DETAILED ACTION
The Response filed 4 February 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending, with claims 8-13 currently being withdrawn due to the election requirement, as discussed below.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 4 February 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-13 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4 February 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, line 2, “and safety device” should be changed to --and the safety device--.
In claim 6, lines 5-6, “the first section smaller” should be changed to --the first section is smaller--.
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 18-20 are rejected (wherein claim 20 inherits its rejection due to its dependency) 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.
In claim 18, lines 4 and 6, it is unclear whether the recitations of “the coupling” refer to the coupling introduced in claim 16 or the second coupling introduced in line 1 of claim 18. As understood, the recitations refer to the coupling introduced in claim 16, and it is suggested that coupling be named a more specific name, such as a first coupling, to distinguish said coupling from the second coupling.
Similarly, in claim 19, line 3, “the coupling” is recited, which is understood as referring to the coupling introduced in claim 16, which should be amended as discussed above in reference to the 112 issue in claim 18.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jackson (US 3,494,504).
Regarding claim 1, Jackson discloses in Figs. 1-6 a safety device for fluid ends, comprising:
a valve cover (comprising pipe P or sleeve 9 with cover 15, wherein “valve cover” is seen as a name for a structure and not necessarily defining a function or additional structure, such as a valve) comprising an outer shoulder (comprising one of the outer corners of pipe P or sleeve 9) and a receptacle opening (comprising the bore in the pipe P or sleeve 9); and
a jam structure movable in the receptacle opening of the valve cover, the jam structure comprising:
a first plate 12,
a second plate 11,
a rod 10 between the first plate 12 and the second plate 11, and
one or more extensions (comprising either the conical surface of the cone 7 comprising the second plate 11, or the lugs extending from the first plate 16) extending relative to the second plate 11 (wherein the lugs 16 extend relative to the second plate 11 because the respective longitudinal axes of the lugs 16 are perpendicular relative to the plane of the planar surface of the second plate 11).
Regarding claim 2, Jackson discloses in Figs. 1-6 that the first plate 12 and the second plate 11 are discal in shape, the rod 10 is cylindrical in shape, and the one or more extensions 16 each have a rectangular cross section (as shown in the drawings).
Regarding claim 5, Jackson discloses in Figs. 1-6 that the rod 10 extends relative to a first side of the second plate 11, wherein the one or more extensions (comprising either the conical surface of the cone 7 comprising the second plate 11, or the lugs extending from the first plate 16) extend relative to a second side of the second plate 11 (wherein “extend relative to” is not the same as “extending from”), and wherein the jam structure further comprises a recess (comprising the bore through the second plate 11, or at least a portion of said bore, including the bore/recess in the rod 10, like the recess/bore in the second plate 252 and rod 253 disclosed by the applicant) extending into the second side of the second plate 11 and partially into the rod 10.
Claims 1-2 (alternatively: both) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Williamson et al. (US 148,102).
Regarding claim 1, Williamson discloses in Figs. 1-2 a safety device for fluid ends, comprising:
a valve cover (comprising cover B and/or the hydrant box A) comprising an outer shoulder (comprising one of the outer corners of the cover B and/or the hydrant box A) and a receptacle opening (comprising the bore through the center of the cover B and/or the hydrant A); and
a jam structure movable in the receptacle opening of the valve cover, the jam structure comprising:
a first plate G,
a second plate (comprising the central cylindrical section of the cross-bar that is threaded onto the screw E),
a rod E between the first plate and the second plate, and
one or more extensions (comprising the two flanges of the cross-bar F) extending relative to the second plate.
Regarding claim 2, Williamson discloses in Figs. 1-2 that the first plate G and the second plate (comprising the central cylindrical section of the cross-bar that is threaded onto the screw E) are discal in shape, the rod is cylindrical in shape, and the one or more extensions (comprising the two flanges of the cross-bar F) each have a rectangular cross section.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 6 (alternatively: 1) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) 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 (comprising plug 68 or body 74, which provides at least some covering for the plug 68 and the valve covered by the plug 68 in the manifold 18) comprising an outer shoulder (comprising one of the outer corners of the plug 68 or body 74) and a receptacle opening (comprising the central bore in the plug 68 or the body 74); and
a jam structure movable in the receptacle opening of the valve cover, the jam structure comprising:
a first plate (comprising flange 106 or distal portion 114),
a second plate (comprising distal portion 114 or flange 106),
a rod 112 between the first plate and the second plate, and
one or more extensions 80 extending relative to the second plate (because “extending relative to” is not the same as “extending from,” and the extensions 80 extend outward, or at an angle, relative to the second plate 114/106).
Regarding claim 3, Barnhouse discloses in Figs. 3-13 that the valve cover further comprises an inner shoulder (comprising an interior corner of the body 74 or the plug 68) opposing the outer shoulder, and safety device further comprises: a biasing element 108 positioned between the inner shoulder of the valve cover and the first plate 106 of the jam structure.
Regarding claim 4, Barnhouse discloses in Figs. 3-13 that the rod 112 extends relative to a first side of the second plate, wherein the one or more extensions 80 extend relative to a second side of the second plate (because “extending relative to” is not the same as “extending from,” and the extensions 80 extend outward, or at an angle, relative to the second plate 114/106), and wherein the one or more extensions 80 include a plurality of extensions 80 that are spaced equidistantly from each other along a circumferential pattern.
Regarding claim 6, Barnhouse discloses in Figs. 3-13 that the rod 112 extends relative to a first side of the second plate 110, wherein the one or more extensions 80 extend relative to a second side of the second plate 110 (because “extending relative to” is not the same as “extending from,” and the extensions 80 extend outward, or at an angle, relative to the second plate 114/106), and wherein the receptacle opening (comprising the through-bore in the cover 74) of the valve cover 74 comprises: a first section 78 extending into the second side of the second plate 110, the first section 78 sized and shaped to receive the rod 112 of the jam structure therethrough, and the first section 78 smaller than the second plate 110; a second section (comprising the middle tapered portion of the central bore in the cover 74, or a central portion of said tapered portion) larger than the first section 78; and a third section (the bottom-most portion of the central bore in the cover 74) larger than the second section, the third section sized and shaped to receive the first plate 114.
Claims 1 and 14-15 (alternatively: 1) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sherbeck et al. (US 2021/0270382).
Regarding claim 1, Sherbeck discloses in Figs. 5A-D a safety device for fluid ends, comprising:
a valve cover (comprising either of valve cover 516 or lock ring 547, which acts as a cover for the valve cover 516 and/or the manifold 105 housing the valve and valve cover 516) comprising an outer shoulder (comprising one of the outer corners of valve cover 516 or lock ring 547) and a receptacle opening (comprising the bore in the valve cover 516 or the lock ring 547); and
a jam structure movable in the receptacle opening of the valve cover, the jam structure comprising:
a first plate 546,
a second plate 581,
a rod 590 between the first plate 546 and the second plate 581, and
one or more extensions 545 extending relative to the second plate 581.
Regarding claim 14, Sherbeck discloses in Figs. 1-5 (specifically the embodiment of the cover shown in Figs. 5A-D) a fluid end assembly for pumping operations, comprising: a body 105 comprising a plurality of bores formed therein (Figs. 1-2) and intersecting at a junction; an inlet valve (comprising the valve body 222 at the bottom of Fig. 2A) disposed in at least one of the bores; an outlet valve (comprising the valve body 22 at the bottom of Fig. 2A) disposed in at least one of the bores; a valve cover 516 coupled to the body 105 and covering the outlet valve; a locking assembly 543 locking the valve cover 516 to the body 18; and a jam structure (comprising plates 581, 546 and the rod 541 connecting the plates 581, 546) disposed at least partially between the valve cover 516 and the locking assembly 543 (such as with plate 546), the jam structure configured to restrict retraction of the locking assembly 543 when a fluid flows through the outlet valve (because the jam structure is configured to restrict retraction of the locking assembly 543 regardless of flow conditions).
Regarding claim 15, Sherbeck discloses in Figs. 5A-D that the jam structure comprises: a first plate 546; a second plate 581; a rod 590 between the first plate 546 and the second plate 581; and one or more extensions 545 extending relative to the second plate 581.
Claims 16-19 (as understood: 18-19) 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 (comprising body 60, which is threaded into the lock ring 15 for locking the seal retainer 2 and spring biased valve 7 in the assembly similar to the applicant’s actuator, or 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 (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 a 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 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 60 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 the first end is coupled to the coupling 66, the second end is coupled to the second coupling 65, and a portion of the locking plate 64 covers a portion of the actuator 60 in the locked position.
Alternatively regarding claim 18, in a second interpretation of Cornelson, Cornelson discloses in Figs. 1-5 that a second coupling 60 (wherein the actuator is made up of the packing energizer 4) that couples the locking plate 64 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 60; and the first end is coupled to the coupling 66, the second end is coupled to the second coupling 60, and a portion of the locking plate 64 covers a portion of the actuator 4 in the locked position.
Regarding claim 19, in the second interpretation of Smith, Smith discloses in Figs. 1-12 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.
Claim 20 is 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 a locking plate 64 rotatable to selectively lock an 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 the first end of the second locking plate is coupled to the third coupling, the second end of the second locking plate is coupled to the fourth coupling, 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 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, and any claim objections 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 claim 7: 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
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
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights