention sleeve, as Cornelson and Smith both teach for a single locking plate, and each locking plate would cover a respective portion of the actuator in the locked position as Cornelson discloses with locking plate and actuator.
Regarding claim 21, Cornelson discloses in Figs. 1-5 an outer surface of the actuator 4 with a circular/cylindrical shape, but lacks teaching that the body of the locking plate comprise a semi-circular cutout shape that is complementary to an outer surface of the actuator.
Smith teaches in Figs. 12A-B that the body of the locking plate 1202 comprise a semi-circular cutout shape (comprising the concaved side). The semi-circular cutout shape of the locking plate taught by Smith is complementary to the circular/cylindrical outer surface of the actuator 4 disclosed by Cornelson.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the locking plate disclosed by Cornelson to be a pawl with a semi-circular cutout shape that engages corresponding teeth in the cover fastener 3, as taught by Smith, as a functional equivalent to the locking plate 64 and cover fastener 3 disclosed by Cornelson that also provides better and repeatable engagement of the structures. In contrast to the teaching of Smith, Cornelson discloses serrations 65 of the locking plate 64 that engage the smooth, cylindrical surface of the cover fastener 3, which would lead to wear and a difference in effectiveness.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Handley (US 2,931,383) in view of Jackson (US 3,494,504).
Regarding claim 1, Handley discloses in Fig. 7 a safety device for fluid ends, comprising:
a valve cover 48’’ comprising an outer shoulder (comprising one of the outer corners of the valve cover 48’’) and a receptacle opening (comprising the central bore in the valve cover 48’’), wherein the receptacle opening comprises a first section (comprising the narrowest bore in the valve cover 48’’ immediately under the washer 108) forming an inner shoulder opposing the outer shoulder, a second section (comprising the upper recess in the valve cover 74 in which the nut 106 and washer 108 are disposed) larger than the first section, and a third section (comprising the bottom, expanding bore, in which the threaded portion of the bolt 102 is disposed) larger than the second section; and
a jam structure movable in the receptacle opening of the valve cover, the jam structure comprising:
a first plate (comprising the widened, bottom end of the bolt 102),
a second plate 106,
a rod 102 having a first end coupled to the first plate and having a second end coupled to the second plate 106, wherein the rod 102 is at least partially disposed in the receptacle opening and extends through the inner shoulder such that the first and second plates are disposed on opposite sides of the inner shoulder, and wherein the third section of the receptacle opening is sized and shaped to receive the first plate.
Handley lacks one or more extensions extending from the second plate.
Jackson teaches in Figs. 1-6 one or more extensions 16 extending from a second plate 11 on an end of a rod 10.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second plate disclosed by Handley to include one or more extensions extending from the second plate in the form of the two projections forming a polygonal outer shape and a central slot, as Jackson teaches, because the extensions taught by Jackson allows for a greater flexibility for actuation, including the polygonal outer shape being engageable by a wrench and the slot being engageable by a screw driver, or a similar narrow tool.
Regarding claim 4, Jackson discloses in Figs. 1-6 that the rod 15 extends from a first side of the second plate 11, wherein the one or more extensions 16 extend from a second side of the second plate 11, and wherein the one or more extensions 16 include a plurality of extensions 16 that are spaced equidistantly from each other along a circumferential pattern.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Handley in view of Jackson, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (US 5,044,403).
Regarding claim 5, Jackson teaches in Figs. 1-6 that the rod 10 extends from a first side of the second plate 11, wherein the one or more extensions 16 extend from a second side of the second plate 11.
Handley and Jackson lack teaching that the jam structure further comprises a recess extending into the second side of the second plate and partially into the rod.
Chen teaches in Figs. 1-4 that the jam structure further comprises a recess (comprising the blind bore through the rod 15) extending into the second side of the second plate (comprising the disc portion of the nut 4 below the groove 41) and partially into the rod 15.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rod in the combination of Handley and Jackson to include a recess extending into the second side of the second plate and partially into the rod, as Chen teaches, to reduce weight and save material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 24 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. The prior art fails to disclose or render obvious, in combination with the other limitations recited in claims 7 and 24: one or more first fluid openings extending between the second section of the receptacle opening and an arcuate outer surface of the valve cover; and one or more second fluid openings intersecting the one or more first fluid openings, the one or more second fluid openings oriented at an angle relative to the one or more first fluid openings, and wherein the safety device further comprises: one or more switching valves positioned in the valve cover, the one or more switching valves configured to at least partially switch flow of a fluid between the one or more first fluid openings and the one or more second fluid openings.
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 Examiner Jonathan Waddy, whose telephone number is 571-270-3146. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (10:00AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881 or Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/J. W./
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KEVIN F MURPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
