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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 11, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN110259960 (“Han”).
Regarding claim 1, Han discloses a fire-resistant globe valve, comprising:
a valve body (1) defining an inlet (left port of body 1, relative to the orientation of fig. 1), an outlet (right port of body 1, relative to the orientation of fig. 1), and a flow path extending between the inlet and the outlet;
a valve seat (surface against which plug, 6 & 15, abuts in closed configuration of figs. 1 and 2) located along the flow path between the inlet and the outlet;
a stem (4) comprising a first end (top end, relative to the orientation of fig. 1) and a second end (bottom end, relative to the orientation of fig. 1);
a plug (6 and 15) coupled to the second end of the stem, wherein the plug comprises a plug body (6) and a seat disc (15), wherein the seat disc is coupled to the plug body, and wherein the seat disc is configured to sealingly engage the valve seat in a first closed position (see position of figs. 1 and 2) of the plug; and
one or more springs (pair of springs 52; see fig. 2) positioned between and engaging the second end of the stem and the plug body, wherein the one or more springs are configured to bias the plug body to sealingly engage the valve seat in a second closed position of the plug when the seat disc deforms from exposure to fire conditions (biasing force of springs 52 with sliding blocks 53 and linkages 54 apply force in sealing direction on plug body 6).
Regarding claim 11, Han discloses the plug body (6) including an outer rim (rim defined by wall of recess holding sealing disc 15), and wherein a portion (bottom portion, relative to the orientation of fig. 2) of the seat disc (15) is configured to extend beyond an end (bottom end, relative to the orientation of fig. 2) of the outer rim.
Regarding claim 15, Han discloses an actuator (12) coupled to the first end (top end, relative to the orientation of fig. 1) of the stem (4) to actuate the plug (6 & 15) between the first closed position (position of fig. 1) and an open position (position where plug, 6 & 15, allows flow through valve), wherein the actuator is a wheel (“rotating handle”).
Regarding claim 16, Han discloses a fire-resistant globe valve, comprising:
a valve seat (surface against which plug, 6 & 15, abuts in closed configuration of figs. 1 and 2);
a stem (4);
a plug (6 & 15) coupled to the stem, wherein the plug comprises a plug body (6) and a seat disc (15), wherein the seat disc is coupled to the plug body, and wherein the seat disc is configured to sealingly engage the valve seat in a first closed position (closed position illustrated in figs. 1 and 2) of the plug; and
one or more springs (pair of springs 52; see fig. 2) positioned between and engaging the stem and the plug body, wherein the one or more springs are configured to bias the plug body to sealingly engage the valve seat in a second closed position of the plug when the seat disc deforms from exposure to fire conditions (biasing force of springs 52 with sliding blocks 53 and linkages 54 apply force in sealing direction on plug body 6).
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.
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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of CA3209007 (“Giuliano”).
Regarding claim 2, Han discloses each of the one or more springs (pair of springs 52; see fig. 2) as claimed except for each of the one or more springs being a preloaded disc spring.
However, Giuliano teaches (see fig. 2) a biasing mechanism which is a stack of preloaded disc springs (36, 36’).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the invention of Han by replacing each coil spring with a stack of preloaded disc springs, as taught by Giuliano, to have a biasing mechanism with a compact with high load capacity.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Han and Giuliano discloses the one or more springs (Han, 52, as modified by Giuliano, 36 & 36’, above) includes a first spring (Giuliano, upwardly tapered spring discs of stack of spring discs, 36 & 36’; see fig. 2) and a second spring (Giuliano, downwardly tapered spring discs of stack of spring discs, 36 & 36’; see fig. 2), wherein the first spring engages the second spring and the second end (Han, bottom end, relative to the orientation of fig. 1) of the stem (Han, 4), and wherein the second spring engages the first spring and the plug body (Han, 6; via sliding blocks 53 and linkages 54).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Han and Giuliano discloses the first spring is in a mirrored orientation with respect to the second spring (Giuliano, stack of springs, 36 & 36’, comprises opposingly tapered disc springs; see fig. 2).
Claims 5, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of GB930908 (“Hardcastle”).
Regarding claims 5, 6 and 8, Han discloses the invention as claimed except for the plug body including an inner surface that defines a cavity, wherein the second end of the stem extends into the cavity, and wherein the one or more springs are located in and engages the cavity; and
wherein the stem includes a flange at the second end, wherein the plug body includes a lip at a cavity inlet of the cavity, and wherein the lip of the plug body is configured to overlap the flange of the stem to connect the plug to the second end of the stem.
Hardcastle teaches (see figs. 3 and 4) assembling a stem (10) with a plug body (mainly defined by 19 and 32), wherein the plug body includes an inner surface that defines a cavity (31), wherein a second end (end comprising flange 30) of the stem extends into the cavity (see figs. 3 and 4), and wherein the one or more springs (33) are located in and engage(s) the cavity (see figs. 3 and 4); and wherein the stem includes a flange (30) at the second end, wherein the plug body includes a lip (defined by nut 32) at a cavity inlet (channel through which stem 10 extends) of the cavity, and wherein the lip of the plug body is configured to overlap the flange of the stem to connect the plug body (mainly defined by 19 and 32) of a plug (mainly defined by 19, 22 and 32) to the second end of the stem.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the invention of Hardcastle by configuring the connection between the plug and the stem so that the plug body includes an inner surface that defines a cavity, wherein the second end of the stem extends into the cavity, and wherein the one or more springs are located in and engages the cavity; and wherein the stem includes a flange at the second end, wherein the plug body includes a lip at a cavity inlet of the cavity, and wherein the lip of the plug body is configured to overlap the flange of the stem to connect the plug to the second end of the stem, taught by Hardcastle, to more easily assemble and disassemble the plug body and the stem.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US11428329 (“Slattery”).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Han discloses a seal is formed when the seat disc (15) engages the valve seat (seat against which plug, 6 &15, abut; see figs. 1 and 2) in the first closed position (see figs. 1 and 2) of the plug (6 & 15), and a seal is formed when the plug body (6 & 15) engages the valve seat in the second closed position of the plug (via bias of springs 52, slide blocks 53 and linkages 54).
Han is silent to the valve seat being composed of metallic material and the seat disc being composed of thermoplastic material such that a thermoplastic-to-metal seal is formed when the seat disc engages the valve seat in the first closed position of the plug, and wherein the plug body is composed of metallic material such that a metal-to-metal seal is formed when the plug body engages the valve seat in the second closed position of the plug.
However, Slattery teaches a valve body (102) defining a valve seat (120) composed of metallic material (see specification col. 5, lines 8-19) and a seat disc (118) is composed of thermoplastic material (see specification col. 3, line 61, through col. 4, line 4) such that a thermoplastic-to-metal seal is formed when the seat disc engages the valve seat, and wherein a plug body (108) is composed of metallic material (see specification col. 5, lines 8-19) such that a metal-to-metal seal is formed when the plug body engages the valve seat.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the invention of Han by forming the valve body and valve seat from metallic material, the seat disc from thermoplastic material and the plug body from metallic material, as taught by Slattery, to be resistant to higher pressures and temperatures.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han, as applied to claim 16 above, in view of Slattery.
Regarding claim 17, Han discloses a seal is formed when the seat disc (15) engages the valve seat (seat against which plug, 6 &15, abut; see figs. 1 and 2) in the first closed position (see figs. 1 and 2) of the plug (6 & 15), and a seal is formed when the plug body (6 & 15) engages the valve seat in the second closed position of the plug (via bias of springs 52, slide blocks 53 and linkages 54).
Han is silent to the valve seat being composed of metallic material and the seat disc being composed of thermoplastic material such that a thermoplastic-to-metal seal is formed when the seat disc engages the valve seat in the first closed position of the plug, and wherein the plug body is composed of metallic material such that a metal-to-metal seal is formed when the plug body engages the valve seat in the second closed position of the plug.
However, Slattery teaches a valve body (102) defining a valve seat (120) composed of metallic material (see specification col. 5, lines 8-19) and a seat disc (118) is composed of thermoplastic material (see specification col. 3, line 61, through col. 4, line 4) such that a thermoplastic-to-metal seal is formed when the seat disc engages the valve seat, and wherein a plug body (108) is composed of metallic material (see specification col. 5, lines 8-19) such that a metal-to-metal seal is formed when the plug body engages the valve seat.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the invention of Han by forming the valve body and valve seat from metallic material, the seat disc from thermoplastic material and the plug body from metallic material, as taught by Slattery, to be resistant to higher pressures and temperatures.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 12-14 and 18-20 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 7, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious the fire-resistant globe valve, further comprising an insert that is coupled to the second end of the stem, is slidably received by a recess defined by the plug body, and extends through the one or more springs to retain the one or more springs in place between the second end of the stem and the plug body, in further combination with the limitations of the base claim.
Regarding claim 12, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious the valve seat including a first surface and an angled surface that extends inwardly from the first surface and away from the outer rim, in further combination with the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim(s).
Claims 13 and 14 are allowable because it depends on allowable claim 12.
Regarding claim 18, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious the fire-resistant globe valve, wherein the plug body includes an outer rim, wherein a portion of the seat disc is configured to extend beyond the outer rim, and wherein the valve seat includes a first surface and an angled surface that extends downwardly from the first surface and away from the outer rim, in combination with the limitations of the base claim.
Claims 19 and 20 are allowable because it depends on allowable claim 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 28, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to claims 1 and 16, Applicant argues that Han does not disclose the one or more springs positioned between and engaging the second end of the stem and the plug body.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Although spring(s) (52) do not span an entirety of a space between the second end (bottom end, relative to the orientation of the figures) of the stem (4) and the plug body (6), the springs extend at least part of a distance between the stem (4) and the plug body (6), and impart a biasing force, which forces the stem (4) and plug body (6) apart from one another. It appears that applicant relies upon features, which are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With regards to claim 3, Applicant argues that the springs of Giuliano are of a different configuration from that of Han, and cannot reasonably be utilized as a teaching reference therefor.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In the present case, Giuliano teaches a means of biasing utilizing a stack of preloaded disc springs (36, 36’). Modifying Han by modifying the springs (Han, 52) with a stack of preloaded disc springs (Giuliano, 36, 36’) merely is simple substitution of one known biasing element for another to obtain predictable results.
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 Hailey K. Do whose direct telephone number is (571)270-3458 and direct fax number is (571)270-4458. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00AM-5:00PM ET) and Friday (8:00AM-12:00PM ET).
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 at 571-272-4881, or Craig M. Schneider 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAILEY K. DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights