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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “trim assembly coupled [to] the valve body” as recited in claims 1 and 14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 Objections
Claims 1 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: “a trim assembly coupled the valve body” should be changed to – a trim assembly coupled to the valve body --.. 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 1-20 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.
Applicant recites “a trim assembly coupled [to] the valve body”(claims 1 and 14), “the seat coupled to the cage such that removal of the cage from the valve body also removes the seat from the valve body” (claim 1), “the cage coupled to the plug” (claim 5), “the cage threadably coupled to the plug” (claim 6), see also claims 11, 17, and 20.
The metes and bounds of the term “coupled” are unclear and indefinite. The term “couple” is commonly defined as a first component joined to another component so that the first and second components work together. See the definition of “couple” attached to this action. Further, the term “join” is commonly defined as a first component fixed or fastened to a second component. See the definition of “join” attached to this action.
At least claims 1 and 14 are not in line with the common definitions for the terms “couple” and “join” insofar as the claims necessitate “a trim assembly couple [to] the valve body”. It is unclear and indefinite how applicant regards the trim assembly to be coupled to the valve body.
Further, any other useage of the term “couple” is unclear and indefinite because of the metes and bounds of the term being blurred by claims 1 and 14.
For purposes of examination the office regards recitation that the “trim assembly coupled [to] the valve body” as necessitating that the trim assembly contact the valve body. Such interpretation is supported by applicant’s drawings, lack of disclosure related to the coupling manner between the trim assembly and the valve body, and applicant’s additional useage of the term “couple”.
Other recitations of the term “couple” are interpreted as following the common defitions provided above.
Claims not specifically recited are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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) 1-4, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Semon (U.S. Patent 2,890,713).
In regards to claim 1, Semon discloses a valve comprising: a valve body (8, 9) defining a fluid passageway between an inlet (13) and an outlet (14) ; and a trim assembly (22, 23, 25) connected to the valve body (8, 9), the trim assembly (22, 23, 25) including: a cage (23, 25) having a central channel; a seat (22) in the fluid passageway, the seat (22) defining an orifice, the seat (22) coupled to the cage (23, 25) such that removal of the cage (23, 25) from the valve body (8, 9) also removes the seat (22) from the valve body (8, 9); and a flow control member (28) in the central channel of the cage (23, 25), the flow control member (28) moveable relative to the seat (22) between an open position and a closed position. See Fig. 2 and col. 2, lines 5-11.
In regards to claim 2, the cage (23, 25) and the seat (22) are coupled by one or more ribs (24).
In regards to claim 3, the cage (23, 25), the seat (22), and the one or more ribs (24) are constructed as a monolithic structure.
In regards to claim 4, one or more radial openings are defined between the cage, the seat, and the one or more ribs.
Claim(s) 14, 15, and 20, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boals (U.S. Patent 2,731,975)..
In regards to claim 14, Boals discloses a valve comprising: a valve body (3) defining a fluid passageway between an inlet (35) and an outlet (37); and a trim assembly coupled the valve body, the trim assembly including: a plug (P); a trim body (C1, C2) coupled to the plug (P), the trim body (C1, C2) defining a central channel, the trim body (C1, C2) having a first portion (C1) defining a seat (18), a second portion (C2) defining a cage, and one or more ribs (portion of C which extends around openings 33) extending between the first portion and the second portion (C1, C2); and a flow control member (20) in the central channel of the trim body, the flow control member (20) moveable between an open position to enable fluid flow through the seat (18) and a closed position in which fluid flow is blocked from flowing through the seat (18).
PNG
media_image1.png
540
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 15, the trim body has one or more radial openings (33) extending between an outer surface of the trim body and the central channel, the radial openings (33) defined between the first portion (C1), the second portion (C2), and the one or more ribs (portion of C which extend around 33).
In regards to claim 20, Boals further disclose that the second portion (C2) is coupled to the plug (P)
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, 5, 7, 11, and 16 as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boals (U.S. Patent 2,731,975).
In regards to claim 1, Boals discloses a valve comprising: a valve body (10) defining a fluid passageway between an inlet (35) and an outlet (37); and a trim assembly coupled the valve body (10), the trim assembly including: a cage (C) having a central channel; a seat (18) in the fluid passageway, the seat (18) defining an orifice, the seat (18) coupled to the cage (C); and a flow control member (20) in the central channel of the cage (C), the flow control member (20) moveable relative to the seat (C) between an open position and a closed position.
While Boals does disclose that seat 18 is retained by guide 30, Boals does not specifically disclose that removal of the cage from the valve body also removes the seat from the valve body.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have designed the fit between the seat and guide of Boals such that removal of the guide also removed the seat to assist in assembly as the component pieces could be assembled/disassembled as a unit rather than individually.
In regards to claim 5, the trim assembly includes a plug (P), the plug (P) threadably coupled to the valve body (3), the cage (C) coupled to the plug (P). In the instant case, the cage and plug are a monolithic unit.
In regards to claim 7, the plug (P) has a bore (28), the flow control member (20) extending into the bore (28).
In regards to claim 11, a plug (P) coupled to the valve body (3), the plug (P) defining a bore (28), wherein the flow control member (20) is at least partially disposed in the bore (28) of the plug (P), wherein a balance chamber (26) is defined in the bore (28) between an end of the flow control member (20) and an inner surface of the bore (28), and wherein the flow control member (20) has a balance passage (27) extending between a first opening on an outer side surface of the flow control member (20) exposed to the fluid passageway and a second opening on the end of the flow control member (20) to enable fluid communication between the fluid passageway and the balance chamber (26).
Boals discloses the claimed invention except for the trim body as a monolithic piece. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the seat and cage as a monolitic assembly, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formally been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Further, forming the seat and cage as a monolithic assembly would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to assist with assembly and disassembly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8-10, 12, 13 and 17-19 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to R.K. Arundale whose telephone number is 571-270-3453. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-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, and 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.
/ROBERT K ARUNDALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753