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) is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martin et al (US 5709240).
Regarding claim 1, Martin (FIGs 1-6) discloses “A check valve for a backflow preventer having a housing (12) and a fluid flow channel (interior) therethrough, the check valve comprising:
a valve seat (16);
a poppet (18) movable between a closed position (FIG 2) and an open position (FIG 5), the poppet positioned against the valve seat and inhibiting fluid flow past the valve seat while the poppet is in the closed position (see FIG 2), the poppet spaced apart from the valve seat and permitting fluid flow past the valve seat while the poppet is in the open position (see dashed lines in FIG 5);
a guide portion (structure of 20, 40, 41; seen to guide movement of 18) including a first guide surface (41) and a second guide surface (40);
a first stem (pin and cam that couples to left end of 70) coupled to the poppet (assembled in FIGs) and movable along the first guide surface (understood that first stem can rotate within and relative to its opening in 41 [read as “movable along”] in the range of motion in FIG 5);
a second stem (pin and cam that couples to right end of 70) coupled to the poppet (assembled in FIGs) and movable along the second guide surface (understood that second stem can rotate within and relative to its opening in 40 [read as “movable along”] in the range of motion in FIG 5); and
a biasing member (70) coupled between the first stem and the second stem (see FIGs), the biasing member configured to create an effective closing force that biases the poppet to the closed position (18 moving to the right tensions 70).”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-20 are allowed.
Claims 2-9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, Martin is silent regarding “wherein the first stem includes a first roller for engaging the first guide surface and the second stem includes a second roller for engaging the second guide surface.
No prior art remedies this deficiency in Martin, and the modification in theory would be nonobvious as it would dramatically alter the intended operation of Martin.
Claim 3 is allowable by virtue of its dependency on claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, Martin is silent regarding “wherein the biasing member biases the second stem against the second guide surface such that an effective closing force biases the poppet towards the closed position, wherein the second guide surface includes a first portion and a second portion, wherein, as the poppet moves from the closed position to a fully open position, the second stem moves sequentially along the first portion of the second guide surface and then the second portion of the second guide surface, the effective closing force being greater when the second stem engages the first portion of the second guide than when the second stem engages the second portion of the second guide.”
While a displaceable far end guide mechanism is shown in Le Bus (US 1871536; FIG 1 element 27), Le bus is silent regarding numerous other features, including those in intervening claim 1.
Furthermore, it would not be obvious to combine Martin with Le Bus without undue hindsight reasoning.
Regarding claim 5, Martin is silent regarding “wherein the poppet includes a first elongated slot and a second elongated slot, wherein the first stem extends through and is movable within the first elongated slot and the second stem extends through and is movable within the second elongated slot.”
While physically possible, making this modification to Martin would not be obvious, and it could be possibly detrimental to the operation of Martin.
Regarding claim 6, Martin is silent regarding “wherein the first stem includes a first roller for engaging the first guide surface and the second stem includes a second roller for engaging the second guide surface, wherein the biasing member exerts a force along a line of action between the first stem and the second stem to bias the first roller into engagement with the first guide surface and to bias the second roller into engagement with the second guide surface.
No prior art remedies this deficiency in Martin, and the modification in theory would be nonobvious as it would dramatically alter the intended operation of Martin.
Regarding claim 7, Martin is silent regarding “wherein the guide portion includes a stop that limits movement of the second stem along the second guide surface.”
It would not be obvious to modify Martin with is feature without undue hindsight reasoning.
Regarding claim 8, Martin (FIGs 1-6) discloses “wherein the poppet is configured to be supported for pivoting movement about a hinge pin relative to the housing of the backflow preventer (via 43, pi nat its top end in FIG 8)…”
Martin is silent regarding “the hinge pin extends through an elongated slot such that the hinge pin may move axially relative to the housing.”
While physically possible, making this modification to Martin would not be obvious, and it could be possibly detrimental to the operation of Martin.
Regarding claim 9, Martin is silent regarding “wherein the first guide surface includes a first inclined portion and the second guide surface includes a second inclined portion, the first inclined portion and the second inclined portion diverging from one another as they extend away from the seat.”
It would not be obvious to modify Martin with is feature without undue hindsight reasoning.
Regarding claim 10, Martin (FIGs 1-6) discloses “A check valve for a backflow preventer having a housing (12) and a fluid flow channel (interior) therethrough, the check valve comprising:
a seat (16) including a sealing edge (right end);
a poppet (18) including a sealing portion (left end), the poppet movable between a closed position (FIG 2) and an open position (FIG 5), the sealing portion of the poppet positioned against the seat and inhibiting fluid flow past the seat while the poppet is in the closed position (FIG 2), the poppet spaced apart from the seat and permitting fluid flow past the seat while the poppet is in the open position (dashed lines in FIG 5);
a guide portion (structure of 20, 40, 41; seen to guide movement of 18) coupled to the seat (assembled with in FIGs) and including a first guide surface (41) and a second guide surface (40);
a first stem (pin and cam that couples to left end of 70) coupled to the poppet and movable along the first guide surface (understood that first stem can rotate within and relative to its opening in 41 [read as “movable along”] in the range of motion in FIG 5);
a second stem (pin and cam that couples to right end of 70) coupled to the poppet (assembled in FIGs) and movable along the second guide surface (understood that second stem can rotate within and relative to its opening in 40 [read as “movable along”] in the range of motion in FIG 5); and
a biasing member (70) coupled between the first stem and the second stem (see FIGs), the biasing member exerting a biasing force to draw the first stem and the second stem toward one another (via tensioning of 70 in the open dashed position in FIG 5)…”
Martin is silent regarding “the first guide surface and the second guide surface having a shape that transfers at least a portion of the biasing force in a direction that is normal to the sealing edge while the poppet is in the closed position.”
While an orthogonal biasing force is shown in Sutherland (US 3996962), Sutherland fails to teach numerous other features. Sutherland has a compressive force which teaches against the claimed “the biasing member exerting a biasing force to draw the first stem and the second stem toward one another”. Furthermore, it would not be obvious to modify Martin with this feature without undue hindsight reasoning.
Claims 11-15 are allowed by virtue of their dependency on claim 10.
Regarding claim 16, Martin is silent regarding “the first stem including a first roller for engaging the first guide surface … the second stem including a second roller for engaging the second guide surface…
at least one of the first guide roller and the second guide roller engaging a corresponding surface of the first guide surface or the second guide surface that is angled such that the biasing force of the biasing member creates an effective closing force that biases the poppet towards the closed position” in the context of the claim.
No prior art remedies this deficiency in Martin, and the modification in theory would be nonobvious as it would dramatically alter the intended operation of Martin.
Claims 17-20 are allowed by virtue of their dependency on claim 16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Devices similar to the application are disclosed by Curtiss (3478778), Ksieski (US 2837103), Funderburk (US 6443184), Parsons (US 4898130), and Calvin (US 4625746).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK C WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)431-0767. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 PM.
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.
/PATRICK C WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753