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 .
Status of the Application
This action is responsive to the amendment dated 8/06/2026. Claims 1-20 remain pending. Claims 1 and 13 have been amended. Claims 21 and 22 are new. The applicant’s amendment has necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection below. This action is Final.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's amendment to recite a piston having an exterior tapered sealing surface and a radially extending slotted opening, the piston removably attached to and coupled over the protruding free end of the valve stem by the slotted opening, the piston and stem defining at least one degree of freedom of movement therebetween including radial movement of the piston in a plurality of radial directions with respect to a central axis of the stem while the piston is attached to the stem has overcome the rejection of record. However, a new ground(s) of rejection is applied to the claims below. As such, applicant's arguments with respect to the 102 rejection over Shivak have not been found persuasive. Shivak in view of Pulcini as stated below in the 103 rejection teaches each and every limitation including a piston having an exterior tapered sealing surface and a radially extending slotted opening, the piston removably attached to and coupled over the protruding free end of the valve stem by the slotted opening, the piston and stem defining at least one degree of freedom of movement therebetween including radial movement of the piston in a plurality of radial directions with respect to a central axis of the stem while the piston is attached to the stem.
Applicant argues that merely stating that the motivation to combine the assembly of Shivak with the teachings of Pulcini is not sufficient to reach the Applicant’s claimed invention. The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons. First, the invention of Shivak does teach a slotted engagement between the piston and stem as disclosed in Col. 8, lines 3-40. Also see Fig. 5 which is not a cross sectioned figure. The specification and drawings clearly show and describe that there is a radially extended opening in the slot that allows the connecting means 84 to engage the piston to the stem. Additionally, the Examiner would like to add that “rearranging parts” is not the only rationale used to combine the two references. The last Office Action also specifically stated that “The motivation for doing so would be to provide an alternative construction which helps to ameliorate uneven wear on seals and/or seat contact area due to misalignment.” For at least these reasons, the 103 rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that the modification to change the shape of the piston to a conical shape in claim 7 would not cure the deficiencies of Pulcini. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The modification does meet each and every limitation as stated below.
Applicant's amendments to the claims have necessitated further search and/or consideration and/or revision of the rejection, and accordingly, this action must be made Final.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 16 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 21 and 22, respectively. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 16-20 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.
Regarding claim 16, the recitation of “an annular stem stop is coupled within a groove of the stem” is indefinite. This limitation appears to be a duplicate of a limitation that is recited in claim 13 which claim 16 is dependent on. Please amend the claims accordingly.
Claims not specifically referenced 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) 4, 7, 8, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shivak et al. (US 4,114,851, hereafter “Shivak”).
Regarding claim 4, Shivak discloses a sealing assembly for a valve (Fig. 1), comprising: a stem (170) having a protruding free end (the end at 180); a piston (80) coupled to the protruding free end; the piston is moveable when attached to the protruding free end in a plurality of radial directions with respect to a central axis of the stem (Col. 8, lines 3-18; Figs. 1, 2, 5); and a bonnet (140) engaging with the stem and attachable to the valve.
Regarding claim 7, Shivak further discloses further discloses the sealing assembly for the valve of claim 4, wherein the piston is conical shaped (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 8, Shivak further discloses the sealing assembly for the valve of claim 4, wherein the bonnet and stem are threadably engaged. (Figs. 1 and 2)
Regarding claim 12, Shivak further discloses the sealing assembly for the valve of claim 4, wherein a retaining ring (120) arranged between the bonnet and a stem seal (116) in an axial direction, wherein the stem seal is selectively compressible between a packing ring (114) and the retaining ring in response to a compressive force placed thereon by the packing nut. (Col. 6, lines 18-50; Fig. 2)
Claim(s) 4, 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pulcini et al. (US 2008/0217573, hereafter “Pulcini”).
Regarding claim 4, Pulcini discloses a sealing assembly for a valve (Fig. 1), comprising: a stem (122) having a protruding free end (124); a piston (120) coupled to the protruding free end (Fig. 1); the piston is moveable when attached to the protruding free end in a plurality of radial directions with respect to a central axis of the stem; and a bonnet (104) engaging with the stem and attachable to the valve.
Regarding claim 5, Pulcini further discloses the sealing assembly for the valve of claim 4, wherein the piston further includes a slotted opening (the opening at the left end of 126 with reference to Fig. 1) coupling the piston to the protruding free end.
Regarding claim 9, Pulcini further discloses the sealing assembly for the valve of claim 4, wherein a multi-element stem seal (see the multiples seals 106 arranged around between the stem and bonnet in Fig. 1) is arranged between the bonnet and the stem.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shivak in view of Pulcini.
Regarding claim 1, Shivak discloses a sealing assembly for a metering valve (Fig. 1), comprising: a valve stem (170) having a protruding free end (the bottom end with reference to Fig. 1); a piston (80) having an exterior tapered sealing surface (Fig. 10) removably attached to the valve stem (Col. 8, lines 3-18), the piston and stem defining at least one degree of freedom of movement therebetween including radial movement of the piston in a plurality of radial directions with respect to a central axis of the stem while the piston is attached to the stem (Col. 8, lines 3-40; Figs. 1, 2, 5); and a sealing ring (38) adapted to be sealed to an interior of the metering valve and defining a tapered sealing seat (52) corresponding to a tapered sealing surface (the tapered surface portion of 86 that contacts 52 as shown in Fig. 10) of the piston, but fails to disclose the piston having a radially extending slotted opening, the piston removably attached to and coupled over the protruding free end of the valve stem by the slotted opening.
Pulcini teaches a piston (120) having a radially extending slotted opening (the opening at 126), the piston removably attached to and coupled over the protruding free end (the end at 124) of the valve stem by the slotted opening.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the sealing assembly of Shivak such that the piston includes the radially extending slot and the stem include the corresponding portion as taught by Pulcini since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide an alternative construction which helps to ameliorate uneven wear on seals and/or seat contact area due to misalignment. (para. [0028])
Regarding claim 2, Shivak in view of Pulcini further discloses the sealing assembly of claim 1, the piston defines a radially extending slot (the slot at 126 - Pulcini) formed therein for receiving a corresponding portion of the stem (as taught by Pulcini), wherein when mounted to the stem, the piston is at least partially moveable within the slot in a plurality of radial directions with respect to a central axis of the stem (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Shivak further discloses the sealing assembly for the valve of claim 4, wherein the stem further includes a slotted opening (the opening at 180) coupling the stem to the protruding free end, but fails to disclose wherein the piston further includes a slotted opening coupling the piston to the protruding free end.
Pulcini teaches a sealing assembly wherein a piston (120) further includes a slotted opening (126) coupling the piston to the protruding free end (at 124).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the sealing assembly of Shivak such that the piston includes the radially extending slot and the stem include the corresponding portion as taught by Pulcini since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide an alternative construction which helps to ameliorate uneven wear on seals and/or seat contact area due to misalignment. (para. [0028])
Regarding claim 6, Shivak in view of Pulcini further discloses the sealing assembly for the valve of claim 5, wherein the piston having an exterior tapered sealing surface (Fig. 10; the tapered sealing surface at 86).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pulcini.
Regarding claim 7, Pulcini further discloses the sealing assembly for the valve of claim 4, but fails to disclose wherein the piston is conical shaped.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the piston of Pulcini to be conical shaped since a change in shape of an element involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a shape that is optimal based on user defined criteria.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pulcini in view of Wilson (US 6,991,216).
Regarding claim 10, Pulcini further discloses the sealing assembly for the valve of claim 4, but fails to disclose wherein a packing nut threadably fitted to an end of the bonnet and having an opening for receiving the stem therethrough.
Wilson teaches a sealing assembly (Fig. 3) comprising a packing nut (26) threadably fitted to an end of the bonnet (68) and having an opening (the opening at the center of 26) for receiving the stem therethrough. (Fig. 3)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the construction of the valve attachment to the body of Pulcini to include a packing nut and bonnet arrangement as taught by Wilson in order to provide a design which allows the valve to turn more freely, both at atmospheric condition and under pressure. (Col. 4, lines 45-53)
Regarding claim 11, Pulcini further discloses the sealing assembly for the valve of claim 4, but fails to disclose wherein a packing ring arranged over the stem and between a packing nut and a stem seal.
Wilson teaches a sealing assembly (Fig. 3) comprising a packing ring (65) arranged over the stem (86) and between a packing nut (26) and a stem seal (64).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the construction of the valve attachment to the body of Pulcini to include a packing nut and bonnet arrangement as taught by Wilson in order to provide a design which allows the valve to turn more freely, both at atmospheric condition and under pressure. (Col. 4, lines 45-53)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-15 and 21-22 are allowed.
Claim 3 is 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 16-20 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
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 PAUL J GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-0544. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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 supervisor, 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.
/PAUL J GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights