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 .
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 22 Dec 2025 has been entered.
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 2-4 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the first and second positions" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the first position" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the first and second position" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-4 and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (US 1628674) in view Ringer (US 7,322,423).
Regarding Claim 1, Lewis disclose a dry pipe valve (Figure 1). The valve comprising:
a body (1 generally) having a passage (from 2 to 3 as seen in Figure 1) extending along a longitudinal axis between an inlet (2) and an outlet (3), the body defining an access port (covered by cover 43 shown in Figure 1), an aperture (covered by 50 in Figure 1) and a protrusion (of the housing at 1’) each communicating with the passage (Figure 1);
a cover (43) positioned over the access port (Figure 1);
a seat (26) coupled to the body (Figure 1), the seat having first seating surface (where the clapper 25 sits on the valve seat 26 as shown in Figure 1) disposed on the seat (26), the first seating surface having a first configuration (annular as disclosed on page 2, line 37) and disposed about a first seat axis aligned with the longitudinal axis (Figure 1 with the axis from 2 to 3),
a clapper assembly (25) disposed in the passage proximate the seat and mounted via a first pivot (via 28) in the passage (Figure 1);
the clapper assembly (25) having an impervious body with a first sealing surface (against 26) and a knuckle (27) that defines a pivot axis orthogonal to the longitudinal axis (Figure 1) and the access port (Figure 1), the first sealing surface defining a first seal axis (Figure 1), the first sealing surface being contiguous to the first seating surface (against 26) with the first seal axis aligned with the first seat axis (Figure 1) to occlude fluid flow through the passage in a closed position (shown in the orientation of Figure 1), and the first sealing surface being spaced from the first seating surface with the first seal axis oblique to the first seat axis to permit fluid flow through the passage in an open position (shown in dashed lines in Figure 1) and
a stopper (78) disposed in the passage and mounted on a second pivot (72 in Figure 1), the stopper being in contact with the clapper assembly to define a stopped position of the clapper assembly between the open position and the closed position (Figure 3); and
a springless resetting knob assembly (58 generally) to interface with and move the stopper and permit the clapper assembly to move from the stopped position to the closed position (page 3, line 122 to page 4 line 4), the springless resetting knob assembly (58 generally) including a rod (59, 58 and 60) having a first end (60) and a second end (58) with a knob (the larger diameter part of 59) affixed to the second end (Figure 1), the rod being disposed in the aperture and supported by the body with the first end in the passage and the knob external to the body (Figure 1),
But fails to expressly disclose and second seating surfaces disposed on the seat, the first seating surface having a first configuration and disposed about a first seat axis aligned with the longitudinal axis, the second seating surface having a second configuration and cincturing the first seating surface to define a second seat axis offset to the longitudinal axis, the first seating surface and the second seating surface being generally disposed on a common plane; the clapper assembly having an impervious body with a first sealing surface and a second sealing surface, the second sealing surface defining a second seal axis, and the second sealing surface being contiguous to the second seating surface with the second seal axis aligned with the second seat axis, the second sealing surface being spaced from the second seating surface with the second seal axis oblique to the second seat axis to permit fluid flow through the passage in an open position.
Ringer teaches a dry pipe valve (Figure 2). The valve comprising:
a body (12 generally) having a passage (from 14 to 16) extending along a longitudinal axis between an inlet (14) and an outlet (16), the body defining an access port (through 20 in Figure 4), an aperture (into which 52 is inserted) and a protrusion (48) each communicating with the passage (Figure 2);
a cover (20) positioned over the access port (Figure 4);
a seat (28) coupled to the body, the seat having first (32) and second (30) seating surfaces disposed on the seat (Figures 2 and Figures 6-7), the first seating surface having a first configuration and disposed about a first seat axis aligned with the longitudinal axis (along W), the second seating surface having a second configuration and cincturing the first seating surface to define a second seat axis offset to the longitudinal axis (30 in Figure 7), the first seating surface and the second seating surface being generally disposed on a common plane (Figure 2);
a clapper (56 generally) assembly disposed in the passage proximate the seat and mounted via a first pivot in the passage (C); the clapper assembly having an impervious body with a first sealing surface and a second sealing surface (56); and a knuckle that defines a pivot axis orthogonal to the longitudinal axis (Figure 2 through which C extends) and the access port (Figure 4), the first sealing surface defining a first seal axis (seating against 32), the second sealing surface defining a second seal axis (seating against 30), the first sealing surface being contiguous to the first seating surface with the first seal axis aligned with the first seat axis and the second sealing surface being contiguous to the second seating surface with the second seal axis aligned with the second seat axis to occlude fluid flow through the passage in a closed position (when the clapper sits on the seating surfaces), and the first sealing surface being spaced from the first seating surface with the first seal axis oblique to the first seat axis and the second sealing surface being spaced from the second seating surface with the second seal axis oblique to the second seat axis to permit fluid flow through the passage in an open position (shown in Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve seat of Lewis with the first and second seating surfaces and sealing surfaces as taught by Ringer for the advantage of combining prior art elements (the seating and sealing surfaces of Ringer with the valve of Lewis) according to known methods to yield predictable results (to provide a water and air valve seat respectively within the valve device).
Regarding Claim 2, Lewis discloses where at least one of the first and second positions (a second position shown in Figure 1), the rod intersects the common plane and the knob is located axially between the inlet and the seat (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Lewis discloses where the knob (the larger diameter part of 59) is gravity-biased into the first position (Figure 1 without the leverage of 61 or 62).
Regarding Claim 4, Lewis discloses where the springless resetting knob assembly (58 generally) includes a wear component (52) inserted and supported in the aperture (Figure 1), the wear component including at least one seal member (56) disposed and supported in the aperture (Figure 1), and wherein the first and second position of the knob, the at least one seal member is adjacent and interfaced with the rod (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 13, Ringer teaches a unitary polymeric sealing member (28 generally) forming the first and second sealing surfaces, at least one of the first and second sealing surfaces including cantilevered lips extending oblique to the longitudinal axis (Figure 9),
But fails to expressly disclose where the impervious body of the clapper assembly comprises the unitary polymeric sealing member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided for where the impervious body of the clapper assembly comprises the unitary polymeric sealing member, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. Providing the sealing member on the clapper assembly would allow for the seal to be serviced in one step with the clapper assembly removal.
Regarding Claim 14, Lewis discloses all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where the clapper assembly has an assembly length and the access port comprises a rounded-sector perimeter defining a chord length greater than the assembly length of the clapper assembly, the chord length being disposed at an oblique angle from the common plane of the seat.
Ringer teaches where the clapper assembly (56 generally) has an assembly length (Figure 2) and the access port (through 20) comprises a rounded-sector perimeter (Figure 4) defining a chord length greater than the assembly length of the clapper assembly (Figure 4), the chord length being disposed at an oblique angle from the common plane of the seat (Figure 4 where the chord length is from opposing corners of the access port).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the clapper assembly of Lewis with the dimensions of the clapper assembly and access port as taught by Ringer for the advantage of combining prior art elements (the clapper assembly and access port of Ringer with the valve of Lewis) according to known methods to yield predictable results (to allow disassembly and maintenance of the clapper assembly of Ringer).
Regarding Claim 15, Ringer teaches where the access port (through 20) has a maximum height (right and left in Figure 4) defined in the in the direction parallel to the longitudinal axis and a maximum width (up and down in Figure 4) in a direction perpendicular to the maximum height (Figure 4), but fails to expressly disclose where the maximum height being generally equivalent to the maximum width of the access port.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide for where the maximum height being generally equivalent to the maximum width of the access port, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding Claim 16, Ringer teaches where the rounded-sector perimeter has two linear portions (the top and bottom portions shown in Figure 4) with one of the two linear portions aligned with the clapper assembly in the closed position (at least the bottom portion shown in Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 17, Lewis discloses where the clapper assembly (25) includes a stop protrusion (45) that interfaces the body in the open position of the clapper assembly (shown in dashed lines in Figure 1).
Claim(s) 10-12 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Lewis (US 1628674) in view of Ringer (US 7,322,423) in further view of Deurloo (US 8,851,195).
Regarding Claim 10, Lewis as modified by Ringer teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where the first configuration of the first seating surface and the second configuration of the second seating surface are of different geometric configurations.
Deurloo teaches a differential type dry pipe valve (Figure 5) with a body (108), a cover (106), a seat (514 generally) coupled to the body, the seat having first (802) and second (804) seating surfaces disposed on the seat (Figures 8 and 9), the first seating surface having a first configuration and disposed about a first seat axis aligned with the longitudinal axis (Figure 9), the second seating surface having a second configuration and cincturing the first seating surface (Figure 9), the first seating surface and the second seating surface being generally disposed on a common plane (Figure 5); wherein the first configuration of the first seating surface and the second configuration of the second seating surface are of different geometric configurations (Figure 9).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide for where the first configuration of the first seating surface and the second configuration of the second seating surface are of different geometric configurations, and wherein the first configuration comprises a circular configuration centered about the first seat axis and the second configuration comprises a rounded-rectangular configuration centered about the second seat axis, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). Forming the shape of the seating surfaces into different configurations will allow for fitting into different shaped body apparatus.
Regarding Claim 11, Deurloo teaches where the first configuration comprises a circular configuration centered about the first seat axis (Figure 9) and the second configuration comprises a rounded-rectangular configuration centered about the second seat axis (Figure 9).
Regarding Claim 12, Deurloo teaches where the rounded-rectangular configuration defines a major width (right and left in Figure 7) and a minor width (top and bottom in Figure 7), the body (108) further includes a first wall lateral to the minor width and a second wall lateral to the major width (Figure 7), the first and second walls being spaced equidistantly from a perimeter of the clapper assembly (Figure 7).
Regarding Claims 18-19, Lewis as modified by Ringer teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where the body defines a lateral profile area and the access port defines an opening area and an opening area to lateral area ratio that ranges between 25% and 65% and wherein the lateral profile area defines an overall width of the body and the body defines an overall depth transverse to the width and a depth to width ratio between 69% and 77%.
Deurloo teaches a differential type dry pipe valve (Figure 5) with a body (108) and a cover (106), where the body defines a lateral profile area (Figure 1) and the access port (under the cover 106 in Figure 1) defines an opening area and an opening area to lateral area ratio that ranges between 25% and 65% (Figure 1) and wherein the lateral profile area defines an overall width of the body and the body defines an overall depth transverse to the width and a depth to width ratio between 69% and 77%. (Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lewis, as modified by Ringer with the system as taught by Deurloo for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the access port of Deurloo with the system of Lewis) to yield predictable results (to ensure easy access to the interior of the valve body).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the rejection of record. However, a new ground of rejection is applied to the amended claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE GARDNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-4PM EST.
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, KENNETH RINEHART (571-272-4881) or CRAIG SCHNEIDER (571-272-3607) can be reached by telephone. 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.
/NICOLE GARDNER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3753