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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 8/26/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 8/26/25.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the first segment has a groove and is located intermediate to the suction bore than the second segment” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: See drawing objection above and 112 rejection below.
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 1-17 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. In claim 1, “wherein the first segment has a groove and is located intermediate to the suction bore than the second segment”, the examiner cannot tell if the applicant is talking about the first segment or the groove is located intermediate to the suction bore than the second segment. The examiner does not see this feature disclosed in the specification as the word “intermediate” in not used. Also, the examiner would like to point out that the seal, if that’s what the applicant means, appears intermediate to the first segment and not suction bore. Also, it appears arbitrary where the first and second segments begin and end making the claim language even more unclear. In claims 9 and 10, the “stuffing box packing” is not disclosed thus is unclear what the metes and bounds are of these claims. In claim 14, “the groove” is unclear and indefinite as “a groove” is already cited in claim 1 with “a seal that is positioned in the groove”, and it appears that the applicant is talking about “the endless groove” mentioned in claim 14.
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.
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) 1-16, as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blume US 6,382,940.
Regarding claim 1, Blume discloses an apparatus (Figs. 9a and 10), comprising:
a fluid end housing 50 in which a plurality of bores 108, 110, 112, including a plunger bore 110 and a suction bore 108 or 112 (“configured to receive a plunger” and “configured to receive a suction valve” means only that the bores are capable of doing so which they are and since the applicant has still not provided anything positively claimed that makes them specifically plunger or suction, the bores can be identified as anything), are formed, wherein the plunger bore has a first segment (intermediate to the middle of the housing and near 125) and a second segment (intermediate to outer opening and wider), wherein the first segment has a groove (see Figs. 9a and 10), and wherein the second segment has a greater diameter than the first segment (see Figs. 9a and 10, wider near outer opening);
a seal (see Fig. 10) that is positioned in the groove; and
a closure (see Fig. 10, closure in bore 110) installed within the plunger bore and configured to receive a plunger (only need be “configured to” and the valve is seen as the plunger), wherein the seal engages an exterior surface of the closure. Blume lacks the first segment or the groove (see 112 rejections) is located intermediate to the suction bore than the second segment. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blume to place the groove or first segment intermediate to the suction bore as a matter of simple substitution of location where the groove is located.
Regarding claim 2, Blume discloses the closure comprises: a cylindrical first portion joined to a cylindrical second portion; in which the second portion is sized to correspond with the second segment of the plunger bore; and in which the first portion is sized to correspond with the first segment of the plunger bore (see Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 3. The apparatus of claim 2, further comprising: a stuffing box packing installed within the second portion of the closure and configured to surround the plunger (see Fig. 10, the part in which the plunger (valve) is in).
Regarding claim 4, Blume discloses a maximum diameter of the second portion is greater than a maximum diameter of the groove (See Figs. 9a and 10).
Regarding claim 5, Blume lacks a retainer securing the closure within the plunger bore. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a retainer to secure the closure as that it does not come out and/or “obvious to try” a closure to keep the closure in place.
Regarding claim 6, Blume modified in claim 5 would provide the retainer has opposed first and second surfaces; in which the closure has opposed first and second surfaces; and in which the first surface of the closure abuts the second surface of the retainer.
Regarding claim 7, Blume modified in claim 5 would provide the retainer, closure, and fluid end housing are separate components.
Regarding claim 8, Blume lacks the groove comprises: a base joined to two parallel side walls. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the groove to be a base joined to two parallel side walls as a matter of simple substitution of shapes and/or “obvious to try” the shape of the groove to be a base joined to two parallel side walls to make the seal fit better.
Regarding claim 9, Blume discloses a stuffing box packing installed within the closure and configured to surround the plunger (in Fig. 10, the stuffing box packing is what the plunger (valve) rides on).
Regarding claim 10, Blume lacks the stuffing box packing is removable from the fluid end housing without removing the closure. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stuffing box packing to be removable from the fluid end housing without removing the closure as a matter of “obvious to try” to make it removable with less steps and/or as a matter of simple substitution to make it easier to remove.
Regarding claim 11, Blume discloses the closure is a stuffing box sleeve (may be seen as such).
Regarding claim 12 Blume discloses a maximum diameter of the closure is greater than a maximum diameter of the groove (see Figs. 9a and 10).
Regarding claim 13, Blume discloses the plurality of bores further includes a discharge bore 112, the apparatus further comprising: a plug situated at least partially within the discharge bore, the plug comprising a sealing surface (see Fig. 10, outer or inner plug).
Regarding claim 14, Blume discloses the discharge bore comprises an endless groove that is configured to receive a plug seal (any part of the discharge bore may be seen as an endless groove and the plug seal is either the outer or inner plug that seals the discharge bore).
Regarding claim 15, Blume discloses a plug seal situated within the an endless groove, the plug seal configured to contact the sealing surface of the plug so as to form a barrier to fluid flow (may be outer or inner plug).
Regarding claim 16, further comprising a plug seal situated within the an endless groove, in which a portion of the plug seal is not contained within the an endless groove and extends beyond the an endless groove (may be outer or inner plug).
Claim(s) 17, as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blume US 6,382,940 in view of Chervenak et al. US 4,128,109.
Regarding claim 17, Blume lacks the plug comprises a tungsten carbide coating. Chervenak discloses a tungsten carbide coating. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plug of Blume to have a tungsten carbide coating as disclosed by Chervenak as Chervenak teaches that it provides abrasion resistance and/or “obvious to try” a tungsten carbide coating as disclosed by Chervenak to the plug of Blume make it more abrasion resistant.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 2/1/26 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US 12,270,491 and US 11,143,315 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues the objections to the drawings and specification by amending claim 1 to use the term “intermediate” instead of “closer to…than” which is still unclear and indefinite and also actually appears to be much broader than the original claim. The applicant did not point out exactly what was meant by the original claim “closer to” or this new claim language of “intermediate”. Regarding applicant arguments to the 103 rejections to claim 1 as being obvious over Blume, about “a plunger bore configure to receive a plunger” and “a suction bore configure to receive a suction valve”, the applicant still isn’t claiming the plunger or the suction valve as the bores need only be “configured to” be able to be used for a plunger or a suction valve which since they are just “bores”, can work in them. It is blatantly obvious to use a groove having a seal anywhere in a housing to provide protection against leakage of fluid in the housing. Regarding applicant’s arguments to the 103 rejections to claims 2-16 as being obvious over Blume, they are because they depend from claim 1, which the examiner has addressed above. Regarding applicant’s arguments to the 103 rejection to claim 10 as being obvious over Blume, the examiner agrees that this is not shown in Blume but believes that this is “obvious to try” and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding applicant’s arguments to the 103 rejection to claim 14 as being obvious over Blume, it seen to have endless grooves and need only be “configured to receive a seal”, to which a seal may fit in any groove. Regarding the 103 rejection argument to claim 17, it is based on claim 1. The applicant has fixed the double patenting rejection by submitting approved terminal disclaimers.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOHN BASTIANELLI whose telephone number is (571)272-4921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-4921 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/John Bastianelli/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
571-272-4921