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 § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weis (U.S. Publication 2014/0339452) in view of Gerards et al. (U.S. Publication 2015/0083956), hereinafter “Gerards” and evidenced by Tsuzuki et al. (U.S. Publication 2020/0240523), hereinafter “Tsuzuki”.
In regards to claim 1, Weis discloses a butterfly valve for opening and closing an exhaust pipe (2) capable of communicating with an exhaust port of an engine, the butterfly valve comprising: a valve plate (3) provided in the exhaust pipe (2); a valve shaft (4) configured to cross the exhaust pipe (2) and hold the valve plate (3); a bearing unit (6) into which the valve shaft (4) is inserted, the bearing unit (6) configured to slidably support the valve shaft (4); and a housing (portion of 2 forming bore 5 ) attached to the exhaust pipe (2) and configured to accommodate the bearing unit (6) arranged outside the exhaust pipe (2), wherein the bearing unit is arranged within the housing and is in contact with the housing on an outer peripheral surface of the bearing unit and is in contact with a flange (10) of the valve shaft (4) wherein a surface of the flange (10) facing the bearing unit (6) has a width greater than a width of the valve shaft (4), wherein the housing is disposed to overlap the bearing unit (6) and surrounds an end surface and peripheral surface of the bearing unit (6).
Weis does not specifically disclose that the bearing unit comprises an annular sealing bush and an annular support bush, which are separate components and that support bush of the bearing unit is arranged between the housing and the sealing bush of the bearing unit and is in contact with the housing on an outer peripheral surface of the support bush, and wherein the sealing bush of the bearing unit is in contact with the housing on an outer peripheral surface of the sealing bush and is in contact with a flange of the valve shaft on a valve shaft opposing surface of the sealing bush wherein the support bush comprises a first surface and a second surface opposing each other and crossing the outer peripheral surface of the support bush, wherein the sealing bush comprises a first surface and a second surface opposing each other and crossing the outer peripheral surface of the sealing bush, wherein the first surface of the sealing bush is in contact with the second surface of the support bush, wherein the housing is disposed to overlap the sealing bush and the support bush in a direction extending from the first surface of the support bush to the second surface of the sealing bush, and wherein the housing surrounds at least the outer peripheral surfaces and the first surfaces of the support bush and the sealing bush.
However, Gerards teaches a butterfly valve having a two-piece bearing unit wherein the bearing unit comprises an annular sealing bush (66) and an annular support bush (26), which are separate components and the support bush (26) of the bearing unit (66, 26) is arranged between a housing (18) and the sealing bush (66) of the bearing unit and is in contact with the housing (18) on an outer peripheral surface of the support bush (26), and wherein the sealing bush (66) of the bearing unit (66, 26) is in contact with the housing (18) on an outer peripheral surface of the sealing bush (66) and is in contact with a flange (64) of a valve shaft (12) wherein the support bush (26) comprises a first surface and a second surface opposing each other and crossing the outer peripheral surface of the support bush (26), wherein the sealing bush (66) comprises a first surface and a second surface opposing each other and crossing the outer peripheral surface of the sealing bush (66), wherein the first surface of the sealing bush (66) is in contact with the second surface of the support bush (26), wherein the housing (18) is disposed to overlap the sealing bush (66) and the support bush (26) in a direction extending from the first surface of the support bush (26) to the second surface of the sealing bush (66).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have replaced the single bearing unit of Weis with the sealing bush and support bush of Gerards as the simple substitution of one type of bearing assembly for a different type of bearing assembly well known in the fluid arts. Additionally, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have replaced the single bearing unit of Weis with the sealing bush and support bush of Gerards as evidenced by Tsuzuki which illustrates utilizing a plurality of bearing units (7).
In regards to claims 2-7, Gerards further teaches that an inner diameter of the sealing bush is larger than or equal to an inner diameter of the support bush and that axial length of the support bush (26) is longer than axial length of the sealing bush (66). See Fig. 2.
Gerards does not specifically disclose the materials from which the sealing bush and the support bush are fabricated. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have constructed the sealing bush from mesh-like metal aggregate woven with metal wires and graphite filled in the metal aggregate, and wherein the metal aggregate is repeatedly bent in the axial direction of the sealing bush, since it was within the general skill of a worker to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use and for the purpose of providing an effective seal even if the flange of the valve stem was imperfect.
In regards to claim 3, an axial length of the support bush (26) is longer than axial length of the sealing bush (26).
In regards to claim 8, Weis, as modified, discloses that the first surface of the support bush is in contact with the housing.
In regards to claim 9, Weis does not specifically disclose that the housing only partially overlaps an outer peripheral surface of the flange in a width direction of the flange.
It appears that the valve disclosed by Weis would operate equally well with the housing only partially overlaps an outer peripheral surface of the flange in a width direction of the flange. The office further notes that applicant has not disclosed that the claimed feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. The office notes that support for the feature appears to be limited to the drawings and that applicant’s specification does not discuss this feature.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to design the housing disclosed by Weis to only partially overlap an outer peripheral surface of the flange in a width direction of the flange because it appears to be an arbitrary design consideration.
Claim(s) 2-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weis in view of Gerards, evidenced by Tsuzuki, and further in view of Graeff (U.S. Patent 6,111,928).
Weis discloses all of the elements as discussed above.
Gerards further teaches that an inner diameter of the sealing bush is larger than or equal to an inner diameter of the support bush and that axial length of the support bush (26) is longer than axial length of the sealing bush (66). See Fig. 2.
Gerards does not specifically teach the materials from which the sealing bush and the support bush are fabricated. However, Graeff teaches a seal fabricated from flexible graphite (i.e. Graphoil).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have fabricated the seal of Gerards from the material taught by Gerards to provide an effective seal even if the flange of the valve stem was imperfect.
In regards to claim 8, Weis, as modified, discloses that the first surface of the support bush is in contact with the housing.
In regards to claim 9, Weis does not specifically disclose that the housing only partially overlaps an outer peripheral surface of the flange in a width direction of the flange.
It appears that the valve disclosed by Weis would operate equally well with the housing only partially overlaps an outer peripheral surface of the flange in a width direction of the flange. The office further notes that applicant has not disclosed that the claimed feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. The office notes that support for the feature appears to be limited to the drawings and that applicant’s specification does not discuss this feature.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to design the housing disclosed by Weis to only partially overlap an outer peripheral surface of the flange in a width direction of the flange because it appears to be an arbitrary design consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection as outlined above.
As discussed above, it is the office’s position that Weis discloses a butterfly valve having a flanged shaft wherein the flange diameter is greater than the shaft diameter.
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.
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