DETAILED ACTION
Final
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 Amendments/Arguments
Claims 1-13 and 17-21 are pending. Claims 1-10 and 12 are currently amended. Claims 14-16 are canceled. Claims 17-21 are newly added. It appears no new matter has been entered. The claim 10 amendment has overcome the objection to the claim. The corrections to the written description have overcome the drawing objections which are withdrawn. The amendments to the claims have overcome the rejections under 35 USC 112 first and second paragraphs. Claims 7, 8 and now 17 are allowable as discussed below.
The amendments to the claims have overcome the rejections to the claims as obvious over Ko in view of Ball; as anticipated over Hills and Yoon, and have required further search and consideration and application of new primary reference Storle as seen below. Considering the remarks are not addressed to Storle, this action must be made Final.
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 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) 1-6, 9-11, 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Storle (US 0985469);
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Storle as applied to claim 9-11 above, and further in view of Ko (US 9234333);
Storle discloses in Claim 1: (see at least annotated figure 1 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
978
836
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A hydrant (Figure 1 and 2, page 1 ln 5-15) comprising: a conduit (a/d/c) having a subterranean lower end in fluid communication with a liquid source (as discussed, underground water main); a valve assembly (at 3002) slidably mounted in the subterranean lower end (bottom end connected to the underground water main) of the conduit, the valve assembly comprising a valve seat portion (h) having at least one opening (at 3004a,b) therethrough permitting flow from the liquid source to an upper end (c ) of the conduit, a plug portion (f/j/q) sized and constructed to block flow through the valve seat portion, hence through the conduit, and a threaded connector (m) connecting the valve seat portion to the plug portion, the threaded connector being fixed to one of the valve seat portion and the plug portion (m is rotatably fixed to h, and threadably fixed to j) and being threadedly connected to the other of the valve seat portion and the plug portion; a rotatable valve stem (o) attached (via k/q) to the valve assembly and extending upward through the conduit, the valve stem being fixedly attached to one of the valve seat portion and the plug portion (fixed to the plug portion of j at q), rotation of the valve stem causing relative rotation between the valve seat portion and the plug portion (as shown), the threaded connector causing relative axial movement between the valve seat portion and the plug portion when the valve stem is rotated (for the valve seat portion h to ride along axially the threads of j to axially reciprocate.)
Storle discloses in Claim 9: A valve assembly (figure 1) comprising, a valve body (a/b/) and a valve cartridge assembly (at 3002), the valve cartridge assembly comprising a valve seat portion (h), a valve plug portion (f/l/j/q/o), and a threaded connection (m/j) between the valve plug portion and the valve seat portion, the valve seat portion having at least one opening (via 3004a,b) therethrough to permit liquid flow through the valve cartridge assembly when in an open position; the valve seat portion forming a water-tight sliding fit with the valve body (in as much as when closed the valve seat portion closes the valve water-tight), at least a portion of the valve body and at least a portion of the valve seat portion being non-circular (at v) to limit rotation of the valve seat portion relative to the valve body, the valve plug portion being freely rotatable about an axis through at least 360.deg. (for rotational travel along the thread) and being limited in axial movement (while h travels axially), rotation of the valve plug portion moving the valve seat portion axially into and out of a closed position blocking flow of liquid through the at least one opening and through the valve cartridge assembly (as shown and discussed, page 1 ln 5-15.)
Storle discloses in Claim 2: The hydrant of claim 1, wherein the valve stem is constrained (as discussed above to provide axial fixation/anchoring but rotational movement), relative to the conduit, in a vertical direction such that the valve stem is limited in movement along an axis (central axis of the stem o) in the vertical direction.
Storle discloses in Claim 3: The hydrant of claim 2, wherein the valve stem is retained in the conduit and constrained in an axial direction by a top cap (at i), the top cap being releasably attachable to the conduit.
Storle discloses in Claim 4: The hydrant of claim 3, wherein the conduit comprises a headstock (of i), a discharge nozzle (at c) is coupled to the headstock and in fluid communication with the conduit (via a) through a channel (inside channel of a) of the headstock, and the top cap is attached to the headstock (as shown.)
Storle discloses in Claim 5: The hydrant of claim 4, wherein the valve stem extends through the headstock (as shown), and wherein a handle (at n not shown) is attached to the valve stem above the headstock to permit rotation of the valve stem (o) and actuation of the valve assembly through the rotation of the valve stem.
Storle discloses in Claim 6: The hydrant of claim 5, the valve stem is hollow (at the top for the connection the stem is hollow) and a valved opening in fluid communication with the valve stem is positioned above the headstock (taken from a view point perspective, the valved opening is fluidly upstream of the valve headstock, the fluid communication about the stem.)
Storle discloses in Claim 10: The valve assembly of claim 9 wherein the valve plug portion comprises a valve stem (at o/j) extending through (and into) a conduit (of a), the plug portion being restrained from axial movement by the valve stem (the end of the stem holds the body of the plug valve that is restrained from axial movement.)
Storle discloses in Claim 11: The valve assembly of claim 10 wherein the conduit comprises a pipe (a is a pipe that is partially comprised in the conduit), the valve body being threaded to a distal end of the pipe (as shown), and wherein the valve stem is restrained from movement (axially) away from the distal end of the pipe (via the captured flange ).
Storle discloses in Claim 12: The valve assembly of claim 11 wherein the valve stem is restrained by a head stock assembly (i ) and wherein removal of at least a part of the head stock assembly permits pulling the [stem] from the pipe (as shown); but Storle does not disclose: a headstock assembly opening large enough to pull the cartridge via the stem there through; but Ko teaches: a headstock assembly opening large enough to pull the cartridge via the stem there through (top at 1002 of the valve body tube is wide enough to cover the entire tube without narrowing, all for the purpose of removability of parts.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Storle as taught in Ko, with a headstock assembly opening large enough to pull the cartridge of Storle as taught in Ko via the stem there through where the body tube is wide enough to cover the entire tube without narrowing, all for the purpose of removability of parts.
Storle discloses in Claim 13: The valve assembly of claim 9 wherein a cylindrical portion of the valve seat portion comprises at least one [sealing] ring (at f) forming a sliding seal with a cylindrical portion of the valve body; but Storle does not disclose an o-ring: although Ko teaches: using an o-ring for sealing purposes;
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Storle as taught in Ko, with an o-ring in lieu of the sealing ring of Storle, for the purpose of sealing the sliding valve seat body, an improve sealing thereof, where it is noted that the o-ring for sealing ring is a mere exchange of equivalent parts which is obvious to those of ordinary skill in the fluid art.
Storle discloses in Claim 18: The hydrant of claim 1 further comprising a movable above-ground stop, the stop being sized and shaped to limit upward movement of the valve stem (at k); disabling the stop enabling sliding the valve assembly upward out of the conduit.
Storle discloses in Claim 19: The hydrant of claim 1 wherein the threaded connector is a threaded rod (m is a stub rod) fixed with respect to the plug portion, the threaded rod being threaded into a threaded opening in the valve seat portion (there is a journaled thread that is in the valve seat portion h, that forms m), the valve seat portion being restrained from rotation relative to the conduit (via v.)
Storle discloses in Claim 20: The hydrant of claim 19 wherein the plug portion is above the valve seat portion (f/j/o are above h), the threaded rod extending downward from the plug portion (downwards from the top of h, and below j.)
Storle discloses in Claim 21: The hydrant of claim 20 wherein the valve seat portion comprises a polygonal part (v is polygonal in top down view see, figure 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8 and 17 are allowed. (Claims 8 and 17 depend from claim 7 and are allowable merely for the reasons of the parent claim.)
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious in claim 7 the following: “a through bore, the valve seat carrier having a valve seat adapted and configured to engage with the plug portion of the valve stem to form a seal when the valve assembly is in a closed position, the through bore extending through the valve seat, the valve seat carrier having a threaded portion of the through bore engaging the threaded portion of the valve stem…” in combination with the other limitations set forth above, where it is noted that to modify Storle would require adjust its operability and also arguable improper hindsight construction of the same, especially considering the lack of teaching in the art of such a claimed arrangement in combination with the other limitations of the dependent, independent and intervening claim limitations.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Elder (US 3219054) discloses a valve stem threaded for reciprocation opening closing of the valve seat portion; Montgomery C. Meigs, (US 0028391) provides a hydrant valve for multiple inlet and outlet control via hollow plug and threaded reciprocation via rotatable stem.
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 MATTHEW W JELLETT, whose telephone number is 571-270-7497. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Ken 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 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.
/Matthew W Jellett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights