DETAILED ACTION
Non Final
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 Status
Claims 1- 4, 8-15, 48, 51, 53, 55, 56, 60, 82 are pending. Claims 5, 7, 16-47, 49-50, 52, 54, 56, 58-59, 61-81, and 83-90 are canceled. Claims 1- 4, 8-15, 48, 51, 53, 55, 56, 60, 82 are currently amended to correct various punctuation and multiple dependencies.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/09/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, 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, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
It is noted that upon review, no claim terminology was determined to be of sufficient means plus function nonce/style language so as to invoke 35 USC 112 6th paragraph. Any generic terms appeared to be sufficiently modified by their either prepository terms, modifiers or use in the art to take any generic terms out of potential scope of 112 6th. It is noted that during prosecution the claim language may change and thus there is no final disposition on such interpretation until time as the claims may issue.
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 9, 14, 15, and 60 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.
The following Claims recite limitations which have insufficient antecedent basis. The Claims and respective limitations include the following: Claims 9 and 60 each recite, "sealing elements" in line 2 (where the implied limitations have not been previously introduced); Claim 14 "the spring force" in line 1, "the resultant forces" in line 2, "the pressure areas and design pressures" in line 2; Claim 15, "the force which would act…" in line 2, “the presence of vacuum…and atmospheric pressure” in line 3; Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 recites “the spring force is significantly less than he resultant force of the pressure areas and design pressure of the valve” where there is a lack of objective meaningful reference as to what the design pressures are, the actual pressure area sizes and resultant forces therebetween, and how or in what way the spring force is significantly less that those claimed;
Claim 15 recites “the spring provides a higher preload force than the force which would act to open the valve from the presence of vacuum within the valve and atmospheric pressure acting outside the valve” where there is a lack of objective meaningful reference as to how, or if ever the spring higher preload force is greater than these other claimed forces or pressures.
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.
(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.
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.
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, 3, 4, 8-15, 48, 51, 53, 55, 56, 60, 82 is/are rejected (with claims 9, 14, 15 and 60 indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by De-Bourguignon (US 2725891);
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Bourguignon as applied to claim 1 above.
De-Bourguignon discloses in Claim 1: (see at least annotated figure 1 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
814
1160
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A valve (Figures 1-2) to control flow of a fluid under pressure (Col 1 ln 19-23), comprising, a valve body (at 10) with a first port (at 11), and a second port (at 12), to, in part, define a duct (along 1000) therebetween, to duct the flow of the fluid between the first port and the second port, a valve bonnet (23/24/37) removably engaged (via threaded engagement) to the valve body between the first port and the second port (as shown), to further define the duct, a valve member (at 17) having an endless skirt (at 1001) supported by a central spindle (26 via 27) within the duct from the valve bonnet (as centrally and axially maintained), the endless skirt having an outer periphery (facing 18), which the valve body defines an annular chamber (18) about, and the endless skirt having an inner periphery (at 1002) which defines an inner chamber (at 1004), the valve member having a closed position (figure 1) to prevent flow of fluid, and an open position (figure 2) to allow flow of fluid, the endless skirt, when in the closed position, sealing (at 24) against the valve bonnet at a first sealing diameter (outer edge of 22.diam), the endless skirt in sliding and sealing engagement at, and between, the open position and the closed position, with an interior periphery of the annular chamber at a second sealing diameter (at 1006.diam), the first sealing diameter greater than the second sealing diameter (as shown to provide the thickness), a first pressure area (1008.pressure.area) defined between the first sealing diameter and the second sealing diameter, the first pressure area on receipt of fluid under pressure providing a bias toward the closed position (the pressure area at 1008 receives fluid pressure there at in the direction to close), the endless skirt when in the open position defining an opening (between 22 and 24) between the valve bonnet and endless skirt to allow fluid flow between the first port, via the opening and an interior diameter of the endless skirt, and the second port, the central spindle in sliding and sealing engagement (via sealed engagement at 31/32) with the valve bonnet at a third sealing diameter (26.diam), less than the second sealing diameter (as shown), the third sealing diameter defining a second pressure area (at 1010.pressure.area), the second pressure area on receipt of fluid under pressure providing a bias toward the closed position, such that a valve is provided that is biased towards the closed position when in either the open position or closed position (the combination of 1008.pressure.area, 1010.pressure.area as well as fluid pressure against 28a and the spring 46 all act to bias the valve closed.)
De-Bourguignon discloses in Claim 51: [An apparatus that results from…] A method of providing a valve (figures 1 and 2) to control flow of a fluid under pressure, comprising, providing a valve body (at 10) with a first port (at 11), and a second port (at 12), to, in part, define a duct (along 1000) therebetween, to duct the flow of the fluid between the first port and the second port, providing a valve bonnet (23/24/37) removably engaged (via threaded engagement at 1012) to the valve body between the first port and the second port, to further define the duct, providing a valve member (17) having an endless skirt (at 1001) supported by a central spindle (26) within the duct from the valve bonnet, the endless skirt having an outer periphery (facing 18), which the valve body defines an annular chamber (at 18) about, and the endless skirt having an inner periphery (at 1002) which defines an inner chamber (1004), the valve member having a closed position (figure 1) to prevent flow of fluid, and an open position (figure 2) to allow flow of fluid, configuring the endless skirt, when in the closed position, to seal against the valve bonnet at a first sealing diameter (outer edge of 22.diam), the endless skirt in sliding and sealing engagement at, and between, the open position and the closed position, with an interior periphery of the annular chamber at a second sealing diameter (at 1006.diam), the first sealing diameter greater than the second sealing diameter (as shown to provide the thickness), a first pressure area (1008.pressure.area) defined between the first sealing diameter and the second sealing diameter, the first pressure area on receipt of fluid under pressure providing a bias toward the closed position (the pressure area at 1008 receives fluid pressure there at in the direction to close), the endless skirt when in the open position defining an opening (between 22 and 24) between the valve bonnet and endless skirt to allow fluid flow between the first port, via the opening and an interior diameter of the endless skirt, and the second port, the central spindle in sliding and sealing engagement (via sealed engagement at 31/32) with the valve bonnet at a third sealing diameter (26.diam), less than the second sealing diameter (as shown), the third sealing diameter defining a second pressure area (at 1010.pressure.area), the second pressure area on receipt of fluid under pressure providing a bias toward the closed position, such that a valve is provided that is biased towards the closed position when in either the open position or closed position (the combination of 1008.pressure.area, 1010.pressure.area as well as fluid pressure against 28a and the spring 46 all act to bias the valve closed.)
De-Bourguignon discloses in Claim 2: The valve as claimed in claim 1 wherein the second pressure area [can be] larger than the first pressure area. De-Bourguignon does not explicitly disclose: the second pressure area is larger than the first pressure area, but considering one of ordinary skill in the art would consider: providing a thin walled reduced pressure receiving area at the end of the endless skirt for construction of the valve to reduce carrying weight of the valve and maintain enlarged fluid pressure area along the central axis at the tip end of the spindle;
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide a reduced pressure receiving area and thin walled construction of he endless skirt with the skirt pressure facing area less than an enlarged central axis spindle tip end, all for reducing carrying weight of the valve and maintaining centralized fluid pressure along the central axis, for the purpose of for example, efficient balancing of forces and valve operation; especially since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
De-Bourguignon discloses in Claim 3: The valve as claimed in claim 1, wherein the valve body has a valve bonnet aperture (at 1012) to which the valve bonnet is operatively connected to seal the duct, other than the first port and second port.
De-Bourguignon discloses in Claims 4 and 53: wherein the valve bonnet contains or holds an actuator (at actuator piston 41) for the central spindle (26 connected there) to move the valve member between the open position and closed position (and see operation Col 3 ln 7-25.)
De-Bourguignon discloses in Claims 6 and 55: wherein the actuator, or part thereof, is held or contained within the valve body (as shown) by the valve bonnet (as shown) and extends at least in part into the duct.
De-Bourguignon discloses in Claims 8 and 56: wherein the actuator, valve bonnet and valve member are a unitary subassembly that is removable from the valve body (they are all connected in a subassembly and removable by rotational threaded connection at threads at 1012.)
De-Bourguignon discloses in Claims 9 and 60: wherein the valve member and sealing elements alone separate the inlet and outlet volumes (for fluid flow control, where 22 and 24 along with o-rings 21 and 32 provide for fluid sealing when closed, so that no fluid can pass there through.)
De-Bourguignon discloses in Claim 10: The valve as claimed in claim 4 wherein the endless skirt extends in an axis parallel to a main axis of the central spindle and actuator (the three are coaxial and formed via parallel extensions thereof.)
De-Bourguignon discloses in Claim 11: The valve as claimed in claim 1 wherein the endless skirt is of constant cross section, at least on that part in sliding and sealing engagement with the interior periphery of the cavity (the outside diameter facing 18 is constant diameter for sliding engagement.)
De-Bourguignon discloses in Claims 12 and 82: wherein the valve is biased closed by the pressure of the fluid it is controlling (as discussed above.)
De-Bourguignon discloses in Claim 13: The valve as claimed in claim 1, wherein there is a spring (46) which biases the valve closed when no pressure is present.
De-Bourguignon discloses in Claim 14: The valve as claimed in claim 13, wherein the spring force is significantly less than the resultant forces of the pressure areas and design pressures of the valve (as discussed in Col 3 ln 7-25, the spring force pressure can be overcome via the actuator fluid as designed.)
De-Bourguignon discloses in Claim 15: The valve as claimed in claim 13 wherein the spring provides higher pre-load force than the force which would act to open the valve from the presence of vacuum within the valve, and atmospheric pressure acting outside the valve (the spring biased the valve closed when there is no fluid pressure as discussed in Col 3 ln 7-25.)
De-Bourguignon discloses in Claim 48: The valve as claimed in claim 1, wherein the endless skirt is supported from the central spindle by at least one vane (27.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schwaim (US 10001026) discloses an inline shutoff valve with annular skirt; Shalk (US 5826613) discloses a sleeve valve with flow guide and spring biased closing action for the piston actuator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W JELLETT, whose telephone number is 571-270-7497. 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. Ken Rinehart can be reached at (571)-272-4881, or 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 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.
/Matthew W Jellett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights