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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) dated 12/30/2024 has been received and considered.
Specification
The amendment filed 12/30/2024 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The incorporation by reference of Chinese Patent Application No(s) 202221726713.2. See MPEP 608.01(p)(1)(B) and 1893.03(b), wherein an incorporation by reference statement added after an application’s filing date is not effective because no new matter can be added to an application after its filing date and wherein the filing date of a national state application is the filing date of the international application (in this case 6/7/2023) not the date in which the application enters the national stage (in this case 12/30/2024). Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action. See also MPEP 714.01(e) which states: "A preliminary amendment filed with a submission to enter the national stage of an international application under 35 U.S.C. 371 is not part of the original disclosure under 37 CFR 1.115(a) because it was not present on the international filing date accorded to the application under PCT Article 11. See MPEP § 1893.03(b)." It is noted the incorporation by reference to the Internation Patent Application No. PCT/CN2023/098936 is acceptable, as well as the priority claims. The issue is the incorporation by reference to the Chinese application.
Drawings
Figures 1-2 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
Claims 6-9 and 11-14 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 6, lines 1-2 recite “a first sealing ring”. Claim 6 incorporates the limitations from claim 1 into the body of the claim (see line 2). Claim 1 has already introduced “a first sealing ring”. While in claim 1, line 4, the limitation of “a first sealing ring” is within an intended use clause, the limitation of the “first sealing ring” is positively recited (and thus required) in the claim in lines 10 and 12. Thus, as the “first sealing ring” is positively recited and required in claim 1, it is unclear how many “first sealing ring[s]” are intending to be introduced by the applicant in claim 6, as “a first sealing ring” has already been recited in claim 1.
Claims 7-9 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 6.
Claims 11-14 are rejected due to reasoning similar to the above for the rejection of claim 6.
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, and 8-9, claims 6 and 8-9 as far as they are definite, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Adams et al. (U.S. 10,036,485).
Adams discloses a sealing structure, comprising a packing gland (67) and a valve bonnet (14), wherein: a side wall of the packing gland is provided with an external thread (see the threading to the right of the lead line for numeral 84 in fig. 2), and a sealing groove (the groove for ring 80 above numeral 55 in fig. 2, the radially outward seal 80 that also contacts 14) for installing a first sealing ring (80); the valve bonnet is provided with an installation hole for installing the packing gland (the hole for 67), the installation hole comprising a connecting hole section near an end of the valve bonnet (see the section including the vertical area of Detail A in the annotated figure below) and a sealing hole section remote from the end of the valve bonnet (see the section including the vertical area of Detail B in the annotated figure below and further extending vertically downward in fig. 1 to where numeral 35 is located), the connecting hole section being provided with an internal thread adapted to the external thread (fig. 2 and in the area of the Detail A in the annotated figure above), and the sealing hole section having a diameter smaller than an inner diameter of the internal thread and being adapted to the first sealing ring (fig. 2 and the annotated figure above); when the packing gland is fitted into the installation hole of the valve bonnet and sealed by means of the first sealing ring (fig. 2 and the annotated figure above), an axial length of the external thread connected to the valve bonnet is L1 (the length of Detail A in the vertical direction in the annotated figure above), and a distance between a lower end face of the sealing groove and a junction of the connecting hole section and the sealing hole section is L2 (the length of Detail B in the vertical direction in the annotated figure above), wherein L1> L2 (see how the length of Detail B above (i.e. L2) is less than the length of Detail A above (i.e. L1).
PNG
media_image1.png
570
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Adams discloses a valve comprising a shaft (23), a first sealing ring (80 that abuts against 14 in fig. 2, at the radially outer surface of 67), and the sealing structure as claimed in claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein: the shaft is installed within a central hole of the packing gland (fig. 2); the first sealing ring is located between the packing gland and the valve bonnet in the sealing structure, and located in the sealing groove of the packing gland (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Adams further discloses an annular spacer (37), the annular spacer being located at the bottom of the sealing hole section of the valve bonnet (fig. 2), and having an inner diameter greater than a diameter of the shaft (in order to receive the shaft, see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Adams further discloses wherein the valve is an industrial refrigeration valve (this is an intended use recitation that has not been given patentable weight, the valve is capable of being used in a multitude of different environments, including industrial refrigeration).
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) 7, as far as it is definite, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams.
Adams discloses the claimed invention and further discloses wherein a second sealing ring (89 abutting against the shaft 23 in fig. 2) is provided in an axial direction between the shaft and the packing gland (fig. 2).
Adams does not appear to disclose two of these second sealing rings.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adams such that there are two second sealing rings in an axial direction between the shaft and the packing gland, since it has been held that the duplication of essential working components of a system involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.04. The motivation for doing so would be to increase the sealing effect at the shaft to better prevent unwanted leakage and also provide a redundancy in the event one of the seals becomes damaged.
Claim(s) 2 and 11, claim 11 as far as it is definite, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams in view of Kent (U.S. 5,375,812).
Adams further discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose a tapered transitional face is provided at an end of the connecting hole section that is configured to join to the sealing hole section.
Kent teaches it was known in the art to have a similar valve assembly with a threaded “bonnet” (12) that has a tapered transition below the threading to a narrower portion (unlabeled but see fig. 1, notice where 96 narrows, the bonnet 12 goes from larger diameter to a narrower diameter from a shoulder to a tapering portion to the narrower portion where 90 is located).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adams by having a tapered transitional portion at the end of the connecting hole section to join the sealing hole section as taught by Kent in order to provide a more gradual transition to the narrower portion which can aid in centering of the packing gland when installing.
Regarding claim 11, Adams as modified discloses a valve, comprising a shaft (23), a first sealing ring (80 that abuts against 14 in fig. 2, at the radially outer surface of 67), and the sealing structure as claimed in claim 2 (see the rejection of claim 2 above), wherein: the shaft is installed within a central hole of the packing gland (fig. 2); the first sealing ring is located between the packing gland and the valve bonnet in the sealing structure, and located in the sealing groove of the packing gland (fig. 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 and 10 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.
Claims 12-14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claims 3 and 10, the prior art alone or in combination is not seen to further disclose a pressure relief groove as claimed by the applicant especially in the area of the external thread of the packing gland and there is not seen to be any readily apparent motivation to make such a modification.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Riedel, Jr. et al. (U.S. 11,274,765) discloses a valve assembly that has a gland with external threading that is greater in length than a length of a sealing groove to a transition portion.
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