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(s) was/were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) was/were considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Figs. 1-3 in the reply filed on 06/02/2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 17 and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/02/2026.
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 (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.
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, 2, 6, 10, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smart (U.S. Patent 5,370,151).
In regards to claim 1, Smart discloses a disc (40) for a pressure relief valve (10), the disc (40) comprising a disc body that includes: a core (51) defining a central axis of the disc (40), and a flange (50) flexibly coupled to the core, the flange (50) defining a seat surface of the disc (40),wherein the seat surface is axially movable relative to the core (51).
In regards to claim 2, the flange (50) is resiliently biased toward an unloaded configuration relative to the core (51), wherein the seat surface extends substantially radial to the central axis in the unloaded configuration.
In regards to claim 6, the flange (50) extends radially outward from the core (51).
In regards to claim 10, the disc body defines an annular groove (52) above the flange (50), wherein the annular groove (52) is defined at least partially by the flange (50).
In regards to claim 13, Smart further discloses a disc holder (30) defining a disc cavity that accommodates the core (51) of the disc (40)
In regards to claim 20, Smart further discloses a nozzle (41) defining a bore, an opening at an end of the bore, and a seat surface that surrounds a perimeter to the opening, wherein the disc assembly is translatable between an open configuration in which the seat surface of the disc is spaced from the seat surface of the nozzle, and a closed configuration in which the seat surface of the disc engages the seat surface of the nozzle. See Fig. 2.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alberts et al. (U.S. Patent 5,011,116).
In regards to claim 1, Alberts discloses a disc (22) for a pressure relief valve (10), the disc (22) comprising a disc body that includes: a core (36) defining a central axis of the disc (22), and a flange (40) flexibly coupled to the core (22), the flange (40) defining a seat surface (38)of the disc (22), wherein the seat surface (38) is axially movable relative to the core (22).
In regards to claim 2, the flange (40) is resiliently biased toward an unloaded configuration relative to the core (22), wherein the seat surface (38) extends substantially radial to the central axis in the unloaded configuration.
In regards to claim 5, the flange (40) includes: a distal portion that defines the seat surface (38), and a proximal portion that flexibly couples the distal portion to the core (22),wherein a ratio of a smallest axial thickness of the proximal portion to a largest axial thickness of the distal portion is about 0.20 to about 0.32. See col. 3, line 63 - col. 4, line 9.
In regards to claim 6, the flange (40) extends radially outward from the core (22).
In regards to claim 11, the disc body defines a recess (R), wherein the seat surface (38) extends outward from an outer perimeter of the recess (R)
PNG
media_image1.png
682
594
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smart in view of Martin et al. (U.S. Publication 2006/0157116), hereinafter “Martin”.
Smart discloses all of the elements as discussed above.
Smart does not specifically disclose that the disc body comprises polytetrafluoroethylene. However, Martin teaches a safety valve wherein a sealing member is made of polytetrafluoroethylene (para. [0008]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have designed the disc body of Smart from polytetrafluoroethylene to provide a chemically inert and wide temperature array seal as taught by Martin.
Claim(s) 13-15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howes et al. (U.S. Patent 4,726,395), hereinafter “Howes” in view of Alberts.
In regards to claim 13, Howes discloses a disc assembly including a disc (31), and a disc holder (19) defining a disc cavity that accommodates a core of the disc (31).
Howes does not specifically disclose the disc according to claim 1. However, Alberts teaches a safety valve according to claim 1 as discussed above.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the assembly of Howes with the disc of Alberts to absorb closing shocks (see Alberts abstract)
In regards to claim 14, the disc holder (19) includes a frustoconical skirt surface (S) extending outward from an outer perimeter of the disc cavity.
PNG
media_image2.png
140
395
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 15, Howes, as modified, discloses that the disc cavity further accommodates the flange of the disc.
In regards to claim 19, Howes, as modified, discloses that the disc holder includes a frustoconical skirt surface extending outward from an outer perimeter of the holder surface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7-9, 12, and 16 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to R.K. Arundale whose telephone number is 571-270-3453. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881, and Craig Schneider can be reached 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ROBERT K ARUNDALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights