DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 122, 123, 128, 132.
The drawings are objected to because:
In Fig. 2, reference number 50 does not appear to point to a seal, like the seal 50 shown in Fig. 5.
In Fig. 9, reference number 50 points to the seal retainer 60 instead of the seal.
In Fig. 9, reference 52 and 54 do not appear to point to the top and bottom of the seal retainer 60, as disclosed in paragraph 83 of the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 13, 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, line 6, it is suggested that “released” be changed to --decreased-- to correspond with the antecedent description of the separation of the jack plate with the seal retainer decreasing.
In claim 13, line 6, it is suggested that “released” be changed to --decreased-- to correspond with the antecedent description of the separation of the jack plate with the seal retainer decreasing.
In claim 19, line 11, “engaging the plurality of jack bolts are threaded into the plurality of apertures of the jack plate for engagement” should be reworded, such as, to --engaging the plurality of jack bolts with the jack plate by threading the jack bolts into the plurality of apertures of the jack plate for engagement--.
In claim 19, line 15, “a high pressure seal” should be changed to --the high pressure seal-- to refer to the introduction of the same feature in the preamble as an antecedent basis.
In claim 20, line 10, “a predefined torque” should be changed to --the predefine torque-- to refer to the introduction of the same feature in line 3 as an antecedent basis.
In claim 20, line 11, “an axial force” should be changed to --the axial force-- to refer to the introduction of the same feature in claim 19 as an antecedent basis.
In claim 20, line 13, it is suggested that “released” be changed to --decreased-- to correspond with the antecedent description of the separation of the jack plate with the seal retainer decreasing.
In claim 20, last line, “a seal” should be changed to --the seal-- to refer to the introduction of the same feature in line 7 as an antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected (wherein claims 3, 6, 8-9, 15, and 17-18 inherit their rejections due to their dependencies) 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 1 recites the limitation "the plurality of threads of a stem" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As understood, as the first recitation of the threads, “the plurality of threads” should be changed to --a plurality of threads--.
In claim 2, line 2, it is unclear whether the stem introduced is different from the stem antecedently introduced in claim 1. As understood, the recitation in claim 2 is meant to refer to the recitation in claim 1 as an antecedent basis, so “a stem” in claim 2 should be changed to --the stem--.
In claim 2, line 4, it is unclear whether the plurality of threads of the stem are different from the plurality of threads of the stem introduced in claim 1. As understood, the recitation in claim 2 is meant to refer to the recitation in claim 1 as an antecedent basis, so “a plurality of threads” in claim 2 should be changed to --the plurality of threads--.
In claim 2, last two lines, it is unclear how “the lower shoulder [96] of the stem [90] serves as a mechanical stop to limit axial movement of the jack plate [70] within the assembly.” It appears that said lower shoulder 96 of the stem 90 only limits how far the stem 90 threads into the seal retainer 60.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the releasing" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As understood, this is the first recitation of the releasing, so “the releasing” should be changed to --releasing--.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the compression of the seal retainer" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As understood, this is the first recitation of the compression, so “the compression” should be changed to --compression--.
In claim 5, line 3, it is unclear what constitutes the “valve cover,” because, as understood, many of the structures recited as a part of the overall “valve cover assembly” make up the valve cover.
In claim 7, last line, it is unclear what the plurality of “retaining rings” of the lift eye 120 refers to.
In claim 10, from line 11 to the end of the claim, it is unclear how the “plurality of valve covers” are different from the following structures recited from line 12 to the end of the claim. As understood, said following structures recited make up one of the plurality of valve covers.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the plurality of threads of a stem" in lines 16-17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As understood, as the first recitation of the threads, “the plurality of threads” should be changed to --a plurality of threads--.
In claim 11, line 2, it is unclear whether the stem introduced is different from the stem antecedently introduced in claim 10. As understood, the recitation in claim 11 is meant to refer to the recitation in claim 10 as an antecedent basis, so “a stem” in claim 11 should be changed to --the stem--.
In claim 11, line 4, it is unclear whether the plurality of threads of the stem are different from the plurality of threads of the stem introduced in claim 10. As understood, the recitation in claim 11 is meant to refer to the recitation in claim 10 as an antecedent basis, so “a plurality of threads” in claim 11 should be changed to --the plurality of threads--.
In claim 11, last two lines, it is unclear how “the lower shoulder [96] of the stem [90] serves as a mechanical stop to limit axial movement of the jack plate [70] within the assembly.” It appears that said lower shoulder 96 of the stem 90 only limits how far the stem 90 threads into the seal retainer 60.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the valve cover assembly" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As understood, the recitation refers to at least one of the valve covers introduced in claim 10.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the valve cover assembly" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As understood, the recitation refers to at least one of the valve covers introduced in claim 10.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the releasing" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As understood, this is the first recitation of the releasing, so “the releasing” should be changed to --releasing--.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the compression of the seal retainer" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As understood, this is the first recitation of the compression, so “the compression” should be changed to --compression--.
In claim 14, line 3, it is unclear what constitutes the “valve cover,” because, as understood, many of the structures claimed make up the valve cover, and it is unclear which of the plurality of valve covers antecedently recited in claim 10 the recitation refers to.
In claim 16, last line, it is unclear what the plurality of “retaining rings” of the lift eye 120 refers to.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the plurality of threads of a stem" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As understood, as the first recitation of the threads, “the plurality of threads” should be changed to --a plurality of threads--.
In claim 19, lines 13-14, it is unclear how the plurality of jack bolts are separated from the seal retainer by applying an axial force by threading the plurality of jack bolts. As understood, the recitation refers to the jack plate being separated from the seal retainer by applying said axial force via the jack bolts.
In claim 19, last line, it is unclear the axial force that creates the seal provided by the seal in the seal retainer is created by applying the axial force to the jack bolts when the axial force is recited in lines 13-14 as being applied by threading the jack bolts (into the jack plate). As understood, the seal is created by applying the axial force onto the seal retainer via the jack bolts pushing on the seal retainer when threaded into the jack plate.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the valve cover assembly" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As understood, the recitation refers to the seal retainer (which is a part of a valve cover assembly that comprises all the other structures recited as creating the high pressure seal recited in the preamble of claim 19).
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the releasing" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As understood, this is the first recitation of the releasing, so “the releasing” should be changed to --releasing--.
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.
Claims 1, 6-10, and 15-18 (as understood: all) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinbock et al. (US 2005/0166385) in view of Nowell et al. (US 2022/0412346).
Regarding claim 1, Steinbock discloses in Figs. 5-7 a valve cover assembly, comprising:
a seal retainer 74;
a jack plate 62; the jack plate 62 extending a length from a top to a bottom; the jack plate 62 having a first end and a second end; the jack plate 62 having a plurality of apertures (that receive jack bolts 64); each of the plurality of apertures having a plurality of threads; the jack plate 62 having a stem aperture (that receives eye 68); the stem aperture having a plurality of threads;
a plurality of jack bolts 64; each of the plurality of jack bolts 64 extending a length between a top and a bottom; each of the plurality of jack bolts 64 having threads; each of the plurality of jack bolts 64 having a cap (comprising the top end with which a tool engages to turn the jack bolt 64); the plurality of jack bolts 64 providing a separation (because the jack bolts 64 are separate from each other); wherein the plurality of jack bolts 64 are threaded into the plurality of apertures of the jack plate 62 for engagement (with the jack plate 62).
Steinbock lacks: a seal; the seal extending a length from a top to a bottom; the seal retainer having a plurality of threads; wherein the plurality of threads of the seal retainer are configured to receive the plurality of threads of a stem.
Nowell teaches in Figs. 20 and 78-79 (Fig. 20 for the labeling of similar structures unlabeled in Figs. 78-79) a valve cover assembly comprising a seal 252; the seal 252 extending a length from a top to a bottom; a seal retainer 182; the seal retainer 182 having a plurality of threads 220 (which receive a stem/eye 902, as disclosed in paragraphs 366-367); wherein the plurality of threads of the seal retainer 182 are configured to receive the plurality of threads of a stem 902 (paragraphs 366-367).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a seal retained by the seal retainer to ensure sealing of the valve from the outside, and to have the seal retainer receive a threaded stem in the form of an eye that can receive a cable to secure the valve cover assembly, as Nowell teaches (paragraphs 366-367). The cable also provides tamper-evident proof, because if the cable is detached/cut, then the tampered cable indicated possible tampering with the overall assembly.
Regarding claim 6, Steinbock discloses in Figs. 5-7 a threaded ring 58 (which has female threads to which the seal retainer 62 is threaded, as shown in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Nowell teaches in Figs. 5-7 a lift eye 908 (comprising an end of the stem 902, like the applicant’s stem 90 and lift eye 120); the lift eye 908 extending a length from a top to a bottom; the lift eye 908 having retaining rings (as much as the lift eye disclosed by the applicant has retaining rings, because they are similarly shaped as a single ring).
Regarding claim 8, Steinbock discloses in Figs. 5-7 a plurality of cap screws 60.
Regarding claim 9, Steinbock discloses in Figs. 5-7 a screw gland 58; the screw gland 58 having a plurality of apertures (that receive threaded fasteners 60).
Regarding claim 10, Steinbock discloses in Figs. 5-7 a reciprocating pump assembly, comprising a reciprocating pump (paragraph 7); the reciprocating pump having a fluid end (comprising valve manifold 56); the fluid end having a high pressure fluid (such as the fluid handled by the “pressure” valve 54); the fluid end having a high pressure area (such as the area with the “pressure” valve 54); the fluid end having a low pressure area (such as the area with the “suction” valve 52); the fluid end having a bore (such as the bores of chamber 72 shown in Fig. 6); the reciprocating pump having a power end (the inherent location of the reciprocating pump plunger and/or the location for the prime mover for the reciprocating pump plunger disclosed in paragraph 7). Steinbock also includes some of the structures recited in claim 1, which are repeated in claim 10, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Steinbock lacks: the reciprocating pump having a plurality of blocks; the reciprocating pump having a plurality of openings; a plurality of valve covers; a seal; the seal extending a length from a top to a bottom; the seal retainer having a plurality of threads; wherein the plurality of threads of the seal retainer are configured to receive the plurality of threads of a stem.
Nowell teaches in Figs. 7, 20, and 78-79 (Fig. 20 for the labeling of similar structures unlabeled in Figs. 78-79) a reciprocating pump assembly and valve cover assemblies. The reciprocating pump assembly comprises a reciprocating pump having a plurality of blocks 102, 104, a plurality of openings (such as the openings in block 102 for valves, such as the valves shown in Figs. 20 and 78-79), and a plurality of valve covers (or valve cover assemblies for sealing the openings, such as the assemblies shown in Figs. 20 and 78-79). At least one of the valve cover assemblies comprising a seal 252; the seal 252 extending a length from a top to a bottom; a seal retainer 182; the seal retainer 182 having a plurality of threads 220 (which receive a stem/eye 902, as disclosed in paragraphs 366-367); wherein the plurality of threads of the seal retainer 182 are configured to receive the plurality of threads of a stem 902 (paragraphs 366-367).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include:
a seal retained by the seal retainer to ensure sealing of the valve from the outside, and to have the seal retainer receive a threaded stem in the form of an eye that can receive a cable to secure the valve cover assembly, as Nowell teaches (paragraphs 366-367), and because the cable also provides tamper-evident proof, since if the cable is detached/cut, then the tampered cable indicates possible tampering with the overall assembly; and
a plurality of blocks, a plurality of openings, and a plurality of valve covers in the reciprocating pump as a part of a pump assembly comprising a plurality of pump plungers and separate outputs, as Nowell teaches, to increase the capabilities of the pump assembly.
Regarding claims 15-18, the limitations claimed are obvious in view of Steinbock and Nowell, as discussed above in the rejections of claims 6-9, respectively, given that the limitations introduced in the claims are identical.
Claims 3-4, 12-13, and 19-20 (as understood: all) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinbock in view of Nowell as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Dyer et al. (US 11,359,739).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Steinbock discloses in Figs. 5-7 that the plurality of jack bolts 64 seal the valve cover assembly during engagement (paragraph 33, and in view of the addition of the seal taught by Nowell, the jack bolts would hold the seal retainer in sealing position with the seal); wherein during engagement the plurality of jack bolts 64 are tightened.
Steinbock and Nowell lack: tightening the jack bolts evenly in a cross-pattern to a predefined torque; in this way, the tightening of the plurality of jack bolts creates an axial force which causes the jack plate to separate from the seal retainer, creating a separation; wherein when the separation is created, the seal retainer is in compression, the state of compression creating a seal capable of high pressure operation. Note that the recitation of tightening the bolts in a cross-pattern isn’t given patentable weight given that the claims are product claims and the recitation is a process (MPEP 2113).
Dyer teaches in Figs. 5-7 jack bolts 188 tightened evenly in a cross-pattern to a predefined torque (col. 5, lines 44-50); in this way, the tightening of the plurality of jack bolts 188 creates an axial force which causes the jack plate 154 to separate from the seal retainer 152a, creating a separation (col. 5, lines 52-56); wherein when the separation is created, the seal retainer 152a is in compression (inherently via the jack bolts 188 forcing the seal retainer 152a against the step 164 in the bore that the seal retainer 152a is inserted), the state of compression creating a seal capable of high pressure operation (by securing the seal 160 in the bore in which the seal retainer 152a is held by the jack bolts 188).
Therefore, 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 assembly in the combination of Steinbock and Nowell to have the jack bolts be tightened evenly in a cross-pattern to a predefined torque and to have the jack plate separate from the seal retainer when threading the jack bolts into the jack plate to apply the axial force to the seal retainer, as Dyer teaches. The cross-pattern tightening is well-known to be used to ensure even tightening, which ensures even wear, sealing, etc., and a predefined torque is well-known to ensure proper functioning of the assembly, as opposed to overtightening causing overstress, unfunctional deformation of parts, like seals, etc. The separation of the jack plate from the seal retainer ensures that only the jack bolts provide the axial force on the seal retainer, rather than additional structures like the jack plate, which allows for an accurate, predefined axial to be applied to the seal retainer, that is also able to be easily adjusted/calibrated.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Steinbock discloses in Figs. 5-7 that the plurality of jack bolts 64 release the valve cover assembly during disengagement (as indicated by the “releasable attached” disclosed in paragraph 32); wherein during disengagement, the plurality of jack bolts are un-torqued; in this way, the releasing of the plurality of jack bolts 64 releases an axial force which causes the jack plate 62 separate from the seal retainer 74.
Steinbock lack teaching un-torque of the jack bolts evenly in a cross-pattern from a predefined torque; in this way, the releasing of the plurality of jack bolts releases an axial force which causes the jack plate to decrease the separation from the seal retainer; wherein when the separation is released, the compression of the seal retainer is released, the state of compression creating a seal capable of high pressure operation is released. Note that the recitation of un-torquing the bolts in a cross-pattern isn’t given patentable weight given that the claims are product claims and the recitation is a process (MPEP 2113).
Dyer teaches in Figs. 5-7 jack bolts 188 tightened evenly in a cross-pattern to a predefined torque (col. 5, lines 44-50); in this way, the tightening of the plurality of jack bolts 188 creates an axial force which causes the jack plate 154 to separate from the seal retainer 152a, creating a separation (col. 5, lines 52-56); wherein when the separation is created, the seal retainer 152a is in compression (inherently via the jack bolts 188 forcing the seal retainer 152a against the step 164 in the bore that the seal retainer 152a is inserted), the state of compression creating a seal capable of high pressure operation (by securing the seal 160 in the bore in which the seal retainer 152a is held by the jack bolts 188).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the jack plate separate from the seal retainer when threading the jack bolts into the jack plate to apply the axial force to the seal retainer, as Dyer teaches, and to have said separation between the jack plate and seal retainer decrease by untightening the jack bolts with un-torque as an obvious reversal of parts during disassembly (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A)). The separation of the jack plate from the seal retainer ensures that only the jack bolts provide the axial force on the seal retainer, rather than additional structures like the jack plate, which allows for an accurate, predefined axial to be applied to the seal retainer, that is also able to be easily calibrated.
Regarding claim 19, Steinbock discloses in Figs. 5-7 a method of creating a high pressure seal, comprising the steps: providing a seal retainer 74; providing a jack plate 62; the jack plate 62 extending a length from a top to a bottom; the jack plate 62 having a first end and a second end; the jack plate 62 having a plurality of apertures (that receive jack bolts 64); each of the plurality of apertures having a plurality of threads (to be threaded by the jack bolts 64); the jack plate 64 having a stem aperture (that receives eye 68); the stem aperture having a plurality of threads (to be threaded by the threads on the eye 68, as disclosed in paragraph 33); providing a plurality of jack bolts 64; each of the plurality of jack bolts 64 extending a length between a top and a bottom; each of the plurality of jack bolts 64 having threads; each of the plurality of jack bolts 64 having a cap (comprising the top end with which a tool engages to turn the jack bolt 64); engaging the plurality of jack bolts 64 are threaded into the plurality of apertures of the jack plate 62 for engagement; creating a high pressure seal by applying the axial force to each of the plurality of jack bolts 64.
Steinbock lacks: the seal retainer having a plurality of threads; wherein the plurality of threads of the seal retainer are configured to receive the plurality of threads of a stem; separating the plurality of jack bolts 64 from the seal retainer 62 by applying an axial force by threading the plurality of jack bolts 64.
With regard to the threaded stem being received by threads in the seal retainer, Nowell teaches in in Figs. 20 and 78-79 (Fig. 20 for the labeling of similar structures unlabeled in Figs. 78-79) the seal retainer 182 having a plurality of threads 220 (which receive a stem/eye 902, as disclosed in paragraphs 366-367); wherein the plurality of threads 220 of the seal retainer 182 are configured to receive the plurality of threads of a stem 902 (paragraphs 366-367).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a seal retained by the seal retainer to ensure sealing of the valve from the outside, and to have the seal retainer receive a threaded stem in the form of an eye that can receive a cable to secure the valve cover assembly, as Nowell teaches (paragraphs 366-367). The cable also provides tamper-evident proof, because if the cable is detached/cut, then the tampered cable indicated possible tampering with the overall assembly.
With regard to the jack bolts separating the jack plate from the seal retainer, Dyer teaches in Figs. 5-7 separating the jack plate 154 from the seal retainer 152a by applying an axial force to the seal retainer 152a by threading the plurality of jack bolts 188 into the jack plate 154 (col. 5, lines 52-56).
Therefore, 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 assembly disclosed by Steinbock to have the jack plate separate from the seal retainer when threading the jack bolts into the jack plate to apply the axial force to the seal retainer, as Dyer teaches. The separation of the jack plate from the seal retainer ensures that only the jack bolts provide the axial force on the seal retainer, rather than additional structures like the jack plate, which allows for an accurate, predefined axial to be applied to the seal retainer, that is also able to be easily adjusted/calibrated.
Regarding claim 20, the limitations claimed are obvious in view of Steinbock, Nowell, and Dyer, as discussed above in the rejections of claims 3 and 4, which are similar to claim 20.
Claims 5 and 14 (as understood: both) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinbock in view of Nowell as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Marica (US 2013/0015385).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Steinbock discloses in Figs. 5-7 at least one valve (comprising valve member 54); the valve having a valve cover (comprising the seal retainer 74 like the applicant’s valve cover is an assembly comprising the seal retainer); the valve having a top and a bottom; a cap screw 60.
Steinbock lacks a valve guide retainer, a valve guide, and a lock washer.
Marica teaches in Figs. 3-5 a valve comprising a valve cover comprising a seal retainer 205 that seals the valve member 400 in the fluid flow path, wherein the valve also comprises a valve guide 215, a valve guide retainer 345, a lock washer 315, and a cap screw 310 among other structures.
Therefore, 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 valve in the combination of Steinbock and Nowell to include the valve guide, valve guide retainer, lock washer, and cap screw taught by Marica to provide a valve guide that is allows pivoting of the valve member so that the valve member is free to be centered onto the valve seat, as Marica teaches (paragraph 54). Furthermore, the modular system taught by Marica allows for the valve guide to be replaced/repaired separate from the valve cover since the valve guide would experience more wear than the cover given that the valve guide is exposed to the handled fluid and moving valve member.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and any claimed objections, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. The prior art fails to disclose or render obvious, in combination with the other limitations recited in claims 2 and 11, the stem having a lower shoulder, wherein the lower shoulder of the stem serves as a mechanical stop to limit axial movement of the jack plate within the assembly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Jonathan Waddy, whose telephone number is 571-270-3146. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (10:00AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth 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 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.
/J. W./
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753