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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 and 19-22 in the reply filed on 3/19/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-18 and 23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/19/26.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 3/19/26. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the implied language “The embodiments disclosed herein relate to”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
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) 1-7, 9 and 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raftis US 4,603,864 in view of Tsuji et al. US 7,306,237.
Regarding claim 1, Raftis discloses a knife gate valve 10 having a valve body 12, 20, and 40 which defines a bore 19 along a bore axis for a media flow, and a gate 50 for the bore, and comprising:
an interior surface (inside of 12, 20, and 40) of the valve body;
an annular groove (where 30 is housed) defined entirely within the interior surface of the valve body;
a stepped surface 28 and a first locking surface (in Figs. 1-2, right side of 28) defined in and of the annular groove, wherein the first locking surface is adjacent and contiguous to the stepped surface (see Figs. 1-2);
a resilient seat ring (30 made of rubber) inserted into the annular groove, wherein the resilient ring comprises a locking part 32, and wherein the locking part is installed past the stepped surface of the annular groove;
a second locking surface defined on the resilient seat ring (in Figs.1-2, left side of 32); and further wherein the first locking surface and second locking surface are configured to abut (see Figs. 1-2, right side of 28 and left side of 32 abut).
Raftis lacks the resilient seat ring comprises the locking part having a wedge defining a sloped surface, wherein the wedge is installed past the stepped surface of the annular groove; and wherein the second locking surface is adjacent and contiguous to the sloped surface.
Tsuji discloses a resilient seat ring 30 comprises a locking part with a wedge 8 defining a sloped surface (can be 36 or 33), wherein the wedge is installed past the stepped (constricted) surface in the annular groove (see Fig. 1, the stepped surface is the constricted top part of 12); and wherein the second locking surface is adjacent and contiguous to the sloped surface (the first and second locking surfaces are where 12 and 30 meet).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the locking part of the resilient seat ring that is installed past the stepped surface of Raftis to be a wedge defining a sloped surface having a second locking surface that is adjacent and contiguous to the sloped surface as disclosed by Tsuji as a matter of simple substitution of shapes by making a rectangular shape into a triangular shape and/or to make it easier to insert the seal into the groove without taking the valve apart and/or to make the seat ring smaller thus saving on material to make it.
Regarding claim 2, Raftis discloses the resilient seat ring further comprises a resilient seat body (ring is a body), and Raftis in view of Tsuji discloses the sloped surface of the wedge protrudes from the resilient seat body (Raftis shows the second locking surface of the ring as protruding so the modification with Tsuji would be protruding as well) .
Regarding claim 3, Raftis discloses the resilient seat ring comprises an engagement end 38 for contacting the gate; and further wherein the engagement end extends an offset distance from the interior surface of the valve body towards the gate (see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 4, Raftis in view of Tsuji lacks the sloped surface is set an angle between 10 to 15 degrees. The angle of the sloped surface of Raftis in view of Tsuji is seen to any angle as would be desired in the modification and would include 10-15 degrees.
Regarding claim 5, Raftis discloses the first locking surface and the second locking surface are perpendicular to the bore axis (see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 6, Raftis discloses the annular groove is defined entirely within a metal seat of the valve body (12, 20 and 40 hatched as metal).
Alternatively regarding claim 6, Raftis discloses the annular groove is defined entirely within a seat of the valve body (12, 20 and 40 hatched as metal) but is silent as to the material in the disclosure. Tsuji discloses the valve body is metal (col. 4, lines 21-23). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the valve body of Raftis metal as disclosed by Tsuji as a matter of simple substitution of materials and/or to provide steel as its benefits include high strength-to-weight ratio, exceptional durability, and sustainability.
Regarding claim 7, Raftis discloses the annular groove further comprises an annular pocket (the right side of 28 is seen as an annular pocket) and further comprising an O-ring 52 inserted into the annular pocket.
Regarding claim 9, Raftis lacks a beveled surface defined between the interior surface of the valve body and the stepped surface of the annular groove. Tsuji discloses a beveled surface defined between the interior surface of the valve body and the stepped surface of the annular groove (see opening to 12). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the opening of the groove of Raftis beveled as disclosed by Tsuji so the resilient seal is not cut and/or damaged by the edges of the valve body as the gate moves.
Regarding claim 19, Raftis discloses knife gate valve 10 having a valve body 12, 20, and 40 defining a bore 19 along a bore axis, and a gate 50 operable between a closed position and an open position of the bore, comprising:
an interior surface (inside of 12, 20, and 40) of the valve body;
an annular groove (where 30 is housed) comprising a stepped surface 28, an outermost groove surface opposite the stepped surface, and a rear groove surface joining the stepped surface and the outermost groove surface, wherein each of the stepped surface, the outermost groove surface, and the rear groove surface are defined in the interior surface of the valve body only (see Figs. 1-2);
wherein the stepped surface further defines a first locking surface (right side of 28);
a resilient seat ring 30 (made of rubber) comprising a resilient seat body and a locking part extending from the resilient seat body, and a second locking surface (left side of 32) adjacent to the locking part; wherein the part of the resilient seat ring is inserted into the annular groove and further wherein the resilient seat ring is secured into the annular groove via engagement of the first locking surface and the second locking surface preventing outward movement of the resilient seat ring out of the annular groove (see Figs. 1-2, right side of 28 and left side of 32 prevent outward movement).
Raftis lacks the resilient seat body’s locking part having a wedge extending from the resilient seat body at an angle wherein the wedge of the resilient seat ring is inserted into the annular groove
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the locking part of the resilient seat ring that is installed past the stepped surface of Raftis to be a wedge defining a sloped surface having a second locking surface as disclosed by Tsuji as a matter of simple substitution of shapes by making a rectangular shape into a triangular shape and/or to make it easier to insert the seal into the groove without taking the valve apart and/or to make the seat ring smaller thus saving on material to make it..
Regarding claim 20, Raftis in view of Tsuji lacks the sloped surface is set an angle between 10 to 15 degrees. The angle of the sloped surface of Raftis in view of Tsuji is seen to any angle as would be desired in the modification and would include 10-15 degrees.
Regarding claim 21, Raftis discloses the resilient seat ring is retained in the annular groove without any fasteners, retaining rings, or adhesives (the locking surfaces retain the ring in the body).
Regarding claim 22, Raftis discloses the annular groove further comprises an annular compartment, and wherein the annular compartment is also defined in the interior surface of the valve body only (see Raftis Figs. 1-2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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: The primary reason for the allowance of the claim 8 is a knife gate valve having the combination of an O-ring contacting a second end of the resilient seat ring with the second end is opposite the engagement end in combination with the rest of the apparatus as claimed in claims 1 and 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lapinoja, Nelson, Grieves, Ishigaki, both Groves, Fye, Morrison, Overholser, and Fukuhara disclose seals
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN BASTIANELLI whose telephone number is (571)272-4921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/John Bastianelli/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
571-272-4921
Prosecution Insights