DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 non-patent literature indicated as not considered for the IDS filed 25 September 2024 were indicated as not considered because publication dates were not provided.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 18, line 2, “with a noise suppressing openings” should be changed to --with noise suppressing openings--.
In claim 14, line 5, it is suggested that the comma (,) after “comprise” be deleted, or changed to a colon (:) and the “, and” in line 6 be changed to --; and--.
In claim 14, line 7, “fir” should be changed to --first--.
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 6, 11, 13-14, 17-20 are rejected (wherein claim 19 inherits its rejection due to its dependency) 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 annular block" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As understood, the recitation is meant to recite the annular ring.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the second opening" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that the recitation refers to a second opening in the throttling ball, in which a second annular ring may be disposed, but the second annular ring isn’t recited, therefore, the claim is being interpreted in its broadest reasonable interpretation, in which the second opening is broadly interpreted as any opening in the valve.
In claim 13, last two lines, it is unclear whether “the first annular ring and the second annular ring comprise” refers to each of the rings comprising the features subsequently recited, or if said features are provided by the rings together regardless of which ring has said features. As understood, using the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation is interpreted as only requiring said features among the rings together regardless of which ring has said features.
In claim 14, line 5, it is unclear whether “the first annular ring and the second annular ring comprise” refers to each of the rings comprising the features subsequently recited, or if said features are provided by the rings together regardless of which ring has said features. As understood, using the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation is interpreted as only requiring said features among the rings together regardless of which ring has said features.
In claim 14, last three lines, it is unclear a single cutout forms an arcuate surface in both the first and second annular rings. As understood, the recitation is meant to recite cutouts in both the first and second annular rings.
In claim 17, it appears inconsistent with the rest of the disclosure that the second dimension (of the outer diameter of the annular ring) is less than the radius of the opening (in the throttling ball). As understood, the recitation of the “radius” is instead supposed to recite “diameter.”
In claim 18, lines 4, 6, and 7, it is unclear whether “the opening” refers to one of the noise suppressing openings or the opening in the throttling ball. As understood, the recitation refers to the opening in the throttling ball, and the claim should be amended to clarify the specific structure.
In claim 20, it appears inconsistent with the rest of the disclosure that the cutouts have a radius that is the same as the inner diameter of the opening (in the throttling ball). As understood, cutouts and inner diameter of the opening in the throttling ball have the same radius or diameter.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tran et al. (US 2003/0192605).
Regarding claim 1, Tran discloses in Figs. 1 and 15-19 a valve, comprising: a valve body 16; a rotatable throttling ball 12 disposed in the valve body 16, the rotatable ball 12 having a hollow interior 24 and a first opening (on one end of the bore/hollow interior 24) exposing the hollow interior 24; and a first annular ring (comprising the rim portion of the impedance assembly 80 in Figs. 15-19) with noise suppressing openings (paragraph 69) welded in place in the first opening (paragraph 67).
Regarding claim 2, Tran discloses in Figs. 1 and 15-19 a slot in the first annular ring forming opposing terminating surfaces that are spaced part from one another by at least 90° (because the first annular ring is football shaped comprising two arcs intersecting at two points, and at least one of the arcs forms a slot with opposing terminating surfaces that are spaced apart more than 180o from one another, similar to the applicant’s annular ring shown with a 180o slot in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Tran discloses in Figs. 1 and 15-19 a slot in the first annular ring forming opposing terminating surfaces that are spaced part from one another by at least 180° (because the first annular ring is football shaped comprising two arcs intersecting at two points, and at least one of the arcs forms a slot with opposing terminating surfaces that are spaced apart more than 180o from one another, similar to the applicant’s annular ring shown with a 180o slot in Fig. 3).
Claims 1 and 4-5 (alternatively: 1) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tran (Figs. 9-14).
Regarding claim 1, Tran discloses in Figs. 1 and 9-14 a valve, comprising: a valve body 16; a rotatable throttling ball 12 disposed in the valve body 16, the rotatable ball 12 having a hollow interior 24 and a first opening (on one end of the bore/hollow interior 24) exposing the hollow interior 24; and a first annular ring (comprising at least a portion of the rim portion of the impedance assembly 62 in Figs. 13-14) with noise suppressing openings 68 placed in the first opening. Tran lacks teaching that the first annular ring is welded in the first opening in the throttling ball, but the claim is a product claim, the recitation refers to a process, so the recitation is interpreted as reciting a product by process that isn’t seen as defining over the structure of the prior art (MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 4, Tran discloses in Figs. 1 and 9-14 a slot 78 in the first annular ring (because the slot 78 is within the circumference of the first annular ring) forming opposing terminating surfaces (comprising the corners of the slot 78) that are spaced part from one another by an angle in a range of between 120° and 180° (because the opposing terminating surfaces are spaced apart in a 180o arc from one another).
Regarding claim 5, Tran discloses in Figs. 1 and 9-14 a slot in the first annular ring (comprising the rim portion of the impedance assembly 62 around openings 68) forming opposing terminating surfaces (that are closed by the arcuate portion delimiting flow opening 78 and forming the tooling block); and a tooling block (comprising the arcuate portion delimiting flow opening 78, wherein “tooling block” is broadly interpreted as a name of a structure and not necessarily defining a structure or function) coupled to the annular ring and extending across the slot.
Claims 1 and 6 (alternatively: 1; as understood: 6) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rimboym et al. (US 2010/0163774).
Regarding claim 1, Rimboym discloses in Figs. 1-6 a valve, comprising: a valve body 205; a rotatable throttling ball 230 disposed in the valve body 205, the rotatable ball 230 having a hollow interior and a first opening (in which the ball plate 245 is disposed) exposing the hollow interior; and a first annular ring (comprising the outer rim portion of the diffuser plate 234 with noise suppressing openings (comprising at least some of the openings 237) placed in the first opening. Rimboym lacks teaching that the first annular ring is welded in the first opening in the throttling ball, but the claim is a product claim, the recitation refers to a process, so the recitation is interpreted as reciting a product by process that isn’t seen as defining over the structure of the prior art (MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 6, Rimboym discloses in Figs. 1-6 a slot (comprising one of the slot-shaped openings 237) in the first annular ring forming opposing terminating surfaces (comprising the ends of the elongated slot 237); threaded openings (in the valve body 205 that receives threaded bolts 220); and a tooling block 210/215 (wherein “tooling block” is broadly interpreted as a name of a structure and not necessitating structure or function) coupled to the annular ring at the threaded openings (because the annular ring is retained within the valve body 205 and tooling block 210/215, so the annular ring and tooling block 210/215 are at least directly coupled together).
Claims 1 and 7-11 (alternatively: 1; as understood: 11) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watson et al. (US 2021/0207740).
Regarding claim 1, Watson discloses in Figs. 21-24 a valve, comprising: a valve body (shown in Fig. 21); a rotatable throttling ball 114 disposed in the valve body, the rotatable ball 114 having a hollow interior and a first opening exposing the hollow interior; and a first annular ring 112 with noise suppressing openings (comprising at least some of the openings 158) placed in the first opening. Watson lacks teaching that the first annular ring is welded in the first opening in the throttling ball, but the claim is a product claim, the recitation refers to a process, so the recitation is interpreted as reciting a product by process that isn’t seen as defining over the structure of the prior art (MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 7, Watson discloses in Figs. 21-24 a cutout 139 forming an arcuate surface in the annular ring 112 (because the cutout 139 is located within the circumference of the annular ring 112).
Regarding claim 8, Watson discloses in Figs. 21-24 a cutout 139, forming an arcuate surface in the annular ring 112 (because the cutout 139 is located within the circumference of the annular ring 112) that aligns with an edge of the first opening (because the cutout 139 passes through the plane of the first opening).
Regarding claim 9, Watson discloses in Figs. 21-24 a slot (comprising one of the openings 158 diametrically opposed from one of the openings 139) in the first annular ring (because the openings 139, 158 are located within the circumference of the annular ring 112) forming opposing terminating surfaces (comprising the two ends of the narrow slot 158); and a cutout 139 (comprising one of the openings 139 diametrically opposed from the opening 139 forming the slot 139) forming an arcuate surface in the first annular ring that aligns with an edge of the first opening (because the cutout 139 passes through the plane of the first opening).
Regarding claim 10, Watson discloses in Figs. 21-24 a slot (comprising one of the openings 158 diametrically opposed from one of the openings 139) in the first annular ring (because the openings 139, 158 are located within the circumference of the annular ring 112) forming opposing terminating surfaces (comprising the two ends of the narrow slot 158); and a cutout 139 (comprising one of the openings 139 diametrically opposed from the opening 139 forming the slot 139) diametrically opposing the slot 158 and forming an arcuate surface in the first annular ring that aligns with an edge of the first opening (because the cutout 139 passes through the plane of the first opening).
Regarding claim 11, Watson discloses in Figs. 21-24 a pair of cutouts 139 in the first annular ring 112 (because the cutouts 139 are located within the circumference of the annular ring 112) that align with an edge of the first opening (because the cutout 139 passes through the plane of the first opening in the throttling ball114) and the second opening (comprising one of the openings 158 not considered as a part of the noise suppressing openings).
Claims 1-4 and 12-14 (alternatively: 1-3; as understood: 13-14) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lienen (US 5,758,689).
Regarding claim 1, Lienen discloses in Figs. 4-6 a valve, comprising: a valve body 42; a rotatable throttling ball 48 disposed in the valve body, the rotatable ball 48 having a hollow interior and a first opening (comprising the inlet side of the flow path through the rotatable ball 48) exposing the hollow interior; and a first annular ring (comprising the semicircular rim portion of either of the partial diffusers 68, 74, like the applicant’s annular ring 104 in Fig. 3 and the first annular ring claimed by the applicant in claims 3-4 as including a slot spanning 180o) with noise suppressing openings (comprising openings 70, 72 in diffuser 68 or openings 78, 78 in diffuser 74) placed in the first opening. Lienen lacks teaching that the first annular ring is welded in the first opening in the throttling ball, but the claim is a product claim, the recitation refers to a process, so the recitation is interpreted as reciting a product by process that isn’t seen as defining over the structure of the prior art (MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 2, Lienen discloses in Figs. 4-6 that there is a slot in the first annular ring forming opposing terminating surfaces that are spaced part from one another by at least 90° (because the first annular ring is semicircular, and the flat edge of the semicircular forms a slot with opposing terminating surfaces that are spaced apart 180o from one another).
Regarding claim 3, Lienen discloses in Figs. 4-6 that there is a slot in the first annular ring forming opposing terminating surfaces that are spaced part from one another by at least 180° (because the first annular ring is semicircular, and the flat edge of the semicircular forms a slot with opposing terminating surfaces that are spaced apart 180o from one another).
Regarding claim 4, Lienen discloses in Figs. 4-6 that there is a slot in the first annular ring forming opposing terminating surfaces that are spaced part from one another by an angle in a range of between 120° and 180° (because the first annular ring is semicircular, and the flat edge of the semicircular forms a slot with opposing terminating surfaces that are spaced apart 180o from one another).
Regarding claim 12, Lienen discloses in Figs. 4-6 a second opening in the rotatable ball 48 (comprising the outlet of the flow passage through the flow path through the ball 48); and a second annular ring (comprising the semicircular rim of the partial diffuser 74 in the outlet of the flow path through the ball 48, like the first annular ring claimed in claims 3-4 is claimed as including a slot spanning 180o, which includes semicircular shaped first annular rings) with noise suppressing openings 76, 78 placed in the second opening. Lienen lacks teaching that the second annular ring is welded in the second opening in the throttling ball, but the claim is a product claim, the recitation refers to a process, so the recitation is interpreted as reciting a product by process that isn’t seen as defining over the structure of the prior art (MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 13, Lienen discloses in Figs. 4-6 a second opening in the rotatable ball 48 (comprising the outlet of the flow passage through the flow path through the ball 48); and a second annular ring (comprising the semicircular rim of the partial diffuser 74 in the outlet of the flow path through the ball 48, like the first annular ring claimed in claims 3-4 is claimed as including a slot spanning 180o, which includes semicircular shaped first annular rings) with noise suppressing openings 76, 78 placed in the second opening, wherein the first annular ring and the second annular ring comprise a slot that forms opposing terminating surfaces that are spaced part from one another by at least 90° (because the first and second annular rings are both semicircular, and the flat edge of the semicircular forms a slot with opposing terminating surfaces that are spaced apart 180o from one another). Lienen lacks teaching that the second annular ring is welded in the second opening in the throttling ball, but the claim is a product claim, the recitation refers to a process, so the recitation is interpreted as reciting a product by process that isn’t seen as defining over the structure of the prior art (MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 14, Lienen discloses in Figs. 4-6 a second opening in the rotatable ball 48; and a second annular ring (comprising the outer rim portion of the second partial diffuser of the two partial diffusers 68, 74, which are as much as annular rings as the applicant’s annular ring 104 in Fig. 3) with noise suppressing openings (comprising any of openings 70, 72 in partial diffuser 68, or openings 76, 78 in partial diffuser 74) placed in the second opening, wherein the first annular ring and the second annular ring comprise, a slot (comprising the 180o opening forming the flat side of the semicircular shape of either of the partial diffusers 68, 74, like the applicant’s semicircular annular ring 104 in Fig. 3) that forms opposing terminating surfaces, and a cutout (comprising one of the openings 70, 76 in the partial diffusers 68, 74) diametrically opposing the slot that forms an arcuate surface in both the first annular ring and the second annular ring that aligns with an edge of the first opening and the second opening, respectively (because the openings 70, 76 align with the respective planes in which the openings of the ball 48 form circles). Lienen lacks teaching that the second annular ring is welded in the second opening in the throttling ball, but the claim is a product claim, the recitation refers to a process, so the recitation is interpreted as reciting a product by process that isn’t seen as defining over the structure of the prior art (MPEP 2113).
Claims 1 and 12 (alternatively: both) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gethmann et al. (US 5,180,139).
Regarding claim 1, Gethmann discloses in Figs. 1-5 a valve, comprising: a valve body 12; a rotatable throttling ball 30 disposed in the valve body 12, the rotatable ball 30 having a hollow interior and a first opening 26 exposing the hollow interior; and a first annular ring (comprising the outer rim portion of dome 32) with noise suppressing openings 34 welded in place in the first opening 26 (col. 3, lines 19-20).
Regarding claim 12, Gethmann discloses in Figs. 1-5 a second opening 28 in the rotatable ball 30; and a second annular ring (comprising the outer rim portion of dome 32 in the opening 28) with noise suppressing openings 34 disposed in the second opening 28. Gethmann lacks teaching that the second annular ring is welded in the second opening in the throttling ball, but the claim is a product claim, the recitation refers to a process, so the recitation is interpreted as reciting a product by process that isn’t seen as defining over the structure of the prior art (MPEP 2113).
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.
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.
Claims 15 and 17-19 (as understood: 17-19) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gethmann et al. (US 5,180,139) in view of Tran et al. (US 2003/0192605).
Regarding claim 15, Gethmann discloses in Figs. 1-5 a method, comprising: fabricating an annular ring (comprising the rim of dome 32) with a noise-reducing element (comprising openings 34, 36), the annular ring having an outer diameter; inserting the annular ring into an opening in a throttling ball; and welding the annular ring in place in the opening (col. 3, lines 19-20).
Gethmann lacks reducing the outer diameter from a first dimension to a second dimension and inserting the annular ring into the opening in the throttling ball at the second dimension.
Tran teaches in Figs. 9-4 a “shrink-fit” assembly of an annular ring/noise-reducing element 62 (paragraph 55), which one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize as comprising reducing the outer diameter of an annular noise-reducing element 62 from a first dimension to a second dimension and inserting the annular element 62 into the opening in the throttling ball 12 at the second dimension.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the outer diameter of the annular ring be reduced and fitted inside the opening in the throttling ball at the reduced outer diameter, as Tran teaches (paragraph 55), because the shrinkage allows for the annular ring to be fitted quickly and easily into the throttling ball, and without any damage to the structures, since there is no interference fit.
Regarding claim 17, Tran teaches in Figs. 9-4 that the second dimension is less than the diameter of the opening.
Regarding claim 18, Gethmann discloses in Figs. 1-5 a method, comprising: providing a trim device 32 comprising an annular ring (comprising the rim of the trim device 32) with a noise suppressing openings 34, 36, the annular ring having an outer surface with an outer diameter; locating the trim device 32 into an opening in a throttling ball 30, the opening having an inner diameter; and welding the trim device 32 into place in the opening (col. 3, lines 19-20).
Gethmann lacks teaching that the outer diameter of the trim device is less than the inner diameter of the opening.
Tran teaches in Figs. 9-4 a “shrink-fit” assembly of a trim device 62 comprising noise suppressing openings 68 (paragraph 55), which one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize as comprising reducing the outer diameter of the trim device 62 to be less than the inner diameter of the opening in the throttling ball 12 in which the trim device 62 is inserted for said insertion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the outer diameter of the trim device be less than the inner diameter of the opening in the throttling ball as a part of “shrink-fit” assembly, as Tran teaches (paragraph 55), because the shrinkage allows for the trim device to be fitted quickly and easily into the throttling ball, and without any damage to the structures, since there is no interference fit.
Regarding claim 19, Tran teaches turning down the outer surface of the trim device to the outer diameter (via “shrink-fit” as disclosed in paragraphs 47 and 55).
Claims 15-20 (alternatively: 15 and 17-19; as understood: 17-20) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson et al. (US 2021/0207740) in view of Tran et al. (US 2003/0192605) and Gethmann et al. (US 5,180,139).
Regarding claim 15, Watson discloses in Figs. 21-24 a method, comprising: fabricating an annular ring 112 with a noise-reducing element (comprising openings 158, like the similar openings 58 in the embodiment disclosed in paragraph 69, wherein “with a noise-reducing element” is broadly interpreted as including the element within the circumference of the annular ring), the annular ring 112 having an outer diameter; inserting the annular ring 112, into an opening in a throttling ball 114.
Watson lacks reducing the outer diameter from a first dimension to a second dimension and inserting the annular ring into the opening in the throttling ball at the second dimension, and welding the annular ring in place in the opening.
With regard to the reduction in the outer diameter of the annular ring, Tran teaches in Figs. 9-4 a “shrink-fit” assembly of an annular ring/noise-reducing element 62 (paragraph 55), which one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize as comprising reducing the outer diameter of an annular noise-reducing element 62 from a first dimension to a second dimension and inserting the annular element 62 into the opening in the throttling ball 12 at the second dimension.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the outer diameter of the annular ring disclosed by Watson be reduced and fitted inside the opening in the throttling ball at the reduced outer diameter, as Tran teaches (paragraph 55), because the shrinkage allows for the annular ring to be fitted quickly and easily into the throttling ball, and without any damage to the structures, since there is no interference fit.
With regard to the welding of the annular ring in place in the opening in the throttling ball, Gethmann teaches in Figs. 1-5 welding the annular ring 32 in place in the opening (col. 3, lines 19-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of the annular ring in the opening in the throttling ball disclosed by Watson to include welding to securely fix the annular ring in place, as Gethmann teaches.
Regarding claim 16, Watson discloses in Figs. 21-24 forming cutouts 139 in the annular ring 112 (because the cutouts 139 are within the circumference of the annular ring 112), wherein the cutouts 139 and the opening in the throttling ball 114 have a radius that is the same (as shown by the same radius of curvature in Fig. 22).
Regarding claim 17, Tran teaches in Figs. 9-4 that the second dimension is less than the diameter of the opening.
Regarding claim 18, Watson discloses in Figs. 21-24 a method, comprising: providing a trim device 112 comprising an annular ring (comprising the rim of the trim device 112) with a noise suppressing openings 158 (wherein “with a noise suppressing openings” is broadly interpreted as including the opening within the circumference of the annular ring), the annular ring having an outer surface with an outer diameter; locating the trim device 112 into an opening in a throttling ball 114, the opening having an inner diameter, wherein the outer diameter of the trim device 112 is less than the inner diameter of the opening (paragraph 82).
Gethmann lacks welding the trim device in place in the opening.
Gethmann teaches in Figs. 1-5 welding the trim device 32 in place into the opening (col. 3, lines 19-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of the trim device in the opening in the throttling ball disclosed by Watson to include welding to securely fix the annular ring in place, as Gethmann teaches.
Regarding claim 19, Tran teaches turning down the outer surface of the trim device to the outer diameter (via “shrink-fit” as disclosed in paragraphs 47 and 55).
Regarding claim 20, Watson discloses in Figs. 21-24 forming cutouts 139 in the trim device 112 (because the cutouts 139 are within the circumference of the annular ring 112), the cutouts 139 having a radius that is the same as the inner diameter of the opening (as shown by the same radius of curvature in Fig. 22).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Jonathan Waddy, whose telephone number is 571-270-3146. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (10:00AM-6:00PM EST).
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 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.
/J. W./
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753