DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 were filed with the application on 08/27/2024.
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 (IDS) submitted on 09/15/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: biasing assembly in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The specification describes that a biasing assembly can comprise a main spring (para [0041]).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them 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 5 is 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.
With regard to claim 5, the phrase “nearer to an outer diameter than an inner diameter” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what the outer diameter and inner diameter refers to in the claim? What element’s outer diameter and inner diameter is being referred to in claim 5? As best understood (and with reference to claims 11 and 14), claim 5 is being construed as if it states: “nearer to an outer diameter of the groove than an inner diameter of the groove.”
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8-11, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 4,858,642 (“Fain”) in view of KR 101147815 (“Lee”) (cited on IDS, Translation attached).
With regard to claim 1, Fain discloses a spring-operated relief valve (Figs 1-3) comprising: a biasing assembly (spring 40; a valve inlet (21) fluidly connected to a system pressure (pressure of fluid in system); a valve seat (27); a disc holder (29) that is biased toward the valve seat (27) in a sealing direction (downward direction in Fig 1) by the biasing assembly (40, see Fig 1); and a disc insert (34) secured within the disc holder (29; col. 3, lines 56-57), the disc insert (34) including: a body (body of 34 shown in Figs 2-3); a sealing surface (bottom surface of 34) to seal against the valve seat (27, sealed position shown in Fig 2); the disc holder (29) extending past the sealing surface (bottom surface of 34) of the disc insert 34) (see Fig 2), relative to the sealing direction (downwards direction), to direct fluid flow from the valve seat (27) during a relief event (as fluid flows over and around seat 27 when valve opens, fluid is directed by shape of skirt 36 of disc holder 29).
PNG
media_image1.png
746
627
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
854
856
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fain discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing a groove formed in the sealing surface of the disc insert, the groove to operate as a fluid guide to divert a portion of fluid flow during a relief event into the groove.
Lee teaches that it is known in the art to modify a relief valve with a valve inlet (113), valve seat (130), disc holder (150), and a disc insert (170), similar to that of Fain, to include a groove (175) (para [0035] of Translation) formed in the sealing surface of the disc insert (bottom surface of 173/175), the groove (175) to operate as a fluid guide to divert a portion of fluid flow during a relief event into the groove (inherently, as it is in flow path of fluid, shape of groove and location of groove will divert some fluid into the groove as the fluid flows between the seat and disc insert when the valve opens).
PNG
media_image3.png
1034
750
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
886
1018
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add a groove in the disc insert, such as taught by Lee, in the disc insert of Fain, for the purpose of providing stability of contact with the valve seat (see para [0035]).
With regard to claim 2, Fain (as modified by Lee above) discloses that the disc holder (29) includes a fluid guide that defines a recess (recess is area under 67, see annotated Figs) that surrounds the disc insert (34) and an outwardly angled skirt (at 36, see annotated Figs) that extends away from the recess (extends away by extending radially outward and downward) and past the valve seat (27) in the sealing direction (downward direction) (see Fig 7).
With regard to claim 8, Fain (as modified by Lee above) discloses that the groove (175 in Lee) defines a chamber (space in groove is a chamber) that traps pressure (fluid flowing in opening of valve can enter chamber of groove 175, which is at least momentarily trapped in that chamber) to provide a valve-opening force augmentation during a valve relief event (by fluid pressure pressing up).
With regard to claim 9, Fain (as modified by Lee above) discloses that the groove (175 in Lee) defines a chamber (space in groove is a chamber) that diverts fluid momentum in the sealing direction to apply an increased valve-opening force to the disc insert (34) during a valve relief event (when valve is opening and lifting from seat 27, fluid flowing toward the outlet will push upwards on disc insert and up into groove 175, thus increasing an force on the valve to open).
With regard to claim 10, Fain discloses a disc assembly for a relief valve (Figs 1-3), the disc assembly comprising: a disc holder (29); and a disc insert (34) secured within the disc holder (29) (col. 3, lines 56-57), the disc insert (34) including: a body (body of 34 shown in Fig 2); a sealing surface (bottom surface of 34) to seal against a valve seat (27) of the relief valve; the disc holder (29) guiding fluid flow in a second direction (downwards direction in Fig 1), opposite the first direction (upwards direction), during a relief event.
Fain discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing a groove formed in the sealing surface of the disc insert, surrounded by the disc holder and configured to operate as a fluid guide that receives fluid flow in a first direction during a relief event.
Lee teaches that it is known in the art to modify a relief valve with a valve inlet (113), valve seat (130), and a disc insert (170), similar to that of Fain, to include a groove (175) (para [0035] of Translation) formed in the sealing surface of the disc insert (bottom surface of 173/175), the groove (175) to operate as a fluid guide to divert a portion of fluid flow during a relief event into the groove (inherently, as it is in flow path of fluid, shape of groove and location of groove will divert some fluid into the groove as the fluid flows between the seat and disc insert when the valve opens).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add a groove in the disc insert, such as taught by Lee, in the disc insert of Fain, for the purpose of providing stability of contact with the valve seat (see para [0035]). When the groove is added to the disc insert of Fain, the disc holder (29) of Fain would then also surround the groove.
With regard to claim 11, Fain (as modified by Lee above) discloses that the groove (175 in Lee) formed within the sealing surface defines an inner diameter (radially inward or rightmost diameter in Fig 4 of Lee) and an outer diameter (radially outward diameter or leftmost diameter of Fig 4 in Lee).
With regard to claim 17¸ Fain (as modified by Lee above) discloses that the disc holder (29) defines an annular recess (area under 67, see annotated figs of Fain) that surrounds the groove (disc holder surrounds disc insert, so disc holder will surround the groove 175 of Lee added to Fain) and an outwardly angled skirt (portion of 36 that extends away from the annular recess (extends radially outward and downward, see annotated Figs of Fain).
With regard to claim 18, Fain (as modified by Lee above) discloses that the groove (175) defines a chamber (space of groove is a chamber) that diverts fluid momentum to increase valve-opening force during a valve relief event (as valve opens, fluid can press upwards in an opening direction in the groove – which increases surface area that receives pressure pushing upwards - which increases the valve opening pressure).
With regard to claim 19, Fain discloses a method of reducing simmer in a spring-operated relief valve (see Figs 1-3) (method inherent in apparatus disclosed), the method comprising: restricting a flow of process fluid past a valve seat (27) with a disc assembly (29+34) in a closed configuration (configuration shown in Fig 2), the disc assembly (29+34) including a disc holder (29) and a disc insert (34) within the disc holder (29) (col. 3, lines 56-57); during a relief event (when valve opens), permitting a flow of process fluid past the valve seat (27) when the disc assembly (29+34) is in an open configuration (lifted off of seat 27), including: and with the disc holder, further directing the flow of process fluid past the valve seat (27) in a direction (downwards direction) opposite to the direction of the valve-opening force (upwards direction) for flow out of an outlet (23) of the spring-operated relief valve.
Fain discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing the disc insert (34) defining a groove aligned with the valve seat and directing the flow of process fluid into the groove to convert fluid momentum from the process fluid into valve-opening force applied to the disc assembly and out of the groove.
Lee teaches that it is known in the art to modify a relief valve with a valve inlet (113), valve seat (130), and a disc insert (170), similar to that of Fain, to include a groove (175) (para [0035] of Translation) of the disc insert (170) aligned with the valve seat (130) and directing the flow of process fluid into the groove (175) to convert fluid momentum from the process fluid into valve-opening force applied to the disc assembly and out of the groove (inherently, as it is in flow path of fluid, shape of groove and location of groove will divert some fluid into the groove as the fluid flows between the seat and disc insert when the valve opens and, thus, convert fluid momentum of the process fluid into a valve opening force by pressing up on the disc insert of the disc assembly, with the fluid then flowing out of the groove and down towards the outlet).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add a groove in the disc insert, such as taught by Lee, in the disc insert of Fain, for the purpose of providing stability of contact with the valve seat (see para [0035]). When the groove is added to the disc insert of Fain, the disc holder (29) of Fain would then also surround the groove.
Claims 3-7, 12-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 4,858,642 (“Fain”) in view of KR 101147815 (“Lee”) (cited on IDS, Translation attached) as applied to claims 1, 10, and 19 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 0,150,536 (“Crosby”).
With regard to claim 3, Fain (as modified by Lee above) discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that the groove includes an apex formed by side walls of the groove that extend at about a 45 degree angle with respect to a radial direction.
Fain/Lee discloses all the claimed features with the exception of explicitly disclosing that the angle is 45 degrees.
The angle of Lee appears to be 45 degrees, but it is not explicitly disclosed.
The specification states the groove can have a variety of groove widths, groove depths, groove geometries, and groove angles (see spec at paras [0049], [0050], [0051]).
Crosby teaches that it is known in the art to modify a safety relief valve to include corrugations in the disc assembly (see Fig. 2). The corrugations/grooves can be “any suitable shape”) (page 1, col. 2, lines 28-33).
Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the groove angle be any suitable angle (such as taught by Crosby), such as 45 degrees, because the angle of the groove does not appear to provide any unexpected results.
With regard to claim 4, Fain (as modified by Lee) discloses that the groove (175) includes an apex formed by side walls of the groove that extend at an angle with respect to a radial direction (see annotated Fig. 4).
Lee discloses all the claimed features with the exception of explicitly disclosing that the angle is 30 degrees.
The specification states the groove can have a variety of groove widths, groove depths, groove geometries, and groove angles (see spec at paras [0049], [0050], [0051]).
Crosby teaches that it is known in the art to modify a safety relief valve to include corrugations in the disc assembly (see Fig. 2). The corrugations/grooves can be “any suitable shape”) (page 1, col. 2, lines 28-33).
Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the groove angle be any suitable angle (such as taught by Crosby), such as 30 degrees, because the angle of the groove does not appear to provide any unexpected results.
With regard to claim 5, Fain (as modified by Lee) discloses that the groove (175 in Lee) includes an apex formed by at least one side wall of the groove (see annotated Figs).
Fain/Lee discloses all the claimed features with the exception of explicitly disclosing that the apex is arranged closer to an outer diameter than to an inner diameter [of the groove]. It is not clear if the apex is closer to the outer diameter or the inner diameter from what is shown in Fig. 4.
Crosby teaches that it is known in the art to modify a safety relief valve to include corrugations/grooves in the disc assembly (see Fig. 2). The corrugations/grooves can be “any suitable shape”) (page 1, col. 2, lines 28-33).
Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the groove be any suitable shape (such as taught by Crosby), the shape causing the apex to be closer to the outer diameter than the inner diameter, because the shape of the groove does not appear to provide any unexpected results (see Crosby at page 1, col. 2, lines 28-33).
With regard to claim 6, Fain (as modified by Lee) discloses all the claimed features with the exception of explicitly disclosing that the groove formed within the sealing surface includes a width that is less than a depth of the groove.
The specification states the groove can have a variety of groove widths, groove depths, groove geometries, and groove angles (see spec at para [0051]).
Crosby teaches that it is known in the art to modify a safety relief valve to include corrugations in the disc assembly (see Fig. 2). The corrugations/grooves can be “any suitable shape”) (page 1, col. 2, lines 28-33).
Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the groove angle be any suitable shape and dimension (such as taught by Crosby), such as having a width that is less than a depth of the groove, because the shape/dimension of the groove does not appear to provide any unexpected results.
With regard to claim 7, Fain (as modified by Lee) discloses all the claimed features with the exception of explicitly disclosing that the groove is one of a plurality of grooves formed on the sealing surface of the disc insert.
Crosby teaches that it is known in the art to modify a safety relief valve to include plural grooves (corrugations) in the disc assembly (see Fig. 2) (page 1, col. 2, lines 16-20).
Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the groove of Fain/Lee have plural grooves, such as taught by Crosby, because the number of grooves does not appear to provide any unexpected results
With regard to claim 12, Fain (as modified by Lee above) discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that the groove includes an apex formed by side walls of the groove that extend at about a 45 degree angle with respect to a radial direction.
Fain/Lee discloses all the claimed features with the exception of explicitly disclosing that the angle is 45 degrees.
The angle of Lee appears to be 45 degrees, but it is not explicitly disclosed.
The specification states the groove can have a variety of groove widths, groove depths, groove geometries, and groove angles (see spec at paras [0049], [0050], [0051]).
Crosby teaches that it is known in the art to modify a safety relief valve to include corrugations in the disc assembly (see Fig. 2). The corrugations/grooves can be “any suitable shape”) (page 1, col. 2, lines 28-33).
Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the groove angle be any suitable angle (such as taught by Crosby), such as 45 degrees, because the angle of the groove does not appear to provide any unexpected results.
With regard to claim 13, Fain (as modified by Lee) discloses that the groove (175) includes an apex formed by at least one side wall of the groove that extends at about an angle with respect to a radial direction (see annotated Fig. 4).
Lee discloses all the claimed features with the exception of explicitly disclosing that the angle is about 30 degrees.
The specification states the groove can have a variety of groove widths, groove depths, groove geometries, and groove angles (see spec at paras [0049], [0050], [0051]).
Crosby teaches that it is known in the art to modify a safety relief valve to include corrugations in the disc assembly (see Fig. 2). The corrugations/grooves can be “any suitable shape”) (page 1, col. 2, lines 28-33).
Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the groove angle be any suitable angle (such as taught by Crosby), such as 30 degrees, because the angle of the groove does not appear to provide any unexpected results.
With regard to claim 14, Fain (as modified by Lee) discloses that the groove (175 in Lee) includes an apex formed by at least one side wall of the groove (see annotated Figs).
Fain/Lee discloses all the claimed features with the exception of explicitly disclosing that the apex is arranged closer to an outer diameter than to an inner diameter [of the groove]. It is not clear if the apex is closer to the outer diameter or the inner diameter from what is shown in Fig. 4.
Crosby teaches that it is known in the art to modify a safety relief valve to include corrugations/grooves in the disc assembly (see Fig. 2). The corrugations/grooves can be “any suitable shape”) (page 1, col. 2, lines 28-33).
Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the groove be any suitable shape (such as taught by Crosby) , the shape causing the apex to be closer to the outer diameter than the inner diameter, because the shape of the groove does not appear to provide any unexpected results (see Crosby at page 1, col. 2, lines 28-33).
With regard to claim 15, Fain (as modified by Lee) discloses all the claimed features with the exception of explicitly disclosing that the groove formed within the sealing surface includes a width that is less than a depth of the groove.
The specification states the groove can have a variety of groove widths, groove depths, groove geometries, and groove angles (see spec at para [0051]).
Crosby teaches that it is known in the art to modify a safety relief valve to include corrugations in the disc assembly (see Fig. 2). The corrugations/grooves can be “any suitable shape”) (page 1, col. 2, lines 28-33).
Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the groove angle be any suitable shape and dimension (such as taught by Crosby), such as having a width that is less than a depth of the groove, because the shape/dimension of the groove does not appear to provide any unexpected results.
With regard to claim 16, Fain (as modified by Lee) discloses all the claimed features with the exception of explicitly disclosing that the groove is one of a plurality of grooves formed on the sealing surface of the disc insert.
Crosby teaches that it is known in the art to modify a safety relief valve to include plural grooves (corrugations) in the disc assembly (see Fig. 2) (page 1, col. 2, lines 16-20).
Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the groove of Fain/Lee have plural grooves, such as taught by Crosby, because the number of grooves does not appear to provide any unexpected results
With regard to claim 20, Fain (as modified by Lee) discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that the groove includes an apex formed by side walls of the groove, the side walls of the one or more of: extending at about a 45 degree angle with respect to a radial direction; or extending at about a 30 degree angle with respect to a radial direction.
The angle of Lee appears to be 45 degrees, but it is not explicitly disclosed.
The specification states the groove can have a variety of groove widths, groove depths, groove geometries, and groove angles (see spec at paras [0049], [0050], [0051]).
Crosby teaches that it is known in the art to modify a safety relief valve to include corrugations in the disc assembly (see Fig. 2). The corrugations/grooves can be “any suitable shape”) (page 1, col. 2, lines 28-33).
Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the groove angle be any suitable angle (such as taught by Crosby), such as 45 degrees or 30 degrees, because the angle of the groove does not appear to provide any unexpected results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Nos. 2,517,858 and 5,046,524 disclose relief valves with a disc holder and disc insert.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA CAHILL whose telephone number is (571)270-5219. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 to 3:00.
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 can be reached by phone. Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-60073607 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 published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESSICA CAHILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753