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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument unless addressed below.
In regards to applicant’s argument that the secondary reference Stachowiak, JR. does not teach the claimed scallop cutouts, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art reference Stachowiak, JR. and the new prior art reference Stachowiak, JR. et al. do teach scallop cutouts that functions in the same manner as applicant’s disclosed scallop cutouts by providing a more uniform flow area around the restriction element. The amended claim language limiting the scallop cutouts to extend through a majority of the axial length of the base ring is considered a design choice as is rejected below. The scallop cutouts of Stachowiak, JR. et al. do potentially extend a majority of the axial length of the base ring, since based on Figure 4B or 4C the cutouts appear to extend at least half or more than half of the axial length of the base ring, that albeit unknown axial length does not change the function of the cutouts.
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 casing comprising a reduced diameter section that defines an inner aperture for the fluid flow that is substantially the same diameter as an inner diameter of the seat, as is recited in claims 1, 17, and 19 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10, 17, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 17, and 19, each claim the similar language of “the casing comprising a reduced diameter section that defines an inner aperture for the fluid flow that is substantially the same diameter as an inner diameter of the seat”, which lacks any disclosure in the specification or drawings. Applicant cited paragraph 143 of the specification as support for the amended claim language, but paragraph 143 discloses “the casing may include a reduced diameter section that defines an inner aperture for fluid flow that is substantially similar to an inner aperture defined by the ring and/or the seat”, hence the term “substantially similar” is not equal to “substantially the same” as is currently recited in the claims.
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 1-23 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “the casing comprising a reduced diameter section that defines an inner aperture for the fluid flow that is substantially the same diameter as an inner diameter of the seat” is unclear what applicant is referring to since applicant provides no such disclosure to support the claim language, for the purpose of this examination it will be interpreted as is disclosed in paragraph 143 “the casing comprising a reduced diameter section that defines an inner aperture for the fluid flow that is substantially similar diameter as an inner diameter of the seat”; and the limitation “a seat” is introduced twice in the claim and it is unclear if applicant is referring to the same seat or another.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “the base ring” has insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase “a reduced diameter section of the casing that defines an inner aperture for the fluid flow that is substantially the same diameter as an inner diameter of the seat” is unclear what applicant is referring to since applicant provides no such disclosure to support the claim language, for the purpose of this examination it will be interpreted as is disclosed in paragraph 143 “a reduced diameter section of the casing that defines an inner aperture for the fluid flow that is substantially similar diameter as an inner diameter of the seat”.
Regarding claim 19, the phrase “the casing comprises a reduced diameter section that defines an inner aperture for the fluid flow that is substantially the same diameter as an inner diameter of the seat” is unclear what applicant is referring to since applicant provides no such disclosure to support the claim language, for the purpose of this examination it will be interpreted as is disclosed in paragraph 143 “the casing comprises a reduced diameter section that defines an inner aperture for the fluid flow that is substantially similar diameter as an inner diameter of the seat”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ford (Pub. No. US 2021/0246992) in view of Stachowiak, Jr. et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0203913).
Regarding claim 1, Ford discloses a downhole pump (Figs. 1-13) comprising: a barrel comprising an interior cavity (paragraph 4); a plunger (paragraph 4); a valve rod mechanically connected to the plunger (paragraph 4) and configured to drive the plunger within the interior cavity of the barrel (paragraph 4); and at least one valve assembly (100) comprising: a restriction element (80); a seat (82); a casing (12) coupled to the barrel (paragraph 30), the casing (10) defining an internal flow path (18) through the casing (12) that is in communication with the interior cavity of the barrel (paragraph 30) or an interior cavity of the plunger (paragraph 32), the casing (10) comprising a reduced diameter section (24) that defines an inner aperture (Fig. 7) for fluid flow; and an insert (30) having an outer surface (Fig. 7) that is fixedly engaged (paragraph 34) with an inner surface the casing (12), the insert (30) comprising at least two ribs (40), each individually extending from a base portion (42) of the insert (30) to an apex (50) of the insert (30) where each of the at least two ribs (40) converge to define a cage (10) in which the restriction element (80) is configured to move (paragraphs 44-45) axially through the internal flow path (18) between the apex (50) and a seat (82) positioned (Fig. 7) in the casing (12) axially opposite the apex (50); wherein, in an open position (paragraphs 44-45), the restriction element (80) is configured to be displaced toward the apex (50) of the insert (30) to enable fluid flow through the internal flow path (18) of the casing (12) and through openings (68) defined between the at least two ribs (40); and wherein, in a closed position (paragraphs 44-45), the restriction element (80) is configured to engage with the seat (82) to restrict fluid flow through the internal flow path (18), but lacks disclosure wherein the reduced diameter section that defines an inner aperture for fluid flow is substantially similar as an inner diameter of the seat.
Stachowiak, Jr. et al. teach a valve assembly (100) comprising a restriction element (130), a seat (140), a casing (110), and an insert (120), wherein the casing (110) has a reduced diameter section (114) that defines an inner aperture (Fig. 3A) for fluid flow and is substantially similar as an inner diameter (Fig. 3A) of the seat (140).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the casing of Ford, with a reduced diameter section as taught by Stachowiak, Jr. et al., for the advantage of increasing the flow coefficient through the casing, reducing fluid drag, providing a smooth transition of fluid flow, and reducing wear (paragraph 31).
Regarding claim 2, Ford discloses the downhole pump (Figs. 1-13), wherein the at least one valve assembly (100) connected to the barrel (paragraph 30) is a standing valve (paragraphs 4 or 44-45) or the at least one valve assembly (100) connected to the plunger is a traveling valve (paragraphs 4 or 44-45).
Regarding claim 3, Ford discloses the downhole pump (Figs. 1-13), wherein the insert (30) is secured to the casing (12) with a permanent joining or a temporary joining (paragraph 34).
Regarding claim 4, Ford discloses the downhole pump (Figs. 1-13), wherein the permanent joining comprising fusion welding, bracing, or interference fit (paragraph 34).
Regarding claim 5, Ford discloses the downhole pump (Figs. 1-13), wherein the temporary joining comprising a threaded connection (paragraph 61).
Regarding claim 6, Ford discloses the downhole pump (Figs. 1-13), wherein the at least two ribs (40) exhibit a spiral shape (Figs. 1-5, paragraphs 39-40) as the at least two ribs (40) extend from the base portion (42) of the insert (30) to the apex (50) of the insert (30), and/or (interpreted as “or”) wherein the at least two ribs exhibit a lateral width extending along a circumference of the insert that tapers as the at least two ribs extend from the base portion of the insert to the apex of the insert.
Regarding claim 7, Ford discloses the essential features of the claimed invention but lacks disclosure wherein the at least two ribs have a lateral width extending along a circumference of the insert that gradually reduces along substantially an entire length of the at least two ribs as the at least two ribs extend in a longitudinal direction along a spiral path toward the apex.
Stachowiak, Jr. et al. teach a valve assembly (100) comprising a restriction element (130), a seat (140), a casing (110), and an insert (120), wherein the insert (120) has at least two ribs (126) extending from a base portion (125) to an apex (128), wherein the at least two ribs (126) have a lateral width (Figs. 4A-D) extending along a circumference (paragraph 44) of the insert (120) that gradually reduces along substantially an entire length (paragraph 44) of the at least two ribs (126) as the at least two ribs (126) extend in a longitudinal direction along a spiral path (paragraph 40) toward the apex (128).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the insert of Ford, with at least two ribs as taught by Stachowiak, Jr. et al., for the advantage of improving fluid flow (paragraphs 40-44), and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. Ford discloses in paragraph 40 that the form or shape of the ribs/protrusions are capable of being modified as desired. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 8, Ford discloses the downhole pump (Figs. 1-13), wherein the at least two ribs (40) extend in a spiral path (paragraphs 39-40) toward the apex (50) in order to impart a twisted flow (laminar flow through the angled/curved ribs, disclosed in paragraph 40) to the fluid flow.
Regarding claim 9, Ford discloses the downhole pump (Figs. 1-13), wherein the at least two ribs (40) exhibit a lateral width (Fig. 3) extending along a circumference of the insert (30) that tapers (paragraph 42) as the at least some of the at least two ribs (40) extend radially inward toward a longitudinal axis.
Regarding claim 10, Ford discloses the downhole pump (Figs. 1-13), wherein the openings (68) defined between the at least two ribs (40) are laterally inward quartic lima bean-shaped openings (68, as illustrated in Figures 3-4) positioned about the apex (50).
Regarding claim 11, Ford discloses a method of operating a valve assembly (100), the method comprising: directing a fluid (paragraphs 44-45) through the valve assembly (100) comprising: directing the fluid through a seat (82); lifting a restriction element (80) off of the seat (82) with the fluid and displacing the restriction element (80) away from the seat (82); directing the fluid into an insert (30) located at least partially within a casing (10) comprising at least three axially extending protrusions (40), each of the at least three axially extending protrusions (40) individually extending inward into an internal flow path (18) and converging with at least another of the at least three axially extending protrusions (40) at an apex (50) of the insert (30) to define a cage (30) in which a restriction element (80) is configured to move axially through the internal flow path (18); displacing the restriction element (18) to the apex (50) of the insert (30); and directing the fluid (paragraphs 44-45) through the internal flow path (18) and through openings (68) defined between the at least three axially extending protrusions (40) of the insert (30); and inhibiting the fluid (paragraphs 44-45) from flowing through the valve assembly (100) comprising: directing fluid through the openings (68) defined between the at least three axially extending protrusions (40) of the insert (30) and into the internal flow path (18); displacing the restriction element (80) from the apex (50) of the insert (30); and positioning the restriction element (80) onto the seat (82) to inhibit the fluid from flowing through the seat (82), but lacks disclosure of diverging flow of the fluid through scallop cutouts extending through a majority of the axial length of the base ring and leading into the openings defined between the at least three axially extending protrusions of the inert.
Stachowiak, Jr. et al. teach a valve assembly (100) comprising a restriction element (130), a seat (140), a casing (110), and an insert (120), wherein the insert (120) has at least three axially extending protrusions (126) extending from a base ring (125) to an apex (128), wherein the base ring (125) has scallop cutouts (123) extending through a majority (Figs. 4B-C) of the axial length (clearance can be increased as is disclosed in paragraph 45) of the base ring (125) and leading into openings (121) defined between the at least three axially extending protrusions (126) of the inert (120).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the insert of Ford, with scallop cutouts as taught by Stachowiak, Jr. et al., for the advantage of reducing ball chatter, and improving the flow coefficient through the insert (paragraphs 31 and 45).
Regarding claim 12, Ford discloses the method, further comprising directing fluid flow through the openings (68) comprising quartic bean-shaped openings (68, as illustrated in Figures 3-4) positioned about the apex (50) of the insert (30).
Regarding claim 13, Ford discloses the method further comprising imparting a twisted flow (laminar flow through the angled/curved ribs, disclosed in paragraph 40) to the fluid as the fluid travels through the insert (30) with the at least three axially extending protrusions (30) having a spiral configuration (paragraphs 39-40).
Regarding claim 14, Ford discloses the method, further comprising decreasing fluid turbulence in the fluid with the twisted flow (laminar flow through the angled/curved ribs, disclosed in paragraph 40) imparted to the fluid by the at least three axially extending protrusions (40) having the spiral configuration (paragraphs 39-40).
Regarding claim 15, Ford discloses the method, further comprising reducing flow restriction and pressure drop in the fluid with the twisted flow (laminar flow through the angled/curved ribs, disclosed in paragraph 40) imparted to the fluid by the at least three axially extending protrusions (40) having the spiral configuration (paragraphs 39-40).
Regarding claim 16, Ford discloses the essential features of the claimed invention but lacks disclosure of directing the fluid along a spiral path defined by the at least three axially extending protrusions having a lateral width extending along a circumference of the insert that gradually reduces along substantially an entire length as the at least three axially extending protrusions extend in a longitudinal direction along a spiral path toward the apex.
Stachowiak, Jr. et al. teach a valve assembly (100) comprising a restriction element (130), a seat (140), a casing (110), and an insert (120), wherein the insert (120) has at least three axially extending protrusions (126) extending from a base portion (125) to an apex (128), wherein the at least three axially extending protrusions (126) have a lateral width (Figs. 4A-D) extending along a circumference (paragraph 44) of the insert (120) that gradually reduces along substantially an entire length (paragraph 44) of the at least three axially extending protrusions (126) as the at least three axially extending protrusions (126) extend in a longitudinal direction along a spiral path (paragraph 40) toward the apex (128).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the insert of Ford, with at least three axially extending protrusions as taught by Stachowiak, Jr. et al., for the advantage of improving fluid flow (paragraphs 40-44), and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. Ford discloses in paragraph 40 that the form or shape of the ribs/protrusions are capable of being modified as desired. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 17, Ford discloses the essential features of the claimed invention but lacks disclosure of directing the fluid flow through a reduced diameter section of the casing that defines an inner aperture for fluid flow that is substantially similar diameter as an inner diameter of the seat.
Stachowiak, Jr. et al. teach a valve assembly (100) comprising a restriction element (130), a seat (140), a casing (110), and an insert (120), wherein the casing (110) has a reduced diameter section (114) that defines an inner aperture (Fig. 3A) for fluid flow and is substantially similar as an inner diameter (Fig. 3A) of the seat (140).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the casing of Ford, with a reduced diameter section as taught by Stachowiak, Jr. et al., for the advantage of increasing the flow coefficient through the casing, reducing fluid drag, providing a smooth transition of fluid flow, and reducing wear (paragraph 31).
Regarding claim 18, Stachowiak, Jr. et al. (modified above) teach converging flow of the fluid after the flow of the fluid (paragraph 45) is diverged by the scallop cutouts (123).
Regarding claim 19, Ford discloses a method of forming a valve assembly (100), the method comprising: positioning (Fig. 7) a restriction element (80) within a casing (12) between an insert (30) and a seat (82), positioning the restriction element (80), the insert (30), and the seat (82) in an internal flow path (18) through the casing (12); the casing (10) comprising a reduced diameter section (24) that defines an inner aperture (Fig. 7) for fluid flow; engaging an outer surface (Fig. 7) of the insert (30) with an inner surface the casing (12); defining openings (68) in the internal flow path (18) with at least three protrusions (40) of the insert (30) that extend through the internal flow path (18) of the casing (12) and converge with at least another of the at least three protrusions (40) at an apex (50) of the insert (30) to define a cage (10) in which the restriction element (80) is configured to move axially (paragraphs 44-45) through the internal flow path (18); in an open position, enabling the restriction element (80) to be displaced toward the apex (50) of the insert (30) to enable fluid flow through the internal flow path (18) and through the openings (68) defined between the at least three protrusions (40); and in a closed position, enabling the restriction element (80) to engage with the seat (82) to restrict fluid flow through the internal flow path (18), but lacks disclosure wherein the reduced diameter section that defines an inner aperture for fluid flow is substantially similar as an inner diameter of the seat.
Stachowiak, Jr. et al. teach a valve assembly (100) comprising a restriction element (130), a seat (140), a casing (110), and an insert (120), wherein the casing (110) has a reduced diameter section (114) that defines an inner aperture (Fig. 3A) for fluid flow and is substantially similar as an inner diameter (Fig. 3A) of the seat (140).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the casing of Ford, with a reduced diameter section as taught by Stachowiak, Jr. et al., for the advantage of increasing the flow coefficient through the casing, reducing fluid drag, providing a smooth transition of fluid flow, and reducing wear (paragraph 31).
Regarding claim 20, Ford discloses the method, further comprising securing of the insert (30) in the casing by a permanent joining or a temporary joining (paragraph 34).
Regarding claim 21, Ford discloses the method, wherein the permanent joining comprising welding, bracing, or interference fit (paragraph 34).
Regarding claim 22, Ford discloses the method, wherein the temporary joining comprises a threading (paragraph 61).
Regarding claim 23, Ford discloses the method, wherein defining the openings (68) in the internal flow path (18) with at least three protrusions (40) further comprises defining quartic lima bean-shaped openings (68, as illustrated in Figures 3-4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Coyes et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12,173,705) disclose a similar insert having spiral fluid channels opening towards quartic lima bean-shaped openings.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Reinaldo Sanchez-Medina, telephone number 571-270-5168, fax number 571-270-6168. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (7:30AM-4:00PM EST).
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 can be reached by phone. 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 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.
/REINALDO SANCHEZ-MEDINA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
