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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
---Paras. [0016] and [0025] recites the following:
[0016] Rotary actuating device 225 may include any type of device that can apply rotary motion to stem 230. Rotary actuating device 225 may, for example, include an electric, pneumatic, or hydraulic device that applies torque and rotary motion to stem 230 (e.g., via gears 228). Gears 228may include one or more interacting gears that convert rotation applied by rotary actuating device 225, at a first speed and torque, into rotation, at a second speed and torque. Gears 228, in turn, apply the rotation to a gear that is attached to an upper end of stem 230, thereby, causing stem 230 to rotate within cavity 235.
[0025] FIGs. 6-9 depict an example of the fail-open embodiment of the air shutdown valve 105 of FIGs. 2 and 3 that shows the external housing and arrangement of components within an internal frame of the valve body of the air shutoff valve 105. In the external view of FIG. 6, an upper housing 600 encases the rotary actuating device 225 and gears 228 (not shown), and a lower housing 610 encases the valve body 205, of air shutoff valve 105. The valve body 205 include an internal frame 620 to which the internal components of the valve body attach. Portway 210extends through the lower housing 610 to enable the connection of a pipe (not shown) to portway 210 on either side of the lower housing 610 of air shutoff valve 105.
Notice the incorrect spacing for “Gears 228may” and “Portway 210extends”.
The Office suggests that paragraphs [0016] and [0025] are amended as follows:
[0016] Rotary actuating device 225 may include any type of device that can apply rotary motion to stem 230. Rotary actuating device 225 may, for example, include an electric, pneumatic, or hydraulic device that applies torque and rotary motion to stem 230 (e.g., via gears 228). Gears 228 may include one or more interacting gears that convert rotation applied by rotary actuating device 225, at a first speed and torque, into rotation, at a second speed and torque. Gears 228, in turn, apply the rotation to a gear that is attached to an upper end of stem 230, thereby, causing stem 230 to rotate within cavity 235.
[0025] FIGs. 6-9 depict an example of the fail-open embodiment of the air shutdown valve 105 of FIGs. 2 and 3 that shows the external housing and arrangement of components within an internal frame of the valve body of the air shutoff valve 105. In the external view of FIG. 6, an upper housing 600 encases the rotary actuating device 225 and gears 228 (not shown), and a lower housing 610 encases the valve body 205, of air shutoff valve 105. The valve body 205 include an internal frame 620 to which the internal components of the valve body attach. Portway 210 extends through the lower housing 610 to enable the connection of a pipe (not shown) to portway 210 on either side of the lower housing 610 of air shutoff valve 105.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
---Claim 11 recites the following:
11. The device of claim 8, wherein the gate comprises a first guide rail channel and a second guide rail channel, wherein first linear guide rail extends through the first guide rail channel, and wherein the second linear guide rail extends through the second guide rail channel.
Notice that the limitation “wherein first linear guide rail” lacks the definite article “the” to indicate that it is the same as the previous recitation.
As such, the Office suggests that claim 11 is amended as follows:
11. The device of claim 8, wherein the gate comprises a first guide rail channel and a second guide rail channel, wherein the first linear guide rail extends through the first guide rail channel, and wherein the second linear guide rail extends through the second guide rail channel.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 3-7, 12 and 16-19 are 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 3 recites the following:
3. The air shutoff valve of claim 1, wherein the linear guide system comprises a first linear guide and a second linear guide and wherein the first linear guide rail is vertically oriented within the valve body and includes a first spring encircling the first guide rail; and wherein the second linear guide rail is vertically oriented within the valve body and includes a second spring encircling the second linear guide rail.
Notice the recitations of “a first linear guide” vs. “the first linear guide rail” vs. “the first guide rail” and “a second linear guide” vs. “the second linear guide rail”. Due to the difference in the names, it is unclear and indefinite if the limitation of the “first linear guide” is the same as “the first linear guide rail” or “the first guide rail” or if they are all distinct (in which case, there is a lack of antecedent basis for the latter limitations and it would be unclear how these limitations are related to the rest of the components). Similarly, it is unclear and indefinite if the limitation of the “second linear guide” is the same as “the second linear guide rail” or if they are distinct (in which case, there is a lack of antecedent basis for the latter limitation and it would be unclear how this limitation is related to the rest of the components). Based on the disclosure, the Office will assume that they are respectively the same limitation with there being “a first linear guide rail” (245-1) and “a second linear guide rail” (245-2) and suggests that the same nomenclature is used for the same limitations throughout the claims.
As such, the Office suggests that claim 3 is amended as follows:
3. The air shutoff valve of claim 1, wherein the linear guide system comprises a first linear guide rail and a second linear guide rail and wherein the first linear guide rail is vertically oriented within the valve body and includes a first spring encircling the first linear guide rail; and wherein the second linear guide rail is vertically oriented within the valve body and includes a second spring encircling the second linear guide rail.
---Claim(s) 4-6, being dependent on any of the preceding claim(s) above, inherit the same deficiencies as the parent/intervening claim(s) and as such is/are rejected in the same manner, see the rejection(s) above. It is noted that the suggested amendment to claim 3 above fixes these issues since claims 4-6 uses consistent nomenclature which would align with the suggested amendment above.
---Claims 7 and 12 recites the following:
7. The air shutoff valve of claim 1, wherein the linear guide system comprises a first linear guide and a second linear guide and wherein the gate comprises a first guide rail channel and a second guide rail channel, wherein first linear guide rail extends through the first guide rail channel, and wherein the second linear guide rail extends through the second guide rail channel.
12. The device of claim 8, wherein the first linear guide is disposed at a first side of the device body and the second linear guide is disposed at a second, opposite side of the device body.
Notice that claims 7 and 12 has similar issues to those addressed in the rejection of claim 3 above and as such are rejected in a similar manner.
The Office suggests that claims 7 and 12 are amended as follows:
7. The air shutoff valve of claim 1, wherein the linear guide system comprises a first linear guide rail and a second linear guide rail and wherein the gate comprises a first guide rail channel and a second guide rail channel, wherein the first linear guide rail extends through the first guide rail channel, and wherein the second linear guide rail extends through the second guide rail channel.
12. The device of claim 8, wherein the first linear guide rail is disposed at a first side of the device body and the second linear guide rail is disposed at a second, opposite side of the device body.
---Claim 16 recites the following:
16. The air shutoff valve of claim 15, wherein the dual linear guide system further comprises: a first spring disposed concentric with the first linear guide rail; and a second spring disposed concentric with the second linear guide rail.
Notice the limitation “the dual linear guide system” of claim 16 vs. “linear guide system” of intervening claim 15. Due to the difference in nomenclature, it is unclear and indefinite if the latter recitation of “the dual linear guide system” of claim 16 is the same as the previous recitation of “linear guide system” intervening claim 15 or if they are distinct (in which case there is a lack of antecedent basis for the latter limitation and it would be unclear how this limitation is related to the rest of the components). Based on the disclosure, the Office will assume that they are the same limitation.
As such, the Office suggests that claim 16 is amended as follows:
16. The air shutoff valve of claim 15, wherein the linear guide system further comprises: a first spring disposed concentric with the first linear guide rail; and a second spring disposed concentric with the second linear guide rail.
---Claim(s) 17-19, being dependent on any of the preceding claim(s) above, inherit the same deficiencies as the parent/intervening claim(s) and as such is/are rejected in the same manner, see the rejection(s) above. It is noted that the suggested amendment to claim 16 above fixes these issues.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Krepela US-6273053.
Regarding claims 8 and 10-12 Krepela US-6273053 teaches in Figs. 1-4 (see at least Figs. 1-2) the limitations of:
---Claim 8. An air shutoff device (similar to applicant’s invention, the valve of Krepela is an air intake shut-off valve, see at least C1 L8- C2 L23), comprising: a device body (10 of Krepela) having a portway (16 of Krepela) configured to connect to an air intake of an engine (similar to applicant’s invention, the valve of Krepela is an air intake shut-off valve for shutting off air intake to an engine in case the engine experiences runaway to prevent damage to the engine, see at least C1 L8- C2 L23); a gate (13 of Krepela) having a shape for closing off the portway; a dual linear guide system (17, 20 of Krepela), disposed within the device body, and comprising: a first linear guide rail and a second linear guide rail (17 of Krepela located on opposite sides of the gate), a first spring (18 of Krepela) disposed concentric with the first linear guide rail, and a second spring (the other spring 18 of Krepela) disposed concentric with the second linear guide rail, wherein the gate rides upon the first and second linear guide rails and wherein the first and second springs of the linear guide system operate to push against at least one surface (22 of Krepela) of the gate to cause the gate to move upon the first and second linear guide rails to cause the gate to return to a fail-open or fail-closed position relative to the portway (springs 18 of Krepela biases the valve to the fail-closed position).
---Claim 10. The device of claim 8, wherein the first spring and the second spring are disposed at an upper end of the first and second linear guide rails and apply downwards force to an upper surface of the gate (see at least Fig. 1 of Krepela).
---Claim 11. The device of claim 8, wherein the gate comprises a first guide rail channel and a second guide rail channel (see the channels of the gate at guide 20 of Krepela), wherein first linear guide rail extends through the first guide rail channel, and wherein the second linear guide rail extends through the second guide rail channel (see at least Fig. 1 of Krepela).
---Claim 12. The device of claim 8, wherein the first linear guide is disposed at a first side of the device body and the second linear guide is disposed at a second, opposite side of the device body (see at least Fig. 1 of Krepela).
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.
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 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao CN-114593220 in view of Stabnik US-10113491.
Regarding claims 1, 7 and 15, Gao CN-114593220 teaches in Figs. 1-6 (see at least Figs. 1, 3 and 5) teaches the limitations of:
A valve, comprising: a valve body (frame 1 of Gao) having a portway (hole 13 of Gao); a linear guide system (guide rail 14 and limiting groove 20 of Gao) disposed within the valve body; a gate (valve plate 10 of Gao) configured to ride along the linear guide system; and a screw and nut system (screw rod 9 and lifting block 21 of Gao) configured to receive rotary input from a rotary actuator (rotary actuator assembly 3-8 and 15-19 of Gao) and cause the gate to move in two directions along the linear guide system to cause the gate to either open, or close, the portway (notice that the valve of Gao is a screw-nut actuated knife gate valve wherein rotary motion by the actuator assembly is converted to linear motion of the gate valve via the screw-nut system to either open or close fluid flow). Notice that Gao fails to disclose that the valve is an air shutoff valve and that the portway is configured to connect to an air intake of an engine. However, it is noted the valve of Gao is capable of being adapted to control flow of any fluid such as air and that the valve can be fluidly connected to any type of fluidic system requiring fluid control. Furthermore, air-intake shutoff valves for diesel engines are well known in the art.
Stabnik US-10113491 teaches in Figs. 1-5 (see at least Figs. 1-2) of an engine system including a diesel engine 102 with an intake manifold 104, an inlet conduit 106 and an air intake shutoff gate valve 116 that is fluidly connected to the engine 102 via the inlet conduit to control the flow of air flowing into the engine.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was effectively filed to modify the gate valve of Gao to serve as the air intake shutoff gate valve of a diesel engine 102 in a similar manner as gate valve 116 as taught by Stabnik since such a modification is a known suitable application for a gate valve.
As such, the device of the combination of Gao CN-114593220 in view of Stabnik US-10113491 teaches the limitations of:
---Claim 1. An air shutoff valve (see the engine system 100 as taught by Stabnik wherein gate valve 116 is replaced by the gate valve as taught by Gao), comprising: a valve body (frame 1 of Gao) having a portway (hole 13 of Gao) configured to connect to an air intake of an engine (see Fig. 1 of Stabnik notice that valve 116 is fluidly connected to diesel engine 102 via inlet conduit 106 for controlling the flow of air into the engine); a linear guide system (guide rails 14 and limiting grooves 20 of Gao) disposed within the valve body; a gate (valve plate 10 of Gao) configured to ride along the linear guide system; and a screw and nut system (screw rod 9 and lifting block 21 of Gao) configured to receive rotary input from a rotary actuator (rotary actuator assembly 3-8 and 15-19 of Gao) and cause the gate to move in two directions along the linear guide system to cause the gate to either open, or close, the portway (notice that the valve of Gao is a screw-nut actuated knife gate valve wherein rotary motion by the actuator assembly is converted to linear motion of the gate valve via the screw-nut system to either open or close fluid flow).
---Claim 7. The air shutoff valve of claim 1, wherein the linear guide system comprises a first linear guide and a second linear guide (guide rails 14 of Gao) and wherein the gate comprises a first guide rail channel and a second guide rail channel (limiting grooves 20), wherein first linear guide rail extends through the first guide rail channel, and wherein the second linear guide rail extends through the second guide rail channel (see at least Figs. 1, 3 and 5 of Gao).
---Claim 15. An air shutoff valve (see the engine system 100 as taught by Stabnik wherein gate valve 116 is replaced by the gate valve as taught by Gao) for a diesel engine (see Fig. 1 of Stabnik notice that valve 116 is fluidly connected to diesel engine 102 via inlet conduit 106 for controlling the flow of air into the engine), comprising: a valve body (frame 1 of Gao) having a portway (hole 13 of Gao) configured to connect to an air intake of the diesel engine (see Fig. 1 of Stabnik notice that valve 116 is fluidly connected to diesel engine 102 via inlet conduit 106 for controlling the flow of air into the engine); a linear guide system (guide rails 14 and limiting grooves 20 of Gao) comprising a first linear guide rail (the portion of the guide rail 14 on one side) disposed at a first side of the valve body, and a second linear guide rail (the other portion of the guide rail 14) disposed at a second, opposite side of the valve body; a gate (valve plate 10 of Gao) having a first guide rail channel (the portion of the limiting groove 20 on one side) extending through a first side of the gate and a second guide rail channel (the other portion of the limiting grove 20) extending through a second side of the gate, wherein the first linear guide rail extends through the first guide rail channel and the second linear guide rail extends through the second guide rail channel such that the gate rides upon the first and second linear guide rails; and a screw and nut system (screw rod 9 and lifting block 21 of Gao) configured to apply linear force to the gate to cause the gate to ride upwards, or downwards, along the first and second guide rails to either close, or open, the portway (notice that the valve of Gao is a screw-nut actuated knife gate valve wherein rotary motion by the actuator assembly is converted to linear motion of the gate valve via the screw-nut system to either open or close fluid flow).
Claim(s) 2 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao CN-114593220 in view of Stabnik US-10113491 as applied to the intervening claims above, and further in view of He CN-110725964.
Regarding claims 2 and 20, while the device of the combination of Gao in view of Stabnik does teach a screw and nut system (screw rod 9 and lifting block 21 of Gao) comprising a threaded longitudinal stem (screw rod 9 of Gao) that interact with a cavity of the body of the gate (lifting block 21 of gate 10 of Gao) in order to convert rotational motion of the stem into linear motion of the gate; notice that the device of the combination fails to explicitly disclose threads within this cavity as claimed. However, one ordinary skill in the art can recognize that in order to for the screw and nut system to function the external threads of the stem 9 must interact with a corresponding structure such as internal threads in order to produce the conversion of rotational motion of the stem into linear motion of the gate. Furthermore, screw and nut systems for gate valves are well-known in the art.
He CN-110725964 teaches in Figs. 1-8 (see at least Figs. 1 and 6-7) of a screw and nut actuated gate valve similar to the one as taught by Gao comprising at least a valve body 1, a gate 2, a valve rod 7 and a valve rod nut 9, wherein the valve rod and the nut include engaging threads capable of converting rotational motion of the rod into linear motion of the gate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was effectively filed to modify the nut portion (lifting block 21 of Gao) of the screw and nut system of the device of the combination of Gao in view of Stabnik to a cavity with internal threads capable of interacting with the threaded longitudinal stem portion (screw rod 9) of the screw and nut system in a similar manner as taught by the threaded valve rod 7 and threaded valve rod nut 9 as taught by He since such a modification is a well-known mechanism by which screw-nut actuated non-rising stem gate valves are actuated via the conversion of rotational motion of the threaded stem/rod/screw into linear motion of the gate via the threaded interaction with the threaded nut/lifting-block/cavity.
As such, the device of the combination of Gao CN-114593220 in view of Stabnik US-10113491 and He CN-110725964 teaches the limitations of:
---Claim 2. The air shutoff valve of claim 1, wherein the screw and nut system further comprises: a cavity (lifting block 21 of Gao as modified by nut 9 of He to include a cavity with internal threads capable of interacting with the external threads of the screw rod 9) disposed within a body of the gate (notice that lifting block 21 of Gao is part of the body of the gate) having first threads within an inner surface of the cavity; and a longitudinal stem (screw rod 9 of Gao, see also the threaded valve rod 7 of He) disposed within the cavity and having second threads on an outer surface of the stem that mate with the first threads (the interaction between the threads of the lifting block 21 and the screw rod 9 of Gao allows for the conversion of rotational motion of the rod into linear motion of the gate in a similar manner as applicant’s invention).
---Claim 20. The air shutoff valve of claim 15, wherein the screw and nut system further comprises: a cavity (lifting block 21 of Gao as modified by nut 9 of He to include a cavity with internal threads capable of interacting with the external threads of the screw rod 9) disposed within a valve body of the gate (notice that lifting block 21 of Gao is part of the body of the gate) having first threads within an inner surface of the cavity; and a longitudinal stem (screw rod 9 of Gao, see also the threaded valve rod 7 of He) disposed within the cavity and having second threads on an outer surface of the stem that mate with the first threads (the interaction between the threads of the lifting block 21 and the screw rod 9 of Gao allows for the conversion of rotational motion of the rod into linear motion of the gate in a similar manner as applicant’s invention).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 and 16-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 9 and 13-14 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:
The closest prior art are:
---References A (Gate Valves):
Villanueva US-11994236, Kennedy US-11466784, Kennedy US-11384843, Krause US-11204104, Davis US-10487959, Cheng US-10107413, Oak US-10060548, Mosman US-8936100, Orino US-8851451, Hunter US-7819385, Rivet US-7444982, Cain US-6401747, Oliver US-4651973, Ueda US-4592534, McGee US-4138091, Leopold US-3662778, Henry US-0968944, Libby US-0963230, Williston US-1579800, Miners US-20110233441, Gao CN-114593220, He CN-110725964, Schlump DE-102014119102 and Berger EP-2354611.
---References B (Air Intake Valves):
Lawrence US-10473067, Molavi US-10113489, Stabnik US-10113491, Chen US-10012162, Krepela US-6273053, Dubois US-20030154015 and Harris GB-2102917.
---References C (Fail Open/Close Valves):
McKeon US-12031407, McEvoy US-11435005, McLin US-11293263, Vanderford US-10969018, McEvoy US-10851905, Ferreira US-10274090, Cheng US-10196874, King US-9822901, Lenz US-9810341, Lenz US-9719607, Martino US-9518672, Lymberopoulos US-9441453, White US-8286935, Voss US-8281863, Fenton US-7523916, Suzuki US-7210665, Lymberopoulos US-7004445, Norris US-6918357, Vanderburg US-4434967, Tunstall US-4274432, Wells US-3958592, Fenster US-3452766, Natho US-2991042, Hoang US-20110083746 and Shibata WO-2020054136.
References A teaches the general state of the art of gate valves many of which include the basic features of the claimed invention such as valve body, some form of linear guide system, a gate and a screw-nut system for the conversion of rotary motion from a rotary actuator to linear motion of the gate in a similar manner as applicant’s general invention. In particular, see at least Gao CN-114593220 and He CN-110725964 showing many of these features as noted in the rejections above. References B teaches the general state of the art of air-intake shutoff valves used for controlling air flow into an engine similar to applicant’s main invention. In particular, Lawrence US-10473067, Stabnik US-10113491 and Krepela US-6273053 teaches of examples of these valves including a fail-safe feature wherein should the engine experience a runaway condition (an engine operating at speeds in excess of prescribed design limits), the valve is biased to the closed position to prevent air intake, starving the engine of oxygen, thereby termination combustion and preventing engine damage which is similar to the main problem disclosed and addressed by applicant’s invention. References C teaches various other examples of valves including some form of fail-open / fail-close feature wherein the valves are biased to either the close or open position and when a fail-condition occurs (such as loss of power from the actuator), the valve is automatically moved to the desired fail-safe position similar to a feature of the claimed invention. It is noted that while at least References A does teaches most of the general features of the gate valve and References B teaches the fail-safe feature for the same application as the claimed invention, it is noted that the closest prior art fails to disclose or render obvious the particular features of the linear guide system 240 including the first linear guide rail 245-1 and the second linear guide rail 245-2 and wherein the first linear guide rail is vertically oriented within the valve body 205 and includes the first spring 250-1 encircling the first guide rail; and wherein the second linear guide rail is vertically oriented within the valve body and includes the second spring 250-2 encircling the second linear guide rail; wherein the first spring is disposed concentric with the first linear guide rail, and the second spring disposed concentric with the second linear guide rail, the first and second springs of the linear guide system operate to push against at least one surface of the gate 215 to cause the gate to move upon the first and second linear guide rails to cause the gate to return to a fail-open or fail-closed position relative to the portway 210 in combination in combination with the screw and nut system (threaded longitudinal stem 230 and threaded cylindrical cavity 235) and how the springs biases the gate to the fail-open position (notice that while Krepela US-6273053 shows a similar fail-closed system, modifying this valve to be fail-open as claimed would hinder the fail-safe ability in protecting the engine during a runaway condition of the engine without extensive reconstructing of the prior art) in combination with all the limitations as claimed in the above indicated claims and as shown in at least Figs. 2 and 8 of the application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID COLON-MORALES, whose telephone number is 571-270-1741 and fax number is 571-270-2741. If the applicant has authorized internet communications via the filling of form PTO/SB/439, the examiner can be reached via email at david.colon-morales@uspto.gov , email communication is not permitted if the applicant has not filed an authorization for internet communication (see MPEP 502.03 for more details on internet communications). The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (7:30AM-3:30PM 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. KENNETH RINEHART can be reached at 571-272-4881 or CRAIG SCHNEIDER can be reached at 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.
/DAVID COLON-MORALES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights