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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Jennings (US 20100171058 A1), Hereinafter Jen.
With respect to claim 1, Jen discloses a method for overriding a gate valve, comprising: engaging an override module (64) with a module coupled to a valve member (pgphs. 22, 36), wherein the module includes a housing (72) and an actuator assembly (combination 84, 76, members of fig. 4) locked to the housing in a first axial position (position shown in fig. 6, pgph. 33) and connected to the valve member (85); unlocking the actuator assembly from the housing (pgph. 34); and actuating the override module to move the actuator assembly from the first axial position to a second axial position within the housing to move the valve member from a first position to a second position (pgph. 36).
With respect to claim 3, Jen discloses wherein unlocking the actuator assembly comprises moving a locking member (78) selectively coupling the actuator assembly to the housing from a radially extended position to a radially retracted position (pgphs. 23, 34).
With respect to claim 4, Jen discloses wherein moving the locking member from the radially extended position to the radially retracted position comprises moving a piston (80) from a first position to a second position, wherein in the first position, the piston retains the locking member in a recess (156) disposed in an inner surface of the housing (pgphs. 33, 34).
With respect to claim 5, Jen discloses wherein actuating the override module comprises converting rotational motion to translational motion (pgphs. 32-36).
With respect to claim 6, Jen discloses retaining the locking member in a groove disposed in an inner surface of the housing (pgphs. 33, 34).
With respect to claim 7, Jen discloses wherein the locking member is a snap ring (pgph. 23).
With respect to claims 9 and 10, Jen discloses engaging the locking member with the housing in the radially extended position and comprising disengaging the locking member with the housing in the radially retracted position (pgphs. 33, 34).
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Rokne (US 20240254858 A1), Hereinafter Rok.
With respect to claim 1, Rok discloses a method for overriding a gate valve, comprising: engaging an override module (200 or 300) with a module coupled to a valve member (101), wherein the module includes a housing (10) and an actuator assembly (33, 34) locked to the housing in a first axial position (position shown in fig. 1) and connected to the valve member; unlocking the actuator assembly from the housing (by breaking shaft at 35, sown in fig. 4, pgph. 77, 81-85); and actuating the override module to move the actuator assembly from the first axial position to a second axial position within the housing to move the valve member from a first position to a second position (pgphs. 81-85).
With respect to claim 2, Rok discloses wherein unlocking the actuator assembly from the housing comprises shearing one or more shearable members (at 35, pgphs. 77, 81-85) selectively coupling the actuator assembly to the housing (at 38, 11).
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(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jen in light of Du (US 20180106127 A1).
With respect to claim 8, while Jen contemplates substituting the snap ring for segments (pgph. 23), which are likely dogs, he fails to explicitly disclose dogs.
Nevertheless, Du discloses that dogs are an obvious substitution for a snap ring for locking two movable components together (pgph. 16, Du).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have replaced the snap ring of Jen with dogs as taught by Du (pgph. 16) since this is the simple substitution of one prior art device for another with predictable results and a reasonable expectation for success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20200158251 A1 discloses locking closed in pgphs. 117-120. US 20180245711 A1 also discloses locking a stem to a housing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIPP CHARLES WALLACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12:00 PM - 8:00 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, Doug Hutton can be reached at (571) 272-4137. 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.
/KIPP C WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674 09/14/2026
Prosecution Insights