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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 12/17/2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 1-2, 6-8, 13-14, and 16-17 have been amended. Thus, claims 1-20 are presently pending in this application.
The amendment to the claims affect the prior scope, necessitating further search and consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 2-4, filed 12/17/2025, with respect to claims 6-7 and 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 6-7 and 17 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 2, filed 12/17/2025, with respect to claims 1-5, 9, 11-16, and 18, have been considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states the amendments obviate the rejection under Bryant (US 2777664), however, an explanation on why Bryant’s disc can not be considered spring disc has not been provided. Col. 2, ll. 35-37 discloses “The parts of the sealing unit described above can be readily manufactured from one single piece of suitable metal or metal alloy, having spring properties.” The portions between 58 and 59, and 58 and 57 form discs and they have spring properties. Therefore, they are considered disc springs in the same manner as Applicant’s discs 20 and 25. The rejection below has been modified to address the amended language.
The instant office action has been made FINAL.
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 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.
Claims 1-5, 9, 11-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Bryant (US 2777664.)
Bryant discloses:
1. A valve seat (fug, 5, 6) comprising: a single-piece annular seat (53/90); a seat base structure (56/92); a first dynamic disc (disc that is situated between 58/96 and 59/97); a second dynamic disc (disc situated between 58/97 and 57/98); wherein the first dynamic disc is connected at a proximal edge (at the radially inward boundary of 59/96) to the seat base structure, the first and second dynamic discs are connected at a distal edge (at the radially outward boundary of 58/97), and the second dynamic disc is connected to a dynamic seat (54/93) at a proximal edge (at the radially inward boundary of 57/98); and wherein at least one of the first dynamic disc and second dynamic disc comprises a disc spring (col. 2, ll. 35-37 discloses “The parts of the sealing unit described above can be readily manufactured from one single piece of suitable metal or metal alloy, having spring properties.” The portions between 58 and 59, and 58 and 57 form discs and they have spring properties. Therefore, they are considered disc springs in the same manner as Applicant’s discs 20 and 25.)
2. The coking isolation valve seat of claim 1 wherein the single-piece annular seat is configured to provide no leak path through the single-piece annular seat (as seen in fig. 5, 53 seats against 13 on one end and is sealedly connected to 63 and 10 on the other end; both 53/90 are a single piece with no connections or openings for leakage therethrough).
3. The coking isolation valve seat of claim 1 wherein a distal space between the seat base structure and the first dynamic disc is greater than a proximal space between the seat base structure and the first dynamic disc (the first disc has a rounded portion at the radially outward area of 96, creating a wider distal space than a proximal space between the first dynamic disc and the seat base structure 92).
4, The coking isolation valve seat of claim 1 wherein a distal space formed between the dynamic seat and the second dynamic disc is greater than a proximal space formed between the dynamic seat and the second dynamic disc (the second disc has a rounded portion at the radially outward area of 98, creating a wider distal space than a proximal space between the second dynamic disc and the dynamic seat 93).
5. The coking isolation valve of claim 1 wherein the dynamic discs are oriented in the same direction (as seen in fig. 5/6, on both sides of 58/97).
6. The coking isolation valve of claim 1 wherein the distal edge between the first dynamic disc (between 96 and 97) and the second dynamic disc (between 97 and 98) further comprises rounded corners (as seen in fig. 6).
7. The coking isolation valve of claim 1 wherein the proximal edge between the first dynamic disc (between 96 and 97) and the seat base structure (92) further comprises a rounded corner (as seen in fig. 6).
8. The coking isolation valve of claim 1 wherein the proximal edge between the second dynamic disc (between 97 and 98) and the dynamic seat (93) further comprises a rounded corner (as seen in fig. 6).
9. The coking isolation valve of claim 1 further comprising a liner (62, 63/101) engaged against the seat base structure (adjacent 63/92) and (portion 62/all of 101) extending along a plane formed at a proximal annular wall.
10. The coking isolation valve of claim 9 wherein the liner comprises a stop (63) configured to limit a distance over which the first dynamic disc and the second dynamic disc is configured to travel.
12. The coking isolation seat of claim 1 further comprising a seat base structure interior wall (part of 56 adjacent 63, 61) that is non-coplanar with the proximal edge of the first dynamic disc.
13. A valve seat (fig. 5, 6) comprising: a single-piece annular seat (53/90) further comprising a seat base structure (56/92), a first dynamic disc (disc that is situated between 58/ 96 and 59/97), and a second dynamic disc (disc situated between 58/97 and 57/98), wherein at least one of the first dynamic disc and second dynamic disc comprises a disc spring (col. 2, ll. 35-37 discloses “The parts of the sealing unit described above can be readily manufactured from one single piece of suitable metal or metal alloy, having spring properties.” The portions between 58 and 59, and 58 and 57 form discs and they have spring properties. Therefore, they are considered disc springs in the same manner as Applicant’s discs 20 and 25.); and a dynamic seat (54/93); wherein the first dynamic disc is connected at a proximal edge (at the radially inward boundary of 59/96) to the base seat structure, the first and second dynamic discs are connected at a distal edge (at the radially outward boundary of 58/97), and the second dynamic disc is connected to the dynamic seat at a proximal edge (at the radially inward boundary of 57/98); and a liner (62, 63/101) engaged (portion of 56 adjacent 63/adjacent 104) against the seat base structure and (portion 62/all of outward surface of 101) extending along a plane formed at a proximal annular wall.
14. A method of manufacturing a valve seat from a single piece of metal comprising: manufacturing a single piece of metal into an annular ring (53/90); machining a seat base structure (56/93) into a first end of the annular ring; machining a first dynamic disc (disc that is situated between 58/96 and 59/97) into a portion of the annular ring adjacent the seat base structure; machining a dynamic seat (54/93) into a second end of the annular ring; and machining a second dynamic disc (disc situated between 58/97 and 57/98) into a portion of the annular ring between the first dynamic ring and the dynamic seat, wherein the seat base structure, the first dynamic disc, the second dynamic disc and the dynamic seat are formed in a single piece of metal (all metal, col. 2, ll. 35-37); wherein at least one of the first dynamic disc and second dynamic disc comprises a disc spring (col. 2, ll. 35-37 discloses “The parts of the sealing unit described above can be readily manufactured from one single piece of suitable metal or metal alloy, having spring properties.” The portions between 58 and 59, and 58 and 57 form discs and they have spring properties. Therefore, they are considered disc springs in the same manner as Applicant’s discs 20 and 25.).
15. The method of claim 14 further comprising forming a first distal opening that is larger than a first proximal wall formed between seat base portion and the first dynamic ring (the first disc has a rounded portion at the radially outward area of 96, creating a wider distal space than a proximal space between the first dynamic disc and the seat base structure 92).
16. The method of claim 14 further comprising forming a second distal opening between the dynamic seat and the second dynamic disc that is greater than a proximal space formed between the dynamic seat and the second dynamic disc (the second disc has a rounded portion at the radially outward area of 98, creating a wider distal space than a proximal space between the second dynamic disc and the dynamic seat 93).
17. The method of claim 14 further comprising rounding a first proximal wall formed between the seat base structure (92) and the first disc spring (rounding seen in transition from 92 to 94).
18. The method of claim 14 further comprising lining a proximal plane of the annular ring with a liner (62, 63/101).
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryant (US 2777664.) in view of Sigmon (US 4215722).
Bryant discloses the invention as essentially claimed except for wherein liner comprises a knife-blade edge configured to engage against the dynamic seat.
Sigmon teaches a related seat (24, 30/24’, 30’) and liner (31/31’) wherein liner comprises a knife-blade edge (seen in fig. 9) configured to engage against the dynamic seat, for the purpose of providing a seat and liner with surfaces that better direct the flow through the conduit, such as around and through the valve in the instance of a rotary valve (such as seen in fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Bryant, wherein liner comprises a knife-blade edge configured to engage against the dynamic seat, as taught by Sigmon, for the purpose of providing a seat and liner with surfaces that better direct the flow through the conduit, such as around and through the valve in the instance of a rotary valve.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryant (US 2777664) in view of Webster (US 20130168591).
Bryant discloses the invention as essentially claimed except for wherein the manufacturing the single piece of metal further comprises forging the metal into a ring; or wherein the manufacturing the single piece of metal further comprises spin casting the metal into a ring.
Webster teaches a related one piece metal seat ring (10, Abstract), wherein the manufacturing the single piece of metal further comprises forging or casting the metal into a ring [0009]-[0010], as they are known forming processes for single piece rings.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Bryant, wherein the manufacturing the single piece of metal further comprises forging or casting the metal into a ring, as taught by Webster, for the purpose of forming the seat as a single metal workpiece using known forming processes. Although Webster does not specify spin casting, given that the final shape of the workpiece is a ring, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the shape as being conducive to filling a mold with centrifugal force as provided by spin casting.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARINA TIETJEN, whose telephone number is 571-270-5422. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (10:30AM-7:00PM CST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Tom Barrett can be reached at 571-272-4746, Ken Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881, and Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARINA A TIETJEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753