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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 7, 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by alanerickson (NPL V: 4” slide gate valve (https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2237898).
As to claim 1, alanerickson teaches a slide gate assembly (Title: 4” slide gate valve) comprising: a gate frame (as indicated below)
PNG
media_image1.png
154
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
defining a frame opening (the circular opening as illustrated), a frame support structure (the frame has a support structure), and an integral frame seal integrally formed with the frame support structure (the face of the frame that slides against the gate is the frame seal. As the face is formed at the same time as the structure, the seal is integrally formed), the integral frame seal defining a frame seating face (the face of the frame is a seal which itself has a seating face. This is the face which touches the gate); and a slide gate
PNG
media_image2.png
156
432
media_image2.png
Greyscale
slidably mounted on the gate frame (the gate slides within the frame), the slide gate comprising a gate body (as illustrated) and an integral gate seal integrally formed with the gate body (the face of the gate which faces the frame is considered an integrally formed gate seal), the integral gate seal defining a gate seating face (the face which touches the frame is a gate seating face), the gate seating face sealed with and slidable along the frame seating face (this is the intended use of alanerickson’s gate valve. The gate slides through the frame, contacting the frame); wherein the slide gate is movable between an open orientation, wherein fluid is permitted to flow through the frame opening, and a closed orientation, wherein fluid is restricted from flowing through the frame opening
PNG
media_image3.png
312
498
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(the alanerickson’s slide valve is capable of being used in a manner such that when in the open configuration, fluid flows through, and when closed, fluid flow is restricted).
As to claim 7, alanerickson teaches the slide gate assembly of claim 1, wherein: the gate body defines a first gate face and a second gate face; the integral gate seal comprises an additive material additively deposited on the first gate face; the frame support structure defines a first frame face and a second frame face; and the integral frame seal comprises an additive material additively deposited on the first frame face (the entire body including sealing faces of the seal gate of alanerickson is additively manufactured.).
As to claim 9, alanerickson teaches a slide gate assembly (Title: 4” slide gate valve), comprising: a gate frame (see the illustrated gate frame, above) comprising: a frame opening; a frame support structure (these features are shown in the illustrate gate frame above); and a frame seal integrally formed with the frame support structure and defining a frame seating face (the layer of the gate frame that touches the slide gate is the frame seal. The remainder of the layers that form the gate are considered the support structure. Thus, as the part is additively manufactured, the frame seal layer is integral with the support structure layers.); and a slide gate (the slide gate is identified in the annotated image above) mounted on the gate frame and slidable between an open orientation and a closed orientation (the slide gate is capable of performing this intended use), the slide gate comprising: a gate body (the slide gate identified above includes a gate body as illustrated); and a gate seal integrally formed with the gate body (the gate body is additively manufactured in layers. The layer of the gate body that touches the gate frame is considered the gate seal. The gate seal layer is integrally formed with the remainder of the layers of the gate body), the gate seal defining a gate seating face slidably sealed with the frame seating face (the outer layer of the gate body is a gate seal having a seating face. This seating face is slidingly sealed with the frame seating face as illustrated).
As to claim 15, alanerickson teaches the slide gate assembly of claim 9, wherein: the gate body defines a first gate face and a second gate face; the gate seal comprises an additive material additively deposited on the first gate face; the frame support structure defines a first frame face and a second frame face; and the frame seal comprises an additive material additively deposited on the first frame face (both the gate frame and slide gate are entirely additively manufactured layer by layer).
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 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over alanerickson as applied to claims 7 or 15 respectively, and further in view of Jacobs (US 10866576 B2).
As to claim 8, alanerickson teaches the slide gate assembly of claim 7, but does not teach the additive material of the integral gate seal comprises a metal powder and wherein the additive material of the integral frame seal comprises a metal powder.
Instead, alanerickson teaches the entirety of the 4” slide gate is made of additively manufactured thermoplastic. However, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it was well known and widely practiced that objects known to be 3d printed from thermoplastic would also be known to be 3d printed from metal powder. See Jacobs Col 4 line 55- Col 5 line 25.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have manufactured the 4” slide gate device of alanerickson in an additive manufacturing process from metal power. Such a person would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve the strength of the device.
As to claim 16, alanerickson teaches the slide gate assembly of claim 15, but does not teach the additive material of the gate seal comprises a metal powder and wherein the additive material of the frame seal comprises a metal powder.
Instead, alanerickson teaches the entirety of the 4” slide gate is made of additively manufactured thermoplastic. However, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it was well known and widely practiced that objects known to be 3d printed from thermoplastic would also be known to be 3d printed from metal powder. See Jacobs Col 4 line 55- Col 5 line 25.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have manufactured the 4” slide gate device of alanerickson in an additive manufacturing process from metal power. Such a person would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve the strength of the device.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 4,070,863) in view of Murray (US 1,732,241).
As to claim 1, Brown teaches a slide gate assembly (Title “Sluice Gate Assembly” which is a slide gate) comprising: a gate frame (Col 2 lines 52-55: “The frame preferably is comprised of a unitary casting with parallel side members 12a, 12b and vertically spaced top and bottom members 12c, 12d.”) defining a frame opening (opening 14), a frame support structure (Col 2 lines 63-68: “It will thus be understood that the frame 12, preferably although possibly not necessarily including seat facings 18, constitutes an outer frame support adapted to be fixed in place adjacent to an opening through which fluid flow is to be controlled.”), and a frame seal formed with the frame support structure (seat facings 18, 24).
Brown does not teach the frame seal is an integral frame seal integrally formed.
Rather, as discussed at Col 2 lines 60-63, Brown teaches, “Preferably, the frame will be fabricated as an iron casting, and the seal facings 18 will comprise bronze extrusions which are impacted into dove-tailed grooves in the frame, and then accurately machined.” However, in the field of valves, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for integrally forming bronze seats to cast iron frames. See Murray which teaches a cast iron valve has bronze seats welded thereto. For Example at Murray Figs 8-9, the seat 13 is brass and is welded by a “Murray Resistance Method” to the iron casting 1.
Murray teaches the benefits of such a process are to create a welded and interlocked connection between the valve body and the seat.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided an integral frame seal integrally formed on the slide valve of Brown in view Murray. Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the connection between the seat and the frame to ensure a strong connection for the entire life of the device.
Brown in view of Murray further teaches: the integral frame seal defining a frame seating face (the face on which the seal 18 sits, as shown for example in Fig 4a, is a frame seating face); and a slide gate slidably mounted on the gate frame (Brown’s gate disc 22 is a gate frame), the slide gate comprising a gate body and an integral gate seal integrally formed with the gate body (the gate disc 22 has a body. The seat 24 is a seal formed with the gate body via the dove-tail illustrated in Fig 4A. While Brown doesn’t teach the seat is integrally formed, this limitation is made obvious in view of Murray’s process of welding a brass set to a cast iron valve for the reasons described above), the integral gate seal defining a gate seating face (Brown’s seat 24 has a gate seating face which contacts the frame seat 18), the gate seating face sealed with and slidable along the frame seating face (as illustrated in Fig 4A and 4B); wherein the slide gate is movable between an open orientation, wherein fluid is permitted to flow through the frame opening, and a closed orientation, wherein fluid is restricted from flowing through the frame opening (Brown Col 3 lines 45-49: “Movement of the gate disc 22 takes place between a closed seated position as shown for example in FIG. 1 and open positions which allow liquid to flow through the frame opening 14 beneath the lower edge of the gate disc.”).
As to claim 2, Brown in view of Murray teaches the slide gate assembly of claim 1, wherein: the integral gate seal comprises a first gate seal segment and a second gate seal segment parallel to the first gate seal segment (as shown in Fig 2, the seats 24 are vertical. As shown in Fig 1, the sluice gate has two vertical sides indicated at 40a / 40b. The first gate seal segment is on the left side and the second gate seal segment is on the right side of the sluice gate); the integral frame seal comprises a first frame seal segment and a second frame seal segment parallel to the first frame seal segment (similar to the gate, the frame as opposite vertical sides 20a, 20b. Each vertical side has its own seat 18. Thus, the first frame seal is on the left side and is parallel to the second frame seal which is on the right side); the first frame seal segment is configured to seal with and slides along the first gate seal segment; and the second frame seal segment is configured to seal with and slides along the second gate seal segment (the respective seats 18 and 24 seat against each other).
As to claim 5, Brown in view of Murray teaches the slide gate assembly of claim 2, wherein: the gate body defines a first gate rough region and a second gate rough region (Murray teaches the area where the bronze seat will be welded has a special configuration of a groove 15 and upstanding flange 16. See Murray Fig 8. This region is considered the rough region); the first gate seal segment is integrally formed with the gate body at the first gate rough region and the second gate seal segment is integrally formed with the gate body at the second gate rough region (Murray teaches the seat is welded to this identified rough region); the frame support structure defines a first frame rough region and a second frame rough region; and the first frame seal segment is integrally formed with the frame support structure at the first frame rough region and the second frame seal segment is integrally formed with the frame support structure at the second frame rough region (As Brown teaches several seats, each seat is suggested to be welded as per Murray to its corresponding rough region, including both the gate and flange seats.).
As to claim 9, Brown teaches a slide gate assembly (Title: “Sluice Gate Assembly”), comprising: a gate frame (frame 12) comprising: a frame opening (opening 14); a frame support structure (members 12a, 12b, 12c, 12d); and a frame seal (seat 18) formed with the frame support structure and defining a frame seating face (the seats 18 are shown to be inserted into the frame and held in place via dove-tails. The face of seat 18 which faces corresponding seat 24 is a seating face); and a slide gate (the gate illustrated in Fig 1. Gate disc 22.) mounted on the gate frame and slidable between an open orientation and a closed orientation (Col 3 lines 45+: “Movement of the gate disc 22 takes place between a closed seated position as shown for example in FIG. 1 and open positions which allow liquid to flow through the frame opening 14 beneath the lower edge of the gate disc.”), the slide gate comprising: a gate body (the gate disc 22 has a body); and a gate seal formed with the gate body (the seats 24 are shown to be inserted into the gate disc 22 and held in place via dove-tails.), the gate seal defining a gate seating face slidably sealed with the frame seating face (the seats 18 and 24 are slidably sealed to each other).
Brown does not teach the frame seal is integrally formed with the frame, nor the gate seal is integrally formed with the gate.
Rather, as discussed at Col 2 lines 60-63, Brown teaches, “Preferably, the frame will be fabricated as an iron casting, and the seal facings 18 will comprise bronze extrusions which are impacted into dove-tailed grooves in the frame, and then accurately machined.” However, in the field of valves, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for integrally forming bronze seats to cast iron frames and gates. See Murray which teaches a cast iron valve has bronze seats welded thereto. For Example at Murray Figs 8-9, the seat 13 is brass and is welded by a “Murray Resistance Method” to the iron casting 1.
Murray teaches the benefits of such a process are to create a welded and interlocked connection between the valve body and the seat.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided for integrally forming the seats of the gate and frame of the slide valve of Brown in view Murray. Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the connection between the frame or gate and the respective seats to ensure a strong connection for the entire life of the device.
As to claim 10, Brown in view of Murray teaches the slide gate assembly of claim 9, wherein: the gate seal comprises a first gate seal segment (vertical parallel side 40a has a seat 24) and a second gate seal segment parallel to the first gate seal segment (vertical parallel side 40b has a seat 24); the frame seal comprises a first frame seal segment (vertical gate disc guide 20a has a seat 18) and a second frame seal segment parallel to the first frame seal segment (vertical gate disc guide 20b has a seat 18 and is parallel to guide 20a); the first frame seal segment is configured to seal with and slides along the first gate seal segment; and the second frame seal segment is configured to seal with and slides along the second gate seal segment (the vertical seats are configured to slide along one another).
As to claim 13, Brown in view of Murray teaches the slide gate assembly of claim 9, wherein: the gate body defines a first gate rough region and a second gate rough region; the gate seal comprises a first gate seal segment and a second gate seal segment parallel to the first gate seal segment; the frame seal comprises a first frame seal segment and a second frame seal segment parallel to the first frame seal segment; the first gate seal segment is integrally formed with the gate body at the first gate rough region, and the second gate seal segment is integrally formed with the gate body at the second gate rough region (Brown teaches the gate includes left and right vertical seats 24 and the frame includes left and right vertical seats 18. Murray suggests the seats are welded to the gate and frame respectively. See Murray Fig 8 which teaches the seat is welded to the gate at groove 15 having upstanding flange 16. The groove and upstanding flange is considered the “rough region.” Thus for every seat 18/24 of Brown, an artisan would have expected a corresponding “rough region” of Murray.); the frame support structure defines a first frame rough region and a second frame rough region; and the first frame seal segment is integrally formed with the frame support structure at the first frame rough region, and the second frame seal segment is integrally formed with the frame support structure at the second frame rough region (Brown teaches the frame includes left and right vertical seats 24 and the frame includes left and right vertical seats 18. Murray suggests the seats are welded to the gate and frame respectively. See Murray Fig 8 which teaches the seat is welded to the frame at groove 15 having upstanding flange 16. The groove and upstanding flange is considered the “rough region.” Thus for every seat 18/24 of Brown, an artisan would have expected a corresponding “rough region” of Murray.)
Claims 3-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Murray as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of NPL U: “Seminar Report: Anatomy of a Sluice Gate”; <https://web.archive.org/web/20060320073952/http://www.rodneyhunt.com/
Anatomy_sluicegate.pdf>, hereinafter “Report”.
As to claim 3, Brown in view of Murray teaches the slide gate assembly of claim 2, but does not teach: the integral gate seal further comprises a lateral gate seal segment extending between the first gate seal segment and the second gate seal segment.
Brown teaches a square frame and gate, but does not specifically teach a seat 24 extends horizontally across top section 40c or bottom section 40d.
However, in the art of slide gates, it was known to provide for square gates having bronze seats extending both vertically and horizontally around the periphery of the opening. See Report Page 3 Col 1 which teaches the bronze seats are “completely around the periphery.” Since Report teaches the frame and gate are square, the bronze seats are suggested to be both horizontal and vertical.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided a lateral gate seal segment extending between the first gate seal segment and the second gate seal segment. Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure the seal extends “completely around the periphery” as described by Report, in order to create a full seal. In other words, sealing just the sides, but not the top or bottom, would let fluid through the top or bottom of the gate.
Brown in view of Murray and Report teaches: the integral frame seal further comprises a lateral frame seal segment extending between the first frame seal segment and the second frame seal segment (as suggested by Brown, a seal 24 in the gate is useful only with a corresponding seal 18 in a frame); the lateral frame seal segment is configured to seal with the lateral gate seal segment in the closed orientation; and the lateral frame seal segment is configured to disengage the lateral gate seal segment in the open orientation (as by would be expected by an artisan having ordinary skill in this art, the horizontal seals 18, 24 seat against each other in the closed position but do not seat against each other in the open position.).
As to claim 4, Brown in view of Murray and Report teaches the slide gate assembly of claim 3, wherein: the first gate seal segment is arranged proximate to a first lateral side of the gate body (as shown in Brown Fig 1, left side 40a of the gate), the second gate seal segment arranged proximate to a second lateral side of the gate body (right side 40b of the gate), and the lateral gate seal segment is arranged proximate to an upper end of the gate body (top side 40c of the gate); the frame support structure comprises a first side frame member (20a), a second side frame member (20b), and an upper end frame member extending between the first side frame member and the second side frame member (top member 12c); and the first frame seal segment (seat 24) is arranged on the first side frame member proximate to a first lateral side of the gate frame (as explained above), the second frame seal segment (24) arranged on the second side frame member proximate to a second lateral side of the gate frame (as explained above), and the lateral frame seal segment is arranged on the upper end frame member (as made obvious in view of evidence from Report, above).
As to claim 6, Brown in view of Murray teaches the slide gate of claim 5, but does not teach: the gate body further defines a lateral gate rough region extending between the first gate rough region and the second gate rough region.
Brown teaches a square frame and gate, but does not specifically teach a seat 24 extends horizontally across top section 40c or bottom section 40d, and therefore does not teach a rough region useful for seating the seat into the gate.
However, in the art of slide gates, it was known to provide for square gates having bronze seats extending both vertically and horizontally around the periphery of the opening. See Report Page 3 Col 1 which teaches the bronze seats are “completely around the periphery.” Since Report teaches the frame and gate are square, the bronze seats are suggested to be both horizontal and vertical.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided a lateral gate seal segment extending between the first gate seal segment and the second gate seal segment, and therefore, in view of Murray, to have a rough region extending in the same spot (see Examiner’s interpretation of the rough regions in Murray in the rejection of claim 5) Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure the seal extends “completely around the periphery” as described by Report, in order to create a full seal. In other words, sealing just the sides, but not the top or bottom, would let fluid through the top or bottom of the gate.
Brown in view of Murray and Report further teach: the integral gate seal further comprises a lateral gate seal segment integrally formed with the gate body at the lateral gate rough region (as described by Murray, the seats are welded into rough regions in the gate, including groove 15 and upstanding flange 16. So too would any horizontally extending seat 24 be welded into a rough region); the frame support structure further defines a lateral frame rough region extending between the first frame rough region and the second frame rough region (as noted above, the seat 24 implies a corresponding seat 18 in the flange. Accordingly a horizontal flange seat is suggested in view of Brown and Report. Moreover, due to the existence of the seat, Murray suggests the existence of a horizontal rough region comprising the groove 15 and upstanding flange 16); and the integral frame seal further comprises a lateral frame seal segment integrally formed with the frame support structure at the lateral frame rough region (Murray teaches welding a seat into the rough region comprising groove 15 and upstanding flange 16).
Claims 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Murray as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of NPL U: “Seminar Report: Anatomy of a Sluice Gate”; <https://web.archive.org/web/20060320073952/http://www.rodneyhunt.com/
Anatomy_sluicegate.pdf>, hereinafter “Report”.
As to claim 11, Brown in view of Murray teaches the slide gate assembly of claim 9, but does not teach: the gate seal comprises a lateral gate seal segment extending between a first gate seal segment and a second gate seal segment.
Brown teaches a square frame and gate, but does not specifically teach a seat 24 extends horizontally across top section 40c or bottom section 40d.
However, in the art of slide gates, it was known to provide for square gates having bronze seats extending both vertically and horizontally around the periphery of the opening. See Report Page 3 Col 1 which teaches the bronze seats are “completely around the periphery.” Since Report teaches the frame and gate are square, the bronze seats are suggested to be both horizontal and vertical.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided a lateral gate seal segment extending between the first gate seal segment and the second gate seal segment. Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure the seal extends “completely around the periphery” as described by Report, in order to create a full seal. In other words, sealing just the sides, but not the top or bottom, would let fluid through the top or bottom of the gate.
Brown in view of Murray and Report teaches: the frame seal comprises a lateral frame seal segment extending between a first frame seal segment and a second frame seal segment (as suggested by Brown, a seal 24 in the gate is useful only with a corresponding seal 18 in a frame); the lateral frame seal segment is configured to seal with the lateral gate seal segment in the closed orientation; and the lateral frame seal segment is configured to disengage the lateral gate seal segment in the open orientation (as by would be expected by an artisan having ordinary skill in this art, the horizontal seals 18, 24 seat against each other in the closed position but do not seat against each other in the open position.).
As to claim 12, Brown in view of Murray and Report teaches the slide gate assembly of claim 11, wherein: the first gate seal segment is arranged proximate to a first lateral side of the gate body (as shown in Brown Fig 1, left side 40a of the gate), the second gate seal segment arranged proximate to a second lateral side of the gate body (right side 40b of the gate), and the lateral gate seal segment is arranged proximate to an upper end of the gate body (top side 40c of the gate); the frame support structure comprises a first side frame member (20a), a second side frame member (20b), and an upper end frame member extending between the first side frame member and the second side frame member (top member 12c); and the first frame seal segment (seat 24) is arranged on the first side frame member proximate to a first lateral side of the gate frame (as explained above), the second frame seal segment (24) arranged on the second side frame member proximate to a second lateral side of the gate frame (as explained above), and the lateral frame seal segment is arranged on the upper end frame member (as made obvious in view of evidence from Report, above).
As to claim 14, Brown in view of Murray teaches the slide gate of claim 13, but does not teach: the gate body further defines a lateral gate rough region extending between the first gate rough region and the second gate rough region.
Brown teaches a square frame and gate, but does not specifically teach a seat 24 extends horizontally across top section 40c or bottom section 40d, and therefore does not teach a rough region useful for seating the seat into the gate.
However, in the art of slide gates, it was known to provide for square gates having bronze seats extending both vertically and horizontally around the periphery of the opening. See Report Page 3 Col 1 which teaches the bronze seats are “completely around the periphery.” Since Report teaches the frame and gate are square, the bronze seats are suggested to be both horizontal and vertical.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided a lateral gate seal segment extending between the first gate seal segment and the second gate seal segment, and therefore, in view of Murray, to have a rough region extending in the same spot (see Examiner’s interpretation of the rough regions in Murray in the rejection of claim 5) Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure the seal extends “completely around the periphery” as described by Report, in order to create a full seal. In other words, sealing just the sides, but not the top or bottom, would let fluid through the top or bottom of the gate.
Brown in view of Murray and Report further teach: the gate seal further comprises a lateral gate seal segment integrally formed with the gate body at the lateral gate rough region (as described by Murray, the seats are welded into rough regions in the gate, including groove 15 and upstanding flange 16. So too would any horizontally extending seat 24 be welded into a rough region); the frame support structure further defines a lateral frame rough region extending between the first frame rough region and the second frame rough region (as noted above, the seat 24 implies a corresponding seat 18 in the flange. Accordingly a horizontal flange seat is suggested in view of Brown and Report. Moreover, due to the existence of the seat, Murray suggests the existence of a horizontal rough region comprising the groove 15 and upstanding flange 16); and the frame seal further comprises a lateral frame seal segment integrally formed with the frame support structure at the lateral frame rough region (Murray teaches welding a seat into the rough region comprising groove 15 and upstanding flange 16).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB JAMES CIGNA whose telephone number is (571)270-5262. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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 supervisor, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/JACOB J CIGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 24 March 2026