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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/2/26 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12/11/25 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. The IDS states that there is a response filed 9/3/25 to office action 6/4/25 included but is not. Only the specification and English claims are included in the NPL.
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) 1-8, 10, and 18, as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. US 5,186,434 in view of McHugh US 3,208,721.
Regarding claim 1, Nishimura discloses a valve flexure (Fig. 2) for a flow control valve (Fig. 1), the valve flexure comprising:
a first diaphragm (top or middle 4 or top 24);
a second diaphragm (middle or bottom 4 or bottom 24), the second diaphragm directly or indirectly connected and joined to the first diaphragm about a peripheral portion of the valve flexure, the connected first and second diaphragms to selectively close the flow control valve and enclosing an inner volume of the valve flexure; and
a heat transfer medium 23 or 24 disposed within the inner volume of the valve flexure.
Nishimura lacks the heat transfer medium enclosed in an inner sealed volume of valve flexure thereby forming a sealed, self-contained, continuous pillow. McHugh discloses sealing a heat transfer medium 26 that is in an inner sealed volume of valve flexure thereby forming a sealed, self-contained, continuous pillow. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishimura to have in an inner sealed volume of valve flexure thereby forming a sealed, self-contained, continuous pillow for the heat transfer medium as a matter of simple substitution of how the heat transfer medium is contained within and/or to provide a sealed pillow to prevent leakage/damage of the heat transfer medium as it would be completely enclosed within the valve flexure.
Regarding claim 2, Nishimura discloses a configuration of the first and second diaphragms and the heat transfer medium is selected to provide a specified dynamic response for the valve flexure or the valve (adjacent diaphragms 4 slide smoothly) thus is a specified dynamic response).
Regarding claim 3, Nishimura discloses a configuration of the first and second diaphragms and the heat transfer medium is selected to provide a specified heat transfer characteristic of the valve flexure (arbitrary).
Regarding claim 4, Nishimura discloses a valve opening or valve closing movement of the first diaphragm induces a simultaneous or corresponding valve opening or valve closing movement of the second diaphragm (inherent).
Regarding claim 5, Nishimura discloses the heat transfer medium is incompressible (oil is incompressible).
Regarding claim 6, Nishimura in view of McHugh seen as disclosing the valve flexure is devoid of a side wall (side walls may be seen as coming to a point as the ends so not having a side wall).
Regarding claim 7, Nishimura discloses the first diaphragm is connected to the second diaphragm by a side wall (side wall is see as upper, inner part of body 2 that touches the outer parts of the diaphragms 4).
Regarding claim 8, Nishimura discloses the side wall defines a cylindrical side wall extending around a circumference of the valve flexure (this side wall is cylindrical around the circumference).
Regarding claim 10, Nishimura discloses the valve flexure includes an asymmetry with respect to the first and second diaphragms (the first and second diaphragms 4 and 24 appear to have asymmetry).
Regarding claim 18, Nishimura discloses a flow control valve comprising the valve flexure of claim 1.
Claim(s) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. US 5,186,434 in view of McHugh US 3,208,721 in view of Kolenc 5,335,691.
Regarding claim 10, Nishimura does not specifically state that the valve flexure includes an asymmetry with respect to the first and second diaphragms that are selected to provide a specified dynamic response of the flexure. Kolenc discloses the valve flexure includes an asymmetry with respect to the first and second diaphragms that are selected to provide a specified dynamic response of the flexure (40a is different from 40b-40e that have openings 182). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make asymmetry with respect to the first and second diaphragms by adding very small openings to Nishimura’s upper diaphragm as disclosed by Kolenc in order to “permit any pressure from between layers 40a and 40b to be passed to the space above the diaphragm 40” thus providing a specific dynamic response of the flexure of Nishimura.
Regarding claim 12, Nishimura lacks the first diaphragm or the second diaphragm includes one or more of the following materials: SPRN 510, SPRN 100, and ELGILOY. Kolenc discloses the diaphragms made out of ELGILOY. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the diaphragms out of ELGILOY as a matter of simple substitution of materials of the diaphragms and/or to provide diaphragms that are thin, strong and moveable.
Claim(s) 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. US 5,186,434 in view of McHugh US 3,208,721.
Regarding claim 13, Nishimura lacks the heat transfer medium has a dynamic viscosity of 1e-4 to 2e-2 Pa-s. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use oil as disclosed in Nishimura to have a dynamic viscosity of 1e-4 to 2e-2 Pa-s as a matter of simple substitution of dynamic viscosities and/or “obvious to try” an oil having a dynamic viscosity of 1e-4 to 2e-2 Pa-s with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14, Nishimura lacks the heat transfer medium has a thermal conductivity of 0.1 to 0.7 W/m°K. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use oil as disclosed in Nishimura to have a thermal conductivity of 0.1 to 0.7 W/m°K as a matter of simple substitution of thermal conductivities and/or “obvious to try” an oil having a thermal conductivity of 0.1 to 0.7 W/m°K with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 15, Nishimura lacks the heat transfer medium includes an alcohol. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the oil of Nishimura with alcohol as a matter of simple substitution of liquids used between the diaphragms and/or “obvious to try” alcohol instead of oil with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 16-17, Nishimura lacks the heat transfer medium includes a dual-phase medium that moves or cycles between compressible and incompressible forms based on a valve flow control characteristic, valve status, or an operating condition. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the oil of Nishimura with a dual-phase medium that moves or cycles between compressible and incompressible forms based on a valve flow control characteristic, valve status, or an operating condition as a matter of simple substitution of mediums used between the diaphragms and/or “obvious to try” this instead of oil with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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.
Claims 19-24 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for the allowance of the claim 9 is a valve flexure having a side wall that includes a bellows in combination with the device as cited in claims 1 and 7.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The primary reason for the allowance of the claims 19-24 is a flow control valve having the combination of an interstitial liquid located above the valve flexure with an inlet admitting and an outlet discharging gas or vapor with a heat transfer medium disposed with the inner sealed volume of the valve flexure comprised of first and second diaphragms as cited in claim 19.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the arguments to the 103 rejections to claims 1-8, 10, and 18 of Nishimura in view of McHugh, the examiner disagrees with applicant’s arguments. Regarding applicant’s argument to McHugh, the first argument is that McHugh’s heat transfer element 26 has a central aperture. The examiner is NOT using McHugh to change the shape of the heat transfer element whatsoever as the shape, without a central aperture, is already in Nishimura. The examiner is using McHugh to show that heat transfer elements may be completely surrounded thus are sealed, self-contained and continuous. The examiner is using this disclosure/teaching to completely surround the heat transfer element of Nishimura, which does not have a central aperture, thus forming a sealed, self-contained, continuous “pillow”. The applicant mentions the central aperture in McHugh multiple times, but again, the examiner is not using the central aperture of McHugh at all as Nishimura does not have a central aperture and the McHugh reference is just to show that a heat transfer element may be completely surrounded like a pillow. The arguments to the dependent claims 10-12 and 13-17 are based upon the arguments to the independent claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN BASTIANELLI whose telephone number is (571)272-4921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-4921 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/John Bastianelli/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
571-272-4921