DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the initial filing dated 7/1/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 filed 9/26/2025 is acknowledged and has been considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement filed 9/26/2025 has several items lined through including:
Foreign Patent Documents Cite No. 6 to “SA8675”;
Foreign Patent Documents Cite No. 7 to “SA13385”.
The references were lined through since the references were not easily obtained and the dates of the references were not provided.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 7/1/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
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(s) 1-6, 10, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jennings (US 20080099710) in view of Moseley et al. (US 11174958).
Regarding claim 1, the Jennings reference discloses the structure wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would perform the method of making and/or using a seal assembly in a gate valve (11) having a throughbore (17, 19) comprising:
providing a gate (21) within said gate valve that is movable between a closed position (considered the position depicted in figure 1) wherein said gate is positioned to block fluid flow through said throughbore and an open position wherein said gate is positioned to allow fluid flow through said throughbore (the open position is the position in which the passage 41 of the gate valve is aligned with the through bore 17, 19);
providing an upstream seat (37) and a downstream seat (38);
providing a pocket end (see “pocket end” in the annotated figure 6 below) and a metal-to-metal gate seal end (see “gate seal end” in the annotated figure 6 below, see the cross-hatching of the seat bodies 37, 39 which indicate a metal; see MPEP 608.02(IX)) on each of said upstream seat and said downstream seat;
providing a first outwardly extending flange (see “first flange” in the annotated figure 6 below) and a second outwardly extending flange (see “second flange” in the annotated figure 6 below) on each of said upstream seat and said downstream seat, said first outwardly extending flange being closer to said pocket end than said second outwardly extending flange on each of said upstream seat and said downstream seat (see figure 6);
mounting a seal (see “seal” in the annotated figure 6 below) in between the flange and the pocket end on each of said upstream seat and said downstream seat;
mounting only one bidirectional seal (see “bidirectional seal” in the annotated figure 6 below) on each of said upstream seat and said downstream seat between said first outwardly extending flange and said second outwardly extending flange on each of said upstream seat and said downstream seat (see figure 6); and
wherein, when said gate is in said closed position, said first seal on said upstream seat provides a first seal to an upstream pressure, said bidirectional seal on said upstream seat provides a second seal to said upstream pressure when said first seal leaks, said bidirectional seal on said downstream seat provides a third seal to said upstream pressure when said first seal and said second seal leaks (see figure 6 for the “seal” on the upstream seat 37, the bidirectional seat on the upstream seat 37 and the bidirectional seat on the downstream seat 38 are arranged in series should fluid leak around the “seal” on the upstream seat 37 and the bidirectional seal on the upstream seat 37).
PNG
media_image1.png
891
1050
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Jennings reference does not disclose wherein the “seal” on the upstream seat and the “seal” on the downstream seat are unidirectional seals.
However, the Moseley et al. reference teaches a gate valve assembly having a gate (225) that is received between an upstream seat (220b) and a downstream seat (220a) wherein a unidirectional seal (430b, 430a) are received within a respective pocket (315b, 315a) of the upstream seat (220b) and the downstream seat (220a) wherein the unidirectional seals prevent passage of fluids and/or particulates from the throughbore, between the rear surface of the seat and side wall of the seat pocket and toward the seal cavity (col. 7, lines 20-26 and col. 8, lines 25-36).
The substitution of one known element (the seal being a unidirectional seal as shown in Moseley et al.) for another (the “seal” that is located between the first flange and the pocket end as shown in Jennings) would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art since the substitution of the seal being a unidirectional seal shown in Moseley et al. would have yielded predictable results, namely, a seal that aids in preventing passage of fluids and/or particulates from the throughbore, between the rear surface of the seat and side wall of the seat pocket and toward the seal cavity of Jennings.
In regards to claim 2, the Jennings reference of the combination of the Jennings reference and the Moseley et al. reference discloses providing a gate valve body (Jennings: 13) and a bonnet (Jennings: 31) mounted to said gate valve body, said bonnet defining a bonnet cavity (Jennings: the stem 24 is received through the bonnet cavity) therein, said third seal to said upstream pressure receives said upstream pressure through said bonnet cavity when said first seal and said second seal leak (Jennings: see figure 6 for the “seal” on the upstream seat 37, the bidirectional seat on the upstream seat 37 and the bidirectional seat on the downstream seat 38 are arranged in series should fluid leak around the “seal” on the upstream seat 37 and the bidirectional seal on the upstream seat 37).
In regards to claim 3, the Moseley et al. reference of the combination of the Jennings reference and the Moseley et al. reference discloses orienting an opening on said unidirectional seal (Moseley et al.: 430b, 430a) on each of said upstream seat and said downstream seat toward said pocket end on each of said upstream seat and said downstream seat (Moseley et al.: see figure 4A).
In regards to claim 4, the Jennings reference of the combination of the Jennings reference and the Moseley et al. reference discloses wherein the gate valve is reversible (Jennings: it is considered that the fluid flow through the gate valve would be able to flow either from the upstream seat to the downstream seat or from the downstream seat to the upstream seat based on the orientation of the “seal” and the bidirectional seal).
In regards to claim 5, the Jennings reference of the combination of the Jennings reference and the Moseley et al. reference discloses that said first outwardly extending flange (Jennings: “first flange” in the annotated figure 6 above) and said second outwardly extending flange (Jennings: “second flange” in the annotated figure 6 above) on said upstream seat are of monolithic construction (Jennings: see figure 6) and first outwardly extending flange (Jennings: “second flange” in the annotated figure 6 above) and said second outwardly extending flange (Jennings: “second flange” in the annotated figure 6 above) on said downstream seat are of monolithic construction (Jennings: see figure 6).
In regards to claim 6, the Moseley et al. reference of the combination of the Jennings reference and the Moseley et al. reference discloses wherein said unidirectional seal (Moseley et al.: 430b, 430a) on each of said upstream seat and said downstream seat comprising a U-shaped seal (Moseley et al.: see figure 4A) with an opening of said U-shaped seal oriented away from said gate.
Regarding claim 10, the Jennings reference discloses a gate valve assembly (11) comprising:
a valve body (13) defining a throughbore (17, 19);
a gate (21) movable within said valve body between an open position and a closed position; and
an upstream seat (37) and a downstream seat (38), each seat positioned between said gate and said valve body (see figure 1), wherein each seat comprises:
a metal seat body (see the cross-hatching of the seat bodies 37, 39 which indicate a metal; see MPEP 608.02(IX)), a first outwardly extending flange (see “first flange” in the annotated figure 6 below) and a second outwardly extending flange (see “second flange” in the annotated figure 6 below);
a single seal (see “seal” in the annotated figure 1 below) positioned between said first outwardly extending flange and a pocket end (see “pocket end” in the annotated figure 6 below) of said seat;
a single bidirectional seal (see “bidirectional seal” in the annotated figure 6 below) positioned between said first outwardly extending flange and said second outwardly extending flange; and
wherein, when said gate is in said closed position, said seal on said upstream seat provides a primary seal against an upstream fluid pressure, said bidirectional seal on said upstream seat provides a secondary seal against said upstream fluid pressure if said primary seal leaks, and said bidirectional seal on said downstream seat provides a tertiary seal against said upstream fluid pressure if said primary seal and secondary seal leak (see figure 6 for the “seal” on the upstream seat 37, the bidirectional seat on the upstream seat 37 and the bidirectional seat on the downstream seat 38 are arranged in series should fluid leak around the “seal” on the upstream seat 37 and the bidirectional seal on the upstream seat 37).
PNG
media_image1.png
891
1050
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Jennings reference does not disclose wherein the “seal” on the upstream seat and the “seal” on the downstream seat are unidirectional seals and wherein said unidirectional seals have an opening oriented away from said gate.
However, the Moseley et al. reference teaches a gate valve assembly having a gate (225) that is received between an upstream seat (220b) and a downstream seat (220a) wherein a unidirectional seal (430b, 430a) are received within a respective pocket (315b, 315a) of the upstream seat (220b) and the downstream seat (220a) such that the unidirectional seal has an opening oriented away from the gate wherein the unidirectional seals prevent passage of fluids and/or particulates from the throughbore, between the rear surface of the seat and side wall of the seat pocket and toward the seal cavity (col. 7, lines 20-26 and col. 8, lines 25-36).
The substitution of one known element (the seal being a unidirectional seal as shown in Moseley et al.) for another (the “seal” that is located between the first flange and the pocket end as shown in Jennings) would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art since the substitution of the seal being a unidirectional seal shown in Moseley et al. would have yielded predictable results, namely, a seal that aids in preventing passage of fluids and/or particulates from the throughbore, between the rear surface of the seat and side wall of the seat pocket and toward the seal cavity of Jennings.
In regards to claim 16, the Jennings reference of the combination of the Jennings reference and the Moseley et al. reference discloses wherein said gate valve is reversible, such that either the upstream seat or the downstream seat can function as the upstream sealing side, providing a triple seal configuration (Jennings: it is considered that the fluid flow through the gate valve would be able to flow either from the upstream seat to the downstream seat or from the downstream seat to the upstream seat based on the orientation of the “seal” and the bidirectional seal).
Regarding claim 17, the Jennings reference discloses a gate valve seat assembly for a bidirectional gate valve (11) having a throughbore (17, 19) and a gate (21) movable between an open (the open position is the position in which the passage 41 of the gate valve is aligned with the through bore 17, 19) and a closed position (considered the position depicted in figure 6), said gate valve seat assembly comprising:
a metal seat body (see the cross-hatching of the seat bodies 37, 39 which indicate a metal; see MPEP 608.02(IX)) having a metal-to-metal gate seal end (see “gate seal end” in the annotated figure 6 below; considered metal-to-metal based on the cross-hatchings of the seat body and the gate) and a pocket end (see “pocket end” in the annotated figure 6 below);
a first outwardly extending flange (see “first flange” in the annotated figure 6 below) and a second outwardly extending flange (see “second flange” in the annotated figure 6 below) radially extending from said metal seat body;
a single seal(see “seal” in the annotated figure 6 below) positioned between said first outwardly extending flange and said pocket end; a single bidirectional seal (see “bidirectional seal” in the annotated figure 6 below) positioned between said first outwardly extending flange and said second outwardly extending flange; and
wherein the combination of said seal and said bidirectional seal on said seat forms a hybrid seal arrangement configured to provide a triple seal against fluid pressure when combined with a complementary seat assembly in a gate valve, regardless of the gate valve's installation orientation (it is considered that the fluid flow through the gate valve would be able to flow either from the upstream seat to the downstream seat or from the downstream seat to the upstream seat based on the orientation of the “seal” and the bidirectional seal).
PNG
media_image1.png
891
1050
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Jennings reference does not disclose wherein the “seal” on the upstream seat and the “seal” on the downstream seat are unidirectional seals and wherein said unidirectional seals have an opening oriented toward the pocket end.
However, the Moseley et al. reference teaches a gate valve assembly having a gate (225) that is received between an upstream seat (220b) and a downstream seat (220a) wherein a unidirectional seal (430b, 430a) are received within a respective pocket (315b, 315a) of the upstream seat (220b) and the downstream seat (220a) such that the unidirectional seal has an opening oriented toward a pocket end wherein the unidirectional seals prevent passage of fluids and/or particulates from the throughbore, between the rear surface of the seat and side wall of the seat pocket and toward the seal cavity (col. 7, lines 20-26 and col. 8, lines 25-36).
The substitution of one known element (the seal being a unidirectional seal as shown in Moseley et al.) for another (the “seal” that is located between the first flange and the pocket end as shown in Jennings) would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art since the substitution of the seal being a unidirectional seal shown in Moseley et al. would have yielded predictable results, namely, a seal that aids in preventing passage of fluids and/or particulates from the throughbore, between the rear surface of the seat and side wall of the seat pocket and toward the seal cavity of Jennings.
In regards to claim 18, the Moseley et al. reference of the combination of the Jennings reference and the Moseley et al. reference discloses wherein said unidirectional seal comprises a U-shaped seal (Moseley et al.: see figure 4A).
Claim(s) 7, 8, 11-15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jennings (US 20080099710) in view of Moseley et al. (US 11174958) as applied to claims 6 and 10 above, and further in view of Kalimuthu (US 11435001).
In regards to claim 7, the combination of the Jennings reference and the Moseley et al. reference does not disclose wherein a hat ring extends into said opening on said unidirectional seal on each of said upstream seat and said downstream seat.
However, the Kalimuthu reference teaches a hat ring (retaining ring 76) located so that the hat ring extends into the opening on the unidirectional seal (47) on each of the upstream seat and the downstream seat in order to retain the unidirectional seal in the desired location (see at least col. 9, line 49 to col. 10, line 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the unidirectional seal of the combination of the Jennings reference and the Moseley et al. reference with a hat ring as taught by the Kalimuthu reference in order to provide additional support for the unidirectional seal to maintain the unidirectional seal in the desired location.
In regards to claim 8, the Kalimuthu reference of the combination of the Jennings reference, the Moseley et al. reference and the Kalimuthu reference discloses
a support ring (Kalimuthu: 41; see figure 6) on a side opposite said opening of said unidirectional seal on each of said upstream seat and said downstream seat.
In regards to claim 11, the Jennings reference of the combination of the Jennings reference and the Moseley et al. reference does not expressly disclose wherein said valve body comprises a rectangular lower body cavity sized to securely receive said gate.
However, the Kalimuthu reference teaches wherein a gate (20) fits snugly into a rectangular body cavity (38) in order to support the gate and brings the seats closer to the gate (col. 7, lines 28-43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to design the lower body cavity of the valve body of the Jennings reference of the combination of the Jennings reference and the Moseley et al. reference as being a rectangular lower body cavity as taught by the Kalimuthu reference in order to support the gate and brings the seats closer to the gate.
In regards to claim 12, the Jennings reference of the combination of the Jennings reference, the Moseley et al. reference and the Kalimuthu reference does not disclose wherein said valve body further comprises a generally circular upper body cavity positioned above a rectangular lower body cavity.
However, the Kalimuthu reference teaches a gate (20) is received within an upper cavity wherein the upper cavity is a generally circular upper body cavity (28) in order to permit the use of more grease which provides more lubrication and blocks debris from the fluid flow (col. 5, lines 57-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to design the upper cavity of the valve body of the Jennings reference of the combination of the Jennings reference, the Moseley et al. reference and the Kalimuthu reference as having a generally circular upper body cavity in order to permit the use of more grease which provides more lubrication and blocks debris from the fluid flow.
In regards to claim 13, the Jennings reference of the combination of the Jennings reference and the Moseley et al. reference does not disclose a skirt assembly disposed within said valve body, said skirt assembly configured to cover an opening of said gate when said gate is in said closed position to prevent debris from entering a body cavity of said valve body.
However, the Kalimuthu reference teaches a skirt (60) configured to cover the opening (22) of a gate (20) when the gate is closed in order to prevent dirt, debris and the like that may be caught in opening (22) from entering the body cavity wherein the dirt or debris may lead to clogging, impairing, or otherwise hampering the operation of the gate valve (see col. 10, lines 61 to col. 11, line 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide a skirt assembly to the gate valve assembly of the Jennings reference of the combination of the Jennings reference and the Moseley et al. reference as being taught by the Kalimuthu reference in order to prevent dirt, debris and the like that may be caught in opening from entering the body cavity wherein the dirt or debris may lead to clogging, impairing, or otherwise hampering the operation of the gate valve.
In regards to claim 14, the combination of the Jennings reference and the Moseley et al. reference does not expressly disclose wherein the unidirectional seal and the bidirectional seal are non-elastomeric seals.
However, the Kalimuthu reference teaches the use of seals that are non-elastomeric in order to allow an operator to use one set of rings in a much wider variety of applications leading to reduced time in changing out seals, reduced maintenance costs, and increased operational flexibility (col. 9, line 49 to col. 10, line 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a non-elastomeric material for the unidirectional seals and the bidirectional seals of the combination of the Jennings reference and the Moseley et al. reference as taught by the Kalimuthu reference in order to allow an operator to use one set of rings in a much wider variety of applications leading to reduced time in changing out seals, reduced maintenance costs, and increased operational flexibility.
In regards to 15, the Kalimuthu reference of the combination of the Jennings reference, the Moseley et al. reference and the Kalimuthu reference discloses wherein the non-elastomeric material is PTFE seals with stainless steel springs (Kalimuthu: see col. 9, lines 55-57) for greater seal ability.
In regards to claim 20, the combination of the Jennings reference and the Moseley et al. reference discloses wherein said first outwardly extending flange and said second outwardly extending flange radially extending from said seat body are of a one-piece construction (Jennings: see figure 6).
The combination of the Jennings reference and the Moseley et al. reference discloses does not disclose wherein the seat body is made of Inconel metal.
does not expressly wherein said first outwardly extending flange and said second outwardly extending flange radially extending from said metal seat body are machined to be of one-piece construction out of Inconel metal.
However, the Kalimuthu reference teaches the seat body (70) to be made of Inconel metal in order to provide a seat body that is able to withstand more extreme conditions (col. 8, lines 24-44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize Inconel metal for the metal seat body of the combination of the Jennings reference and the Moseley et al. reference as taught by the Kalimuthu reference in order to provide a seat body that is able to withstand more extreme conditions.
The combination of the Jennings reference, the Moseley et al. reference and the Kalimuthu reference does not expressly disclose wherein the metal seat body is machined. It is considered that the recitation of “machined” for the metal seat body is a recitation of the process by which the product (the metal seat body) is made.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), see MPEP 2113.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jennings (US 20080099710) in view of Moseley et al. (US 11174958) in view of Kalimuthu (US 11435001) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Jensen (US 3521855).
In regards to claim 9, the Jennings reference of the combination of the Jennings reference, the Moseley et al. reference and the Kalimuthu reference does not disclose a support ring positioned on opposite sides said of said bidirectional seal on each of said upstream seat and said downstream seat.
However, the Jensen reference teaches a valve seat body (41) having a bidirectional seal (O-ring 48) between the valve seat body and the valve body (11) wherein a support ring (backup disks) is positioned on opposite sides said of said bidirectional seal on each of said upstream seat and said downstream seat in order to maintain the O-ring in position irrespective of the pressure load applied thereto by the fluid (col. 3, lines 22-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide a support ring positioned on opposite sides of the bidirectional seal of the Jennings reference of the combination of the Jennings reference, the Moseley et al. reference and the Kalimuthu reference as taught by the Jensen reference in order to maintain the bidirectional seal in position irrespective of the pressure load applied thereto by the fluid.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jennings (US 20080099710) in view of Moseley et al. (US 11174958) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Jensen (US 3521855).
In regards to claim 19, the Jennings reference of the combination of the Jennings reference and the Moseley et al. reference does not expressly disclose wherein the bidirectional seal is an O-ring.
However, the Jensen reference teaches a valve seat body (41) having a bidirectional seal (O-ring 48) between the valve seat body and the valve body (11) in order to effect a seal between the valve seat body and the valve body (col. 3, lines 19-35).
The substitution of one known element (the bidirectional seal being an O-ring as shown in Jensen) for another (the bidirectional seal as shown in Jennings) would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art since the substitution of the bidirectional seal being an O-ring shown in Jensen would have yielded predictable results, namely, an effective seal between the metal seat body and the valve body of the Jennings reference of the combination of the Jennings reference and the Moseley et al. reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chatufale (US 6345805), Roberson (US 5192051), Meyer, Jr. (US 4878651) and Sundararajan (US 20040178381) disclose various valve seat assemblies having either bidirectional seals and/or unidirectional seals.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew J. Rost whose telephone number is (571) 272-2711. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 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.
/ANDREW J ROST/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/MICHAEL R REID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights