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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GB2009370 (“Geosource”).
Regarding claim 1, Geosource discloses (see figs. 2-4) a gate valve comprising:
a bonnet (72) mated to a body (48A and 48B);
a stem (42) extending through the bonnet and into the body; a seat (64A and/or 64B) positioned within the body; and
a gate, the gate positioned within the body and adapted to form a fluid seal (see sealed position of fig. 2) with the seat, the gate comprising:
two tapered seat wedges (44A and 44B), the tapered seat wedges have a tapered side (side adjacent to dovetail gate 152) and a flat side (side abutting seats 44A and 44B); and
a dovetail gate (152), the dovetail gate positioned between the two tapered seat wedges, the tapered sides of the tapered seat wedges adjacent the dovetail gate (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Geosource discloses the stem (42) and the dovetail gate (152) are formed integrally (members 152 and 42 are immovable relative to one another).
Regarding claim 3, Geosource discloses the flat side (side adjacent seats 44A and 44B) of the two tapered wedges (44A and 44B) includes a rounded corner (seating face and circular peripheral wall forms rounded, or circular, corner).
Regarding claim 4, Geosource discloses the dovetail gate (152) has a plurality of dovetail tapered edges (see dovetail feature in detail of fig. 4), wherein the tapered sides each have a tapered edge (see detail in cross-section of fig. 4), and wherein the tapered edges are opposite each other.
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US2906491 (“Young”).
Regarding claim 9, Young discloses a method comprising:
supplying a gate valve, the gate valve including: a bonnet (13) mated to a body (10);
a stem (14) extending through the bonnet and into the body; a seat (17) positioned within the body; and
a gate, the gate positioned within the body and adapted to form a fluid seal (see sealed, closed, position of figs. 1 and 2) with the seat, the gate comprising:
two tapered seat wedges (30), the tapered seat wedges have a tapered side (side abutting dovetail gate 24) and a flat side (side abutting valve seat 17); and
a dovetail gate (24), the dovetail gate positioned between the two tapered seat wedges, the tapered sides of the tapered seat wedges adjacent the dovetail gate;
positioning the gate in the raised position (position where spring 35 is fully extended and tapered seat wedges 30 are lifted away from seats 17), wherein in the raised position, the gate valve allows for fluid flow through the gate valve and the gate is not within the seat.
Regarding claim 10, Young discloses after positioning the gate in the raised position (open position where tapered seat wedges 30 are lifted away from seats 17), lowering the gate, by lowering the stem (14), into the seat (17) such that the tapered seat wedges (30) are within the seat, to reach the within seat position (position where lugs 37 engage shoulder 22, and block 33 engages surface 36 of dovetail gate 24).
Regarding claim 11, Young discloses after lowering the gate, causing the stem (14) to force tapered seat wedges (30) apart by extending the dovetail gate (24) to a seated position (position where block 33 is lifted from surface 36 of dovetail gate 24; see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Young discloses lowering the stem (14) to compress a spring (35) against a block (33) to a spring compression position (position where block 33 is lifted from surface 36 of dovetail gate 24).
Regarding claim 13, Young discloses causing the stem (14) to force tapered seat wedges (30) apart by extending the dovetail gate (24) to a seated position (position of fig. 1).
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.
Claim 5, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geosource, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US4165063 (“Qasim”).
Regarding claim 5, Geosource discloses a female dovetail portion (see detail of cross-section in fig. 4) on each of the tapered seat wedges (44A and 44B); and a male dovetail portion on each side of the dovetail gate (152), the male dovetail portions and the female dovetail portions slidingly engaged and the male dovetail is adapted to fit within the female dovetail portion.
Geosource does not disclose the male dovetail portions and the female dovetail portions being of reversed orientation.
However, Qasim teaches (see figs. 2-4) a male dovetail portion (68 and 69; see fig. 2) on each of two tapered seat wedges (36 and 38); and a female dovetail portion (68 and 69) on each side of a dovetail gate (32), the male dovetail portions and the female dovetail potions slidingly engaged and the male dovetail is adapted to fit within the female dovetail 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 Geosource by reversing the orientations or configurations of the male and female dovetail portions, because it is “obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (1. male dovetail portion on each of the two tapered seat wedges and female dovetail portion on each side of the dovetail gate; or 2. female dovetail portion on each of the two tapered seat wedges and male dovetail portion on each side of the dovetail gate), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 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.
Claim 14 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious the gate, wherein the spring connected between the spring receiver portion and the plurality of blocks, in combination with the remainder limitations of the claim and base claim.
Claims 7 and 8 are allowable because they depend on an allowable claim.
Regarding claim 14, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious the gate valve, having the combination of the tapered seat wedges have a tapered side and a flat side, the plurality of blocks partially positioned within the tapered seat wedges, and the spring compressing against the plurality of blocks, in further combination with the remainder limitations of the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed December 2, 2025, have been fully considered.
Regarding the claim objection(s) and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, Applicant’s amendments filed December 2, 2025, have overcome these objection(s) and/or rejection(s) and are now withdrawn.
With regards to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a) rejection of claims 1-4 over Geosource, and claim 5 over Geosource in view of Qasim, Applicant argues that Geosource does not disclose the claimed invention because it fails to use a dovetail, or more specifically, an interlocking joint using dovetail(s).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is arguing that Geosource fails to show certain features of the invention (e.g., dovetail interlock); however, it is noted that the feature(s) upon which applicant relies is/are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims merely require a “dovetail gate”, which merely requires, by definition (see Merriam-Webster), a gate, which resembles a dove’s tail. Geosource discloses a wedge-shaped gate (152), resembling a dove’s tail (see cross-section of fig. 2).
With regards to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a) rejection of claims 9-13 over Young, in a similar manner to those arguments pertaining to Geosource, above, Applicant argues that Jones does not disclose the claimed invention because it fails to use a dovetail, or more specifically, an interlocking joint using dovetail(s).
Young discloses a wedge-shaped gate (24), which is tapered (see cross-section of fig. 1) and resembles a dove’s tail, therefore, reading on the “dovetail gate” of claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US737414 discloses a wedge gate valve having a pair of springs which bias a respective gate seat portion of a wedge gate. CN113639060 discloses a gate valve having two tapered seat wedges connected by at least one spring. NL7702081 discloses a gate valve having a pair of gate seat portions which are opposingly biased by a respective spring.
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