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. 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/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, 2, 4-15 and 17-24 use varying nomenclature to refer to the arcing outer engagement surface (110) of the valve disc (108) and the toroidal radially inner engagement surface (120) of the valve seat (118) making the claims unclear as to if these elements are the same elements or different elements. The claims must be amended to have consistent terminology to allow for sufficient understanding of the claimed invention.
Claims 10-13 recite the limitation “an axial direction”; however, the claims are unclear as to if these recitations refer to the same “axial direction” recited in parent claim 1, line 2, or different axial direction(s) therefrom.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “a radius of the valve seat engagement surface at a point of engagement is about seven times a radius of an engagement surface of the valve seat at a point of engagement”; however, it appears that the two radii being claimed are the same element, and it is unclear as to how a single element can be seven times a magnitude of itself.
Similarly, claim 24 recites the limitation “a radius of the valve seat engagement surface at a point of engagement is about seven times a radius of an engagement surface of the valve seat at a point of engagement” and is rejected for the same reason as claim 14, above.
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, 15 and 16, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US2022/0168492 (“Fehrenbacher”).
Regarding claim 1, Fehrenbacher discloses (see figs. 3 and 4) a valve apparatus comprising:
a valve disc (33) movable along an axial direction (direction parallel to flow 31) and having an arcing outer engagement surface (42) having an axis of curvature (axis of curvature of cross-section of domed surface 42) transverse to the axial direction;
a valve seat (38) having a central opening (opening for flow 31) aligned with the axial direction, the valve seat having a toroidal radially inner engagement surface (see fig. 4) around the central opening configured to engage the engagement surface of the valve disc in a closed position (see position of fig. 3).
Regarding claim 2, Fehrenbacher discloses the engagement surface (42) of the valve disc (33) and the engagement surface of the valve seat (38) are configured to form a line of contact (circular line of contact; see fig. 3) between the outer engagement surface and the inner engagement surface.
Regarding claim 3, Fehrenbacher discloses the valve disc (33) has a round outer periphery (domed surface 42) transverse to the axial direction (direction parallel to flow 31).
Regarding claim 15, Fehrenbacher discloses the engagement surface (42) of the valve disc (33) and the engagement surface of the valve seats (38) curve in opposite directions (surfaces of the valve disc and valve seat are convex toward one another; see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, Fehrenbacher discloses a pump (10; see fig. 1) comprising a check valve (see figs. 2-4).
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US2019/0368619 (“Barnett”).
Regarding claim 17, Barnett discloses (see fig. 8) a valve apparatus comprising:
a valve disc (200A) movable along an axial direction (vertical direction, relative to the orientation of fig. 8) and comprising a first replaceable engagement insert (252A) having an engagement surface (270);
a seat (300) having a central opening (opening extending through seat 300) aligned with the axial direction, the valve seat comprising a second replaceable insert (302) having a complementary engagement surface (304) configured to engage the engagement surface of valve disc in a closed position along a line of engagement (circular engagement line between surfaces 270 and 304).
Regarding claim 18, Barnet discloses the engagement surface (270) of the valve disc (200A) and the engagement surface (304) of the valve seat (300) are configured to form a line of contact (convex surface 270 causes a circular line of contact with conical surface 302) between the outer engagement surface (270) and the inner engagement surface (304).
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 1-4, 7-9, 15, 16, 25 and 26, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnett in view of US2014/0020774 (“Miklo”).
Regarding claim 1, Barnett discloses (see fig. 8) a valve apparatus comprising:
a valve disc (200A) movable along an axial direction (vertical direction, relative to the orientation of fig. 8) and having an arcing outer engagement surface (270) having an axis of curvature transverse to the axial direction;
a valve seat (300) having a central opening (see opening extending through valve seat 300 in fig. 8) aligned with the axial direction, the valve seat having a radially inner engagement surface (304) around the central opening configured to engage the engagement surface of the valve disc in a closed position.
Barnet discloses the invention as claimed except for the radially inner engagement surface of the valve seat being toroidal.
Miklo teaches a valve seat (5) having a toroidal radially inner engagement surface (surface, which engages spherical portion 35 of valve disc 3), which engages an arcing outer engagement surface (spherical surface 35) of a valve disc (3).
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 Barnett by configuring the radially inner engagement surface of the valve seat to be toroidal, as taught by Miklo, to have minimal friction contact surface between the valve seat and the valve disc.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Barnett and Miklo discloses the engagement surface (Barnet 270, as modified by Miklo, 35) of the valve disc (Barnett, 200A) and the engagement surface (Barnett, 304, as modified by Miklo, 5, above) of the valve seat (Barnett, 300, as modified by Miklo, 5, above) are configured to form a line of contact (circular line of contact between opposed annular convex surfaces) between the outer engagement surface and the inner engagement surface.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Barnett and Miklo discloses the valve disc (Barnett, 200A) has a round outer periphery (see by example disc 200 in perspective drawing of fig. 4) transverse to the axial direction.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Barnett and Miklo discloses the engagement surfaces of the valve disc (Barnet 270, as modified by Miklo, 35) and of the valve seat (Barnett, 304, as modified by Miklo, 5, above) comprise a carbide, cermet or ceramic material (Barnet; see paragraph [0051]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Barnett and Miklo discloses valve disc (Barnett, 200A, as modified by Miklo 5, above) comprises a carbide insert (Barnett, 252A; see specification paragraph [0051]) forming the valve disc engagement surface (Barnet 270, as modified by Miklo, 35, above).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Barnett and Miklo discloses valve seat (Barnett, 300) comprises a carbide insert (Barnett, 302) forming the valve seat engagement surface (Barnett, 304, as modified by Miklo, 5, above).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Barnett and Miklo discloses the valve disc engagement surface (Barnett, 270, as modified by Miklo, 35, above) and the valve seat engagement surface (Barnett, 304, as modified by Miklo, 5, above) comprise carbide inserts (Barnett, valve disc insert 252A and valve seat insert 302; see specification paragraph [0051]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Barnett and Miklo discloses the engagement surface (Barnett, 270, as modified by Miklo, 35, above) of the valve disc (Barnett, 200A) and the engagement surface (Barnett, 304, as modified by Miklo, 5, above) of the valve seats (Barnett, 300) curve in opposite directions (Miklo, see by example oppositely curved engagement surfaces of members 35 and 5 in fig. 4).
Regarding claim 16, Barnett discloses a pump comprising a check valve, the check valve comprising the valve apparatus (see specification paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 25, Barnett discloses (see fig. 8) a valve seat for a fluid end comprising:
a valve seat base (300);
a replaceable valve insert (302) having an engagement surface (304) around a central opening (opening extending through seat 300) and configured to engage a valve disc.
Barnet discloses the invention as claimed except for the engagement surface of the valve seat being toroidal.
Miklo teaches a valve seat (5) having a toroidal engagement surface (surface, which engages spherical portion 35 of valve disc 3), which engages an arcing outer engagement surface (spherical surface 35) of a valve disc (3).
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 Barnett by configuring the engagement surface of the valve seat to be toroidal, as taught by Miklo, to have minimal friction contact surface between the valve seat and the valve disc.
Regarding claim 26, Barnett discloses the replaceable valve insert (302) comprises a carbide, ceramic or cermet material (see specification paragraph [0051]).
Claims 5, 6, 27 and 28, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnett in view of Miklo, as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of engineering expedient.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the combination of Barnett and Miklo discloses the invention as claimed except for the engagement surfaces of the valve disc and of the valve seat having a hardness of 1000HV or more.
However, Barnett teaches that material hardness can be varied by using different concentrations and/or combinations of hard particles, binder, or cement concentrations (see specification paragraph [0051]).
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 Barnett and Miklo by configuring the engagement surfaces of the valve disc and of the valve seat have a hardness of 1000HV or more, to ensure longevity of the valve elements.
Regarding claims 27 and 28, the combination of Barnett and Miklo discloses the invention as claimed except for the replaceable valve insert having a hardness of 1000HV or more.
However, Barnett teaches that material hardness can be varied by using different concentrations and/or combinations of hard particles, binder, or cement concentrations (see specification paragraph [0051]).
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 Barnett and Miklo by configuring the replaceable valve insert to have a hardness of 1000HV or more, to ensure longevity of the valve elements.
Claims 10-13, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fehrenbacher, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of engineering expedient.
Regarding claims 10-13, Fehrenbacher discloses the invention as claimed except for an angle between an axial direction of the valve disc and a radius of the valve seat engagement surface at a point of engagement being between 20 degrees and 45 degrees, or about 30 degrees.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention would know to experiment with different valve disc and valve seat curvature dimensions to effect a desired seating force therebetween. Experimentation with larger angles would allow for tighter closing between sealing surfaces, while increasing the friction forces therebetween.
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 Fehrenbacher to define an angle between an axial direction of the valve disc and a radius of the valve seat engagement surface at a point of engagement is about 30 degrees, to ensure proper sealing between the valve disc and the valve seat while preventing excessive friction forces therebetween.
Claim 19, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnett, as applied to claims 17 and 18 above, in view of Miklo.
Regarding claim 19, Barnett discloses the engagement surface (270) of the valve disc (200A) comprises a convex engagement surface (see fig. 8 and specification paragraph [0050]); and wherein the engagement surface of the valve seat comprises a radially inner engagement surface (304).
Barnet does not disclose the convex engagement surface being a spherical engagement surface and the radially inner engagement surface being a toroidal radially inner engagement surface.
However, Miklo teaches a valve disc (3) comprising a spherical engagement surface (35), which engages a toroidal radially inner engagement surface (see toroidal surface of seat 5, which engages spherical engagement surface 35 of the valve disc 3) of a valve seat (5).
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 Barnet by configuring the convex engagement surface of the valve disc to be a spherical engagement surface and the radially inner engagement surface of the valve seat to be a toroidal radially inner engagement surface, to have minimal friction contact surface between the valve seat and the valve disc.
Claims 20-23, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnett, as applied to claim 17 above, in view of Miklo and further in view of Engineering Expedient.
Regarding claims 20-23, Barnet discloses the invention as claimed except for an angle between an axial direction of the valve disc and a radius of the valve seat engagement surface at a point of engagement between 20 degrees and 45 degrees, or about 30 degrees.
Miklo teaches a valve disc (3) comprising a spherical engagement surface (35), the spherical engagement surface engaging a valve seat engagement surface (radially inner surface of seat 5) of a valve seat (5), wherein the valve seat engagement surface is a toroidal radially inner engagement surface (see toroidal surface of seat 5, which engages spherical engagement surface 35 of the valve disc 3), and wherein an axial direction (reciprocation direction of disc 3) of the valve disc and a radius (radius of curvature in cross-section of fig. 4) of the valve seat engagement surface at a point of engagement define an angle.
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 Barnet by configuring the convex engagement surface of the valve disc to be a spherical engagement surface and the radially inner engagement surface of the valve seat to be a toroidal radially inner engagement surface, so as to define an angle between an axial direction (reciprocation direction of disc 3) of the valve disc and a radius (radius of curvature in cross-section of fig. 4) of the valve seat engagement surface at a point of engagement, to have minimal friction contact surface between the valve seat and the valve disc.
With regards to the angle being between 20 degrees and 45 degrees, or about 30 degrees.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention would know to experiment with different valve disc and valve seat curvature dimensions to effect a desired seating force therebetween. Experimentation with larger angles would allow for tighter closing between sealing surfaces, while increasing the friction forces therebetween.
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 Barnett and Miklo to define an angle between an axial direction of the valve disc and a radius of the valve seat engagement surface at a point of engagement is about 30 degrees, to ensure proper sealing between the valve disc and the valve seat while preventing excessive friction forces therebetween.
Claims 25, 29 and 30, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US5113898 (“White”) in view of Miklo.
Regarding claim 25, White discloses (see fig. 3) a valve seat (100) for a fluid end comprising:
a valve seat base (20);
a replaceable valve insert (50) having an engagement surface (beveled surface of insert 50) around a central opening (65) and configured to engage a valve disc.
White discloses the invention as claimed except for the engagement surface of the valve seat being toroidal.
Miklo teaches a valve seat (5) having a toroidal engagement surface (surface, which engages spherical portion 35 of valve disc 3), which engages an arcing outer engagement surface (spherical surface 35) of a valve disc (3).
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 White by configuring the engagement surface of the valve seat to be toroidal, as taught by Miklo, to have minimal friction contact surface between the valve seat and the valve disc.
Regarding claim 29, White discloses a retainer (52) connecting to the seat base (20) and engaging the insert (50) and holding the valve insert in place (see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of White and Miklo discloses the invention as claimed except for the retainer comprising a threaded connection with the seat base with internal threads on the retainer engaging external threads on the seat base.
However, White teaches assembling valve element by means of a threaded connection comprising internal threads (female threads of valve body 10, which receives seat base 20) engaged with external threads (external threads of seat base 20).
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 White and Miklo by configuring the retainer to be assembled to the seat base by means of a threaded connection, as taught by White, to have a retainer, which can be more securely fixed within the seat base.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US4474208 discloses a removable seat insert assembly. US11913447 discloses a removable valve disc insert.
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