DETAILED ACTION
Following applicant’s amendment filed 5/13/2026, claims 1-5 and 7-30 are pending with claims 2-5, 11, 12, 15-28 withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1, 7-10, 13, 14, 29, and 30 are treated on their merits.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 10, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Partridge (US Patent Application 2021/0095772).
Regarding Claim 1, Partridge discloses a check valve (abstract), comprising: a housing 102 having an upstream end 108a and a downstream end 106, wherein the housing includes: a throughbore (including 108 and 110 as shown in Figure 5) extending from the upstream end to the downstream end (as shown in Figure 5); an outer surface extending from the upstream end to the downstream end (outer surface of 110 as shown in e.g. Figures 3, 5, and 6); and an access port 112 extending from the outer surface to the throughbore (as best shown in Figures 5-7), wherein the access port 112 includes an internal annular shoulder 120 and one or more recesses (pockets 138; Figure 6 especially) extending into the internal annular shoulder 120; and a valve seat 132 disposed in the throughbore of the housing (disposed in portion 110 of the throughbore); a check valve assembly (including flapper 130) at least partially disposed in the access port (including at least pivot pin 134 disposed in the access port 112; i.e. above the cavity 110 as shown in Figure 6), wherein the check valve assembly includes: a flapper 130 extending into the throughbore (as shown in Figure 6) and configured to pivot relative to the valve seat 132 between an open position spaced apart from the valve seat and a closed position engaging the valve seat (abstract); one or more flapper alignment members 136 pivotally coupled to the flapper (pivotally coupled via pin 134), wherein each flapper alignment member 136 is slidingly seated in one of the recesses 138 (as shown in Figure 6, the alignment member 136 is slid into the pocket 138) in the internal annular shoulder 120 of the access port to align the flapper 130 with the valve seat in the throughbore (as shown in Figure 6), wherein the one or more flapper alignment members 136 are configured to be received into the one or more recesses 138 in only a single rotational orientation about a central axis of the access port 112 (as shown in Figure 6, the alignment member 136 is received in the recess 138 in only a single rotational orientation; it is noted that although the alignment member itself may be theoretically positioned into the two different recesses, this is not practically attainable because if the orientation were reversed, the flapper 130 would face backwards and therefore would be obstructed by and not fit properly against the seat; therefore, the alignment members are seen to be configured to be received into the one or more recesses in only a single rotational orientation about a central axis of the access port as claimed).
Regarding Claim 7, Partridge further discloses the check valve assembly includes a pair of hinge blocks (each bushing 136 forms a hinge block and also provides the alignment member in the same manner as achieved by applicant and as required by claim 10) and a pin 134 coupled to the flapper 130, wherein the pin 130 extends into a receptacle in each hinge block (at respective ends 134a and 134b).
Regarding Claim 10, Partridge further discloses each flapper alignment member 136 is one of the hinge blocks (bushing 136 provides an alignment member and hinge block as described above with respect to claim 7).
Regarding Claim 14, Partridge further discloses the housing 102 has a central axis (unnumbered center axis along the throughbore as shown in Figure 4) and the throughbore extends axially through the housing from the upstream end to the downstream end (as described above), and wherein the access port 112 has a central axis oriented perpendicular to the central axis of the throughbore (as best shown in Figures 3-6).
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.
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 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partridge (US Patent Application 2021/0095772) in view of Anderson et al. (US Patent 2,925,827).
Regarding Claim 8, Partridge does not disclose the check valve assembly further includes: a pair of bushings, wherein each of the pair of bushings includes a flange that defines an outer annular shoulder, wherein each bushing of the pair of bushings is disposed in a corresponding one of receptacles of the hinge blocks with the outer annular shoulder of each of the pair of bushings engaging an inner annular shoulder disposed along the corresponding one of the receptacles; and wherein the pin extends into each of the pair of bushings.
Anderson teaches a pivoting check valve 10 and further teaches the check valve assembly further includes: a pair of bushings 35, wherein each of the pair of bushings includes a flange (radial flange indicated at 35 in Figure 4) that defines an outer annular shoulder (outer annular shoulder defined by the flange, shoulder engaging the end of plug 34), wherein each bushing 35 of the pair of bushings is disposed in a corresponding one of receptacles of hinge blocks (each bushing 35 is disposed in a receptacle of a hinge block 34 as shown in Figure 4) with the outer annular shoulder of each of the pair of bushings (outer radial flanges of 35) engaging an inner annular shoulder disposed along the corresponding one of the receptacles (34 defines an inner annular shoulder at the base of the threaded end); and wherein a pin 30 extends into each of the pair of bushings (as shown in Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Partridge to include a bushing inserted within each hinge block as taught by Anderson for the purpose of providing a structure known in the art to ensure desired rotation of the pin is achieved.
Regarding Claim 9, Partridge does not disclose the flapper is coupled to the pin with a pair of hinge ears, and wherein the flange of each of the pair of bushings is positioned between the internal annular shoulder of the corresponding one of the receptacles and a corresponding one of the hinge ears.
Anderson further teaches a flapper 20 is coupled to the pin 30 with a pair of hinge ears (hinge ears provided on opposite sides of hub portion 31; i.e. one hinge ear provided on either side of the central portion 29 as shown in Figure 3), and wherein the flange of each of the pair of bushings 35 (radially extending flanges of bushings 35 as described with respect to claim 8 above) is positioned between the internal annular shoulder of the corresponding one of the receptacles (i.e. the end of the threaded end of 34) and a corresponding one of the hinge ears 31 (as shown in Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Partridge to include a hinge ear around the pin as taught by Anderson for the purpose of providing additional rigidity to the pin to thereby reduce bending and the possibility of fracture.
Claims 13 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partridge (US Patent Application 2021/0095772) in view of Scaramucci (US Patent 5,215,118).
Regarding Claim 13, Partridge does not disclose the valve seat is configured to be slidably inserted axially into the throughbore at the upstream end of the housing.
Scaramucci teaches a pivoting check valve and further teaches (in the embodiment shown in Figure 14) a valve seat 52A is configured to be slidably inserted axially into a throughbore at an upstream end of a housing 102 (col. 4, lines 23-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Partridge such that the valve seat is configured to be slidably inserted axially into the throughbore at the upstream end of the housing as taught by Scaramucci for the purpose of utilizing an alternative arrangement known in the art for securing the valve seat in the housing.
Regarding Claim 30, Partridge in view of Scaramucci is seen as further disclosing the vale seat (132 of Partridge) is seated in the throughbore of the housing at the upstream end of the housing (inserted at the upstream end of the housing as taught by Scaramucci as described above), and wherein the valve seat is configured to be compressed and retained in the throughbore of the housing at the upstream end of the housing by a conduit attached to the upstream end of the housing (the valve seat is at least capable of being compressed and retained in the throughbore of the housing at the upstream end of the housing by a conduit attached to the upstream end of the housing by inserting such a conduit against the upstream face shown at the left side of the valve seat of Scaramucci in Figure 14; it is noted that a conduit is not positively recited in the claim, instead the claim only requires the valve seat to be configured to be compressed and retained; the structure of the prior art is capable of being compressed and retained as claimed).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 29 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that Partridge fails to teach the new limitations of claim 1 requiring the one or more flapper alignment members are configured to be received into the one or more recesses in only a single rotational orientation about a central axis of the access port. Applicant argues that because the pockets 138 and bushings 136 of Partridge are “generally rectangular”, then each bushing can be seated in either pocket 138. These arguments are not persuasive because the bushings and pockets are not arranged 180 degrees from each other. Therefore, it is not practically attainable to switch the positions of the bushings because if the orientation were reversed, the flapper 130 would face backwards and therefore would not fit properly against the seat (that is, as shown in Figures 4-6, it is not possible to reverse the orientation of the bushings because the valve seat protrudes rightward and would obstruct the back side of the flapper 130. Therefore, the alignment members are seen to be configured to be received into the one or more recesses in only a single rotational orientation about a central axis of the access port as claimed.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to new claim 29 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to new claim 30 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, as described above, the claim does not positively recite a conduit and instead only requires a valve seat configured to be compressed and retained by a conduit as claimed. The valve seat of Partridge in view of Scaramucci is at least capable of being compressed and retained by a conduit given sufficient force applied by a conduit to the upstream side of the valve seat as described above.
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 KEVIN MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-4pm.
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 supervisor, Craig Schneider can be reached on (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 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.
/KEVIN F MURPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights