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 .
Status of the Application
This action is responsive to the amendment dated 7/11/2026. Claims 1-2, 5-15, and 17 remain pending. Claims 1, 11, and 12 have been amended. Claims 19 and 20 are new. The applicant’s amendment has necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection below. This action is Final.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's amendment to recite wherein the transverse passage is formed with an entire extension from the first end of the body to the second end of the body; the transverse passage being configured with an internal first surface and an internal second surface, wherein the internal first surface and the internal second surface of the passage are formed uniformly parallel and equally spaced apart from one another for the entire extension from the first end of the body to the second end of the body; a gate disposed in the transverse passage, wherein the gate consists of a one-piece body having an opening formed therethrough and a solid section adjacent to the opening along with the other amendments has overcome the rejection of record. However, a new ground(s) of rejection is applied to the claims below. As such, applicant's arguments with respect to the 102 rejection over Smith have not been found persuasive. A new interpretation of Smith as stated below in the 103 rejection teaches each and every limitation including wherein the transverse passage is formed with an entire extension from the first end of the body to the second end of the body; the transverse passage being configured with an internal first surface and an internal second surface, wherein the internal first surface and the internal second surface of the passage are formed uniformly parallel and equally spaced apart from one another for the entire extension from the first end of the body to the second end of the body; a gate disposed in the transverse passage, wherein the gate consists of a one-piece body having an opening formed therethrough and a solid section adjacent to the opening.
Applicant's amendments to the claims have necessitated further search and/or consideration and/or revision of the rejection, and accordingly, this action must be made Final.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8-15, 17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 4,010,928).
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses a valve (Figs. 1-6) comprising: a main body (10) having a first end (the end of 10 where 110 is positioned) and a second end (the end of 10 where 111 is positioned) opposite the first end, with a through bore (12); a passage (14) transverse to the through bore (Fig. 2); wherein the transverse passage is formed with an entire extension from the first end of the body to the second end of the body (Figs. 1 and 2); the transverse passage being configured with an internal first surface (the surface along the top of 14 with reference to Fig. 2) and an internal second surface (the surface along the bottom of 14 with reference to Fig. 2), wherein the internal first surface and the internal second surface of the passage are formed uniformly parallel and equally spaced apart from one another for the entire extension from the first end of the body to the second end of the body (Fig. 2); a gate (16) disposed in the transverse passage, wherein the gate has an opening (43) formed therethrough and a solid section (the portion of 16 that surrounds and defines 43) adjacent to the opening: wherein the gate is configured for motion free of mechanical linkage between a position (as shown in Fig. 3) with an opening on the gate coincident with the through bore to permit fluid flow via the through bore and a position (as shown in Fig. 2) with the solid section of the gate coincident with the through bore to restrict fluid flow via the through bore; and wherein the gate is configured for motion along the transverse passage in one direction (the horizontal direction with respect to Figs. 2-3) in response to a first force (the force introduced by the pressure media through conduit 111) acting on the gate and in another direction in response to a second force (the force introduced by the pressure media through conduit 110) acting on the gate (Col. 4, lines 32 through Col. 5, line 2), but fails to disclose wherein the gate consists of a one-piece body.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the gate of Smith to consist of a one-piece body since the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would have required only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide less overall parts that are required to manufacture. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965)
Regarding claim 5, Smith further discloses the valve of claim 1 wherein the gate comprises at least one seal (68, 69) to restrict fluid flow between the through bore and the transverse passage. (Figs. 1-3)
Regarding claim 8, Smith further discloses the valve of claim 1 wherein the body is configured with a first internal passage (111) to channel fluid to apply the first force on the gate to move the gate along the transverse passage. (Col. 4, lines 32 through Col. 5, line 2)
Regarding claim 9, Smith further discloses the valve of claim 8 wherein the body is configured with a second internal passage (110) to channel fluid to apply the second force on the gate in opposition to the first force to move the gate along the transverse passage. (Col. 4, lines 32 through Col. 5, line 2)
Regarding claim 10, Smith further discloses the valve of claim 9 wherein the gate is configured for motion toward the position to restrict fluid flow via the through bore when one of the first force or the second force applied on the gate is reduced. (Col. 4, lines 32 through Col. 5, line 2)
Regarding claim 11, Smith further discloses the valve of claim 1 wherein the first force and/or the second force on the gate comprises a pressurized gas. (Col. 4, lines 32 through Col. 5, line 2)
Regarding claim 12, Smith further discloses the valve of claim 1 wherein the gate is configured for motion toward the position to restrict fluid flow via the through bore when one of the first force or the second force is greater than other acting on the gate. (Col. 4, lines 32 through Col. 5, line 2)
Regarding claim 13, Smith further discloses the valve of claim 1 wherein the gate has a first surface (the top surface of 16 with respect to Fig. 2) and a second surface (the bottom surface of 16 with respect to Fig. 2) opposite the first surface, with a first seal (68) disposed on the first surface and a second seal (69) disposed on the second surface.
Regarding claim 14, Smith further discloses the valve of claim 13 wherein the first seal and the second seal are each configured to restrict fluid flow between the through bore and the transverse passage when the gate is in the position to restrict fluid flow via the through bore. (as shown in Fig. 2; Col. 4, lines 32 through Col. 5, line 2)
Regarding claim 15, Smith further discloses the valve of claim 13 wherein the first seal and the second seal are each configured to restrict fluid flow between the through bore and the transverse passage when the gate is in the position to permit fluid flow via the through bore. (as shown in Fig. 3, see how 68 and 69 work along with 82 to ensure fluid does not flow into 14)
Regarding claim 17, Smith further discloses the valve of claim 1 further comprising a cap (120) mounted on the main body and configured for detachment to respectively permit removal and insertion of the gate from/into the body. (Figs. 1-3; Col. 5, lines 29-44)
Regarding claim 19, Smith discloses a valve (Figs. 1-6) comprising: a main body (10) having a first end (the end of 10 where 110 is positioned) and a second end (the end of 10 where 111 is positioned) opposite the first end, with a through bore (12); a passage (14) transverse to the through bore (Fig. 2), wherein the transverse passage is formed with an entire extension from the first end of the body to the second end of the body (Figs. 1 and 2); the transverse passage being configured with an internal first surface (the surface along the top of 14 with reference to Fig. 2) and an internal second surface (the surface along the bottom of 14 with reference to Fig. 2), wherein the internal first surface and the internal second surface of the passage are formed uniformly parallel and equally spaced apart from one another for the entire extension from the first end of the body to the second end of the body (Fig. 2); a gate (16) disposed in the transverse passage, wherein the gate has an opening (43) formed therethrough and a solid section (the portion of 16 that surrounds and defines 43) adjacent to the opening; wherein the gate is configured for motion free of mechanical linkage between a position (as shown in Fig. 3) with the opening thereon coincident with the through bore to permit fluid flow via the through bore and a position (as shown in Fig. 2) with the solid section thereon coincident with the through bore to restrict fluid flow via the through bore; and wherein the body is configured with an internal passage (110 and/or 111) to channel fluid to provide a force on the gate to move the gate along the transverse passage (Col. 4, lines 32 through Col. 5, line 2), but fails to disclose wherein the gate consists of a one-piece body.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the gate of Smith to consist of a one-piece body since the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would have required only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide less overall parts that are required to manufacture. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965)
Regarding claim 20, Smith further discloses the valve of claim 19 further comprising at least one seal (68, 69) configured to restrict fluid flow between the through bore and the transverse passage. (Figs. 1-3)
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Elliot et al. (US 2011/0042592, hereafter “Elliot”).
Regarding claim 2, Smith further discloses the valve of claim 1, but fails to disclose an insert disposed in the main body coincident with the through bore; the insert configured with a plurality of openings formed thereon, wherein the gate is configured for movement along the transverse passage to control fluid flow via the plurality of openings.
Elliot teaches a valve comprising an insert (26) disposed in the main body (14) coincident with the through bore (44); the insert configured with a plurality of openings (94) formed thereon, wherein the gate (16) is configured for movement along the transverse passage to control fluid flow via the plurality of openings. (Fig. 3; para. [0032])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the valve of Smith to include an insert as taught by Elliot in order to provide a means to control the fluid pressure flowing through the through bore which would reduce jets of fluid flow downstream, thereby reducing erosion of the interior surfaces of the valve and associated piping. (para. [0032])
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Angstmann et al. (WO 2021/141999 A1, hereafter “Angstmann”).
Regarding claim 6, Smith further discloses the valve of claim 1, but fails to disclose the gate comprises at least one seal configured for energization to restrict fluid flow between the through bore and the transverse passage.
Angstmann teaches a valve (100) comprising a gate (112) that comprises at least one seal (10) configured for energization to restrict fluid flow between the through bore (104) and the transverse passage (106). (para. [0052] - [0054])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the valve and seal of Smith to include and accommodate the seal of Angstmann in order to provide an improved seal construction that allows increased seal efficiency when energized and allow the gate to move easier when not energized. (para. [0052] - [0054])
Regarding claim 7, Smith in view of Angstmann further discloses the valve of claim 6 wherein the gate is configured with an internal fluid passage (132 – as taught by Angstmann) to channel fluid to energize the at least one seal configured for energization. (Fig. 8 and 9)
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 PAUL J GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-0544. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, 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.
/PAUL J GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights