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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-10, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by applicant’s cited Myers et al (US 20190040966).
Regarding claim 1, Myers (FIG 5 or 8 or 9; diverging embodiments relied on for diverging dependent claims) discloses “A valve seat assembly for a reciprocating pump (FIG 1), the valve seat assembly comprising:
a support sleeve (166, 174) configured to couple to a fluid end casing of the reciprocating pump at a fluid end bore of the reciprocating pump (in FIGs 1-3), wherein the support sleeve comprises a first surface with a first mating feature (inner area that interacts with 196); and
a strike ring (196) configured to engage with a valve (144, FIG 3) to block fluid flow through the fluid end bore, wherein the strike ring comprises a second surface with a second mating feature (outer area of 196 that interacts with 166, 174) configured to mate with the first mating feature of the support sleeve to couple to the support sleeve (see FIGs), and the second surface covers the first surface while the support sleeve and the strike ring are coupled to one another to block exposure of the first surface to the valve (in all cases, 196 covers 166/174 relative to 144).”
Regarding claim 2, Myers (FIG 5 or 8 or 9) discloses “wherein the support sleeve is composed of a first material (steel, para 75), and the strike ring is composed of a second material (tungsten carbide, para 76), harder than the first material (understood in the art that tungsten carbide is harder than steel and that is the intention of Myers).”
Regarding claim 3, Myers (FIG 5 or 8 or 9) discloses “wherein the second material comprises a carbide material (para 76).”
Regarding claim 4, Myers (FIG 5 or 8 or 9) discloses “wherein the support sleeve is configured to block contact between a radially extending surface of the strike ring and the fluid end casing (FIG 3, sleeve is radially between the casing and at least a portion of the outer wall of 196 in all embodiments).”
Regarding claim 5, Myers (FIG 8) discloses “wherein the strike ring is configured to engage with the support sleeve at a plurality of joints (302, 304) via the first mating feature and the second mating feature to couple to the support sleeve (FIG 8), wherein a first joint (304) of the plurality of joints extends along a central axis of the fluid end bore (vertically) and a second joint (302) of the plurality of joints extends transverse to the central axis (radial) to block relative movement between the support sleeve and the strike ring along a plurality of directions (configuration of coupling fixes axial and transverse movement of 196).”
Regarding claim 6, Myers (FIG 5) discloses “wherein the first mating feature of the support sleeve comprises a groove (receiving area for 196 seen to be a “groove” cut into 174), and the second mating feature of the strike ring is configured to insert into the groove to couple the strike ring to the support sleeve (see FIG 5).”
Regarding claim 8, Myers (FIG 8 or 9) discloses “wherein one of the first mating feature of the support sleeve or the second mating feature of the strike ring includes a convex surface (rounded inner edge of sleeve that abuts 196 seen to be convex), the other of the first mating feature or the second mating feature includes a concave surface (rounded outer edge of 196 seen as concave), and the convex surface and the concave surface are configured to engage with one another to couple the strike ring to the support sleeve (see FIGs).”
Regarding claim 9, Myers (FIG 9) discloses “wherein the first mating feature of the support sleeve and the second mating feature of the strike ring comprise corresponding wedge mating features (mating shape in FIG 9 includes a rounded angled shape between the sleeve and 196; this rounded angled shape seen to read on “wedge”) configured to interlock with one another to couple the strike ring to the support sleeve (FIG 9).”
Regarding claim 10, Myers (FIG 8) discloses “wherein the strike ring comprises a third surface (181), opposite the first surface (opposite relative to the thickness of 196), configured to engage with the valve to block fluid flow through the fluid end bore (FIG 3), and the third surface is angled with respect to the first surface (angled relative to right angles of mating surfaces).”
Regarding claim 16, Myers (FIG 5 or 8 or 9) discloses “A valve seat assembly for a reciprocating pump (FIG 1), the valve seat assembly comprising:
a support sleeve (166, 174) configured to couple to a fluid end casing of the reciprocating pump (FIGs 2-3), wherein the support sleeve defines at least a portion of a bore through which fluid may flow (at least at the bottom end, even in the case of FIGs 8 and 9 when compared to FIG 3), and the support sleeve comprises a first mating feature (inner area that interacts with 196); and
a strike ring (196) configured to engage a strike surface of a valve (144; at 185 in FIG 3) to block fluid flow through the bore (FIG 3), wherein the strike ring comprises a second mating feature (outer area of 196 that interacts with 166, 174) configured to mate with the first mating feature of the support sleeve to couple to the support sleeve (see FIGs), the strike ring is configured to block contact between the strike surface of the valve and the support sleeve while the support sleeve and the strike ring are coupled to one another (in all cases, 196 covers 166/174 relative to 144), and the support sleeve is configured to block contact between the strike ring and the fluid end casing while the support sleeve and the strike ring are coupled to one another (due to the support sleeve, 196 is held in place and spaced from 128 [FIG 3]).”
Regarding claim 17, Myers (FIG 5 or 8 or 9) discloses “wherein the strike ring comprises a first surface (bottom surface) comprising the second mating feature and a second surface (181), opposite the first surface, configured to engage the strike surface of the valve (see FIGs).”
Regarding claim 18, Myers (FIG 8 or 9) discloses “wherein the strike ring comprises an inner surface (172) defining at least another portion of the bore, and the second surface is angled with respect to the inner surface (see FIGs).”
Regarding claim 19, Myers (FIG 8 or 9) discloses “wherein the second mating feature of the strike ring comprises a protrusion (170; axially protrudes relative to the strike portion), and the first mating feature of the support sleeve is configured to receive the protrusion (protrusion is within the sleeve) to couple the strike ring to the support sleeve (see FIGs).”
Regarding claim 20, Myers (FIG 5) discloses “wherein the strike ring terminates prior to the bore defined by the support sleeve (see FIG 5).”
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myers in view of applicant’s Tsuno (US 4951920).
Regarding claim 7, Myers is silent regarding “wherein the first mating feature of the support sleeve comprises an extension, and the second mating feature of the strike ring is configured to receive the extension to couple the strike ring to the support sleeve.”
However, Tsuno (FIG 1c) teaches a two-piece hard valve ring (analogous to Myers) where a “support sleeve” 1 has an “extension” (left neck portion) that is received by a “strike ring” 2 to define a mating feature that couples the sleeve and ring together.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to modify the shape of the mating feature of Myers such that “wherein the first mating feature of the support sleeve comprises an extension, and the second mating feature of the strike ring is configured to receive the extension to couple the strike ring to the support sleeve”, as taught by Tsuno, as providing a known alternative shape to achieve the same expected result (strike ring couples to and covers critical portion of sleeve) would be within routine skill in the art).
Claim(s) 11-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myers in view of King et al (US 20120181470).
Regarding claim 11, Myers (FIG 8 or 9) discloses “A valve seat assembly for a reciprocating pump, the valve seat assembly comprising:
a support sleeve (166, 174) configured to couple to a fluid end casing of the reciprocating pump to extend at least partially into a fluid end bore of the reciprocating pump (FIG 2);
a strike ring (196) configured to engage with a strike surface of a valve to block fluid flow through the fluid end bore (FIG 3), wherein the strike ring is configured to abut the support sleeve (see FIGs)…”
Myers is silent regarding “a coupling ring configured to clamp the support sleeve and the strike ring to one another, wherein the strike ring and the coupling ring block contact between the support sleeve and the strike surface of the valve while the support sleeve, the strike ring, and the coupling ring are coupled to one another.”
However, King (FIG 5) teaches a hard multi-piece valve seat (analogous to Myers having a “support sleeve” 103 to mount the seat in a housing (FIG 1), “a strike ring” 101 configured as a valve-abutting piece (FIG 5), where the sleeve and ring are held together via a clamp ring 105.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to modify the seat of Myers such that it includes “a coupling ring configured to clamp the support sleeve and the strike ring to one another, wherein the strike ring and the coupling ring block contact between the support sleeve and the strike surface of the valve while the support sleeve, the strike ring, and the coupling ring are coupled to one another”, as taught by King, to provide an isolated coupling component that can be separately serviced for ease of assembly/disassembly.
Regarding claim 12, Myers (FIG 8 or 9) discloses “wherein the strike ring is composed of a material that is harder than that of the support sleeve (para 75-76; understood in the art that tungsten carbide is harder than steel and that is the intention of Myers).”
Regarding claim 13, Myers (FIG 8 or 9) discloses “wherein the support sleeve is composed of steel (para 75).”
Regarding claim 15, Myers (FIG 8 or 9) discloses “wherein the support sleeve is configured to block contact between the strike ring and the fluid end casing (FIG 3, sleeve is radially between the casing and at least a portion of the outer wall of 196 in all embodiments).”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 14, closest art combination Myers/King are silent regarding “comprising a cover ring configured to engage with the fluid end casing to compress against the coupling ring to cause the coupling ring to clamp the support sleeve and the strike ring to one another.”
While possible, it would not be obvious to further modify Myers king to include this feature without undue hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Devices similar to the application are disclosed by Kohler et al (US 20190143415) and Antoff et al (US 6641112).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK C WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)431-0767. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 PM.
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, 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 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.
/PATRICK C WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights