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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3, 6, 7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US2883148 (“Williams”).
Regarding claim 1, Williams discloses a gate valve system, comprising:
a body (mainly defined by 11, 37 and 39) including:
a downstream end (one of ends comprising one of flanges 39);
an upstream end (another one of ends comprising another one of flanges 39); and
a flow path (flow path regulated by gate 13) extending through the downstream end and the upstream end;
a gate (13) extending within the body with a downstream surface (one of planar faces of gate 13) facing the downstream end and an upstream surface (an other of planar faces of gate) facing the upstream end, the gate including a first leg (left leg defined by cutout 61; relative to the orientation of fig. 5) and a second leg (right leg defined by cutout 61; relative to the orientation of fig. 5);
a stem (75) secured to the gate and configured to actuate the gate between a first position (gate 13 raised or at least partially raised position, see by example position of fig. 5) in which a flow of fluid is permitted between the downstream end and the upstream end and a second position (fully closed position; see figs. 1 and 2) in which the flow of fluid is prevented; and
a downstream seat assembly (one of seats 41) contacting the downstream surface and an upstream seat assembly (an other of seats 41) contacting the upstream surface, wherein each of the downstream seat assembly and the upstream seat assembly includes a spring member (resilient member 43), the first leg being in contact with the downstream seat assembly and with the upstream seat assembly when the gate is at the first position (see fig. 5) and when the gate is at the second position (see figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 3, Williams discloses a yoke (17), the yoke being removable while the gate valve system (via disconnection of stem 75 from gate 13 via clevis 73) is in service.
Regarding claim 6, Williams discloses the gate (13) surrounds less than 50% of a periphery of the flow path (see flow path extending between upstream and downstream flanges 39) when in the first position (see position of fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Williams discloses a gate valve system, comprising:
a body (mainly defined by 11, 37 and 39) including:
a downstream end (one of ends comprising one of flanges 39);
an upstream end (another one of ends comprising another one of flanges 39); and
a flow path (flow path regulated by gate 13) extending through the downstream end and the upstream end;
a gate (13) extending within the body with a downstream surface (one of planar faces of gate 13) facing the downstream end and an upstream surface (an other of planar faces of gate 13) facing the upstream end;
a stem (75) secured to the gate and configured to actuate the gate between a first position (gate 13 raised or at least partially raised position, see by example position of fig. 5) in which a flow of fluid is permitted between the downstream end and the upstream end and a second position (see position of figs. 1 and 2) in which the flow of fluid is prevented between the downstream end and the upstream end, wherein an entire flow path at the downstream end is in fluid communication with the entire flow path at the upstream end in the first position (all of the upstream and downstream ends of the flow path are in fluid communication); and
a downstream seat assembly (one of seat assemblies 41) contacting the downstream surface and an upstream seat assembly (an other of seat assemblies 41) contacting the upstream surface at and between the first position (see by example fig. 5) and the second position (see figs. 1 and 2);
wherein the gate only partially surrounds (gate 13 delimits a top half of the flow passage through passage members 51) the flow path in the first position (in fig. 5, gate 13).
Regarding claim 21, Williams discloses the first leg and the second leg (left and right legs defined by cutout 61, relative to the orientation of fig. 1) each face toward a bottom end (bottom end, relative to the orientation of fig. 1) of the body, the first leg and the second leg extending beyond the flow path in a direction (downward direction, relative to the orientation of fig. 1) toward the bottom end of the body (mainly defined by 11, 37 and 39) when the gate (13) is in the second position (fully closed position; see figs. 1 and 2).
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.
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams, as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, in view of CN108662179 (“Su”).
Regarding claim 2, Williams discloses the invention as claimed except for an outer surface of the body including one or more ribs surrounding the body.
However, Su teaches an outer surface (exterior surface) of a body (mainly defined by 1, 5 and 6) which includes one or more ribs (see ribs in illustrations of figs. 1 and 2) surrounding the body.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the invention of Williams by configuring the outer surface of the body to include one or more ribs surrounding the body, as taught by Su, to allow for more rigidity of the body while minimizing weight.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US1096023 (“McGuire”).
Regarding claim 4, Williams discloses each of the downstream seat assembly (41) and the upstream seat assembly (41) further comprising: a seat (surface of resilient portion 43, which abuts gate 13; see fig. 2).
Williams does not disclose a seat insert configured to contact the gate and prevent contact between the gate and the seat; and an O-ring.
However, McGuire teaches (see figs. 10 and 11) a gate valve system wherein each of a downstream seat assembly and an upstream seat assembly (see downstream and upstream seat assemblies in fig. 10) comprising: a spring member (1150); a seat (945); a seat insert (930) configured to contact a gate (920) and prevent contact between the gate and the seat; and an O-ring (see any one of O-ring illustrated in fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the invention of Williams by configuring the downstream and upstream seat assemblies to have a spring member, a seat, a seat insert configured to contact the gate and prevent contact between the gate and the seat, and an O-ring, as taught by McGuire, to have a gate valve system capable of withstanding higher pressures.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of McGuire and further in view of Cain.
Regarding claim 5, Williams discloses the invention as claimed except for the spring member of the upstream seat assembly being a stacked wave disc wave spring and the spring member of the downstream seat assembly being a stacked wave disc wave spring.
McGuire teaches (see figs. 10 and 11) a gate valve system wherein each of a downstream seat assembly and an upstream seat assembly (see downstream and upstream seat assemblies in fig. 10) comprising: a seat insert (930) and a seat (945) biased by a stacked disc spring (1150).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the invention of Williams by configuring the downstream and upstream seat assemblies to have a seat and a seat insert biased by a stacked disc spring, as taught by McGuire, to have a gate valve system capable of withstanding higher pressures.
The combination of Williams and McGuire does not disclose the stacked disc spring being a stacked wave disc wave spring.
However, Cain teaches a disc spring, which is a wave disc spring (96).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to further modify the combination of Williams and McGuire by configuring the disc springs of the stacked disc spring to be wave springs, as taught by Cain, for better space efficiency and to provide more precise biasing loads.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams, as applied to claim 7 above, in view of US10900572 (“Binder”).
Regarding claim 9, Williams discloses the gate (13) extending from a top end (end, which is proximal to stem 75) to a bottom end (end comprising cutout 61), wherein the stem (75) is secured to the gate at the top end, and wherein the bottom end includes a first portion (left portion, relative to the orientation of fig. 1) that is straight, a second portion (right portion, relative to the orientation of fig. 1) that is straight, and an intermediate portion, which is v-shaped.
Williams does not disclose an arc portion that is curved between the first portion and the second portion.
However, Binder teaches a gate (30) having a bottom end including a first portion (left portion of bottom edge of gate 30, relative to the orientation of fig. 3B) that is straight, a second portion (right portion of bottom edge of gate 30, relative to the orientation of fig. 3B) that is straight, and an arc portion (elliptical cutout edge 46) that is curved between the first portion and the second portion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the invention of Williams by configuring the portion between the first and second portions to be arc-shaped, or an arc portion, as taught by Binder, to increase the initial flow through the gate valve system upon opening the gate, and since applicant has not disclosed that such solve any stated problem or is anything more than one of numerous shapes or configurations a person ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing a shaped edge on the gate. In re Dailey and Eilers, 149 USPQ 47 (1966).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams, as applied to claim 7 above, in view of US2009/0095934 (“Cain”).
Regarding claim 11, Williams discloses the invention as claimed except for each of the downstream seat assembly and the upstream seat assembly including: a wave spring; a seat insert configured to contact the gate; a seat configured to contact the gate at least when the seat insert is not present; a seal; and packing material.
However, Cain teaches a gate valve system (see figs. 1-3) having a downstream seat assembly (20 or 20A) and an upstream seat assembly (20 or 20B), wherein each of the downstream seat assembly and the upstream seat assembly including:
a wave spring (96);
a seat insert (76) configured to contact the gate;
a seat (66) configured to contact the gate at least when the seat insert is not present;
a seal (88); and
packing material (94).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the invention of Williams by configuring the downstream and upstream seat assemblies to include a wave spring, a seat insert configured to contact the gate, a seat configured to contact the gate at least when the seat insert is not present, a seal, and packing material, as taught by Cain, to have a gate valve system capable of withstanding higher pressures.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams and Cain, as applied to claim 11 above, alone or alternatively further in view of US5137261 (“Clifford”).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Williams and Cain discloses the gate valve system is a double block and bleed valve system (Williams, gate 13 seals against upstream and downstream seats and further allows draining of cavity 33, and although not explicitly described in the specification, Williams further illustrates multiple ports connected to body (11) having threaded closures).
Alternatively, Clifford teaches a gate valve system which is a double block and bleed valve system (see specification col. 10, lines 9-17).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to further modify the combination of Williams and Cain by configuring the gate valve system to be a double block and bleed valve system, as taught by Clifford, to be able to inject or discharge liquid from the interior of the body.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams and Cain, as applied to claim 11 above, alone or alternatively further in view of US2009/0223611 (“Khazanovich”).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Williams and Cain discloses downstream and upstream seat assemblies (Cain, 20A and 20B) being identical and each having a packing material (94).
The combination of Williams and Cain does not disclose the packing material of the downstream seat assembly being made of graphite and the packing material of the upstream seat assembly being made of graphite.
However, Khazanovich teaches that packing material can be made of graphite (see specification paragraph [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to further modify the combination of Williams and Cain by forming the packing material of both the upstream and downstream seat assemblies from graphite, as taught by Khazanovich, to have packing material which performs well in high operational temperatures.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Binder and further in view of Cain.
Regarding claim 15, Williams discloses a method of assembling a gate valve system, the method comprising:
forming a body (mainly defined by 11, 37 and 39) including a downstream end (one of ends comprising one of flanges 39), an upstream end (another one of ends comprising another one of flanges 39), and a flow path (flow path regulated by gate 13) extending through the downstream end and the upstream end;
placing a gate (13) within the body, the gate having;
a downstream surface (one of planar faces of gate 13) facing the downstream end;
an upstream surface (an other of planar faces of gate) facing the upstream end;
a first leg (left leg of gate 13 defined by cutout 61, relative to the orientation of fig. 1);
a second leg (right leg of gate 13 defined by cutout 61, relative to the orientation of fig. 1); and
a surface (61) between the first leg and the second leg;
coupling a stem (75) to the gate, the stem being configured to actuate the gate between a first position (gate 13 raised or at least partially raised position, see by example position of fig. 5) in which a flow of fluid is permitted between the downstream end and the upstream end and a second position (fully closed position; see figs. 1 and 2) in which the flow of fluid is prevented between the downstream end and the upstream end, the first leg and the second leg extending radially beyond the flow path when in the first position and when in the second position (left and right periphery of gate 13, relative to the orientation of fig. 1, define boundary of legs, which extend beyond a periphery of the flow path extending through the gate valve system in all positions of the gate); and
forming a downstream seat assembly (one of seat assemblies 41) contacting the downstream surface and an upstream seat assembly (an other of seat assemblies 41) contacting the upstream surface and identical to the downstream seat assembly.
Williams does not disclose the surface between the first leg and the second leg being a curved surface.
However, Binder teaches a gate (30) having a first leg (left bottom portion of gate 30, relative to the orientation of fig. 3B) that is straight, a second leg (right bottom portion of gate 30, relative to the orientation of fig. 3B), and a curved surface (elliptical cutout edge 46) between the first leg and the second leg.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the invention of Williams by configuring the surface between the first and second legs to be a curved surface, as taught by Binder, to increase the initial flow through the gate valve system upon opening the gate, and since applicant has not disclosed that such solve any stated problem or is anything more than one of numerous shapes or configurations a person ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing a shaped edge on the gate. In re Dailey and Eilers, 149 USPQ 47 (1966).
The combination of Williams and Binder, further, does not disclose each of the downstream seat assembly and the upstream seat assembly including a wave spring.
However, Cain teaches a gate valve system (see figs. 1-3) having identical downstream and upstream seat assemblies (20 or 20A & 20B), wherein each of the downstream seat assembly and the upstream seat assembly including:
a wave spring (96);
a seat insert (76) configured to contact the gate;
a seat (66) configured to contact the gate at least when the seat insert is not present;
an O-ring (88); and
packing material (94).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to further modify the combination of Williams and Binder by configuring the downstream and upstream seat assemblies to include a wave spring, a seat insert configured to contact the gate, a seat configured to contact the gate at least when the seat insert is not present, an O-ring, and packing material, as taught by Cain, to have a gate valve system capable of withstanding higher pressures.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Williams, Binder and Cain discloses an entire flow path at the downstream end (Williams, end defined at one of flanges 39) is in fluid communication with the entire flow path at the upstream end (Williams, an other end defined at an other of flanges 39) in the first position, and wherein the gate (Williams, 13, as modified by Binder, 30, to include elliptical edge 46) partially surrounds a perimeter of the flow path in the first position (Binder, in fully open position, edge 46 does not obstruct flow).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams, Binder and Cain, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Su.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Williams, Binder and Cain discloses the invention as claimed except for an outer surface of the body including one or more ribs surrounding the body.
However, Su teaches an outer surface (exterior surface) of a body (mainly defined by 1, 5 and 6) which includes one or more ribs (see ribs in illustrations of figs. 1 and 2) surrounding the body.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the invention of Williams, Binder and Cain by configuring the outer surface of the body to include one or more ribs surrounding the body, as taught by Su, to allow for more rigidity of the body while minimizing weight.
Regarding claim 18, Williams discloses forming a yoke (17), the yoke being removable while the gate valve system is in service (via disconnection of stem 75 from gate 13 via clevis 73).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams, Binder, Cain and Su, as applied to claim 17 and 18 above, and further in view of Khazanovich.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Williams, Binder, Cain and Su discloses each of the downstream and upstream seat assemblies (Cain, 20 or 20A & 20B) further comprising:
a seat insert (Cain, 76) configured to contact the gate (Williams 13, as modified by Binder, 30);
a seat (Cain, 66) configured to contact the gate at least when the seat insert is not present;
an O-ring (Cain, 88); and
packing material (Cain, 94).
However, the combination of Williams, Binder, Cain and Su does not disclose the packing material being packing ropes.
Khazanovich teaches (see specification paragraph [0034]) a packing material (72) formed as packing ropes made of graphite.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to further modify the combination of Williams, Binder, Cain and Su by forming the packing material from packing ropes made of graphite, as taught by Khazanovich, to have packing material, which performs well in high operation temperatures.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 20 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 8 and 20, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious the invention, wherein a distance from an outer circumference of the flow path to a bottom surface of the body is less than a radial distance defined by a center of the flow path to the outer circumference of the flow path, in combination with the limitations of the base claim(s) and any intervening claim(s).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed November 6, 2025, have been fully considered.
With regards to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection(s) of claim 5 and 13, Applicant’s amendments filed November 6, 2025, have overcome this/these rejection(s), this/these rejection(s) and is/are now withdrawn.
With regards to the prior art rejection(s) of the claims, Applicant’s amendment submitted November 6, 2025, has overcome the rejection of record; however, the amendment has motivated a new ground of rejection, rendering Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous grounds of rejection moot.
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 Hailey K. Do whose direct telephone number is (571)270-3458 and direct fax number is (571)270-4458. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00AM-5:00PM ET) and Friday (8:00AM-12:00PM ET).
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 at 571-272-4881, or Craig M. Schneider 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 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.
/HAILEY K. DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753