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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, line 6 “the center” should likely read “a center”.
In Claim 1, line 7 “the lower portion” should likely read “a lower portion”.
In Claim 1, line 8 “said rod” should likely read “said drive rod”.
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.
Claim 1 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 1 recites the limitation "the lower stabilizer plate" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the upper stabilizer plate" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "each pair of tie rods" in line 5. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if these are the same tie rods from line 5 or different tie rods. For purposes of examination, they will be interpreted as being the same.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a reversible fastening element” in line 7. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if this is the same reversible fastening element from line 5 or a different fastening element. For purposes of examination, they will be interpreted as different fastening elements.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the connecting bushing" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the drive bushing" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the main rod" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the valve" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
e
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonds et al (US 4436279) in view of Bales Jr et al (US 3448771) in further view of King et al (US 9822901).
Regarding Claim 1, Bonds et al disclose a device (the device generally in Figure 1 with the embodiment for the connection structure of Figures 6-7) for external actuation of valves with damaged bushing1. The device comprising:
at least two opposing stabilizer plates (see Annotated Figure A),
the lower stabilizer plate (see Annotated Figure A) fastened to the upper stabilizer plate through holes arranged at its vertices (see Annotated Figure A into which the tie rods attach),
comprising fixing tie rods connected by reversible fastening elements (the nuts of Annotated Figure A),
and also a drive rod (42)
and fastened in the center of the upper stabilizer plate by means of a reversible fastening element (where piston 54 functions as a reversible fastening element by connecting to the top end of the drive shaft 42 as seen in Figure 1 to center the drive rod within both the chamber 58 and the upper stabilizer plate shown in Annotated Figure A),
wherein the lower portion of said rod receives a connecting element (see Annotated Figure B)
between said rod and the connecting bushing (see Annotated Figure B), and
the connecting bushing connects to the drive bushing (by the interaction of 220 and 224),
which connects to the main rod of the valve (to 72 as shown in Annotated Figure B),
but fails to expressly disclose each pair of tie rods comprising in a median portion an adjusting lock and where the drive bushing connects to the main rod of the valve with the aid of a counter nut located just above the connecting element.
Bales Jr et al teach a device (Figure 2) with a plurality of tie rods (4 shown in Figure 3) where each pair of tie rods comprising in a median portion an adjusting lock (56 and 57 which function to lock the tie rods in place by attachment to cables 57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tie rods of Bonds et al with the adjusting lock as taught by Bales Jr et al for the advantage of providing additional support for the tie rods, as taught by Bales Jr et al (Col 3, lines 39-42).
King et al teach a device (Figures 1-5b) with a drive rod (18) and a drive bushing (54) where the drive bushing (63 in Figure 5a) connects to the main rod (18) of the valve (26) with the aid of a counter nut (52a) located just above the connecting element (68 in Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bonds et al as modified by Bales Jr et al with the counter nut as taught by King et al for the advantage of allowing a tool to fit to the nut to allow attachment of the drive rod to the main rod, as taught by King et al (Col 6, lines 20-44).
PNG
media_image1.png
1026
771
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure A – Bonds et al
PNG
media_image2.png
793
1003
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure B – Bonds et al
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE GARDNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-4PM EST.
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, KENNETH RINEHART (571-272-4881) or CRAIG SCHNEIDER (571-272-3607) can be reached by telephone. 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.
/NICOLE GARDNER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
1 The recitation “for external actuation of valves with damaged bushing” has not been given patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).