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 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) 12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Kanamori et al (JP S63275875 A).
Regarding claim 12, Kanamori discloses an apparatus comprising: a valve including: a valve body 2 defining a fluid passageway between an inlet 15 and an outlet 16; a flow control member (at end of 3) in the fluid passageway; a stem 3 coupled to the flow control member; a bonnet 12 coupled to the valve body, the bonnet 12 defining a channel, the stem 3 extending through the channel in the bonnet 12; and packing 23 in the channel to form a seal between the bonnet and the stem; and a temperature sensor 52 coupled to the bonnet to measure a temperature in the channel; and circuitry 50 to determine leakage (abstract) based on the temperature measurement.
As to claim 14, Kanamori discloses the circuitry is to compare the temperature to a threshold (above preset level of difference from temperature of 51), and wherein, if the temperature meets the threshold, the controller circuitry is to activate an output device57.
Claim(s) 16, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Ryu et al (KR 102370234 B1).
As to claim 16, Ryu discloses apparatus comprising: a valve including: a valve body 11 (fig 1) defining a fluid passageway between an inlet and an outlet; a flow control member in the fluid passageway; a stem 12 coupled to the flow control member; a bonnet ( (above 11) coupled to the valve body 11, the bonnet defining a channel (for 12), the stem 12 extending through the channel in the bonnet; and packing 14 in the channel to form a seal between the bonnet and the stem 12; and a load (pressing force) sensor 110 to measure a load applied to the packing.
As to claim 19, Ryu discloses a motor 132; and circuitry 130 to activate the motor to change an axial load on the packing based on the load measured by the load sensor.
As to claim 20, Ryu discloses (translation page 3, second last Para) circuitry to determine valve friction based on the load applied to the packing.
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.
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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanamori et al (JP S63275875 A) in view of Parish et al (20230096922).
Kanamori discloses the sensor 52 measuring a temperature in the channel but fails to disclose the sensor 52 measuring temperature in the channel at a point between first and second packing sets. Parish teaches a packing comprising first and second packing sets 114,200 and sensor 304 measuring parameters in the channel at a point between first and second packing sets.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Kanamori with sensor measuring temperature in the channel at a point between first and second packing sets as taught by Parish in order to provide additional leakage prevention arrangement.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanamori et al (JP S63275875 A)
Kanamori fails to disclose the output device 57 as a light. However, Official Notice is taken that a lighting output device, for the purpose of providing visual indication are widely known and notoriously old in the art. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to employ lighting output device in the device of Kanamori for the purpose of providing visual indication as is widely known and notoriously old in the art.
Claim(s) 17,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al (KR 102370234 B1) in view of Davie et al (20030033886).
Ryu fails to disclose load sensor 110 as a pass-through load sensor with the stem extending through the load sensor. Davie teaches similar device with load sensor 10 as a pass-through load sensor with the stem S extending through the load sensor.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Ryu with load sensor as a pass-through load sensor with the stem extending through the load sensor as taught by Davie as an art-recognized functionally equivalent substitute load sensing arrangement yielding predictable results of measuring packing load.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gosling et al (5927685) in view of Parish et al (20230096922).
As to claim 1, Parish discloses an apparatus comprising: a valve including: a valve body defining a fluid passageway between an inlet and an outlet; a flow control member 110 in the fluid passageway; a stem 104 coupled to the flow control member; a bonnet 109 coupled to the valve body, the bonnet having a first (lower) side facing the fluid passageway, a second (top) side opposite the first side, and a channel extending through the bonnet between the first side and the second side, the stem 109 extending through the channel in the bonnet; and packing in the channel to form a seal between the bonnet and the stem, the packing including a third packing set 114 and a second packing set 200; and a second sensor 304 to measure a second parameter value in the channel at a second location between the second packing set 200 and the second (top) side of the bonnet.
Parish fails to disclose a first packing set in the channel such that it is open at channel bottom towards the valve chamber and is spaced apart from and below the second packing set 200 and a first sensor to measure a first parameter value in the channel at a first location between the first packing set and the second packing set.
Gosling teaches a first packing set 19A,19B set in the channel such that it is open at channel bottom towards the valve chamber and is spaced apart from and below the second packing set (lower portion of 25) and a first sensor 27 to measure a first parameter value in the channel at a first location between the first packing set and the second packing set.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Parish with a first packing set in the channel such that it is open at channel bottom towards the valve chamber and is spaced apart from and below the second packing set and a first sensor to measure a first parameter value in the channel at a first location between the first packing set and the second packing set as taught by Gosling in order to provide additional leakage prevention and monitoring arrangement.
As to claims 2 and 11, Parish as modified teaches pressure monitoring 404 by second sensor 304 to determine leakage and would have a first sensor (in view of Gosling first sensor 27) also to determine leakage. Parish as modified fails to leakage detection from sensors done by an electric control circuitry. However, Official Notice is taken that electric control circuitry connected to sensor/components, for the purpose of providing electronically monitoring /determining valve conditions are widely known and notoriously old in the art. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to employ electric control circuitry connected to sensor/components in the device of Parish as modified for the purpose of electronically monitoring /determining valve conditions as is widely known and notoriously old in the art.
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.
Claims 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12601423. Although the claim at issue is not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim language in the pending application is broader than the claim of the issued Patent. That is, the more specific patented claim “anticipates” the broader application claims. See in re Goodman 29 USPQ2d 2010. Since anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, claims 16 is seen as obvious over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12601423.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 3-10 is/are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Atif Chaudry at phone number 571-270-3768. 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. Kenneth 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.
/ATIF H CHAUDRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights