DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 were filed with the amendment dated 01/08/2026.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in DE on 09/29/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the DE10 2023126686.1 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Acknowledgment is made that a certified copy of EP 24194600.3 has been provided.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 09/25/2024. These drawings are acceptable in view of the specification amendments filed 01/08/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicants amendments overcome the previously set forth drawing objections and 35 USC 112b rejections. However, the amendments to claim 7 have created new 35 USC 112b rejections, as set forth below.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks and Amendments filed 01/08/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 7 as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0222778 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of U.S. Pat. No. 10,487,878 (“Voisine”).
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 7 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 7 recites the limitation "the closure body" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 was amended to delete the dependency from claim 1. Now, claim 7 merely requires “a system.” For purposes of examination, the phrase “the closure body” in line 8 will be construed as if it is written as “a closure body.”
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the ball valve apparatus" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 was amended to delete the dependency from claim 1. Now, claim 7 merely requires “a system.” For purposes of examination, claim 7 will be construed as if it the phrase “the ball valve apparatus” has been deleted (also in line 12).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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 7 (as far as it is definite and understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. Pat. No.10,487,878 (“Voisine”).
With regard to claim 7, Voisine discloses a system (see Figs 1- 4B) comprising- a sealing apparatus (32), wherein the sealing apparatus (32) comprises a housing device (38) made of a first component (identified by hatch marks in Figs 4A, and also “metallic” – col. 6, line 13 and col. 6, lines 22-25) and a sealing means (31+33+34+35+36) made of a second component softer than the first component (“soft plastic” col. 5, lines 19-24), wherein the sealing means (31+33+34+35+36) extends around an outer surface of the housing device (38) (see Fig 4A showing 33A and 33B surrounding outer surfaces of the housing device 38); a closure body sealing element (35) arranged on a valve side (side toward 14) of the sealing means (31+33+34+35+36) for sealingly abutting against a closure body (14) of the ball valve apparatus (14 is considered to be a ball valve apparatus as so broadly recited and as best understood); and wherein the sealing means (31+33+34+35+36) comprises an axial and/or radial sealing element (33A+33B) extending in the radial and/or axial direction for sealing against a housing (12) of the apparatus (see Fig 4B).
If it is successfully argued that Voisine is not considered to show that the sealing means is made of a second component softer than the first component, then the following alternative rejection is offered.
Voisine discloses that the first component is metallic and provides a stiffening feature (col. 6, lines 13 and 22-25).
Voisine discloses that the second component can be a “soft plastic” (col. 5, lines 19-24).
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make the second component that is a “soft plastic” be softer than the first component that is a metallic as an engineering expedient in order to arrange to make sure that the first component can provide a suitable stiffening function as required (see col. 6, lines 22-25) (see also MPEP 2144.07).
PNG
media_image1.png
748
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
686
534
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are allowed.
The claims are allowed for the reasons set forth in the Non-Final Office action dated 10/16/2025.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20100327539 and U.S. Pat. No. 3848938 each disclose a system with a sealing apparatus comprising a housing device and a sealing means.
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 JESSICA CAHILL whose telephone number is (571)270-5219. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 to 3:00.
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 571-272-60073607 or 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.
/JESSICA CAHILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753