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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/07/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 08/07/2026. As directed by the amendment - claim 1 is amended. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the final office action mailed 03/12/2026. However, a new rejection is made over Hartman et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,202,983) and Scaramucci (U.S. Patent No. 3,601,364).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 08/07/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 102 and 103 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Hartman et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,202,983) and Scaramucci (U.S. Patent No. 3,601,364).
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, 2, 3, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hartman et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,202,983).
PNG
media_image1.png
662
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 from Hartman.
Regarding claim 1, Hartman discloses:
A disc valve (10) comprising:
a valve body 12 (Col. 4, lines 31-38)
a compressible seat ring (70) positioned seated in the valve body 12 (Col. 5, line 61-Col. 6, line 36)
a disc (14) positioned in the valve body (12), the disc (14) rotatable within the valve body (12) to define an open configuration and a closed configuration, the disc (14) comprising: (Col. 4, lines 31-38)
a lip (34), wherein the lip (34) interacts with the seat ring (70) in the closed configuration to form a fluid tight seal (Col. 5, lines 4-28; Col. 6, lines 16-24)
an arcuate convex first surface (see annotated figure above)
an arcuate concave second surface (see annotated figure above)
wherein the first surface (see annotated figure above) is opposed to the second surface (see annotated figure above)
Regarding claim 2, Hartman discloses:
wherein when the disc (14) is in the open configuration of the valve body (12) the first surface (see annotated figure above) is closer to a sidewall of the valve body (12) than the second surface (see annotated figure above)
Regarding claim 3, Hartman discloses:
wherein the disc valve (10) further defines a centerline (52) and wherein the first surface (see annotated figure above) restricts a fluid flow through the disc valve (10) at the centerline 52 (see Figure 3)
Regarding claim 6, Hartman discloses:
the disc (10) further comprises a first ear (36) and a second ear (36) disposed on the second surface (see annotated figure above)
Claim(s) 1-5, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Scaramucci (U.S. Patent No. 3,601,364).
PNG
media_image2.png
876
615
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 from Scaramucci.
Regarding claim 1, Scaramucci discloses:
A disc valve (10) comprising:
a valve body 12, 102 (Col. 2, lines 10-14)
a compressible seat ring (126) positioned seated in the valve body 12, 102 (Col. 4, lines 9-26)
a disc (14) positioned in the valve body (12, 102), the disc (14) rotatable within the valve body (12, 102) to define an open configuration and a closed configuration, the disc (14) comprising:
a lip (22), wherein the lip (22) interacts with the seat ring (126) in the closed configuration to form a fluid tight seal (Col. 4, lines 17-26)
an arcuate convex first surface 16 (see Figure 1)
an arcuate concave second surface (see annotated figure above)
wherein the first surface (16) is opposed to the second surface (see annotated figure above)
Regarding claim 2, Scaramucci discloses:
wherein when the disc (14) is in the open configuration of the valve body (12, 102) the first surface (16) is closer to a sidewall of the valve body (12, 102) than the second surface (see annotated figure above)
Regarding claim 3, Scaramucci discloses:
wherein the disc valve (10) further defines a centerline and wherein the first surface (16) restricts a fluid flow through the disc valve (14) at the centerline (see Figure 1)
Regarding claim 4, Scaramucci discloses:
wherein the disc valve (10) further comprises a stem (28) and a stub (36) coupled to the disc (14) such that neither the stem (28) nor the stub (36) enter a flow channel of the disc valve 10 (see Figure 1; Col. 2, lines 20-40)
Regarding claim 5, Scaramucci discloses:
wherein the seat ring (126) is between the valve body (12, 102) and an endcap 42 (see Figure 1)
Regarding claim 9, Scaramucci discloses:
wherein when the disc (14) is in an open configuration, the disc (14) divides a flow channel into a first channel adjacent the first surface (16) and a second channel adjacent the second surface (see annotated figure above), and wherein the first channel has a greater cross- sectional area than the second channel
Regarding claim 10, Scaramucci 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 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, 5, 7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartman in view of Kamiyama et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,046,703).
PNG
media_image3.png
733
528
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4 from Kamiyama.
Regarding claims 4 and 7, Hartman 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 teaches 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 Hartman 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 5, Hartman discloses the invention as essentially claimed, but fails to disclose wherein the seat ring is between the valve body and an endcap.
Kamiyama teaches a butterfly valve wherein a seat ring (2) is between a valve body (5) and an endcap (see Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Hartman to provide wherein the seat ring is between the valve body and an endcap, as taught by Kamiyama. Doing so would make it easy to remove a worn seal ring.
Regarding claim 8, Hartman as modified, teaches the invention as essentially claimed, and further teaches wherein an offset (see annotated figure above) in the first surface (see annotated figure above) extends into a centerline of the valve body (12) extending between the stem and the stub (see Figure 3).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scaramucci in view of Kamiyama.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Scaramucci discloses the invention as essentially claimed, but fails to disclose wherein the disc further comprises a first ear and a second ear disposed on the second surface; 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 teaches a butterfly valve wherein a first ear (see annotated figure above) and a second ear (see annotated figure above) disposed on a second surface; 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 Scaramucci to provide a first ear and a second ear disposed on the second surface; 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 allow just the valve disc to be removed in the event of wear, which would be a cheaper replacement.
Regarding claim 8, Scaramucci as modified teaches the invention as essentially claimed and the combination further teaches wherein an offset in the first surface (16) extends into a centerline of the valve body (12, 102) extending between the stem and the stub (see Figure 1; the stem, stub, and ears would be located at element 24).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartman in view of Kamiyama, in further view of Torii et al. (U.S. 2007/0063164).
Regarding claim 8, Hartman 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 Hartman, 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 Hartman 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.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scaramucci in view of Kamiyama, in further view of Torii et al. (U.S. 2007/0063164).
Regarding claim 8, Scaramucci 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 Scaramucci, 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 Scaramucci 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
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
Prosecution Insights