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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 20 May 2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 27 May 2026 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a loading mechanism” in claim 7 and “a sensing mechanism” in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 4-6, 8, 21, 24 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gannon (US 2,485,092) in view of Obata (US 3,601,165) in further view of King (US 3,131,906).
Regarding Claim 1, Gannon discloses a valve assembly (Figure 1). The valve assembly comprising:
a valve body (Figure 1 generally) including:
a body housing (10) defining a first end port (12), a second end port (14), and a central cavity (13) extending from a bottom end of the body housing (into which plug 22 is inserted) to a top end of the body housing (shown at the top in the orientation of Figure 1 to port 14); and
a body plug (22) assembled with the central cavity (within 13) of the body housing (10) and defining a flow path between the first end port (from 12) and the second end port (to 14);
a seat carrier subassembly (11 generally) disposed in the body housing (within 13 as shown in Figure 1) and secured between an end face of the body plug (on 43 in Figure 1) and a body counterbore in the central cavity (against 32),
the seat carrier subassembly (11 generally) comprising first (25) and second (28) ring components assembled to define an annular cavity (between 28 and 25) having opposed first and second axially inward facing surfaces (see Annotated Figure A) and opposed outer and inner radially facing surfaces (see Annotated Figure A) retaining a seal (24) therein (Figure 1),
wherein a seat seal portion of the seal is exposed in an inner diameter gap (a portion of 24 of Figures 2-5) between the first axially inward facing surface (see Annotated Figure A) and the inner radially facing surface (see Annotated Figure A) to define a seat seal (48); and
a poppet (15 generally) assembled with the valve body (Figure 1 generally) and axially movable in the central cavity of the body housing (Figure 1, shown by the arrow at 17) between a closed position (Figure 5) in which a radially extending sealing surface of the poppet (16) seals against the seat seal to prevent fluid flow through an axially extending portion of the flow path (Figure 5), and an open position (Figure 3) in which the poppet sealing surface axially separates from the seat seal to permit fluid flow between the first and second end ports (Figure 3),
But fails to expressly disclose where the seal is an o-ring seal and wherein the first and second ring components are axially compressible against the O-ring seal to squeeze the seat seal portion of the O-ring seal axially outward and radially inward through the inner diameter gap.
Obata teaches a valve assembly (Figures 1-5) with a seat carrier subassembly (2 and 7 as seen in Figure 4-5) with a first ring component (7) and a second ring component (2) assembled over a seal (4) where the seal is an o-ring seal (Figure 4; Col 3, lines 5-8) and wherein the first (7) and second (2) ring components are axially compressible against the O-ring seal to squeeze the seat seal portion of the O-ring seal axially outward (toward the seat 5) and radially inward (toward the seat 5) through the inner diameter gap (Figure 5 to form seat 10).
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 Gannon with the system as taught by Obata for the advantage of providing a valve seat surface under tension to eject any particles that may become embedded between the valve and the valve seat, as taught by Obata (Col 2, lines 13-16).
Alternatively, in the event Applicant successfully argues that Gannon additionally fails to disclose where the seat carrier subassembly comprising first and second ring components assembled to define an annular cavity having opposed first and second axially inward facing surfaces and opposed outer and inner radially facing surfaces retaining an O-ring seal therein, wherein a seat seal portion of the O-ring seal is exposed in an inner diameter gap between the first axially inward facing surface and the inner radially facing surface to define a seat seal and squeezing the seat seal portion of the O-ring seal axially outward and radially inward through the inner diameter gap, King teaches these limitations as discussed below.
King teaches seat carrier subassembly (Figure 6) comprising first (48) and second (54) ring components (Figure 6) assembled to define an annular cavity (into which seal 56 is inserted) having opposed first and second axially inward facing surfaces (see Annotated Figure B) and opposed outer and inner radially facing surfaces (see Annotated Figure B) retaining a seal therein (56), wherein a seat seal portion of the O-ring seal is exposed in an inner diameter gap (the portion of 56 exposed radially inward as seen in Figure 6) between the first axially inward facing surface and the inner radially facing surface (see Annotated Figure B) to define a seat seal (against 56) and squeezing the seat seal portion of the seal axially outward and radially inward through the inner diameter gap (see Annotated Figure B).
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 seat carrier subassembly of Gannon as modified by Obata with the seat carrier subassembly as taught by King for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (a valve seat seal carrier subassembly of King within the valve system of Gannon) to yield predictable results (to secure the seal within the seat carrier and secure the seat carrier within the valve).
PNG
media_image1.png
383
963
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure A – Gannon
PNG
media_image2.png
357
888
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure B - King
Regarding Claim 4, Gannon discloses where the end face of the body plug comprises an upper end face of the body plug (against 43 in Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 5, Gannon discloses where the seat carrier subassembly (11 generally) includes a gasket seal (33) in sealing engagement with the body counterbore (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 6, Gannon discloses an actuator (Col 2, lines 19-26) assembled with the valve body for movement of the poppet between the open and closed positions (via 17).
Regarding Claim 8, Gannon discloses where the poppet sealing surface (16) is an upward facing sealing surface (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 21, Gannon discloses a seat carrier subassembly (11 generally) for a valve (Figure 1 generally), the seat carrier subassembly (11 generally) comprising first (25) and second (28) ring components assembled to define an annular cavity (between 28 and 25) having opposed first and second axially inward facing surfaces (see Annotated Figure A) and opposed outer and inner radially facing surfaces (see Annotated Figure A) retaining a seal (24) therein (Figure 1),
wherein a seat seal portion of the seal is exposed in an inner diameter gap (a portion of 24 of Figures 2-5) between the first axially inward facing surface (see Annotated Figure A) and the inner radially facing surface (see Annotated Figure A) to define a seat seal (48);
But fails to expressly disclose where the seal is an o-ring seal and wherein the first and second ring components are axially compressible against the O-ring seal to squeeze the seat seal portion of the O-ring seal axially outward and radially inward through the inner diameter gap.
Obata teaches a valve assembly (Figures 1-5) with a seat carrier subassembly (2 and 7 as seen in Figure 4-5) with a first ring component (7) and a second ring component (2) assembled over a seal (4) where the seal is an o-ring seal (Figure 4; Col 3, lines 5-8) and wherein the first (7) and second (2) ring components are axially compressible against the O-ring seal to squeeze the seat seal portion of the O-ring seal axially outward (toward the seat 5) and radially inward (toward the seat 5) through the inner diameter gap (Figure 5 to form seat 10).
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 Gannon with the system as taught by Obata for the advantage of providing a valve seat surface under tension to eject any particles that may become embedded between the valve and the valve seat, as taught by Obata (Col 2, lines 13-16).
Alternatively, in the event Applicant successfully argues that Gannon additionally fails to disclose where the seat carrier subassembly comprising first and second ring components assembled to define an annular cavity having opposed first and second axially inward facing surfaces and opposed outer and inner radially facing surfaces retaining an O-ring seal therein, wherein a seat seal portion of the O-ring seal is exposed in an inner diameter gap between the first axially inward facing surface and the inner radially facing surface to define a seat seal and squeezing the seat seal portion of the O-ring seal axially outward and radially inward through the inner diameter gap, King teaches these limitations as discussed below.
King teaches seat carrier subassembly (Figure 6) comprising first (48) and second (54) ring components (Figure 6) assembled to define an annular cavity (into which seal 56 is inserted) having opposed first and second axially inward facing surfaces (see Annotated Figure B) and opposed outer and inner radially facing surfaces (see Annotated Figure B) retaining a seal therein (56), wherein a seat seal portion of the O-ring seal is exposed in an inner diameter gap (the portion of 56 exposed radially inward as seen in Figure 6) between the first axially inward facing surface and the inner radially facing surface (see Annotated Figure B) to define a seat seal (against 56) and squeezing the seat seal portion of the seal axially outward and radially inward through the inner diameter gap (see Annotated Figure B).
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 seat carrier subassembly of Gannon as modified by Obata with the seat carrier subassembly as taught by King for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (a valve seat seal carrier subassembly of King within the valve system of Gannon) to yield predictable results (to secure the seal within the seat carrier and secure the seat carrier within the valve).
Regarding Claim 24, Gannon discloses wherein the seat seal (48) faces a first side (downward as seen in Figure 1) of the seat carrier subassembly (11 generally).
Regarding Claim 33, King teaches where the first and second axially inward facing surfaces (see Annotated Figure B) and the outer and inner radially facing surfaces (see Annotated Figure B) form a cross-section of the annular cavity having a rectangular shape (see Annotated Figure B).
Claim(s) 3, 23, and 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gannon (US 2,485,092) in view of Obata (US 3,601,165) in further view of King (US 3,131,906) in further view of Looney (US 4,474,208).
Regarding Claim 3, Gannon discloses where the first ring component (25) includes a radially inward extending flange (see Annotated Figure C) defining an inner counterbore (see Annotated Figure C between the axially upward extending flange and the radially inward flange), and an axially upward extending flange (see Annotated Figure C) and the second ring component (28) includes an outer peripheral portion (see Annotated Figure C) and an axially downward extending flange (see Annotated Figure C) that extends toward the radially inward extending flange of the first ring component (see Annotated Figure C) to define an annular cavity for the O-ring seal and the inner diameter gap (where 24 sits and Obata teaches where the seal is an o-ring),
But fails to expressly disclose where the first ring component includes an axially upward extending flange defining an outer counterbore, and where the outer peripheral portion of the second ring component is seated in the outer counterbore of the first ring component.
PNG
media_image3.png
334
971
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure C- Gannon
Looney teaches a valve assembly (Figure 2) with a seat carrier subassembly (60 and 32 in Figure 2 generally) with a first ring component (60; see Annotated Figure D) and a second ring component (32; see Annotated Figure D) wherein the first ring component (60; see Annotated Figure D) includes a radially inward extending flange (see Annotated Figure D) defining an inner counterbore (see Annotated Figure D), and an axially upward extending flange (see Annotated Figure D; shown in Figure 2 as downwardly extending, however as oriented opposite, the flange would be upwardly extending without the valve functioning differently) defining an outer counterbore (see Annotated Figure D), and the second ring component (see Annotated Figure D) includes an outer peripheral portion (see Annotated Figure D) that is seated in the outer counterbore of the first ring component (see Annotated Figure D), and an axially outward extending flange (see Annotated Figure D shown in Figure 2 as upwardly extending, however as oriented opposite, the flange would be downwardly extending without the valve functioning differently) that extends toward the radially inward extending flange of the first ring component (see Annotated Figure D) to define an annular cavity for the O-ring seal (Figure 2 with the cavity define by where the seal 46 sits between the first and second ring components 60 and 32) and the inner diameter gap (through which lip 58 extends).
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 Gannon, as modified by Obata and King with the seat carrier subassembly as taught by Looney for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (combining a first and second ring portion of a seat carrier subassembly) to yield predictable results (to provide for a secure hold for a seat sealing member).
PNG
media_image4.png
397
630
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure D - Looney
Regarding Claim 23, Gannon discloses where the first ring component (25) includes a radially inward extending flange (see Annotated Figure A) defining an inner counterbore (see Annotated Figure A between the axially upward extending flange and the radially inward flange), and an axially upward extending flange (see Annotated Figure A) and the second ring component (28) includes an outer peripheral portion (see Annotated Figure A) and an axially downward extending flange (see Annotated Figure A) that extends toward the radially inward extending flange of the first ring component (see Annotated Figure A) to define an annular cavity for the O-ring seal and the inner diameter gap (where 24 sits and Obata teaches where the seal is an o-ring),
But fails to expressly disclose where the first ring component includes an axially upward extending flange defining an outer counterbore, and where the outer peripheral portion of the second ring component is seated in the outer counterbore of the first ring component.
Looney teaches a valve assembly (Figure 2) with a seat carrier subassembly (60 and 32 in Figure 2 generally) with a first ring component (60; see Annotated Figure D) and a second ring component (32; see Annotated Figure D) wherein the first ring component (60; see Annotated Figure D) includes a radially inward extending flange (see Annotated Figure D) defining an inner counterbore (see Annotated Figure D), and an axially upward extending flange (see Annotated Figure D; shown in Figure 2 as downwardly extending, however as oriented opposite, the flange would be upwardly extending without the valve functioning differently) defining an outer counterbore (see Annotated Figure D), and the second ring component (see Annotated Figure D) includes an outer peripheral portion (see Annotated Figure D) that is seated in the outer counterbore of the first ring component (see Annotated Figure D), and an axially downward extending flange (see Annotated Figure D shown in Figure 2 as upwardly extending, however as oriented opposite, the flange would be downwardly extending without the valve functioning differently) that extends toward the radially inward extending flange of the first ring component (see Annotated Figure D) to define an annular cavity for the O-ring seal (Figure 2 with the cavity define by where the seal 46 sits between the first and second ring components 60 and 32) and the inner diameter gap (through which lip 58 extends).
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 Gannon, as modified by Obata with the seat carrier subassembly as taught by Looney for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (combining a first and second ring portion of a seat carrier subassembly) to yield predictable results (to provide for a secure hold for a seat sealing member).
Regarding Claim 30, Looney teaches where the inner counterbore (see Annotated Figure D) and the outer counterbore (see Annotated Figure D) face radially inward (toward the valve 74) and form a stepped configuration (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 31, Looney teaches where the outer peripheral portion of the second ring component (see Annotated Figure D) comprises a radially outermost portion of the second ring component (Figure 2 radially outward toward the first ring as seen in Figure 2), the outer peripheral portion being received in the outer counterbore (see Annotated Figure D).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gannon (US 2,485,092) in view of Obata (US 3,601,165) in further view of King (US 3,131,906) in further view of Yu et al (US 10,352,464).
Regarding Claim 7, Gannon discloses wherein the actuator (Col 2, lines 19-26) includes a loading mechanism (18) configured to bias the poppet toward one of the open and closed positions (toward the closed as shown in Figure 1) and a sensing mechanism (the diaphragm of Col 2, lines 39-48),
But fails to expressly disclose where the sensing mechanism is in fluid communication with the first end port and configured to move against the loading mechanism when a fluid pressure in the first end port exceeds a set pressure, to permit movement of the poppet to an other of the open and closed positions.
Yu et al teach a valve assembly (Figure 11) with a sensing mechanism (34), where the sensing mechanism is in fluid communication with the first end port (11; via 13) and configured to move against the loading mechanism (the spring shown surrounding 41 in Figure 11) when a fluid pressure in the first end port exceeds a set pressure (to press the diaphragm 34 downward), to permit movement of the poppet to an other of the open and closed positions (to open as seen in Figure 11).
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 Gannon, as modified by Obata and King, with the system as taught by Yu et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the sensing mechanism of Yu et al in the system of Gannon) to yield predictable results (to open the valve based on a sensed fluid pressure of the valve).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Gannon (US 2,485,092) in view of Obata (US 3,601,165) in further view of King (US 3,131,906).
Regarding Claim 9, Gannon discloses all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where the poppet sealing surface is a downward facing sealing surface.
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 poppet sealing surface is a downward facing sealing surface instead of upward facing, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. Doing so would provide an optimal arrangement of the seating surface based on user defined criteria such as providing gravity assisted seating with a downwardly facing sealing surface.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Gannon (US 2,485,092) in view of Obata (US 3,601,165) in further view of King (US 3,131,906) in further view of Koehler (US 2,348,548).
Regarding Claim 25, Gannon, as modified by Obata and King, teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose a face seal O-ring disposed in an annular groove in the first side of seat carrier subassembly.
Koehler teaches a seat carrier subassembly (Figure 5) with a first side (upward in Figure 5) with a face seal O-ring (29) disposed in an annular groove (28) in a second side (downward in Figure 5) of the seat carrier subassembly opposite the first side (upward in Figure 5).
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 Gannon, as modified by Obata and King, with the system as taught by Koehler for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the face seal o-ring of Koehler within the system of Gannon) to yield predictable results (to provide a fluid tight seal between the body of the valve and the seat carrier subassembly).
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 a face seal O-ring disposed in an annular groove in the first side of seat carrier subassembly, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. Doing so would provide a fluid tight arrangement of the seat carrier subassembly.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gannon (US 2,485,092) in view of Obata (US 3,601,165) in further view of King (US 3,131,906) in further view of Koehler (US 2,348,548).
Regarding Claim 26, Gannon, as modified by Obata and King, teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose a face seal O-ring disposed in an annular groove in a second side of the seat carrier subassembly opposite the first side.
Koehler teaches a seat carrier subassembly (Figure 5) with a first side (upward in Figure 5) with a face seal O-ring (29) disposed in an annular groove (28) in a second side (downward in Figure 5) of the seat carrier subassembly opposite the first side (upward in Figure 5).
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 Gannon, as modified by Obata and King, with the system as taught by Koehler for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the face seal o-ring of Koehler within the system of Gannon) to yield predictable results (to provide a fluid tight seal between the body of the valve and the seat carrier subassembly).
Claim(s) 22 and 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gannon (US 2,485,092) in view of Obata (US 3,601,165) in further view of Ramsperger et al (US 11712834) in further view of King (US 3,131,906).
Regarding Claim 27, Gannon discloses a seat carrier subassembly (11 generally) for a valve (Figure 1 generally). The seat carrier subassembly comprising:
first (25) and second (28) ring components assembled over a seal (24);
wherein a seat seal portion (48) of the seal is exposed in an inner diameter gap between inner edge portions of the first and second ring components (Figure 3 between inner edge portions 36 and 52 of first (25) and second (28) ring components) to define a seat seal (Figure 5);
wherein the first ring component (25) includes a radially inward extending flange (see Annotated Figure A) defining an inner counterbore (see Annotated Figure A between the axially upward extending flange and the radially inward flange), and an axially upward extending flange (see Annotated Figure A), and the second ring component (28) includes an outer peripheral portion (see Annotated Figure A) and an axially downward extending flange (see Annotated Figure A) that extends toward the radially inward extending flange of the first ring component (see Annotated Figure A) to define an annular cavity for the seal (see Annotated Figure A),
But fails to expressly disclose where the seal is an o-ring seal and wherein the first ring component includes a radially inward extending flange defining an inner counterbore receiving the O-ring seal, and an axially upward extending flange defining an outer counterbore, and the second ring component includes an outer peripheral portion having a lower end face that is seated in the outer counterbore of the first ring component to hold the O- ring seal in the inner counterbore and below the outer counterbore, and an axially downward extending flange that extends from the lower end face toward the radially inward extending flange of the first ring component to define with the lower end face and the radially inward extending flange an annular cavity for the O-ring seal with a distal end of the axially downward extending flange being disposed axially upward and radially inward from a distal end of the radially inward flange to define the inner diameter gap.
Obata teaches a valve assembly (Figures 1-5) with a seat carrier subassembly (2 and 7 as seen in Figure 4-5) with a first ring component (7) and a second ring component (2) assembled over a seal (4) where the seal is an o-ring seal (Figure 4; Col 3, lines 5-8).
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 Gannon with the system as taught by Obata for the advantage of providing a valve seat surface under tension to eject any particles that may become embedded between the valve and the valve seat, as taught by Obata (Col 2, lines 13-16).
Ramsperger et al teach a valve assembly (Figure 1), with a seat carrier subassembly (together 70, 71 and 72) with a first ring component (72; Annotated Figure E) and a second ring component (71; see Annotated Figure E) wherein the first ring component includes a radially inward extending flange (see Annotated Figure E) defining an inner counterbore (see Annotated Figure E) receiving the seal (70), and an axially upward extending flange (see Annotated Figure E) defining an outer counterbore (see Annotated Figure E), and the second ring component (see Annotated Figure E) includes an outer peripheral portion (see Annotated Figure E) having a lower end face (see Annotated Figure E) that is seated in the outer counterbore (see Annotated Figure E) of the first ring component (see Annotated Figure E) to hold the seal (70) in the inner counterbore (see Annotated Figure E) and below the outer counterbore (see Annotated Figure E), and an axially downward extending flange (see Annotated Figure E) that extends from the lower end face (see Annotated Figure E) toward the radially inward extending flange (see Annotated Figure E) of the first ring component (see Annotated Figure E) to define with the lower end face (see Annotated Figure E) and the radially inward extending flange (see Annotated Figure E) an annular cavity for the seal (Figure 1) and to define with the radially inward extending flange the inner diameter gap (from with the seal extends as seen in 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 seat carrier subassembly of Gannon, as modified by Obata with the seat carrier subassembly as taught by Ramsperger et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (combining a first and second ring portion of a seat carrier subassembly) to yield predictable results (to provide for a secure hold for a seat sealing member).
King teaches a valve seat carrier subassembly (Figure 6) with an axially downward extending flange (at 54; downward in the orientation flipped from Figure 6) that extends from the lower end face (from 57; which would be lower in the orientation flipped from Figure 6) toward the radially inward extending flange (50 of 48) of the first ring component (48) to define with the lower end face and the radially inward extending flange an annular cavity for the seal (into which 56 sits in Figure 6; with Obata teaching an o-ring) in with a distal end of the axially downward extending flange being disposed axially upward and radially inward from a distal end of the radially inward flange to define the inner diameter gap (Figure 5 at 46 generally).
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 seat carrier subassembly of Gannon as modified by Obata with the seat carrier subassembly as taught by King for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (a valve seat seal carrier subassembly of King within the valve system of Gannon) to yield predictable results (to secure the seal within the seat carrier and secure the seat carrier within the valve).
PNG
media_image5.png
541
951
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure E - Ramsperger et al
Regarding Claim 22, Gannon discloses all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where the first and second ring components are axially compressible against the O-ring seal to squeeze the seat seal portion of the O-ring seal through the inner diameter gap between the first and second ring components.
Obata teaches a valve assembly (Figures 1-5) with a seat carrier subassembly (2 and 7 as seen in Figure 4-5) with a first ring component (7) and a second ring component (2) assembled over a seal (4) where the seal is an o-ring seal (Figure 4; Col 3, lines 5-8) and wherein the first (7) and second (2) ring components are axially compressible against the O-ring seal to squeeze the seat seal portion of the O-ring seal through the inner diameter gap between the first and second ring components (Figure 5 to form seat 10).
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 Gannon with the system as taught by Obata for the advantage of providing a valve seat surface under tension to eject any particles that may become embedded between the valve and the valve seat, as taught by Obata (Col 2, lines 13-16).
Regarding Claim 28, Ramsperger et al teaches where the inner counterbore (see Annotated Figure E) and the outer counterbore (see Annotated Figure E) face radially inward (toward the valve) and form a stepped configuration (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 29, Ramsperger et al teaches where the outer peripheral portion of the second ring component (see Annotated Figure E) comprises a radially outermost portion of the second ring component (Figure 1), the outer peripheral portion being received in the outer counterbore (see Annotated Figure E).
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
Prosecution Insights