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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/21/26 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 1/20/26. These drawings are unacceptable and not entered. The examiner cannot tell what is going on in Fig. 7 as it appears that it is supposed to show paragraph [0041] and an upper surface of the limiting member is lower than that of the end cover, but this cannot be made out from Fig. 7. Also, the examiner cannot tell what Fig. 5 is supposed to be showing? Also, is this a cross-section as the examiner cannot ascertain what this even is.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “an upper surface of the limiting member is lower than that of the end cover” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 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) 1-3, and 5, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ferrero US 4,936,545.
Regarding claim 1, Ferrero discloses a ball valve (Figs. 1-9), comprising a valve body 10, an end cover 24 and 36 together and a valve rod 20, wherein the end cover is installed on the valve body, and one end of the valve rod is rotatably installed in the valve body, the other end of the valve rod extends out of the valve body through the end cover (Fig. 2);
wherein a limiting member 24 and 30 is arranged on an inner peripheral wall of the end cover, the valve rod is capable of being limited by the limiting member to allow a maximum rotating angle of the valve rod in the end cover to be 90 degrees (col. 3, lines 8-10), an upper surface of the limiting member (end cover is 36 and 24 and the limiting member is 24 and 30) is lower than that of the end cover (24 and 30 is lower than the end cover).
Regarding claim 2, wherein the valve rod is capable of being limited by the limiting member in a surface-to-surface contact manner (see Figs. 2-5).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the limiting member is provided with a first abutting surface and a second abutting surface, the first abutting surface is perpendicular to the second abutting surface, the limiting member is capable of limiting the valve rod through the first abutting surface and the second abutting surface respectively (see Figs. 2-5).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the number of the limiting member is two, and the two limiting members are symmetrical with respect to an axis of the valve rod (see Figs. 2-5).
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) 1-6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asia Union Co., LTD. KR 200319367 in view of Ferrero US 4,936,545.
Regarding claim 1, Asia Union Co., LTD discloses a ball valve (Figs. 1-7), comprising a valve body 100, an end cover 140 and a valve rod 400, wherein the end cover is installed on the valve body, and one end of the valve rod is rotatably installed in the valve body, the other end of the valve rod extends out of the valve body through the end cover;
wherein a limiting member 142, 14a is arranged on an inner peripheral wall of the end cover, the valve rod is capable of being limited by the limiting member to allow a maximum rotating angle of the valve rod in the end cover to be 90 degrees (see Figs. 1-7).
Asia Union Co., LTD lacks an upper surface of the limiting member is lower than that of the end cover. Ferrero discloses an upper surface of the limiting member (end cover is 36 and 24 and the limiting member is 24 and 30) is lower than that of the end cover (24 and 30 is lower than the end cover). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Asia Union Co., LTD to have the upper surface of the limiting member lower than that of the end cover as disclosed by Ferrero as a matter of simple substitution of locations of the limiting member and/or “obvious to try” making the limiting member lower than that of the end cover to protect the limiting member from being damaged as it would be away from harm and damage.
Regarding claim 2, Asia Union Co., LTD discloses the valve rod is capable of being limited by the limiting member in a surface-to-surface contact manner (see Figs. 1-7).
Regarding claim 3, Asia Union Co., LTD discloses the limiting member is provided with a first abutting surface and a second abutting surface, the first abutting surface is perpendicular to the second abutting surface, the limiting member is capable of limiting the valve rod through the first abutting surface and the second abutting surface respectively (see Figs. 1, 3-4 and 6).
Regarding claim 4, Asia Union Co., LTD lacks measurements of the device such that a rotating radius of the valve rod is defined as R, a half of a thickness of an end of the valve rod extending out of the valve body is defined as L, and a width of an end surface of the limiting member for abutting against the valve rod is defined as I, wherein, the radius R of rotation of the valve rod, the half L of the thickness of the end of the valve rod extending out of the valve body and the width I of the end surface of the limiting member for abutting against the valve rod to satisfy the formula in the claim. 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 measurements as such as “obvious to try” with a reasonable expectation of success and/or a matter of simple substitution of measurements to ensure that the limiting member stops the valve rod properly and/or allows the maximum rotating angle of the valve rod in the end cover to be 90 degrees.
Regarding claim 5, Asia Union Co., LTD discloses the number of the limiting member is two, and the two limiting members are symmetrical with respect to an axis of the valve rod (see Figs. 1, 3-4 and 6).
Regarding claim 6, Asia Union Co., LTD discloses the limiting member and the end cover are an integrated structure (see Figs. 1-7).
Regarding claim 8, Asia Union Co., LTD discloses the valve rod is provided with a first step surface and an end surface of the limiting member towards the valve body abuts against the first step surface (see Figs. 2-3, the first step of the valve rod abuts the bottom of the limiting member as seen in Fig. 2 and also shown in Fig. 3 by the inner circular dotted lines which are outside the hole of the end cover).
Regarding claim 9, Asia Union Co., LTD discloses the valve rod is provided with a second step surface and the second step surface abuts against an end surface of the valve body (see Fig. 2, at 116), but lacks the second step surface abutting an end surface of the end cover). 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 end cover to be inside the valve body and that end surface to abut the second step surface of the valve rod as a matter of simple substitution of the end cover being inside the valve body instead of the outside of the valve body as it would be easier to fit the valve rod inside the valve body and/or “obvious to try” with a reasonable expectation of success as it would be easier to fit the valve rod inside the valve body.
Regarding claim 10, Asia Union Co., LTD lacks a valve seat that is fixed on the valve body by welding and the end cover is connected to the valve seat by a threaded way. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a valve seat that is welded to the valve body and the end cover is connected to this valve seat by threads as a matter of simple substitution adding a welded valve seat as this is just making the one piece valve body into two pieces and the end cover threadably connected on the inside of the valve seat as it would be easier to fit the valve rod inside the valve body and/or “obvious to try” this with a reasonable expectation of success as it would be easier to fit the valve rod inside the valve body. Also, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product in the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113). Welding in this case may be seen as product by process as Asia Union Co., LTD is formed in one piece same as if welding two pieces as they are both fixed.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asia Union Co., LTD. KR 200319367 in view of Ferrero US 4,936,545 in view of Zhuo CN 101285529 A.
Regarding claim 9, Asia Union Co., LTD discloses the valve rod is provided with a second step surface and the second step surface abuts against an end surface of the valve body (see Fig. 2, at 116), but lacks the second step surface abutting an end surface of the end cover.
Zhou discloses a valve rod 3 and an end cover 8 such that the second step surface of the valve rod abuts against the end surface of the end cover (see Fig. 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 end cover of Asia Union Co., LTD to be inside the valve body and that end surface to abut the second step surface of the valve rod as disclosed by Zhou as a matter of simple substitution of the end cover being inside the valve body instead of the outside of the valve body as it would be easier to fit the valve rod inside the valve body and/or “obvious to try” with a reasonable expectation of success as it would be easier to fit the valve rod inside the valve body.
Regarding claim 10, Asia Union Co., LTD lacks a valve seat that is fixed on the valve body by welding and the end cover is connected to the valve seat by a threaded way.
Zhou discloses an end cover 8 is connected to the valve seat (top of valve body 1) by a threaded way (see Figs. 2-3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a valve seat that is welded to the valve body and the end cover is connected to this valve seat by threads as a matter of simple substitution adding a welded valve seat as this is just making the one piece valve body into two pieces and the end cover threadably connected on the inside of the valve seat as disclosed by Zhou as it would be easier to fit the valve rod inside the valve body and/or “obvious to try” this with a reasonable expectation of success as it would be easier to fit the valve rod inside the valve body. Welding in this case may be seen as product by process as Asia Union Co., LTD is formed in one piece same as if welding two pieces as they are both fixed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/26 are not persuasive as the applicant has amended the independent claim such that a new reference was needed to reject the claims so applicant’s arguments no longer apply. The examiner notes that the applicant’s main argument to Asian Union Co. was that the stopper/limiting member was flush with the stem cover to which the examiner agrees, but the amended claims now require that that the upper surface of the limiting member is lower than the end cover. The examiner has now used the Ferrero reference to show that the limiting member is lower than the end cover. The examiner would like to note that this is a well known feature to put the limiting member out of harm’s way which is shown in every limit stop in rotatable valves in which the limiting member is inside the valve body, thus this is not seen as a patentable feature.
Conclusion
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