DETAILED ACTION
Second Non 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 Amendment/Arguments
Claims 1-10 are pending. No claims are amended. Applicant remarks are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicants remarks are well taken regarding the previous rejection applying Winegeart, and to clarify, the rejection has been modified so as to more particularly point out how Winegeart includes the camming arrangement that reads on the claims. It is noted that the remarks are narrowly tailored and do not take into consideration the full scope of the claim language, in particular Winegeart does teach a bearing camming arrangement as discussed below. In addition, it cannot be said that Winegeart’s bearing camming arrangement is not in context with the disclosure, as both Winegeart and the instant disclosure, during rotation of the ball/plug cam the sealing surface of the plug against the sealing seat, via the bearing cam arrangement. This second non final is issued as a courtesy to applicant.
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 1-10 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.
The following Claims recite limitations which have insufficient antecedent basis. The Claims and respective limitations include the following: Claim 1, "the valve" in line 2, "the valve plug" in line 4; Claim 9, "the valve" in line 2, "the valve plug" in line 4; Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5, 9 and 10 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Winegeart (US 4577830);
Claim(s) 2-4, 8 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winegeart as applied to claim 1 (as indefinitely understood) above, and further in view of Cupedo (US 3298659);
Claim(s) 6, 7 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winegeart as applied to claim 1 (as indefinitely understood) above, and further in view of Smith (US 5167283.)
Winegeart discloses in claim 1: (see at least annotated figure 1 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
624
810
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A wellhead valve (high pressure ball valve (title) and see 10 figure 1 and Col 1 ln 26-33, for use in geothermal oil well industry, where the use of term “wellhead” is merely a statement of intended use as the term adds no meaningful limitation to the body of the claimed apparatus per MPEP 2114) comprising an upper connector assembly (of 15) and a lower connector assembly (of 17), the valve further comprising: (a) a rotatable valve plug (20) disposed (axially) between the upper and lower connector assemblies, the valve plug comprising: (i) a first drive-stem-engagement portion (at 21/23 figure 1), (ii) a first camming surface (slot bearing surfaces of 21/23 and see Col 8 ln 15-25, claims 7 and 8, the camming surfaces being the sidewalls facing 40, 42, 41 as seen figure 2), and (iii) a sealing surface (outer surface of ball 20 to seat against seat 22 for closure figure 1); (b) a first drive stem (at 32/34) connected to the first drive-stem-engagement portion (21/23) of the rotatable valve plug; (c) a first bearing (of 37/38 figure 5) including a first cam-engaging surface (at 40/41/42 where it is noted that the surfaces bear (i.e. are bearing…) against one another so are…) configured to engage (forcibly) the first camming surface (21/23 sidewalls facing 40/41/42) of the rotatable valve plug; and (d) a valve seat (22) with a sealing surface (face of 22) configured to engage the sealing surface of the rotatable valve plug; (e) wherein the first camming surface of the rotatable valve plug and the first cam-engaging surface of the first bearing are oriented (axially) opposite the sealing surface of the rotatable valve plug and the sealing surface of the valve seat (as shown ,where as seen in figure 1, 41 and the end of 21/23 are axially opposed to the valve seat 22 (see distance D1.))
Winegeart discloses in claim 2: The wellhead valve of claim 1 further comprising a [[means for]] rotating [actuator] (50 applies torque…) the first drive stem. Winegeart does not disclose: a means for rotating (the recitation of means for invoking interpretation under 35 USC 112(f), the means for rotating interpreted as best seen in figure 18); but Cupedo teaches: an equivalent structural means that operates in the same general way to achieve the same general result of rotation; where Cupedo teaches: a helical rotary actuator (see figures 1-3) comprising: (a) a housing (9/4/17/26) with an internal helical spline (17 and 6 are splines within the housing); (b) a piston (13/19 where 19 is fixed and 13 is movable) disposed within the housing and including an external helical spline (18) corresponding to the housing’s internal helical spline (that of 17); and (c) wherein the piston is mechanically linked to the first drive stem (i.e. at 2/2a via rotor bearing 31/32, of rotary cylinder 26 that is rotated via axial translation of helical spline of 17 and pin of 23, both rotated via movable and fixed piston rotation/axial reciprocation), such that rotation of the piston (at least that of 19) results in rotation of the first drive stem (2a of the plug cock, for the purpose of providing remote fluid hydraulic operation of the plug valve, Col 1 ln 13-15.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide for the actuator of Winegeart as taught in Cupedo, a helical rotary actuator that has a housing as taught in Cupedo with an internal helical spline within the housing and a piston fixed and movable and disposed within the housing and including an external helical spline that corresponds to the housing’s internal helical spline where the piston can be mechanically linked to the first drive stem via a rotor bearing of a rotary cylinder that can be rotated via axial translation of the helical spline via movable and fixed piston rotation/axial reciprocation, such that rotation of the piston as taught in Cupedo results in rotation of the first drive stem, all for the purpose of providing remote fluid hydraulic operation of the plug valve; that is all equivalent structural means that operates in the same general way to achieve the same general rotational result.
Winegeart discloses in claim 3: The wellhead valve of claim 1; but does not disclose, although Cupedo teaches: a helical rotary actuator (see figures 1-3) comprising: (a) a housing (9/4/17/26) with an internal helical spline (17 and 6 are splines within the housing); (b) a piston (13/19 where 19 is fixed and 13 is movable) disposed within the housing and including an external helical spline (18) corresponding to the housing’s internal helical spline (that of 17); and (c) wherein the piston is mechanically linked to the first drive stem (i.e. at 2/2a via rotor bearing 31/32, of rotary cylinder 26 that is rotated via axial translation of helical spline of 17 and pin of 23, both rotated via movable and fixed piston rotation/axial reciprocation), such that rotation of the piston (at least that of 19) results in rotation of the first drive stem (2a of the plug cock, for the purpose of providing remote fluid hydraulic operation of the plug valve, Col 1 ln 13-15.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide for the actuator of Winegeart as taught in Cupedo, a helical rotary actuator that has a housing as taught in Cupedo with an internal helical spline within the housing and a piston fixed and movable and disposed within the housing and including an external helical spline that corresponds to the housing’s internal helical spline where the piston can be mechanically linked to the first drive stem via a rotor bearing of a rotary cylinder that can be rotated via axial translation of the helical spline via movable and fixed piston rotation/axial reciprocation, such that rotation of the piston as taught in Cupedo results in rotation of the first drive stem, all for the purpose of providing remote fluid hydraulic operation of the plug valve.
Winegeart discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 4: The wellhead valve of claim 3 wherein the housing and piston define a hydraulic chamber (therein.)
Winegeart discloses in claim 5: The wellhead valve of claim 1 wherein the first drive-stem-engagement portion of the rotatable valve plug includes a box portion (hexagonal box portion 60) and the first drive stem includes a pin portion (52) configured to fit within the box portion (as discussed above.)
Winegeart discloses in claim 6: The wellhead valve of claim 1 further comprising a first [edge] (at the opening of the ball) disposed on the valve plug; Winegeart does not disclose, although Smith teaches: a shear edge or blade at 22 to shear pipe 67 between the metal seat 29 and the edge, when flow is being blocked from sealing (Col 4 ln 7-25);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide at the edge of Winegeart as taught in Smith, a shear edge or blade to shear pipe or obstruction between the metal seat and edge as taught in Smith for the purpose of maintaining flow if the valve is being blocked from sealing.
Winegeart discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 7: The wellhead valve of claim 6 further comprising a second (complimentary of Winegeart/Smith 22) shear blade (at seat edge 29 which is metal) and disposed in the valve seat (all for the purposes as previously indicated above.)
Winegeart discloses in claim 8: The wellhead valve of claim 1 wherein the rotatable valve plug includes a second drive-stem-engagement portion (at 21/23) and a second camming surface (slot bearing surfaces of 21/23 sidewalls facing 40/41/42 ), the wellhead valve further comprising: a first and second rotary actuator (50 top and bottom); a second drive stem (at 32/34) connected to the second drive stem engagement portion (21/23) ; a second bearing (37/38 figure 5) including a second cam-engaging surface (at 40/41/42) configured to engage the second camming surface of the rotatable valve plug (forcibly as discussed); (e) wherein the second camming surface of the rotatable valve plug and the second cam-engaging surface of the second bearing are oriented (axially) opposite the sealing surface of the rotatable valve plug and the sealing surface of the valve seat (as shown and discussed above);
although Winegeart does not disclose, but Cupedo teaches: a helical rotary actuator (see figures 1-3) comprising: (a) a housing (9/4/17/26) with an internal helical spline (17 and 6 are splines within the housing); (b) a piston (13/19 where 19 is fixed and 13 is movable) disposed within the housing and including an external helical spline (18) corresponding to the housing’s internal helical spline (that of 17); and (c) wherein the piston is mechanically linked to the first drive stem (i.e. at 2/2a via rotor bearing 31/32, of rotary cylinder 26 that is rotated via axial translation of helical spline of 17 and pin of 23, both rotated via movable and fixed piston rotation/axial reciprocation), such that rotation of the piston (at least that of 19) results in rotation of the first drive stem (2a of the plug cock, for the purpose of providing remote fluid hydraulic operation of the plug valve, Col 1 ln 13-15.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide for the first and second actuators of Winegeart as taught in Cupedo, a helical rotary actuator that has a housing as taught in Cupedo with an internal helical spline within the housing and a piston fixed and movable and disposed within the housing and including an external helical spline that corresponds to the housing’s internal helical spline where the piston can be mechanically linked to the first drive stem via a rotor bearing of a rotary cylinder that can be rotated via axial translation of the helical spline via movable and fixed piston rotation/axial reciprocation, such that rotation of the piston as taught in Cupedo results in rotation of the first drive stem, all for the purpose of providing remote fluid hydraulic operation of the plug valve at the first and second actuators of Cupedo.
Winegeart discloses in claim 9: A wellhead valve (high pressure ball valve (title) and see 10 figure 1 and Col 1 ln 26-33, for use in geothermal oil well industry, where the use of term “wellhead” is merely a statement of intended use as the term adds no meaningful limitation to the body of the claimed apparatus per MPEP 2114) comprising an upper connector assembly (of 15) and a lower connector assembly (of 17), the valve further comprising: (a) a rotatable valve plug (at 20) disposed between the upper and lower connector assemblies, the valve plug comprising: (i) a first drive-stem-engagement portion (at 21/23 figure 1), (ii) a sealing surface (surface of 20); (b) a first drive stem (at 32/34) connected to the first drive-stem-engagement portion of the rotatable valve plug wherein the first drive stem includes a first camming surface (slot bearing surfaces of 21/23 that face 40/41/42); (c) a first bearing (at 37/38) including a first cam-engaging surface (40/41/42) configured to engage the first camming surface (forcibly) of the first drive stem; and (d) a valve seat (22) with a sealing surface (on the outside thereof) configured to engage the sealing surface (20) of the rotatable valve plug; (e) wherein the first camming surface of first drive stem and the first cam-engaging surface of the first bearing are oriented (axially) opposite the sealing surface of the rotatable valve plug and the sealing surface of the valve seat.
Winegeart discloses in claim 10: The wellhead valve of claim 9 wherein the rotatable valve plug includes a second drive-stem-engagement portion (at 21/23 figure 1), the wellhead valve further comprising: (a) a second drive stem (at 32/34) connected to the second drive-stem-engagement portion of the rotatable valve plug wherein the second drive stem includes a second camming surface; (b) a second bearing (37/38) including a second cam-engaging surface (at 40/41/42) configured to engage the second camming surface (slot bearing surfaces of 21/23 that face 40/41/42) of the second drive stem; (c) wherein the second camming surface of second drive stem and the second cam-engaging surface of the second bearing are oriented (axially) opposite the sealing surface of the rotatable valve plug and the sealing surface of the valve seat.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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