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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) was/were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) was/were considered by the examiner.
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 1-12, 15-22 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.
Claims 1 and 16 also recite that the “one or more anti-rotation pins are configured to extend through a respective one of the one or more notches”. It is the examiner’s understanding of this recitation that an anti-rotation pin slides within a slot as the first and second valve are coupled. Claims 1 and 16 go on to recite that, “the one or more plurality of anti-rotation pins are configured to withstand up to at least a predetermined torsional force to deter the second valve from separating from the first valve prior to at least the predetermined axial force is applied”. It is unclear and indefinite how an anti-rotational pin will have deterring effect on the first and second valve from separating under merely axial force as the pin will merely slide through the slot under axial force.
Claim 4 necessitates that, “each of the one or more anti-rotation pins has a thickness that is greater than that of each of the one or more shear pins so that the one or more anti-rotation pins prevent the one or more shear pins from breaking when less than the predetermined torsional force is applied.” The claim appears to be relating pin thickness to pin strength. Accordingly, a thicker pin would have greater strength. As such, claim 4 appears to be contradictory in that claim 4 necessitates both that the anti-rotation pin be thicker than the shear pin, but also that the shear pins break beyond the predetermined torsional force.
Claim 19 necessitates that, “the one or more anti-rotation pins has a depth that is greater than that of each of the one or more shear pins so that the one or more anti-rotation pins prevent the one or more shear pins from breaking when less than the predetermined torsional force is applied.” It is unclear and indefinite whey the depth of the anti-rotation pin prevent the one or more shear pins from breaking when less than the predetermined torsional force is applied. The office notes that the only discussion of this feature is within the claim itself and that the Specification does not provide any further clarification.
Claims not specifically recited are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carmack (U.S. Patent 4,763,683).
In regards to claim 1, Carmack discloses a breakaway valve, comprising: a first valve comprising a first valve body (52) that includes a distal edge, wherein the first valve body (52) defines one or more through-holes (TH) and one or more notches (alignment slot, col. 3, lines 42-43) along the distal edge; a second valve comprising a second valve body (54) that defines one or more first set of blind holes (1BH) and one or more second blind holes (2BH); one or more a plurality of shear pins (116) each configured to extend through a respective one of the one or more through-holes (TH) and into a respective one of the one or more first blind holes (1BH), wherein the one or more shear pins (116) are configured to shear apart when at least a predetermined axial force is applied to pull the second valve (54) away from the first valve (52); and one or more anti-rotation pins (113) each configured to extend through a respective one of the one or more notches (alignment slot) and into a respective one of the one or more second set of blind holes (2BH), wherein the one or more plurality of anti-rotation pins (113) are configured to withstand up to at least a predetermined torsional force to deter the second valve (54) from separating from the first valve (52) prior to at least the predetermined axial force is applied; and wherein, when the first valve and the second valve are securely coupled together, the first valve and the second valve are in respective open positions to permit the fluid to flow from a source to the nozzle during a filling event; and wherein, when the first valve and the second valve are decoupled from each other in a breakaway event, the first valve and the second valve are in respective closed positions to limit emission of the fluid. See col. 3, line 55 - col. 4, line 2.
When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “for use between a cryogenic tank and a nozzle for dispensing cryogenic fluid” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
PNG
media_image1.png
436
960
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2, each of the one or more notches includes an include open end through which a respective one of the one or more anti-rotation pins (113) is configured to slide when at least the predetermined axial force is applied so that the one or more anti-rotation pins (113) do not interfere with the second valve (54) separating from the first valve (52) when the one or more shear pins (116) shear apart and the one or more anti-rotation pins (113) remain intact.
In regards to claim 3, the one or more first set of blind holes (1BH) and the one or more second set of blind holes (2BH) are aligned circumferentially on the second valve (54) such that the one or more shear pins (116) and the one or more anti-rotation pins (113) are aligned when the second valve is coupled to the first valve. See Fig. 1.
In regards to claim 4, Carmack does not specifically disclose that the one or more anti-rotation pins has a thickness that is greater than that of each of the one or more shear pins so that the one or more anti-rotation pins prevent the one or more shear pins from breaking when less than the predetermined torsional force is applied.
However, the office notes that there are only three possible option regarding the relative thickness of the anti-rotation pin and shear pin: 1) the anti-rotation pin and shear pin are set to the same thickness, 2) the anti-rotation pin is thicker than the shear pin, or 3) the shear pin is thicker than the anti-rotation pin.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have tried the three option with a reasonable expectation of success as such person could merely change the thickness of the anti-rotation pin to determine which thickness provided the greatest operational benefits.
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.
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) 5-7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carmack in view of Yan (CN 103027373).
Carmack discloses all of the elements as discussed above.
Carmack does not specifically disclose that each of the one or more plurality of shear pins has [[have]] a substantially hourglass cross-section that facilitates the one or more shear pins in consistently shearing when the predetermined axial force is applied.
However, Yan teaches a fluid coupling wherein shear pin are hourglass shaped (see Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have designed the shear pin of Carmack to have an hourglass cross-sectional shape to minimize residual deformation, and avoid excess burrs as taught by Yan (translation para. [0038]).
In regards to claim 6, Carmack illustrates that each of the one or more anti-rotation pins (113) has a substantially cylindrical cross-section.
In regards to claim 7, Yan teaches that each of the one or more shear pins includes a radially-inner portion (IP) that is configured to be received by a respective one of the one or more first set of blind holes, a radially-outer portion (OP) that is configured to be received by a respective one of the one or more through-holes, and a radially-middle portion (MP) between the radially-inner portion and the radially-outer portion.
PNG
media_image2.png
466
322
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding "press-fit" as recited in claim 9, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product in the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carmack in view of Klop et al. (U.S. Patent 4,646,773), hereinafter “Klop”.
Carmack discloses all of the elements as discussed above.
Carmack discloses a first seal (121) engaging the first and second valve body adjacent to the one or more shear pins and the one or more anti- rotation pins to form a sealed connection between the second valve and the first valve. However, Carmack does not disclose a second seal adjacent to the one or more shear pins and the one or more anti- rotation pins to form a sealed connection between the second valve and the first valve.
However, Klop teaches a fluid coupling which includes at least two seals (68, 70, i.e. omni-ring and ring) extend circumferentially between and engage the second valve body and the first valve body adjacent to the one or more shear pins to form a sealed connection between the second valve and the first valve.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the breakaway valve of Carmack to include a second seal ring to ensure a fluid tight seal as taught by Klop (col. 3, lines 28-30).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carmack in view of Anderson et al. (U.S. Patent 3,719,194), hereinafter “Anderson”.
Carmack discloses all of the elements as discussed above.
Carmack does not specifically disclose a sleeve configured to be slidably positioned over the one or more shear pins and the one or more anti- rotation pins to retain the one or more shear pins and the one or more anti-rotation pins in place.
However, Anderson teaches a breakaway valve which includes a sleeve (24) which slides over one or more shear pins.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have designed the breakaway valve of Carmack to include a sleeve to protect the breakaway components and couplings as taught by Anderson (col. 3, lines 42-46).
The office notes that as combined, the sleeve is positioned over the shear pins and rotation pin.
Claim(s) 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carmack in view of Turvey (U.S. Publication 2004/0123899).
Carmack discloses all of the elements as discussed above.
Carmack does not specifically disclose that the first valve is a nozzle-side valve fluidly connected to a nozzle and the second valve is a tank-side valve fluidly connected to a cryogenic tank.
However, Turvey teaches a breakaway valve (40) which is set on a fluid line (20) wherein the fluid line is coupled to both a nozzle (24) and a tank (14).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have utilized the breakaway valve of Carmack in conjunction with a nozzle and cryogenic tank as taught by Turvey to prevent the spillage of cryogenic fluid during fluid transport.
In regards to claim 16, see the rejection of claims 1 and 15.
In regards to claim 17, see the rejection of claim 2.
In regards to claim 18, see the rejection of claim 3.
In regards to claim 19, Carmack does not specifically disclose that the one or more anti-rotation pins has a depth that is greater than that of each of the one or more shear pins so that the one or more anti-rotation pins prevent the one or more shear pins from breaking when less than the predetermined torsional force is applied.
However, the office notes that there are only three possible option regarding the relative depth of the anti-rotation pin and shear pin: 1) the anti-rotation pin and shear pin are set to the same depth, 2) the anti-rotation pin is set deeper than the shear pin, or 3) the shear pin is set deeper than the anti-rotation pin.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have tried the three option with a reasonable expectation of success as such person could merely change the depth of the anti-rotation pin to determine which depth setting provided the greatest operational benefits.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carmack in view of Turvey and Yan (CN 103027373).
Carmack discloses all of the elements as discussed above.
Carmack does not specifically disclose that each of the one or more plurality of shear pins has [[have]] a substantially hourglass cross-section that facilitates the one or more shear pins in consistently shearing when the predetermined axial force is applied.
However, Yan teaches a fluid coupling wherein shear pin are hourglass shaped (see Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have designed the shear pin of Carmack to have an hourglass cross-sectional shape to minimize residual deformation, and avoid excess burrs as taught by Yan (translation para. [0038]).
Carmack does not specifically disclose the shape of the one or more anti-rotation pins.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have designed the cross-sectional shape to be as recited by applicant as modifications regarding shapes are generally considered to be modifications which are obvious and within the purview of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have designed the cross-sectional shape to be as recited by applicant within the course of ordinary research and development so as to achieve optimal results in the environment and/or application of usage.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carmack in view of Turvey and Klop.
Carmack discloses all of the elements as discussed above.
Carmack discloses a first seal (121) engaging the first and second valve body adjacent to the one or more shear pins and the one or more anti- rotation pins to form a sealed connection between the second valve and the first valve. However, Carmack does not disclose a second seal adjacent to the one or more shear pins and the one or more anti- rotation pins to form a sealed connection between the second valve and the first valve.
However, Klop teaches a fluid coupling which includes at least two seals (68, 70, i.e. omni-ring and ring) extend circumferentially between and engage the second valve body and the first valve body adjacent to the one or more shear pins to form a sealed connection between the second valve and the first valve.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the breakaway valve of Carmack to include a second seal ring to ensure a fluid tight seal as taught by Klop (col. 3, lines 28-30).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carmack in view of Turvey and Anderson.
Carmack discloses all of the elements as discussed above.
Carmack does not specifically disclose a sleeve configured to be slidably positioned over the one or more shear pins and the one or more anti- rotation pins to retain the one or more shear pins and the one or more anti-rotation pins in place.
However, Anderson teaches a breakaway valve which includes a sleeve (24) which slides over one or more shear pins.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have designed the breakaway valve of Carmack to include a sleeve to protect the breakaway components and couplings as taught by Anderson (col. 3, lines 42-46).
The office notes that as combined, the sleeve is positioned over the shear pins and rotation pin.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to R.K. Arundale whose telephone number is 571-270-3453. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881, and Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ROBERT K ARUNDALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753