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 A, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 1/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/26/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) dated 9/29/2024 and 12/15/2025 have been received and considered.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 6 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the groove wall" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (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 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) 1-6, claim 6 as far as it is definite, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grove et al. (U.S. 3,841,601).
Grove discloses a control valve, comprising: a housing (101, 112), a first valve seat (29, 32, 41), and a first connecting pipe (38), wherein the first valve seat is formed by stamping or stretching a metal (see col. 3, ll. 17-18 describing the body 10 which includes the above components as being welded from steel shapes, further with respect to the recitation of “stamping or stretching”, Grove is interpreted to meet this limitation as the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product in the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113)), the first valve seat comprises a first base (the central portion at the area of 32), a first connecting portion (29) and a second connecting portion (41), the first base is annular (as it is ring shaped), the first connecting portion is tubular (as it is ring shaped and has a length), the first connecting portion extends from an outer edge of the first base towards the housing (fig. 1), the second connecting portion is tubular (as it is ring shaped and has a length), the second connecting portion extends from an inner edge of the first base towards the first connecting pipe (fig. 1), the housing is fixedly connected to the first connecting portion (fig. 1, as all the components are fixed together, see especially at welds at 31), and the first connecting pipe is fixedly connected to the second connecting portion (as they are fixed together, the weld portions at 39 and 42 as well).
Regarding claim 2, Grove further discloses wherein the first connecting portion and the second connecting portion are coaxially arranged (fig. 1), and an inner diameter of the first connecting portion is larger than an outer diameter of the second connecting portion (see the inner diameter of 29 as compared to the outer diameter of 41).
Regarding claim 3, Grove further discloses wherein the control valve further comprises a valve core (14) and a first sealing gasket (the sealing assembly 59), the valve core is located in an inner cavity of the control valve (fig. 1), the first valve seat comprises an inner step portion (the surfaces of 29 and 32 facing toward 14) with a step surface facing the valve core (the surfaces of 29 and 32 facing toward 14 in fig. 1, including the right facing surface of 32 or stepped surfaces of 32 and the radially inward facing surface of 29), the inner step portion comprises the first base and the first connecting portion (fig. 1), the first sealing gasket is placed in the inner step portion (fig. 1), and the first sealing gasket supports the valve core (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Grove further discloses wherein the inner step portion has a groove (the groove for 34), and the groove is located at a connection between the first base and the first connecting portion (see fig. 1, located where 29 and 32 abut against each other).
Regarding claim 5, Grove further discloses wherein the first sealing gasket comprises a chamfered portion (the chamfered surface to the left of 69 in fig. 5), and a chamfered surface (the chamfered surface to the left of 69 in fig. 5) of the chamfered portion faces a connection between the first base and the first connecting portion (fig. 5, toward 62 which is where the connection is between the first base and the first connection portion).
Regarding claim 6, Grove further discloses wherein the first sealing gasket further comprises a first accommodating groove (the groove for 67), an opening of the first accommodating groove faces the first base (best shown in fig. 5), and the control valve further comprises a first sealing ring (67), the first sealing ring is located in the first accommodating groove (fig. 5), the first sealing ring abuts against the groove wall forming the first accommodating groove (fig. 5), and the first sealing ring abuts against the first base (fig. 5).
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.
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(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grove in view of Wu et al. (U.S. 10,920,894).
Grove discloses the claimed invention and further discloses wherein the first connecting pipe comprises a first matching section (the section closer to 32), the first matching section is mounted outside the second connecting portion (fig. 1), and the first matching section is welded and fixed to the second connecting portion (see the welds at 43).
Grove does not appear to disclose the second connecting portion comprising a convex portion, the convex portion located on an outer peripheral surface of the second connecting portion, and the first matching section welded and fixed to the convex portion.
Wu teaches it was known in the art to similarly fix a connection pipe (102’) to a fluid handling structure (11’) and the fluid handling structure having a welding convex portion located on an outer peripheral surface (111’, see col. 13, ll. 58 – col. 14, ll. 5) and the first matching section of the connection pipe (the end of 102’ that mates with 11’) welded and fixed to the convex portion (see fig. 15 and col. 13, ll. 58 – col. 14, ll.5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grove such that the second connecting portion has a convex portion that is fixed and welded with the first matching section of the first connecting pipe as taught by Wu in order to provide a connection in a sealed manner (see col. 14, ll. 1-5 of Wu).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grove in view of Yokomi (U.S. 6,643,929).
Grove discloses the claimed invention and further discloses the first valve seat and first connecting pipe fixed by furnace welding (see the welding at 43, it is noted the use of the term “furnace” in “furnace welding” is a product-by-process limitation and Grove is interpreted to meet this limitation as the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product in the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113)) and the housing and the first valve seat are fixed by laser welding (see the welding at 104, it is noted the user of the term “laser” in “laser welding” is a product-by-process limitation and Grove is interpreted to meet this limitation as the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product in the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113)).
Grove does not appear to disclose the housing, the first valve set, and the first connecting pipe being made of stainless steel.
Yokomi teaches it was known in the art to have housing components for a ball valve made of stainless steel (col. 3, ll. 29-31).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grove by having the housing, the first valve set, and the first connecting pipe being made of stainless steel as taught by Yokomi in order to have the housing components be made of a material that is known to have high durability and corrosion resistance and especially as it has been held that selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.07.
Regarding claim 11, Grove discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose wherein the control valve further comprises a second valve seat and a second connecting pipe, the second valve seat is formed by stamping or stretching a metal plate, the second valve seat comprises a second base, a third connecting portion and a fourth connecting portion, the second base is annular, the third connecting portion is tubular, the third connecting portion extends from an outer edge of the second base toward the housing, the fourth connecting portion is tubular, the fourth connecting portion extends from an inner edge of the second base towards the second connecting pipe, the housing and the third connecting portion are welded and fixed, the second connecting pipe comprises a second matching section, the second matching section is mounted outside the fourth connecting portion, and the second matching section is welded and fixed to the fourth connecting portion.
It is noted the limitations above are the same features as described in claim 1 but for the opposite end of the valve (i.e. the other of the inlet or outlet section).
Yokomi teaches it was known in the art to have a ball valve with the same components for both the inlet and outlet to the ball valve (see figs. 1 and 2, notice how the components such as seat 30 with sealing ring 34, etc. are the same on both the inlet and outlet ends).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grove such that both the inlet end and outlet end use the same components for the seat assembly, resulting in the control valve further comprises a second valve seat and a second connecting pipe, the second valve seat is formed by stamping or stretching a metal plate, the second valve seat comprises a second base, a third connecting portion and a fourth connecting portion, the second base is annular, the third connecting portion is tubular, the third connecting portion extends from an outer edge of the second base toward the housing, the fourth connecting portion is tubular, the fourth connecting portion extends from an inner edge of the second base towards the second connecting pipe, the housing and the third connecting portion are welded and fixed, the second connecting pipe comprises a second matching section, the second matching section is mounted outside the fourth connecting portion, and the second matching section is welded and fixed to the fourth connecting portion (similar to the structure as mapped out in Grove in the rejection of claim 1) as taught by Yokomi in order to have the same components for both the inlet seat assembly and outlet seat assembly which can lower overall costs and further make manufacturing and assembly less complex and especially as it has been held that the duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.04.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claim 8, Grove does not disclose wherein the housing comprises a body and a protrusion, the protrusion protrudes from a circumferential outer wall of the body, the body is cylindrical, the protrusion is annular, the body is welded and fixed to the first connecting portion, an outer peripheral wall of the first connecting portion is in clearance fit with an inner wall of the housing, the control valve further comprises a joint, the joint comprises an outer step part with a step surface facing downward, the protrusion contacts the step surface of the outer step part, the step wall of the outer step part is located in an inner cavity of the protrusion, and the protrusion is welded and fixed to the outer step part.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Piccardo (U.S. 3,348,804) discloses a ball valve with a seat, valve core, and sealing gasket.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R REID whose telephone number is (313)446-4859. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-5pm est.
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 571-272-3607, or Ken 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.
/MICHAEL R REID/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753