DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 1-15 are pending for consideration following applicant’s amendment 6/17/2026.
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 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 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, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pauchet et al. (WO 2022/159946).
Regarding Claim 1, Pauchet discloses a valve assembly (Figure 2 especially), comprising: a valve member, said valve member comprising a tip 28 (tip 28 including 44 and 46) and a stem 42, said stem 42 having a receiving formation (recessed portion of 42 at the right end thereof as shown in Figure 2) for receiving said tip (receiving a portion of 44 of the tip), said tip having a base portion 44 and a tapered portion 46, said base portion 44 having a larger diameter than said tapered portion 46 (as shown in Figure 2, base portion 44 includes a portion having a larger diameter than the tapered portion 46), said tapered portion 46 forming the endmost point of said valve member (as shown in Figure 2, the tapered portion includes tip 48), said tapered portion 46 being formed from a superhard material (para. 0023); a valve seat 30, said valve seat 30 comprising a seating ring 34 and a body 32 having an opening therethrough (as shown in Figure 2), said body 32 having a receiving formation for receiving said seating ring 34 (as shown in Figure 2, the body 32 includes a groove for ring 34), said seating ring 34 having an inner tapered annular surface (as shown in Figure 2, seating ring 34 includes an inner annular surface which tapers along its axial length), at least a portion of said valve seat being formed from a superhard material (para. 0024); and the tapered portion 46 of said tip releasably engaging the seating ring 34 of said valve seat (para. 0020).
Regarding Claim 2, Pauchet further discloses said tapered portion 46 is frustoconical, conical, or hemispherical (tapered portion 46 is frustoconical as shown in Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 3, Pauchet further discloses said superhard material forming said tapered portion 46 and said superhard material forming said valve seat 34 comprise, independently of one another, a diamond-based material, polycrystalline cubic boron nitride, a material with a hardness value exceeding approximately 20 gigaPascals (GPa) based on the Vickers hardness test, and / or a material with a hardness value exceeding approximately 4500 Hardness Brinell (HB) on the Brinell scale (Pauchet discloses at least the superhard materials having a hardness value exceeding approximately 4500 Hardness Brinell (HB) on the Brinell scale in para. 0023).
Regarding Claim 4, Pauchet further discloses said diamond-based material comprises silicon sintered diamond or polycrystalline diamond (polycrystalline diamond; para. 0023).
Regarding Claim 10, Pauchet further discloses said diamond-based material comprises silicon sintered diamond (para. 0027; the superhard material may be made by a sintering process to include diamond particles and silicon).
Regarding Claim 12, Pauchet further discloses said base portion 44 is held within said receiving formation (recess of the stem 42) by epoxy adhesive, brazing, or heat shrinking (these elements are held together by brazing as described in para. 0021).
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.
Claims 5-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vincent (US Patent 3,010,406) in view of Pauchet et al. (WO 2022/159946).
Regarding Claim 5, Vincent discloses a gas lift assembly (as shown in Figure 1), comprising: a housing 12; a chamber (chamber within 12 as shown in Figure 2) having at least one inlet port 25; a piston 48 disposed within said chamber (as shown in Figure 2); a valve assembly (including valve member 33) disposed within said chamber (as shown in Figure 2), said valve assembly comprising: a valve member (including head 33) connected to said piston 48, said valve member comprising a tip 33 and a stem 47; and a valve seat (seat including the radially extending portion of 46 defining the port 45), said valve seat comprising a seating ring (the radially extending portion of 46 defining the port 45) and a body (the portion extending axially from the seating ring defines a body); whereby fluid entering said chamber through said at least one inlet port 25 exerts a force on said piston 48 such that said piston 48 and said valve member (including head 33) are moved away from said valve seat (col. 3, lines 27-74).
Vincent does not disclose the stem having a receiving formation for receiving said tip, said tip having a base portion and a tapered portion, said base portion having a larger diameter than said tapered portion, at least a portion of said tip being formed from a superhard material; said body having a receiving formation for receiving said seating ring, said seating ring having an inner tapered annular surface, at least a portion of said valve seat being formed from a superhard material.
Pauchet teaches a valve for use with oil wells (para. 0017) and further teaches the valve including a stem 42 having a receiving formation (recess for base 44 of a tip 28 as shown in Figure 2) for receiving a tip (the recess receives base 44 of the tip), said tip having a base portion 44 and a tapered portion 46, said base portion 44 having a larger diameter than said tapered portion 46 (as shown in Figure 2, base portion 44 includes a portion having a larger diameter than the tapered portion 46), at least a portion of said tip 28 being formed from a superhard material (para. 0023); said body 32 of the valve seat having a receiving formation for receiving a seating ring 34 (as shown in Figure 2, the body 32 includes a groove for ring 34), said seating ring 34 having an inner tapered annular surface (as shown in Figure 2), at least a portion of said valve seat being formed from a superhard material (para. 0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Vincent such that the stem of the valve member and valve seat are provided with the configurations and materials taught by Pauchet for the purpose of providing a structure known in the art which provides enhanced longevity (as taught by Pauchet; para. 0018).
Regarding Claim 6, Vincent further discloses a biasing member 51 operative to drive said piston 48 and said valve member 33 toward said valve seat (as shown in Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 7, Vincent in view of Pauchet further discloses said tapered portion (tapered portion 46 as taught by Pauchet as described above) is frustoconical, conical, or hemispherical (tapered portion 46 as taught by Pauchet is shown to be frustoconical in Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 8, Vincent in view of Pauchet further discloses said superhard material of said tip and said superhard material of said valve seat comprise, independently of one another, a diamond-based material, polycrystalline cubic boron nitride, a material with a hardness value exceeding approximately 20 gigaPascals (GPa) based on the Vickers hardness test, and / or a material with a hardness value exceeding approximately 4500 Hardness Brinell (HB) on the Brinell scale (Pauchet teaches at least the superhard materials having a hardness value exceeding approximately 4500 Hardness Brinell (HB) on the Brinell scale in para. 0023).
Regarding Claim 9, Vincent in view of Pauchet further discloses said diamond-based material comprises silicon sintered diamond or polycrystalline diamond (polycrystalline diamond as taught by Pauchet; para. 0023).
Regarding Claim 11, Vincent in view of Pauchet further discloses said diamond-based material comprises silicon sintered diamond (as taught by Pauchet in para. 0027; the superhard material may be made by a sintering process to include diamond particles and silicon).
Claims 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pauchet et al. (WO 2022/159946).
Regarding Claim 13, Pauchet is silent on the particular connection between the seating ring and the body and therefore does not disclose said seating ring is held within said body by epoxy adhesive, brazing, or heat shrinking.
However, Pauchet teaches a different connection, the connection of the base portion 44 with said receiving formation (recess of the stem 42), is formed by brazing (para. 0021).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Pauchet such that the seating ring is held within said body by brazing as taught by the other connection of Pauchet for the purpose of utilizing a known connection means suitable for valves formed with superhard materials.
Regarding Claim 14, Pauchet discloses a valve assembly (Figure 2 especially), comprising: a valve member, said valve member comprising a tip 28 (tip 28 including 44 and 46) and a stem 42, said stem 42 having a receiving formation (recessed portion of 42 at the right end thereof as shown in Figure 2) for receiving said tip (receiving a portion of 44 of the tip), said tip having a base portion 44 and a tapered portion 46, said base portion 44 having a larger diameter than said tapered portion 46 (as shown in Figure 2, base portion 44 includes a portion having a larger diameter than the tapered portion 46), said tip being formed from a superhard material (the tapered portion of the tip is formed from a superhard material as described in para. 0023), said base portion 44 being held within said receiving formation (recess of the stem 42) by epoxy adhesive, brazing, or heat shrinking (these elements are held together by brazing as described in para. 0021); a valve seat 30, said valve seat 30 comprising a seating ring 34 and a body 32 having an opening therethrough (as shown in Figure 2), said body 32 having a receiving formation for receiving said seating ring 34 (as shown in Figure 2, the body 32 includes a groove for ring 34), said seating ring 34 having an inner tapered annular surface (as shown in Figure 2, seating ring 34 includes an inner annular surface which tapers along its axial length), at least a portion of said valve seat being formed from a superhard material (para. 0024); the tapered portion 46 of said tip releasably engaging the seating ring 34 of said valve seat (para. 0020).
Pauchet is silent on the particular connection between the seating ring and the body and therefore does not disclose said seating ring is held in said body by epoxy adhesive, brazing, or heat shrinking.
However, Pauchet teaches a different connection, the connection of the base portion 44 with said receiving formation (recess of the stem 42), is formed by brazing (para. 0021).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Pauchet such that the seating ring is held within said body by brazing as taught by the other connection of Pauchet for the purpose of utilizing a known connection means suitable for valves formed with superhard materials.
Regarding Claim 15, Pauchet further discloses said tapered portion 46 forms the endmost point of said valve member (as shown in Figure 2, the tapered portion includes tip 48).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 5, and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, applicant argues that Miller fails to teach the new limitations of the base portion has a larger diameter than the tapered portion. However, newly applied Pauchet teaches a valve tip including a base portion 44 having a larger diameter than a tip portion 46 (as shown in Figure 2). Furthermore, Figure 2 of Pauchet shows the tip portion 46 forms the endmost point of the valve member.
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 KEVIN MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached on (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 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.
/KEVIN F MURPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights