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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 07/16/2026 has been entered. Amendments to claims 1 and cancellation of 26-28 are acknowledged. Claims 1-10 and 19-28 remain pending in the application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 19-25, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silverwater (US 5220837 A) in view of Xiong (US 20220275795 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Silverwater discloses a pressure transducer (abstract: “differential pressure transducer”) comprising: a housing (col 2 lines 59-60: “the assembly includes a housing”) comprising an inlet port and an outlet port (Fig 2 element 20 to Fig 3 the opening to element 82, wherein per col 6 lines 60-61: “the bore 82 connects the flow control chamber 72 with the inlet 20” and 73, col 7 lines 33: “the upstream port 73”), each of the inlet port and the outlet port being at least partially defined by a surface of a valve seat (Fig 3 element 82 as connected to downstream valve seat 83 and 75, col 6 line 21 “the upstream seat 75”); a poppet coupled with the housing (Fig 3 element 79); a pressure sensor (col 3 lines 36-37: “contain a piezoelectric element (unillustrated) that senses differential pressure and generates an electrical signal indicative of the pressure differential acting on the element”); wherein a flow restrictor is defined by the valve seat between the inlet port and the outlet port (Fig 3 element 75, col 8-9 lines 69 – 5: “the clearance between the poppet 79 and the wall of the flow control chamber 72 is preferably small enough to constitute a third and at least partial flow restriction between the upstream and downstream seats 75, 83,”, wherein the valve seat is defined as the edge of the flow control chamber 72 labelled element 75; and wherein the valve seat includes a ramp that extends from the flow restrictor to one of the inlet port and the outlet port (Fig 3 element 75, wherein the corner of element 75 forms a ramp into element 73).
While Silverwater discloses the flow restrictor includes a flow restrictor channel extending into the surface of the valve seat from the inlet port to the outlet port (Fig 3 element 72, wherein 72 in connected to 82 and 75), they fail to disclose the flow restrictor channel having two or more turns.
Xiong discloses a flow restrictor channel having two or more turns ([0030]: “the buffer channel 10 is in the shape of a bend line, and the bend line-shaped buffer channel 10 has multiple corners, when the liquid flows in the buffer channel 10, it is blocked by the multiple corners to reduce the flow speed, thus, the flow rate of liquid flowing into the second flow restricting cavity”, Fig 3 element 10).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the pressure transducer disclosed by Silverwater to include the flow restrictor channel having two or more turns as disclosed by Xiong in order to improve the flow rate restriction by increasing the number of corners traversed (Xiong [0030]).
Regarding claim 2, Silverwater discloses a second ramp that extends from the flow restrictor to another of the inlet port and the outlet port (Fig 3 elements 83 into 84, wherein the shape between the opening of chamber 72 and 84 forms a ramp).
Regarding claim 3, Silverwater further discloses wherein the valve seat is integrally formed with the housing (Fig 3 element 75).
Regarding claim 4, Silverwater further discloses wherein the housing further comprises a recess between the inlet port and the ramp and surrounding the inlet port (col 6 lines 46-47: “the safety valve 70 is inserted into the valve cavity 19 of the housing body”).
Regarding claim 5, Silverwater further discloses wherein the poppet is coupled with the valve seat of the housing (Fig 3 elements 79 and 75).
Regarding claim 6, Silverwater further discloses wherein a fluid flows within a first flow path comprising the inlet port, the flow restrictor, and the outlet port (col 7 lines 17 – 26) in response to the poppet being closed against the valve seat of the housing (col 2 lines 36 – 37: “port of the chamber is closed by the poppet”).
Regarding claim 8, Silverwater further discloses comprising a by-pass channel between the poppet and the valve seat of the housing (Fig 3 elements 78).
Regarding claim 9, Silverwater further discloses wherein a fluid flows through a second flow path comprising the inlet port, the by-pass channel, and the outlet port in response to the poppet being decoupled from the valve seat of the housing (col 7 lines 27-36: “When the poppet 79 seats on the downstream seat 83, i.e., is in the downstream position, the low pressure cavity 16 communicates with the upstream side of the filter via the upstream passage 92, the groove 24 in the neck 21, the high pressure conduit 26, the high pressure cavity 15, the bore 74, the upstream port 73, the flow control chamber 72, the radial connecting ports 78, the annular space 19a, and the first and second connecting passages 27 and 28.”).
Regarding claim 19, Silverwater further discloses a cross-section of the flow restrictor channel has a top and a base (Fig 3 element 72); a width of a top of the flow restrictor channel is greater than a width of the base of the flow restrictor channel ( col 9 lines 48-51: “For example, the minimum open flow areas of the upstream port 73 at the upstream seat 75 and the central bore 82 at the downstream seat 83 may each have a smaller cross-sectional area than the flow area between the wall of the chamber 72 and the poppet 79.”); a depth of the flow restrictor channel is greater than the width of the top of the flow restrictor channel (col 9 lines 48 - 51); and the base of the flow restrictor channel is rounded (Fig 3 element 84 and 73, wherein the cross-sections are cylinders as indicated by the dotted lines).
Regarding claim 20, Silverwater further discloses wherein the width of the top of the flow restrictor channel is between 0.0005 inches and 0.0080 inches (col 10 lines 65 – 68: “0.002 inch to about 0.004 inch between the upstream and the downstream seats, and the radial ports have a diameter of about 0.023 inch and are located near the upstream seat.”).
Regarding claim 21, Silverwater further discloses wherein the depth of the flow restrictor channel is between 0.0005 inches and 0.0080 inches (col 10 lines 65 – 68: “0.002 inch to about 0.004 inch between the upstream and the downstream seats, and the radial ports have a diameter of about 0.023 inch and are located near the upstream seat.”).
Regarding claim 22, Silverwater discloses a second ramp that extends from the flow restrictor to another of the inlet port and the outlet port (Fig 3 elements 83 into 84, wherein the shape between the opening of chamber 72 and 84 forms a ramp).
Regarding claim 23, Silverwater further discloses wherein the flow restrictor channel comprises a length that is at least twice a distance between the inlet port and the outlet port (Fig 3 element 78 to Fig 2 element 26).
Regarding claim 24, Silverwater further discloses wherein a fluid flows through a second flow path comprising the inlet port, the by-pass channel, and the outlet port in response to the poppet being decoupled from the valve seat of the housing (col 7 lines 27-36: “When the poppet 79 seats on the downstream seat 83, i.e., is in the downstream position, the low pressure cavity 16 communicates with the upstream side of the filter via the upstream passage 92, the groove 24 in the neck 21, the high pressure conduit 26, the high pressure cavity 15, the bore 74, the upstream port 73, the flow control chamber 72, the radial connecting ports 78, the annular space 19a, and the first and second connecting passages 27 and 28.”).
Regarding claim 25, Silverwater further discloses wherein the flow restrictor channel comprises a length that is at least twice a distance between the inlet port and the outlet port (Fig 3 element 78 to Fig 2 element 26).
Regarding claim 29, Silverwater further discloses wherein: the poppet comprises a sealing portion (Fig 3 element 75, base portion); and in an engaged state, an end surface of the sealing portion of the poppet is configured to press against the valve seat to seal off either the inlet port or the outlet port (Fig 3, wherein poppet 75 presses against element 73).
Claim(s) 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silverwater in view of Xiong in view of Mudd (US 20160216713 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Silverwater discloses the pressure transducer of claim 6, but fails to disclose wherein a flow rate of the fluid within the first flow path is between about 1 cc/hr and about 10 cc/hr.
Mudd discloses a flow restrictor (title) comprising an inlet port and an outlet port ([0070]: “The inlet 1203A”); a poppet coupled with the housing ([0068]: “and poppet and valve seat”); wherein a flow restrictor is defined by a valve seat between the inlet port and the outlet port ([0005]: “A characterized restrictor is placed in series and adjacent with the valve seat to provide a primary flow restriction while having a minimized volume between the valve seat and the characterized restrictor.”), and wherein a flow rate of the fluid within the first flow path is between about 1 cc/hr and about 10 cc/hr ([0068]: “flow rates of gas or fluid (e.g., low flow, high flow, 0.1 sccm, or 30,000 sccm) within tight tolerance limits”).
Mudd and Silverwater are considered analogous art as they both pertain to flow restrictors consisting of an inlet, outlet, poppet valve, and valve seat. Silverwater discloses that the valve operates to prevent the pressure differential from exceeding a threshold (col 8 lines 7 – 13: “when the pressure differential across the filter exceeds the first prescribed pressure differential, i.e., the cracking pressure, the poppet 79 moves to the downstream seat 83. The magnitude of the cracking pressure is established by the characteristics of the spring 84 and the cross sectional area of the upstream seat 75”), but does not specify the range at which the fluid flow is restricted to. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the transducer disclosed by Silverwater to include the flow rate range disclosed by Mudd in order to expand the application of the system to a wide range of techniques (Mudd [0068]).
Regarding claim 10, Silverwater discloses the pressure transducer of claim 9, but fails to disclose wherein a flow rate of the fluid within the first flow path is between about 5 cc/hr and about 250 cc/hr.
Mudd discloses a flow restrictor (title) comprising an inlet port and an outlet port ([0070]: “The inlet 1203A”); a poppet coupled with the housing ([0068]: “and poppet and valve seat”); wherein a flow restrictor is defined by a valve seat between the inlet port and the outlet port ([0005]: “A characterized restrictor is placed in series and adjacent with the valve seat to provide a primary flow restriction while having a minimized volume between the valve seat and the characterized restrictor.”), and wherein a flow rate of the fluid within the first flow path is between about 1 cc/hr and about 10 cc/hr ([0068]: “flow rates of gas or fluid (e.g., low flow, high flow, 0.1 sccm, or 30,000 sccm) within tight tolerance limits”).
Mudd and Silverwater are considered analogous art as they both pertain to flow restrictors consisting of an inlet, outlet, poppet valve, and valve seat. Silverwater discloses that the valve operates to prevent the pressure differential from exceeding a threshold (col 8 lines 7 – 13: “when the pressure differential across the filter exceeds the first prescribed pressure differential, i.e., the cracking pressure, the poppet 79 moves to the downstream seat 83. The magnitude of the cracking pressure is established by the characteristics of the spring 84 and the cross sectional area of the upstream seat 75”), but does not specify the range at which the fluid flow is restricted to. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the transducer disclosed by Silverwater to include the flow rate range disclosed by Mudd in order to expand the application of the system to a wide range of techniques (Mudd [0068]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on page 8 of applicant’s remarks that the Silverwater does not disclose that the inlet and outlet port is partially defined by a surface of the valve seat. The inlet port disclosed by Silverwater is integral with the downstream valve seat (Fig 3 element 83 into 82). Applicant’s argument that the outlet is not defined by the surface of the valve seat is persuasive. However, the outlet when defined as element 73 (see modified rejection above) is further defined by the valve seat 75. As such, both the inlet and outlet are defined by the surface of the valve seat. Furthermore, the flow restriction channel is disclosed by element 72 of Silverwater, the edges of which are formed by the valve seat 75 and 83 respectively. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sun (US 20130068987 A1) – discloses each of the inlet port and the outlet port being at least partially defined by a surface of a valve seat (Fig 2A elements 206, 210, and 216).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAVYA SHOBANA BALAJI whose telephone number is (703)756-5368. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:30 ET.
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, Jaqueline Cheng can be reached at 571-272-5596. 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.
/KAVYA SHOBANA BALAJI/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/DEVIN B HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights