Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/618,169

CAPACITY CONTROL VALVE

Final Rejection §102
Filed
Dec 10, 2021
Examiner
PRICE, CRAIG JAMES
Art Unit
3753
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Eagle Industry Co. Ltd.
OA Round
8 (Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
9-10
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
699 granted / 1019 resolved
-1.4% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+21.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
45 currently pending
Career history
1064
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
34.9%
-5.1% vs TC avg
§102
29.9%
-10.1% vs TC avg
§112
30.9%
-9.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1019 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 5,6,8,9,14,15,18 and 19 are withdrawn. This action is in response to the amendment filed 11/20/2025. 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, see pages filed 11/20/2025, with respect to the prior rejections have been fully considered, however are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments that the since the Bill reference teaches the spring 46 abutting the pilot valve body 48, it does not teach the recited limitations of, “the biasing member is a coil spring having a first end brought into contact with a partition wall which is formed in the valve housing to extend in a radial direction, and a second end which is opposed to the first end in an axial direction and brought into contact with the control-suction valve body”. Since the wall of the pilot valve body 48 is located within the housing 10, the wall is interpreted as being within the valve housing 10, as shown below. PNG media_image1.png 758 1173 media_image1.png Greyscale The reference to Bill et al. is seen as teaching the newly recited limitations of; “the biasing member is a coil spring (46) having a first end (upper end) brought into contact with a partition wall (the radially extending wall of 48) which is formed in the valve housing to extend in a radial direction, and a second end (lower end) which is opposed to the first end in an axial direction and brought into contact with the control-suction valve body” (col.4, lns. 50-55). Since applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds for rejection, this action has been made Final. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of species I, figures 1-3 in the reply filed on 3/1/2024 have been acknowledged. Claims 5,8,9,14,15,18 and 19 were withdrawn, as noted in the prior action, from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/1/2014. Claim 6 was further withdrawn as being drawn to a non-elected species. Claims 5,6,8,9,14,15,18 and 19 have been withdrawn. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitations of; In claim 1, “a control-suction valve formed of”, should be, - - a control-suction valve comprising- -; “a pilot valve formed of”, should be, - - a pilot valve comprising- -, “which is formed in”, should be, - - which is in- -, in order to ensure that both an apparatus and method are not recited in the same claim, additionally, the use of the limitation “form” or “formed” in at least withdrawn claims should be corrected in a similar manner, Appropriate correction is required. 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 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. 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) 1-4, 7, 10-13,16,17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Bill et al. (US 7740224). Regarding claim 1, Bill et al. disclose, a capacity control valve (see Fig. 2, noting that Fig. 1 is used for identifying similar structures as need, see col. 7, lns. 4-10) comprising: a valve housing (at 10) to which a suction fluid of a suction pressure (at 2,2a,b) and a control fluid of a control pressure (at 1,col.4, lns. 14-22) are supplied; a solenoid (at 28) having a movable iron core (the upper end of 34 not shown, but within 28), center post (the lower end of 34), and an energizing coil (32) ; a control suction valve (18 and lower end of 10, see Fig. 2) formed of a control suction valve body (18) that partitions an inside (within 10, surrounding the area of 18) of the valve housing into a first space (the space below the valve seat of 10 with 18, within cavity of 10 surrounding lower region of 18 having 38) and a second space (within 10 above the valve seat for 18, surrounding 18 and 48 and 102) and is configured to move according to the suction pressure of the suction fluid and the control pressure of the control fluid, and a control suction valve seat (the bore contacting surface of 10 that abuts 18) with which the control suction valve body is configured for coming into contact (see Fig.2); a biasing member (46) configured to bias the control-suction valve body in a valve closing direction of the control suction valve; and a pilot valve (26) formed of a pilot valve body (the body 24,68, see also Fig. 1) fixed to the movable iron core to be driven by the solenoid (via post 34) and a pilot valve seat (at the contact area of 104 abutting 102, col. 7, lns. 24-29) with which the pilot valve body is configured for coming into contact, wherein the control fluid flows into the first space (using port at the bottom of 10 and 18), the control fluid flows into the second space via an orifice (the orifice 100,96,38), and a fluid of the second space is dischargeable to an outside (at the ports 106,72) by the pilot valve (col.5, lns.24-28, lns 55-60). Bill et al., further disclose that the pilot valve body has a tip end portion (the radiused part of 102 and 48) which has a diameter larger than a diameter of the pilot valve seat (the largest diameter of the conical seat is larger than the port of 117) and which is protruded into the second space ( as shown in Fig. 1, 118 is within the second space), the tip end portion of the pilot valve body has a tip surface (the flat bottom surface of 48) which faces in a first axial direction (down to the bottom of the page in the view), a contact surface (the surface on the radiused surface of 102 abutting 104) of the pilot valve body configured to come into contact with the pilot valve seat, faces in a second axial direction (the upward direction) opposed to the first axial direction, the contact surface of the pilot valve body receives a pressure (the contact surface receives pressure from the second space, as the pressure will wrap around the lower part of the tip end and expose then pressure at the contact surface) having a valve closing direction (the direction going from the bottom of the view vertically up towards the bottom of the tip end, which is a closing direction of the of the pilot valve) of the pilot valve from the fluid of the second space (as below seen in amended Fig. 2, pressure is received in a similar manner as applicant’s device). PNG media_image2.png 908 1103 media_image2.png Greyscale Bill et al. further disclosing; the biasing member is a coil spring (46) having a first end (upper end) brought into contact with a partition wall (the radially extending wall of 48) which is formed in the valve housing to extend in a radial direction, and a second end (lower end) which is opposed to the first end in an axial direction and brought into contact with the control-suction valve body (col.4, lns. 50-55). PNG media_image1.png 758 1173 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, Bill et al. disclose the pilot valve discharges the fluid of the second space toward a suction chamber (at the inherent chamber that ports 106 lead to that is formed at the external recess of 10 surrounding 48) in which an external suction fluid is housed (the fluid within the housing that body 10 is threaded into). Regarding claim 3, Bill et al. disclose an opening degree of the pilot valve is adjustable (based on the electrical current from the coil 32, col.4, lns. 31-39, col. 6, lns. 11-13). Regarding claim 4, Bill et al. disclose the control suction valve body has a piston shape (at the upper section of 18), and a cylindrical side portion (the outer diameter at 18) of the control suction valve body slides is configured to slide on an inner peripheral surface (the inner bore of 10 surrounding 18) of the valve housing (as shown in Figure 2). Regarding claim 7, Bill et al. disclose wherein the orifice (at 38) is provided in the control suction valve body. Regarding claim 10, Bill et al. disclose the biasing member (46) is disposed in the second space (as shown in Figure 2). Regarding claim 11, Bill et al. disclose wherein the valve housing is formed of a control fluid side housing (the lower half of 10 surrounding 18) in which the control suction valve seat (at the contacting part of 10 abutting 18) is provided, and a suction fluid side housing (10a) in which the pilot valve seat (104) is provided. Regarding claim 12, Bill et al. disclose an opening degree of the pilot valve is adjustable (based on the electrical current from the coil 32, col.4, lns. 31-39, col. 6, lns. 11-13). Regarding claim 13, Bill et al. disclose the control suction valve body has a piston shape (at the upper section of 18), and a cylindrical side portion (the outer diameter at 18) of the control suction valve body is configured to slide on an inner peripheral surface (the inner bore of 10 surrounding 18) of the valve housing (as shown in Figure 2). Regarding claim 16, Bill et al. disclose wherein the valve housing is formed of a control fluid side housing (the lower half of 10 surrounding 18) in which the control suction valve seat (at the contacting part of 10 abutting 18) is provided, and a suction fluid side housing (10a) in which the pilot valve seat (104) is provided. Regarding claim 17, Bill et al. disclose wherein the valve housing is formed of a control fluid side housing (the lower half of 10 surrounding 18) in which the control suction valve seat (at the contacting part of 10 abutting 18) is provided, and a suction fluid side housing (10a) in which the pilot valve seat (104) is provided. Regarding claim 20, Bill et al. disclose wherein the orifice (at 38) is provided in the control suction valve body. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 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 Craig Price, whose telephone number is (571)272-2712 or via facsimile (571)273-2712. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:00AM-4:30PM EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3607, 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. 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 Form at; https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form. /CRAIG J PRICE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 10, 2021
Application Filed
Mar 09, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102
May 03, 2024
Response Filed
Jul 30, 2024
Final Rejection — §102
Sep 20, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 24, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 05, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Dec 31, 2024
Response Filed
Jan 27, 2025
Final Rejection — §102
Mar 18, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 24, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
May 23, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 21, 2025
Final Rejection — §102
Sep 19, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 02, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Nov 20, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 02, 2025
Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590639
VALVE WITH UNOBSTRUCTED FLOW PATH HAVING INCREASED FLOW COEFFICIENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584562
FLOW RESTRICTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578030
VALVE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12560254
FLUSH-MOUNT VALVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12553453
AUTOMATIC DOUBLE-BELL SIPHON
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

9-10
Expected OA Rounds
69%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+21.8%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1019 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month