DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-25 were filed with the amendment dated 09/03/2025.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 09/03/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 09/03/2025 overcome the previously set forth claim objections and specification objection.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 have created new 35 USC 112 rejections, as set forth below.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 09/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s traverse the rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat Pub. No. 2003/0192589 (“Jennings 2003”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0203198 (“Jennings 2014”). Applicant argues that the resilient shut-off seal of Jennings 2014 does not teach or suggest that the resilient shut off seal is disposed around an inlet orifice. Rather, Jennings 2014 teaches the resilient shut-off seal around an outlet orifice (see Remarks at page 2).
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument. Jennings 2014 is relied upon for teaching a resilient shut-off seal around an orifice. The direction of flow within Jennings 2014 does not change that there is a teaching for a resilient shut-off seal around a central orifice that separates the central orifice from radially extending orifices, similar to that of Jennings 2003. The teaching of an resilient seal is well known to increase sealing ability of a valve diaphragm. The function of the resilient shut-off seal, whether around an inlet port or outlet port, would be the same: to seal.
The rejection is maintained and made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regard to claim 1, the newly added phrase: “an inlet port configured to be disposed in fluid communication with a fluid at a process pressure” renders the claim confusing and, therefore, indefinite. Claim 1, at line 14, previously recited “an inlet port”. Therefore, it is not clear if the inlet ports of lines 4 and 14 are intended to be the same or different. For purposes of examination, the claim will be construed as if line 14 is amended to state: “[[an]] the inlet port disposed in fluid communication with the at least one inlet orifice.”
With regard to claim 1, the newly added phrase “an outlet port” in line 8 and the phrase “an outlet port” in line 15 render the claim confusing and, therefore, indefinite. It is not clear if the claim is referring to two different outlet ports, or the same. For purposes of examination, line 15 is being construed as if it deleted/amended as follows: “
Dependent claims 2-25 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-10, 12, 14, 19, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 2003/0192589 (hereinafter “Jennings 2003”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0203198 (hereinafter “Jennings 2014”).
With regard to claim 1, Jennings 2003 discloses a pressure regulating valve (1; Figs 1-2), comprising: a body (4), including: a process surface (surface of 4 facing diaphragm 2); an inlet port (port at 10 leading to 31) configured to be disposed in fluid communication with a fluid at a process pressure (fluid from 31, see para [0026]); at least one inlet orifice (11) disposed in the process surface (surface of 4) and disposed in fluid communication with the inlet port (port at 10); a plurality of outlet orifices (12; see Figs 1 and 2) disposed in the process surface (surface of 4 facing diaphragm 2) separate from the at least one inlet orifice (11) and in fluid communication with the outlet port (42 (see Figs 1-2); an inlet port (port at 10) disposed in fluid communication with the at least one inlet orifice (11); and an outlet port (42) disposed in fluid communication with the plurality of outlet orifices (12); a reference housing (3, para [0025]) adapted to be disposed in fluid communication with a fluid at a predetermined reference pressure (fluid pressure from 30; paras [0025] [0031]); and a diaphragm (2; para [0024]) having opposed reference (20) and process (21) sides, the diaphragm (2) constrained between the body (4) and the reference housing (3) (see Fig 2 showing diaphragm sandwiched between 3 and 4 and constrained by claim 16) such that the process side (21) faces the process surface (surface of 4), and arranged such that, when the reference pressure (pressure at 30) is higher than the process pressure (pressure at 31) the diaphragm (2) is engaged with the outlet orifices (12) (when pressure at 30 is greater than 31, the pressure pushes up in Fig 2 to press diaphragm against surface of 4, thus against outlet orifices 12, see also para [0037]), and when the process pressure (pressure at 31) is higher than the reference pressure (pressure at 30), the diaphragm (2) is not engaged with at least one of the outlet orifices (12) (when pressure at 31 is greater than 30, the pressure at 31 pushes down on the diaphragm in Fig 2 to move the diaphragm away from outlet orifices 12; see also para [0037]).
PNG
media_image1.png
894
854
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jennings 2003 discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing a resilient shut-off seal positioned in the process surface, defining a closed perimeter surrounding the at least one inlet orifice and separating the at least one inlet orifice from the plurality of outlet orifices
Jennings 2014 teaches that it is known in the art to modify a pressure regulating valve with inlet orifice and outlet orifice (36, 34) and a process surface (22) to include a resilient shut-off seal (18) positioned in the process surface (22; see Fig 3) that defines a closed perimeter around at least one orifice (34) and separates the one orifice (34) from other orifices (36) for the purpose of sealing with the diaphragm (16; para [0045]).
PNG
media_image2.png
744
946
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a resilient shut-off seal positioned in a process surface and surrounding an orifice to separate the orifice from other orifices, such as taught by Jennings 2014, in the valve of Jennings 2003 for the purpose of providing a well-known sealing feature for a diaphragm (see para [0045]).
With regard to claim 3, the combination discloses that a top edge of the resilient shut-off seal (18 in Jennings 2014) is positioned above or below the nearest one of the plurality of outlet orifices (positioned above orifice 34) by a tolerance of 0.2% or less, of a free diameter of the diaphragm (18) (see para [0044] and Fig 8).
With regard to claim 4, the combination discloses that: the resilient shut-off seal (18 in Jennings 2014) is an O-ring (para [0035]); and a top edge of the resilient shut-off seal (18) is positioned above or below the nearest one of the plurality of outlet orifices (positioned above orifice 34 in Jennings 2014) by a tolerance (see Fig 8).
Jennings 2014 discloses that it is known to have the top edge of the O-ring (18) positioned above or below the nearest outlet orifice by a tolerance (see paras [0043]-]0045] but does not specify that the tolerance 5% or less, of a cross-sectional diameter of the shut- off seal.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the tolerance of the O-ring positioned above or below the nearest orifice to be any suitable or desirable amount, such as a tolerance of 5% or less, of a cross-sectional diameter of the shut- off seal, as a mere engineering expedient in order to provide a user’s desired tolerance, as arguably taught by Jennings 2014 (see MPEP 2144).
With regard to claim 5, the combination discloses that a top edge of the resilient shut-off seal (18 in Jennings 2014) protrudes above a plane (P) which is axially coincident with the highest portion of the process surface (surface of 4 in Jennings 2003, 22 in Jennings 2014) inside the closed perimeter of the shut-off seal (18) (see Figs 2 and 8 in Jennings 2014).
Jennings 2014 discloses that it is known to have the top edge of the O-ring (18) protrude above a plane (P) which is axially coincident with the highest portion of the process surface (surface of 4 in Jennings 2003, 22 in Jennings 2014) inside the closed perimeter of the shut-off seal (18) but does not specify that the protrusion is by at least 0.005 inches, but not more than 0.060 inches.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the protrusion of the O-ring to be any suitable or desirable amount, such as at least 0.005 inches, but not more than 0.060 inches, as a mere engineering expedient in order to provide a user’s desired tolerance, as arguably taught by Jennings 2014 (see MPEP 2144).
With regard to claim 6, the combination discloses that a top edge of the resilient shut-off seal (18 Jennings 2014) protrudes above a plane (P) which is axially coincident with the highest portion of the process surface (22) inside the closed perimeter shut-off seal (18).
Jennings 2014 discloses that it is known to have the top edge of the O-ring (18) protrude above a plane (P) but does not specify that the protrusion is by between 6% and 30% of the shut-off seal cross-section diameter.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the protrusion of the O-ring to be any suitable or desirable amount, such as a between 6% and 30% of the shut-off seal cross-section diameter, as a mere engineering expedient in order to provide a user’s desired tolerance of the protrusion, as arguably taught by Jennings 2014 (see MPEP 2144).
With regard to claim 7, the combination discloses that the outlet orifices (12) are positioned around the process surface (surface of 4 in Jennings 2003).
Jennings 2003 discloses that the total open area of around the outlet orifices is spaced apparat for the diaphragm to work properly (see para [0044]), but does not specify that a sum total open area of the outlet orifices (12) occupies between 0.8% and 5% of a total free area of the diaphragm.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify that the sum total open area of the outlet orifices occupies of the diaphragm to be any suitable or desirable amount, such as a between 0.8% and 5% of a total free area of the diaphragm, as a mere engineering expedient in order to provide a user’s desired tolerance of the protrusion, as arguably taught by Jennings 2014 (see MPEP 2144).
With regard to claim 8, Jennings 2003 discloses a majority of the outlet orifices (12) are located at least 4 of their own orifice diameters from each other (as shown in Fig 1 and Fig 2; orifices 12 are located at least 4 of their own orifice diameters from each other).
With regard to claim 9, Jennings 2003 discloses that there are multiple sizes of outlet orifices (12 Figs 1 and 2 show at least two different sizes of outlet orifices 12) .
With regard to claim 10, Jennings 2003 discloses that a sum of the open area of the outlet orifices (12) is non-uniformly distributed in a radial manner (as shown in Fig 1; open area of the outlet orifices 12 is distributed non-uniformly, see also paras [0037]-[0040]).
With regard to claim 12, the combination discloses that the resilient shut-off seal is an elastomeric O-ring (Jennings 2014: 18, para [0035])) having a hardness in the range of Shore A50 to Shore A90 (para [0035]).
With regard to claim 14, the combination discloses that the resilient shut-off seal is an O-ring (Jennings 2014: 18 para [0035]); the resilient shut-off seal (18) is received in a shut-off seal groove (28) formed in the process surface (22 in Jennings 2014); and the resilient shut-off seal (18) is sized to fill the shut-off seal groove (28) under conditions of full compression without protrusion (see Figs 3 and 8; “sized to fill” the groove 28 is a broad statement and met by the seal 18 filling the groove 28 as shown).
Jennings 2014 discloses that it is known to have the resilient shut-off seal (18) sized to fill the shut-off seal groove (28) under conditions of full compression without protrusion, but does not specify that the amount is between 95% and 100%.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the resilient shut-off seal of Jennings 2003 as modified by Jennings 2014 to fill the groove under conditions of full compression without protrusion any suitable amount, such as between 95% and 100%, as an engineering expedient in order to arrive at a user’s desired size and seal (see MPEP 2144.04).
With regard to claim 19, Jennings 2003 discloses that a wetted surface (surface of 3 facing 2 is “wetted” by fluid from 30) supporting the diaphragm (2) contains sloping or curved surfaces (sloped and curved surface is shown where 3 curves and slopes toward 5, see annotated Fig).
PNG
media_image3.png
916
1056
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 20, the combination discloses that a top of the resilient shut-off seal (18 in Jennings 2014) protrudes above a local portion of the process surface (22) by an amount between 0.1% and 0.4% of a free diameter of the diaphragm (see para [0044] in Jennings 2014: “the top of the O-ring 18 may be between about 0 to about 1.25% of the free diameter of the diaphragm 16 above”).
With regard to claim 21, Jennings 2003 discloses that the diaphragm (2) is an elastomer or fabric reinforced elastomeric sheeting with Shore A hardness between Shore A50 and Shore A95 (see Jennings 2003 at para [0048]).
Claims 2 and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 2003/0192589 (hereinafter “Jennings 2003”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0203198 (hereinafter “Jennings 2014”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2006/0249207 (hereinafter “Jennings 2006”).
With regard to claim 2, Jennings 2003 (as modified by Jennings 2014 above) discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing a plurality of inlet orifices are disposed in the process surface and are arranged in a cluster.
Jennings 2006 teaches that it is known in the art to modify at least one inlet orifice to include a plurality of inlet orifices (124 (see Figs 5-11; para [0076]) that are disposed on the process surface (106) and are arranged in a cluster (cluster of inlet orifices 124 shown in Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a plurality of inlet orifices in a cluster, such as taught by Jennings 2006, in the process surface of Jennings 2003 for the purpose of preventing pressure drop by having a cluster of inlet orifices (see para [0077]).
With regard to claim 22, Jennings 2003 (as modified by Jennings 2014) discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing the process surface includes at least one protrusion that is raised above an outlet orifice plane on the outside of the resilient shut-off seal, and is located adjacent to the resilient shut-off seal.
Jennings 2006 teaches that it is known in the art to modify a pressure regulating valve with a process surface (206) to include at least one protrusion (228) that is raised above an outlet orifice plane (see Fig 12; 228 is raised above plane of outlet orifice 225A/B) on the outside of the resilient shut-off seal (228 is on outside of orifices in Jennings 2006, so would be outside of location of seal in combined Jennings as set forth above in claim 1), and is located adjacent to the resilient shut-off seal (“adjacent to” is met because it is near where the seal would be located).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add a protrusion that is raised above an outlet orifice plane, such as taught by Jennings 2006, to the valve of Jennings 2003/Jennings 2014 for the purpose of improving the sealing and constraint of the diaphragm as taught by Jennings 2006 (see para [0088]).
With regard to claim 23, the combination discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing the at least one protrusion (228 in Jennings 2006) is located radially such that a gap between the closest portion of the at least one protrusion and the outside of the resilient shut-off seal is within 1% of a free diaphragm diameter.
Applicant has not disclosed that having the protrusion located radially such that a gap between the closest portion of the at least one protrusion and the outside of the resilient shut-off seal is within 1% of a free diaphragm diameter solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the protrusion located radially at any suitable location, such as located radially such that a gap between the closest portion of the at least one protrusion and the outside of the resilient shut-off seal is within 1% of a free diaphragm diameter because the location does not appear to provide any unexpected results.
With regard to claim 24, the combination discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing the at least one protrusion is raised above a plane of at least one of the plurality of outlet orifices by 0.2% to 1% of a free diameter of the diaphragm.
Applicant has not disclosed that having the protrusion raised above a plane of at least one of the plurality of outlet orifices by 0.2% to 1% of a free diameter of the diaphragm solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the protrusion raised any suitable amount, such as raised above a plane of at least one of the plurality of outlet orifices by 0.2% to 1% of a free diameter of the diaphragm because the location and raised amount does not appear to provide any unexpected results.
With regard to claim 25, the combination discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that the at least one protrusion has a top surface positioned between: 0.5% of a free diaphragm diameter below a top edge of the resilient shut-off seal, and 0.5% of a free diameter of the diaphragm above the top edge of the resilient shut-off seal.
Applicant has not disclosed that having the protrusion with a top surface positioned between: 0.5% of a free diaphragm diameter below a top edge of the resilient shut-off seal, and 0.5% of a free diameter of the diaphragm above the top edge of the resilient shut-off seal solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the top surface of the protrusion positioned at any suitable location, such as positioned between: 0.5% of a free diaphragm diameter below a top edge of the resilient shut-off seal, and 0.5% of a free diameter of the diaphragm above the top edge of the resilient shut-off seal because the location and raised amount does not appear to provide any unexpected results.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 2003/0192589 (hereinafter “Jennings 2003”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0203198 (hereinafter “Jennings 2014”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 9,464,419 (hereinafter “Blum”)
With regard to claim 11, Jennings 2003 (as modified by Jennings 2014 above) discloses that the resilient shut-off seal (18 in Jennings 2014) is received in a shut-off seal groove (28) formed in the process surface(22).
Jennings 2003 (as modified by Jennings 2014 above) discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that the shut-off seal groove has a non-planar bottom surface including two or more peaks and two or more troughs.
Blum teaches that it is known in the art to modify a seal groove (generally at 13, see annotated Fig 2) to include a non-planar bottom surface including two or more peaks and two or more troughs (see annotated Fig 2).
PNG
media_image4.png
729
710
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a seal groove with a non-planar bottom surface including two or more peaks and two or more troughs as taught by Blum in place of the seal groove of Jennings 2003/Jennings 2014, since the seal grooves are known equivalents and the use of which would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 2003/0192589 (hereinafter “Jennings 2003”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0203198 (hereinafter “Jennings 2014”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2015/0000427 (hereinafter “Peebles”).
With regard to claim 13, Jennings 2003/Jennings 2014 disclose that the resilient shut-off seal is an O-ring (18, Jennings 2014).
Jennings 2003/Jennings 2014 disclose all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing the resilient shut-off seal is a polymeric O-ring having a hardness in the Shore D range.
Peebles teaches that it is known in the art to modify an O-ring (192) to include a hardness in the Shore D range (Shore D 90, para [0060]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make the O-ring of Jennings 2003/Jennings 2014 made of any suitable material, such as a polymeric having a hardness in the Shore D range, such as taught by Peebles, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (See MPEP 2144.07).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 2003/0192589 (hereinafter “Jennings 2003”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0203198 (hereinafter “Jennings 2014”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 11,614,177 (“Bornand”).
With regard to claim 15, Jennings 2003/Jennings 2014 discloses that the resilient shut-off seal is an O-ring (18, para [0035] of Jennings 2014) ; the resilient shut-off seal (18) is received in a shut-off seal groove(28) formed in the process surface (22).
Jennings 2003/Jennings 2014 disclose all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing the resilient shut-off seal groove has a tapered shape to positively retain the shut-off seal.
Bornand teaches that it is known in the art to provide a resilient shut-off seal O-ring (52) in a groove (40 or 140) that has a tapered shape to positively retain the shut-off seal (52) (see Fig. 6A and Fig. 7A) for the purpose of to retain the O-ring (see col. 8, lines 23-28 and lines 5-12: “base width WB is greater than opening width Wo, hence it can be stated that groove 40 flares outward moving from sealing surface 38 into groove 40. When used in conjunction with O-ring 42 having a circular cross-section defined by an outer diameter D that is greater than opening width Wo, groove 40 serves to retain O-ring 42 therein”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a seal groove with a tapered shape as taught by Bornand in place of the seal groove of Jennings 2003/Jennings 2014, since the seal grooves are known equivalents and the use of which would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claim 16, (claim 16 depends from claim 15) the combination discloses that the resilient shut-off seal groove (140) includes an additional retention ring (“retention ring 160”; col. 8, line 30) that is configured to leave a portion of the O-ring cross-sectional diameter free of obstruction (top portion of O-ring 52 in Fig 7A is free of obstruction in Bornand).
The combination discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing explicitly that at least a top 15% of the O-ring cross-sectional diameter free of obstruction.
Applicant has not disclosed that having at least the top 15% of the O-ring cross-sectional diameter free of obstruction solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Rather, the specification is completely silent as to having at least the top 15% free.
Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make at least the top 15% of the O-ring cross-sectional diameter free of obstruction because the amount of the O-ring free of obstruction does not appear to provide any unexpected results.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 2003/0192589 (hereinafter “Jennings 2003”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0203198 (hereinafter “Jennings 2014”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2012/0067924 (hereinafter “Deans”).
With regard to claim 17, Jennings 2003 (as modified by Jennings 2014) discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that the resilient shut-off seal is a four-lobe cross section ring.
Deans teaches that it is known in the art to modify a seal to include four-lobe cross-section ring (see Fig 4 and para [0034]) for the purpose of facilitating a complete seal (see para [0034]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a four-lobe cross-section ring seal as taught by Deans in place of the ring seal of Jennings 2003/Jennings 2014, since the seal rings are known equivalents and the use of which would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 2003/0192589 (hereinafter “Jennings 2003”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0203198 (hereinafter “Jennings 2014”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. 2003/0000585 (hereinafter “Cooper”).
With regard to claim 18, Jennings 2003 (as modified by Jennings 2014 above) discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that the resilient shut-off seal (18) is bonded to the body.
Cooper teaches that it is known in the art to modify a seal (O-ring 36) by having the seal bonded to the body (see para [0033] [0036]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to bond the seal to the body, such as taught by Cooper, in seal/body arrangement of Jennings 2003/Jennings 2014 for the purpose of ensuring the positioning and retention of the seal in the body (see paras [0033] [0036] in Cooper).
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 JESSICA CAHILL whose telephone number is (571)270-5219. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 to 3:00.
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 can be reached by phone. Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-60073607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/JESSICA CAHILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753