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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 01/07/2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1 and 5 are amended; claims 11-20 are canceled; claim 21 is added. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the non-final office action mailed 10/15/2025. However, a new rejection is made over Oostveen (U.S. Patent No. 9,783,347).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 01/07/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) claims 1-10 under 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive, due to the amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Oostveen (U.S. Patent No. 9,783,347).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oostveen (U.S. Patent No. 9,783,347).
Regarding claim 1, Oostveen discloses:
A disc valve (10) comprising: (Col. 5, lines 6-19)
a valve body 14 (Col. 5, lines 6-19)
a seat ring (58) positioned in the valve body 14 (Col. 6, line 64 - Col. 7, line 11; see Figure 6)
a disc (16) positioned in the valve body (14), the disc (16) rotatable within the valve body (14) to define an open configuration and a closed configuration
the disc (16) comprising (Col. 5, lines 6-19)
a lip (118), wherein the lip (118) interacts with the seat ring (94) in the closed configuration to form a fluid tight seal (see Figure 3; Col. 7, lines 40-67)
an arcuate convex first surface 132 (see Figure 9; Col. 8, lines 31-42)
an arcuate concave second surface 130 (see Figure 9; Col. 8, lines 31-42)
wherein the first surface (132) is opposed to the second surface 130 (see Figure 9)
Regarding claim 2, Oostveen discloses:
wherein when the disc (16) is in the open configuration of the valve body (14) the first surface (132) is closer to a sidewall of the valve body (16) than the second surface 130
Regarding claim 3, Oostveen discloses:
wherein the disc valve (10) further defines a centerline and wherein the first surface (132) restricts a fluid flow through the disc valve (10) at the centerline (see Figure 14)
Regarding claim 5, Oostveen discloses:
wherein the seat ring (58) is between the valve body (14) and an endcap 12 (see Figure 14)
Regarding claim 6, Oostveen discloses:
wherein the disc (16) further comprises a first ear (113) and a second ear (126) disposed on the second surface 130
Regarding claim 9, Oostveen discloses:
wherein when the disc (16) is in an open configuration, the disc (16) divides a flow channel into a first channel adjacent the first surface (132) and a second channel adjacent the second surface (130), and wherein the first channel has a greater cross- sectional area than the second channel (see Figure 9)
Regarding claim 10, Oostveen discloses:
wherein an average velocity of fluid in the first channel is greater than an average velocity of fluid in the second channel
an average pressure of fluid in the first channel is less than an average pressure of fluid in the second channel
Further regarding this claim, since the first channel is less restricted and larger, it will have a greater average velocity, but a lower average pressure than the second channel.
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) 4, 7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oostveen in view of Kamiyama et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,046,703).
PNG
media_image1.png
733
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4 from Kamiyama.
Regarding claims 4 and 7, Oostveen discloses the invention as essentially claimed, but fails to disclose wherein the disc valve further comprises a stem and a stub coupled to the disc such that neither the stem nor the stub enter a flow channel of the disc valve; a stem coupled to a first ear of the disc and a stub coupled to a second ear of the disc opposite the stem.
Kamiyama discloses a butterfly valve wherein a disc valve further comprises a stem (see annotated figure above) and a stub (see annotated figure above) coupled to a disc (1) such that neither the stem (see annotated figure above) nor the stub (see annotated figure above) enter a flow channel of the disc valve; a stem (see annotated figure above) coupled to a first ear (see annotated figure above) of a disc (1) and a stub (see annotated figure above) coupled to a second ear (see annotated figure above) of the disc (1) opposite the stem (see annotated figure above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Oostveen to provide wherein the disc valve further comprises a stem and a stub coupled to the disc such that neither the stem nor the stub enter a flow channel of the disc valve; a stem coupled to a first ear of the disc and a stub coupled to a second ear of the disc opposite the stem, as taught by Kamiyama. Doing so would increase stability during rotation, since the stem and stub would be of the same material interacting with the housing.
Regarding claim 8, Oostveen as modified, teaches the invention as essentially claimed, and further teaches wherein an offset (110) in the first surface (132) extends into a centerline of the valve body (14) extending between the stem and the stub (see Figure 9).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oostveen in view of Kamiyama, in further view of Torii et al. (U.S. 2007/0063164).
Regarding claim 8, Oostveen as modified, teaches the invention as essentially claimed, but fails to teach wherein the stem is coupled to the first ear of the disc through a rectangular hole, and wherein the stub is coupled to the second ear of the disc opposite the stem through a second rectangular hole.
Torii teaches a butterfly valve wherein a stem is coupled a disc through a rectangular hole (see paragraph 0008).
The combination of Oostveen, Kamiyama, and Torri therefore teaches wherein the stem is coupled to the first ear of the disc through a rectangular hole, and wherein the stub is coupled to the second ear of the disc opposite the stem through a second rectangular hole.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Oostveen to provide wherein the stem is coupled to the first ear of the disc through a rectangular hole, and wherein the stub is coupled to the second ear of the disc opposite the stem through a second rectangular hole, as taught by Torii. Doing so would provide an increase of torque.
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 KELSEY E CARY whose telephone number is (571)272-9427. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-5:30pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at (571)-272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881.. 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.
/KELSEY E CARY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753