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 .
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 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.
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 7 and 9 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a portion of the inner seat surface” in line 2; however, the claim is unclear as to if this recitation refers to the “portion of the inner seat surface” recited in parent claim 1, lines 12-13, or a different element therefrom.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the outer surface of the valve element” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that the recitation “the outer surface of the valve element” in claim 7, lines 2-3, should read --the outer valve surface of the valve element--.
Similarly, claim 9 recites the limitation “the outer surface of the valve element” in lines 2-3 and is rejected for the same reason as claim 7, above.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the portion of the inner seat surface corresponding to a circumferential line axis” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-11 and 13-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US3614056 (“Alvarez”).
Regarding claim 1, Alvarez discloses a valve assembly comprising:
a valve body (“10”);
a control shaft (“28”) coupled to the valve body;
a valve element (“16”) coupled to the control shaft for movement through a range of positions (between fully open and fully closed positions; see specification col. 4, lines 7-11), the valve element having an outer valve surface (radially outer, spherical surface of ball “16”) defining an outer radial diameter (diameter of radially outer, spherical surface of ball “16”); and
a valve seat (“15”) disposed in the valve body and comprising:
a cylindrical body portion (“15a” and/or “15b”; see fig. 5) having an inner seat surface (“90”) and an opposing outer seat surface (exterior surface of seat portion(s) “15a” and/or “15b” facing away from ball “16”), the inner seat surface defining an inner radial diameter (diameter of surface “90”), and
at least one seal (“92”) disposed around the opposing outer seat surface (see fig. 1) sealingly coupling the valve seat to the valve body,
wherein the cylindrical body portion is configured to self-adjust the inner radial diameter to correspond to the outer radial diameter of the valve element to maintain a portion (portion of seat “15” in zones “A” and/or “B”; see fig. 4) of the inner seat surface in contact with the outer valve surface of the valve element through the range of positions.
Regarding claim 2, Alvarez discloses the control shaft (“28”) rotationally moves (90 degree rotation between fully open and fully closed positions; see specification col. 4, lines 7-11) relative to the valve body (“10”).
Regarding claim 3, Alvarez discloses the valve element (“16”) moves in conjunction with (via interaction between ball groove “32” shaft rib “30”) the control shaft (“28”) relative to the valve body (“10”).
Regarding claim 4, Alvarez discloses the range of positions (between fully open and fully closed positions; see specification col. 4, lines 7-11) of the valve element comprise between and including a closed position (position where ball passage “18” is occluded from inlet port “12”) and a maximum open position (position illustrated in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Alvarez discloses the cylindrical body portion (“15a” and/or “15b”) is formed from a polymeric material (Vespel®; see specification col. 1, lines 43-46) which maintains dimensional stability at temperatures ranging from -40°C to 66°C (Vespel® maintains strength at cryogenic temperatures -196°C to above 480°C).
Regarding claim 6, Alvarez discloses the polymeric material (Vespel®; see specification col. 1, lines 43-46) comprises a polyimide-filled polytetrafluoroethylene compound (Vespel®, which a polyimide-filled polytetrafluoroethylene; see specification col. 1, lines 43-46).
Regarding claim 7, Alvarez discloses the self-adjustment of the inner radial diameter (diameter of surface “90”) of the cylindrical body portion (“15a” and/or “15b”) maintains a portion (portion of seat “15” in zones “A” and/or “B”; see fig. 4) of the inner seat surface (“90”) in contact with the outer surface (spherical outer surface of ball “16”) of the valve element (“16”).
Regarding claim 8, Alvarez discloses the inner seat surface (“90”) defines a cylindrical line axis (longitudinal axis of flow path extending between inlet port “12” and outlet port “14”) which is coextensive with a plane (plane defined by mating surfaces of seat portions “15a” and “15b”) extending through a length (longitudinal length) of the control shaft (“28”) and bisecting the cylindrical body portion (“15a” and/or “15b).
Regarding claim 9, Alvarez discloses the portion (portion of seat “15” in zones “A” and/or “B”; see fig. 4) of the inner seat surface (“90”) corresponding to a circumferential line axis is maintained in contact with the portion (exterior surface portion of ball “15” in zones “A” and/or “B”; see fig. 4) of the outer surface (spherical outer surface of ball “16”) of the valve element (“16”) through the range of positions.
Regarding claim 10, Alvarez discloses the cylindrical body portion (“15a” and/or “15b”) is continuous along a radial length (length along circumference of seat “15”), except at the clearance hole (“26”).
Regarding claim 11, Alvarez discloses the cylindrical body portion (“15a” and/or “15b”) is non-continuous along a radial length (seat material is non-continuous along circumference at clearance hole “26”).
Regarding claim 13, Alvarez discloses a valve seat (“15”) for use in a valve assembly (see fig. 1), the valve assembly comprising a valve body (“10”), the valve body comprising an inner body surface (interior surface of valve body “10” abutting seat “15”); a control shaft (“28”) coupled to the valve body for movement relative to the valve body; and a valve element (“16”) coupled to the control shaft for movement in conjunction with the control shaft relative to the valve body through a range of positions (between fully open and fully closed positions; see specification col. 4, lines 7-11) with the valve element comprising an outer surface (exterior, spherical surface of ball “16”) defining an outer radial diameter (diameter of spherical surface of ball “16”),
the valve seat comprising:
a cylindrical body portion (“15a” and/or “15b”) having an inner seat surface (“90”) and an opposing outer seat surface (exterior surface of seat portion(s) “15a” and/or “15b” facing away from ball “16”), the cylindrical body portion defining a clearance hole (“26”) extending from the inner seat surface and the opposing outer seat surface for receipt of the control shaft, the inner seat surface defining an inner radial diameter (diameter of seat surface “90”), and
wherein the cylindrical body portion is configured to self-adjust the inner radial diameter to correspond to the outer radial diameter of the valve element to maintain a portion (portion of seat “15” in zones “A” and/or “B”; see fig. 4) of the inner seat surface in contact with an outer valve surface (exterior, spherical surface of ball “16”) of the valve element through the range of positions (between fully open and fully closed positions; see specification col. 4, lines 7-11).
Regarding claim 14, Alvarez discloses movement of the control shaft (“28”) comprises rotational movement (90 degree rotation between fully open and fully closed positions; see specification col. 4, lines 7-11).
Regarding claim 15, Alvarez discloses the range of positions (between fully open and fully closed positions; see specification col. 4, lines 7-11) of the valve element (“16”) comprises between and including a closed position (position where ball passage “18” is occluded from inlet port “12”) and a maximum open position (position illustrated in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Alvarez discloses the cylindrical body portion (“15a” and/or “15b”) is formed from a polymeric material (Vespel®; see specification col. 1, lines 43-46).
Regarding claim 17, Alvarez discloses the polymeric material (Vespel®) comprises a polyimide-filled polytetrafluoroethylene compound (Vespel®, which a polyimide-filled polytetrafluoroethylene; see specification col. 1, lines 43-46).
Regarding claim 18, Alvarez discloses the cylindrical body portion (“15a” and/or “15b”) is formed from a material (Vespel®) which maintains dimensional stability at temperatures ranging from -40°C to 66°C (Vespel® maintains strength at cryogenic temperatures -196°C to above 480°C).
Regarding claim 19, Alvarez discloses the cylindrical body portion (“15a” and/or “15b”) is continuous along a radial length (along circumference of seat “15”), except at the clearance hole (“26”).
Regarding claim 20, Alvarez discloses the cylindrical body portion (“15a” and/or “15b”) is non-continuous along a radial length (seat material is non-continuous along circumference at clearance hole “26”).
Regarding claim 21, Alvarez discloses a method for controlling flow of fluid through a valve assembly in a flow pattern (via degree of alignment of inlet port “12” and ball passage “18”), the valve assembly comprising a valve body (“10”), the valve body comprising an inner body surface (surface contacting seat “15”); a control shaft (“28”) coupled to the valve body for movement (rotational movement between fully open and fully closed positions; see specification col. 4, lines 7-11) relative to the valve body; and a valve element (“16”) coupled to the control shaft for movement in conjunction with the control shaft relative to the valve body through a range of positions (between fully open and fully closed positions; see specification col. 4, lines 7-11) with the valve element having an outer surface (outer, spherical surface of ball “16”) defining an outer radial diameter (diameter of spherical surface of ball “16”); and a valve seat (“15”) comprising a cylindrical body portion (“15a” and/or “15b”) having an inner seat surface (“90”) and an opposing outer seat surface (exterior surface of seat portion(s) “15a” and/or “15b” facing away from ball “16”), the cylindrical body portion defining a clearance hole (“26”) extending from the inner seat surface and the opposing outer seat surface for receipt of the control shaft, the inner seat surface defining an inner radial diameter (diameter of surface “90”);
the method comprising:
moving (via control shaft “28”) the valve element from a first position (fully closed position where ball passage “18” is occluded from inlet port “12”) of the range of positions to a second position (see position of fig. 1) of the range of positions, wherein the inner radial diameter of the valve seat is self-adjusted during moving of the valve element to maintain a portion (portion of seat “15” in zones “A” and/or “B”; see fig. 4) of the inner seat surface in contact with the outer surface of the valve element as the valve element moves through the range of positions.
Regarding claim 22, Alvarez discloses movement of the control shaft (“28”) comprises rotational movement (rotational movement between fully open and fully closed positions; see specification col. 4, lines 7-11).
Regarding claim 23, Alvarez discloses the range of positions (rotational movement between fully open and fully closed positions; see specification col. 4, lines 7-11) of the valve element (“16”) comprise between and including a closed position (position where ball passage “18” is occluded from inlet port “12”) and a maximum open position (see position of fig. 1).
Regarding claim 24, Alvarez discloses the cylindrical body portion (“15a” and/or “15b”) is formed from a polymeric material (Vespel®, which a polyimide-filled polytetrafluoroethylene; see specification col. 1, lines 43-46) which maintains dimensional stability at temperatures ranging from -40°C to 66°C (Vespel® maintains strength at cryogenic temperatures -196°C to above 480°C).
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez, as applied to claim 1, in view of US5551467 (“Booth”).
Regarding claim 12, Alvarez discloses the self-adjustment of the inner radial diameter (diameter of surface “90”) of the cylindrical body portion (“15a” and/or “15b”) permits the valve assembly to regulate a flow of a fluid between fluid inlet (“12”) and fluid outlet (“14”) and between the valve element (“16”) and the valve seat (“15”) according to a flow profile (via alignment of ball passage “18” with inlet “12” and/or outlet “14”) through the range of positions (between fully open and fully closed positions; see specification col. 4, lines 7-11).
Alvarez does not disclose the flow profile being a linear flow profile.
However, Booth teaches a valve assembly employed to regulate a flow of a fluid between fluid inlet (“12”) and fluid outlet (“14”) according to a linear flow profile (see claim 3) through a range of positions.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the invention of Alvarez by configuring the valve element to regular a flow of fluid according to a linear flow profile through the range of positions, as taught by Booth, to be more precisely regulate flow through the valve assembly.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 1-24 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-5, 7, 11-14 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11536375 (“Patent A”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the more narrow Patent A claims 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 4, 1, 3, 3, 5, 7, 2, 11, 11, 11, 11, 12, 11, 13, 14, 19, 19, 19, and 19 anticipate the broader Application claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24, respectively.
Claim(s) 1-24 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-5, 7-12 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12297916 (“Patent B”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the more narrow Patent B claims 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 7, 2, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 9, 9, 9, 10, 9, 11, 12, 15, 15, 15, and 15 anticipate the broader Application claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US6021812 discloses a ball plug valve having linear flow regulation therethrough.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hailey K. Do whose direct telephone number is (571)270-3458 and direct fax number is (571)270-4458. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00AM-5:00PM ET) and Friday (8:00AM-12:00PM ET).
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 supervisors, Kenneth Rinehart at 571-272-4881, or Craig M. Schneider 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAILEY K. DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights