DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-19, 21, and 22 are pending for consideration following applicant’s amendment filed 7/15/2026.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 7/15/2026. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “for receiving and retaining the a deformed flexible disc seat” (line 2 of the claim) should be “for receiving and retaining the deformed flexible disc seat”. 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.
Claims 5 and 16 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.
Claims 5 and 16 each recite “the engagement surface of the metallic body seat comprises a metallic o-ring structure”. However, claims 1 and 11 (from which claims 5 and 16 each at least indirectly depend) each recite the engagement surface comprising a “protrusion”. It is clear from applicant’s specification as filed that the metallic o-ring structure and the protrusion are the same element. Therefore, it is unclear whether the claims are intended for the metallic o-ring structure to require an additional element or further define the protrusion.
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, 7, 8, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rain (US Patent 10,125,874).
Regarding Claim 1, Rain discloses (Figure 5 especially) a swing check valve (swing check valve as shown in Figure 1), the swing check valve comprising: a housing (housing 102 as shown in Figure 1); a disc (shown at 104 in Figure 1, 204 in Figure 5; Rain discloses the valve 200 of Figure 5 may be substantially similar to and include similar or the same components as the valve 100 of Figures 1-4; col. 8, lines 61-65); and a sealing arrangement between the housing 102 and disc 204, the sealing arrangement comprising: a flexible disc seat 208 (seat 208 is a low pressure seat having a relatively lower hardness and inherently includes some flexibility); and a metallic body seat 210 (208 and 210 provide a metal-to-metal seal; col. 9, lines 16-19); wherein the metallic body seat 210 comprises an engagement surface (surface of 210 directly opposite the seat 208 as shown in the annotated Figure 5 below) for engaging the flexible disc seat 208, the engagement surface comprising a protrusion for engaging the flexible disc seat (the engagement surface of 210 includes a raised portion defining a protrusion directly opposite the seat 208 as shown in the two annotated Figure 5’s below; i.e. the portion between the dotted lines in the annotated Figure 5 forms a protrusion which protrudes from the lower portion of the body seat).
PNG
media_image1.png
650
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
724
714
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Rain further discloses the engagement surface of the metallic body seat (engagement surface of 210 defined as shown in the annotated Figure 5 above) is located radially-inward from a recessed portion of the engagement surface (as shown in the annotated Figure 5 above, the engagement surface of 210 is radially-inward from the recessed portion defined by the chamfer at the outer periphery of 210).
Regarding Claim 3, Rain further discloses the engagement surface of the metallic body seat 210 extends continuously around the body seat 210 (this is necessarily provided to ensure sealing around the entire circumference of the valve).
Regarding Claim 4, Rain is seen as further disclosing the metallic body seat 210 is removable from the housing (102/202; Figure 1 shows the seat 110 formed as a separate component from the body 102 and col. 8, lines 61-65, describes the valve of Figure 5 as including the same components as the valve of Figure 1; therefore, because 210 may be formed as a separate component from housing 202, the seat 210 is seen to be “removable” from the housing because there is at least some means to allow for removal, including cutting the seat from the housing; it is noted that applicant’s specification as filed does not provide a special definition of the term “removable” and therefore the term is given its broadest reasonable interpretation which merely requires the seat to be capable of being removed from the housing).
Regarding Claim 7, Rain further discloses the flexible disc seat 208 is located within a seat cavity (cavity within 204 for 208 as shown in the annotated Figure 5 above).
Regarding Claim 8, Rain further discloses the seat cavity comprises a recess (the seat cavity forms a recess of the disc 204 as shown in the annotated Figure 5 above) for receiving and retaining the deformed flexible disc seat during sealing (i.e. the flexible disc seat 208 is necessarily deformed during sealing to allow 206 to engage 210, the deformed flexible disc seat 208 necessarily being received in the recess of 204).
Regarding Claim 10, Rain further discloses the flexible disc seat 208 is held in place by a retaining ring 230.
Regarding Claim 11, Rain further discloses a hard stop 206 on the disc 204 configured for contact by the metallic body seat 210 at higher pressures when the flexible disc seat 208 compresses beyond a stopping point provided by the disc seat (as shown in Figure 5, the flexible disc seat 208 must compress a predetermined amount before the hard stop 206 engages the metallic body seat 210).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Witkowski (US Patent 11,512,781).
Regarding Claim 1, Witkowski discloses a swing check valve (swing check valve as shown in Figure 1), the swing check valve comprising: a housing 12; a disc (clapper 16 forms a disc as shown in Figure 1); and a sealing arrangement between the housing 12 and disc 16, the sealing arrangement comprising: a flexible disc seat 36; and a metallic body seat 14 (the components of the clapper valve 10 are preferably constructed of a suitable metal; col. 2, lines 44-45; “Metal interface” as shown in Figure 4 shows seat 14 formed of metal); wherein the metallic body seat 14 comprises an engagement surface (surface of 14 facing the clapper 16) for engaging the flexible disc seat 36 (as shown in Figure 4), the engagement surface comprising a protrusion (the portion of 14 radially outside of the groove 32 provides a protrusion relative to the groove 32) for engaging the flexible disc seat 36 (the protrusion portion of 14 radially outside of the groove 32 engages the flexible disc valve 36 as shown in Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 3, Witkowski further discloses the engagement surface (surface of 14 facing the clapper 16) of the metallic body seat 14 extends continuously around the body seat (this is necessarily performed to achieve the seal with 36).
Regarding Claim 4, Witkowski further discloses the metallic body seat 14 is removable from the housing 12 (Figure 1 shows a threaded connection between 14 and 12 which allows 14 to be removed from 12 given sufficient force).
Regarding Claim 11, Witkowski further discloses a hard stop on the disc (i.e. the metal portion of the disc 16 providing the metal interface shown in Figure 4) configured for contact by the metallic body seat 14 at higher pressures when the flexible disc seat 36 compresses beyond a stopping point provided by the disc seat (as shown in Figure 6, the flexible disc seat 36 extends beyond the metal surface of the clapper 16 and therefore must compress a predetermined amount before the hard stop metal surface of 16 engages the metallic body seat 14 as shown in Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 12, Witkowski discloses a swing check valve (swing check valve as shown in Figure 1), the swing check valve comprising: a housing 12; a disc (clapper 16 forms a disc as shown in Figure 1); and a sealing arrangement between the housing 12 and disc 16, the sealing arrangement comprising: a disc seat (including seal 36 and the surface of 16 facing body seat 14); and a metallic body seat 14 (the components of the clapper valve 10 are preferably constructed of a suitable metal; col. 2, lines 44-45; “Metal interface” as shown in Figure 4 shows seat 14 formed of metal); wherein the metallic body seat 14 comprises an engagement surface (surface of 14 facing the clapper 16) for engaging the disc seat (as shown in Figure 4), the engagement surface comprising a protrusion (the portion of 14 radially outside of the groove 32 provides a protrusion relative to the groove 32) for engaging for engaging a flexible elastomeric portion 36 of the disc seat (the protrusion defined radially outside of the groove 32 engaging the flexible elastomeric portion 36 of the disc seat as shown in Figure 4; 36 is disclosed as a deformable thermoplastic material and therefore is an elastomeric portion) and a portion for engaging a metallic portion of the disc seat (radially inner first portion of 14 engaging the metallic portion of the disc seat of 16 as shown in Figure 4 to thereby create the “metal interface” shown in Figure 4) after compressing the flexible elastomeric portion 36 (as shown in Figure 6, the flexible elastomeric portion 36 extends beyond the metal surface of the clapper 16 and therefore must compress a predetermined amount before the metal interface as shown in Figure 4 is achieved).
Regarding Claim 13, Witkowski further discloses the engagement surface of the metallic body seat 14 extends continuously around the body seat (this is necessarily performed to achieve the disclosed sealing).
Regarding Claim 14, Witkowski further discloses the metallic body seat 14 is removable from the housing (Figure 1 shows a threaded connection between 14 and 12 which allows 14 to be removed from 12 given sufficient force).
Regarding Claim 15, Witkowski is seen as further disclosing the metallic body seat 14 comprises a sealing element 30 located between the metallic body seat 14 and the housing 12 (sealing element 30 is located between the metallic body seat 14 and at least a portion of the housing 12, specifically the downstream portion of the housing 12; it is noted that the claim does not require the sealing element to be in sealing contact with the housing).
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.
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.
Claims 5, 15, 16, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witkowski (US Patent 11,512,781) in view of Kwast (US Patent 4,067,359).
Regarding Claims 5 and 16, Witkowski does not disclose the engagement surface of the metallic body seat comprises a metallic o-ring structure.
Kwast teaches a pivoting valve (as best shown in Figure 2) and further teaches an engagement surface (leftward facing surface) of a metallic body seat 140 (the cross section of ring 140 is shown to be metallic in accordance with MPEP 608.02 IX) comprises a metallic o-ring structure (as best shown in Figure 9, the leftward facing surface of 140 includes a projection shaped as an o-ring structure in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Witkowski such that the engagement surface of the metallic body seat includes a metallic o-ring structure as taught by Kwast for the purpose of providing a protruding structure to ensure that adequate contact is made with the deformable seal on the pivoting disc.
Regarding Claim 15, Witkowski is seen as disclosing all of the elements of this claim as described above. Alternatively, in the event that Witkowski is not seen as disclosing a sealing element in the recited location, Kwast teaches a pivoting check valve 10 and further teaches a body seat 140 comprises a sealing element 146 located between the body seat 140 and the housing 20 (as best shown in Figure 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Witkowski to include a sealing element between the seal ring and the housing as taught by Kwast for the purpose of preventing leakage from the valve.
Regarding Claim 21, Witkowski discloses a swing check valve (swing check valve as shown in Figure 1), the swing check valve comprising: a housing 12; a disc (clapper 16 forms a disc as shown in Figure 1); and a sealing arrangement between the housing 12 and disc 16, the sealing arrangement comprising: a flexible disc seat 36; and a metallic body seat 14 (the components of the clapper valve 10 are preferably constructed of a suitable metal; col. 2, lines 44-45; “Metal interface” as shown in Figure 4 shows seat 14 formed of metal); wherein the metallic body seat 14 comprises an engagement surface (surface of 14 facing the clapper 16) for engaging the flexible disc seat 36 (as shown in Figure 4).
Witkowski does not disclose the engagement surface comprises a metallic o-ring structure for engaging the flexible disc seat.
Kwast teaches a pivoting valve (as best shown in Figure 2) and further teaches an engagement surface (leftward facing surface) of a metallic body seat 140 (the cross section of ring 140 is shown to be metallic in accordance with MPEP 608.02 IX) comprises a metallic o-ring structure (as best shown in Figure 9, the leftward facing surface of 140 includes a projection shaped as an o-ring structure in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Witkowski such that the engagement surface of the metallic body seat includes a metallic o-ring structure as taught by Kwast for the purpose of providing a protruding structure to ensure that adequate contact is made with the deformable seal on the pivoting disc.
Claims 6 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witkowski (US Patent 11,512,781) in view of Anderson et al. (US Patent 2,925,827).
Regarding Claims 6 and 17, Witkowski further discloses the flexible disc seat 36 is a deformable thermoplastic material (col. 3, lines 27-35), however Witkowski does not disclose the flexible disc seat (claim 6) or flexible elastomeric portion of the disc seat (claim 17) comprises rubber.
Anderson teaches a clapper valve in which a disc seat 21 is formed of rubber (col. 2, lines 60-66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Witkowski such that the flexible disc seat comprises rubber as taught by Anderson for the purpose of utilizing an alternative, readily available material known in the art to be suitable for use in pivoting check valves.
Claims 18, 19, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witkowski (US Patent 11,512,781) in view of Fuller et al. (US Patent Application 2017/0234441).
Regarding Claim 18, Witkowski does not clearly disclose the flexible elastomeric portion of the disc seat is located within a seat cavity.
Fuller teaches a pivoting clapper valve and further teaches a flexible elastomeric portion 126 of a disc seat (i.e. seat of disc 18) is located within a seat cavity (annular groove 120).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Witkowski such that the flexible elastomeric portion of the disc seat is located within a seat cavity as taught by Fuller for the purpose of facilitating the securing of the seal to the valve member (as taught by Fuller; para. 0122).
Regarding Claim 19, Witkowski in view of Fuller further discloses the seat cavity (120 as taught by Fuller as described above) comprises a recess for receiving and retaining the deformed disc seat during seal (as taught by Fuller, recess as shown in Figure 3D to receive bulbous protrusion 132 of the seal 126).
Regarding Claim 22, Witkowski does not clearly disclose the flexible disc seat is located within a seat cavity (as required by intervening claim 7) and wherein the seat cavity comprises a raised portion that engages the flexible disc seat.
Fuller teaches a pivoting clapper valve and further teaches a flexible disc seat 126 is located within a seat cavity (annular groove 120) and wherein the seat cavity 120 comprises a raised portion 124a (Figure 3D especially) that engages the flexible disc seat 126.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Witkowski such that the flexible disc seat is located within a seat cavity having a raised portion as taught by Fuller for the purpose of facilitating the securing of the seal to the valve member (as taught by Fuller; para. 0122).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that Rain fails to teach “the engagement surface comprising a protrusion for engaging the flexible disc seat” as recited in claim 1. Applicant argues that the term “protrusion” is defined as something that protrudes, i.e., something that juts out from the surrounding surface. These arguments are not persuasive because the center portion of seat 210 of Rain protrudes or juts out relative to the peripheral portion of seat 210. Applicant argues that the chamfered surface of Rain is not equivalent to a protrusion as claimed. These arguments are not persuasive because the chamfered surface is not relied upon as readable on the recited protrusion. Rather, the portion defined within the chamfered surface is protrusion as this portion protrudes relative to the lower portion.
Applicant argues that Witkowski fails to teach “the engagement surface comprising a protrusion for engaging the flexible disc seat” as recited in claim 1. Applicant argues that the portion of seat 14 radially outside of the groove 32 does not form a protrusion because it does not jut out from the metallic body seat 14. These arguments are not persuasive because the groove 32 defines a recessed portion as best shown in Figure 4. Therefore, the portion radially outside of the surface which forms the depth of groove defines a protrusion (i.e. this portion radially outside of the groove “juts out” from the surface which forms the depth of the groove).
Applicant argues with respect to claims 6 and 17 that Witkowski would not be motivated to modify seal 36 to comprise rubber because Witkowski teaches the use of materials that are stiff and more wear resistant. These arguments are not persuasive because Witkowski teaches the use of “deformable” thermoplastic materials as acknowledged in applicant’s arguments. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that rubber would be sufficient to provide a seal as is taught by Anderson.
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