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 .
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 7, 29 and 30 are 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. In claim 7, a second notch in the valve seat appears to be the same as amended claim 1 which is the notch in the valve seat. Claims 29 and 30 are not supported by the specification and the examiner does not know what the applicant is talking about in claim 30 in which the second groove is at an end of the valve seat and is open(?) to the end of the valve seat?
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-8, 21-24, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Morrison US 4,068,821.
Regarding claim 1, Morrison discloses a valve assembly (Figs. 1-3) comprising:
a valve body (12 or 50 and 52) defining an upstream end (left side), a downstream end (right side), and an opening (14 or 54) extending along a central axis between the upstream end and the downstream end (see Figs. 1-3);
a valve gate (16 or 56) movable relative to the valve body, the valve gate defining a first side proximal to the upstream end and a second side proximal to the downstream end, the second side being opposite to the first side;
a valve seat (18 or 20 or 58 or 60) disposed within the valve body adjacent to the valve gate, the valve seat including a flange (at 36, 37 90, 92) received within a notch (at 25, 27, 70, 72) in the valve body, wherein the valve seat is configured to form a fluid tight seal with the valve gate; and
a sealing element (40 or 42 or 102 or 104) disposed between the valve body and the valve seat and retained within a notch (where the sealing element resides is a notch in Figs. 1-3) in the valve seat, the sealing element and contacting each of the valve body and the valve seat, wherein the sealing element urges the valve seat towards the valve gate (col. 7, lines 57-61, col. 9, lines 55-56) wherein the notch in the valve body and the flange create a stepped profile configured to trap debris and restrict passage of debris toward the sealing element (see Figs. 1-3, is stepped so would trap debris).
Regarding claim 2, wherein the flange (at 36 and 30, 37 and 31, 70 and 90, or 72 and 92) extends about the central axis, and wherein the first notch and the flange together create a flow restriction to prevent fluid flow therethrough (provides a flow restriction).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the sealing element includes an annular seal (40 or 42 or 102 or 104) engaging with each of the valve seat and the valve body.
Regarding claim 4, wherein the sealing element further includes a spring element received within the annular seal, and wherein the spring element exerts a spring force on the valve seat to engage the valve seat with the valve gate (functions as both seal and spring, col. 7, lines 57-61, col. 9, lines 55-56).
Regarding claim 7 (see 112 rejection), wherein the valve seat defines a second notch (at 34 and 30, 35 and 31, 98 or 100) extending circumferentially about the central axis, and wherein the sealing element is received within the second notch of the valve seat (already in claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the valve seat is a first valve seat disposed at the first side of the valve gate and the sealing element is a first sealing element disposed between the first valve seat and the valve body, the valve assembly further comprising a second valve seat disposed at the second side of the valve gate and a second sealing element disposed between the second valve seat and the valve body (see Figs. 1-3, the first valve seat and first sealing element on the left upstream side of the gate and the second valve seat and second sealing element on the right downstream side of the gate).
Regarding claim 21, wherein the valve seat is a single body that includes the notch in the valve seat and which is configured to form the fluid tight seal with the valve gate (see Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 22, wherein the flange extends beyond the notch in the valve seat and the sealing element (see Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 23, Morrison discloses a valve assembly (Figs. 1-3) comprising:
a valve body (12 or 50 and 52) defining an upstream end (left side), a downstream end (right side), and an opening (14 or 54) extending along a central axis between the upstream end and the downstream end (see Figs. 1-3);
a valve gate (16 and 56) movable relative to the valve body, the valve gate defining a first side proximal to the upstream end and a second side proximal to the downstream end, the second side being opposite to the first side (see Figs. 1-3);
a valve seat (18 or 20 or 58 or 60) disposed within the valve body adjacent to the valve gate, the valve seat being a single body that extends between the valve body and the valve gate (see Figs. 1-3); and
a sealing element (40 or 42 or 102 or 104) retained within a notch in the valve seat (where the sealing element resides is a notch in Figs. 1-3), wherein the sealing element urges the valve seat towards the valve gate to form a fluid seal preventing fluid from flowing between the valve seat and the valve gate (col. 7, lines 57-61, col. 9, lines 55-56).
Regarding claim 24, wherein the valve seat includes a flange extending about the central axis, wherein the flange is received within a first notch in the valve body, and wherein the first notch and the flange together create a flow restriction to prevent fluid flow therethrough (see Figs. 1-3, is stepped so would trap debris).
Regarding claim 26, wherein the sealing element includes an annular seal engaging both the valve seat and the valve body (see Figs. 1-3).
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(s) 4-7, 25, and 27-30, as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison US 4,068,821 in view of Chatufale US 6,664,572.
Regarding claims 4 and 27, Morrison lacks a the sealing element further includes a separate spring element received within the annular seal, and wherein the spring element exerts a spring force on the valve seat to engage the valve seat with the valve gate (Morrison functions as both seal and spring, col. 7, lines 57-61, col. 9, lines 55-56). Chatufale discloses a separate spring element received within the annular seal (col. 8, line 19 - col. 9, line 2, “The seal rings 151/152 also preferably comprise an inner spring member coupled to the high temperature plastic body adapted to exert a force outwardly against the upward legs of the U-shaped body and provide a seal against the inner surface of pocket insert grooves 156 and 155, respectively. The inner spring member preferably comprises an alloy such as Elgiloy, and alternatively may comprise other metals, for example”). 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 single seal and spring of Morrison to be separate as disclosed by Chatufale as a matter of simple substitution of seal and spring and/or to provide a more corrosion resistant and tougher seal and spring.
Regarding claim 5, Morrison in view of Chatufale discloses the spring element is made of a metallic material (Chaufale discloses in col. 8, line 19 - col. 9, line 2, “The seal rings 151/152 also preferably comprise an inner spring member coupled to the high temperature plastic body adapted to exert a force outwardly against the upward legs of the U-shaped body and provide a seal against the inner surface of pocket insert grooves 156 and 155, respectively. The inner spring member preferably comprises an alloy such as Elgiloy, and alternatively may comprise other metals, for example”)..
Regarding claims 6 and 28, Morrison lacks the sealing element further includes an annular shim received within the spring element. Chatufale discloses the sealing element further includes an annular shim (153a, 158a, 153b, or 158b) received within the spring element (see Fig. 7, and col. 8, line 19 - col. 9, line 2). 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 single seal and spring of Morrison to be separate and have a shim as disclosed by Chatufale as a matter of simple substitution of seal and spring and/or to provide a more corrosion resistant and tougher seal and spring and/or to provide means to “help prevent rotation, displacement or collapse” of the seals.
Regarding claim 25, Morrison lacks the sealing element has a U-shape. Chatufale discloses the sealing element has a U-shape 151, or 152 or 166. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the sealing element of Morrison a U-shape as disclosed by Chatufale as a matter of simple substitution of shape changes and/or to make the sealing element smaller in size to reduce material costs.
Regarding claims 29 and 7?, Morrison lacks the valve seat includes a second groove configured to receive a second sealing element. Chatufale discloses the valve seat includes a second groove configured to receive a second sealing element (other of 151 or 152 in grooves 155 or 56). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morrison to make a second groove having a second sealing element as disclosed by Chatufale as a second seal would provide better sealing of the device.
Regarding claim 30, Morrison lacks the second groove is positioned at an end of the valve seat and is open to the end of the valve seat. The modification of claim 29 above is seen to be positioned at an end of the valve seat and is open to the end of the valve seat
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has canceled the non-elected claims so there is no restriction currently. Regarding applicant’s arguments to the 102 rejection to Chatufale the examiner agrees that it is no longer a 102 rejection. The examiner has just kept the 102 Morrison rejection for simplicity, but Grove is still seen to be a 102 rejection for in dependent claim 23. Also, Chatufale and Grove can be easily modified by Morrison as a 103 rejection for all claims, but the examiner just kept the Morrison in view of Chatufale rejections for simplicity. Regarding applicant’s arguments to the 102 rejection to Morrison, the examiner does not follow applicant’s arguments about the sealing element retained in a notch as the sealing element is clearly retained within the notch where the sealing element resides whether it’s in the notch (L-shaped notch of the valve seat) or the groove (98 and/or 100) which is also a notch and the sealing element 40, 42, 102, 104 are retained in these notches. The examiner doesn’t understand applicant’s arguments in this respect. It appears the applicant is reading limitations into the claims that are not there.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOHN BASTIANELLI whose telephone number is (571)272-4921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-4921 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 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.
/John Bastianelli/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
571-272-4921