DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 and 17-20 were filed with the amendment dated 11/17/2025. Claim 16 was cancelled.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 04/18/2023. These drawings are acceptable in view of the Remarks filed 11/17/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previously set forth drawing objection and 35 USC 112a rejections are persuasive. The drawing objection and 35 USC 112a rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed 11/17/2025, with respect to the 35 USC 102 rejection over U.S. Pat. No. 10,487,961 (“Eilers”) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 11-15, and 18-19 as being anticipated by Eilers has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see Remarks, filed 11/17/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 11-15, and 18 under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 2007/0272316 (“Zecchi”) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2013/0320252 (“Hageman”).
The rejection is made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “vale” (line 1) should be changed to “valve.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 19-20 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.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the frame walls" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if claim 19 should be amended to state “the skeleton frame having a plurality of frame walls” (similar to language in claim 1) or if claim 19 should change “the frame walls” to “the wall” (such as recited in claim 19, line 5). For purposes of examination, claim 19 will be construed as if it is written as “the skeleton frame having a plurality of frame walls.”
Dependent claim 20 is rejected for being dependent upon rejected claim 19.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2007/0272316 (“Zecchi”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2013/0320252 (“Hageman”).
With regard to claim 1, Zecchi discloses a cage for a valve (Figs 1-7; Figs 6-7 are same as Figs 1-5 except wall 102 is wire mesh, see para [0073]), all other elements are same), the cage comprising: a first end portion (top of 7, see annotated Figs); a second end portion (bottom of 7, see annotated Figs) opposite the first end portion; and a wall (portion/body of 7, see annotated Figs) between the first end portion and the second end portion, the cage having a central axis (see annotated Figs), the wall including: a skeleton frame (7) having a plurality of frame walls (portions between windows 71, see annotated Figs) extending between the first end (top end of 7) and the second end portion (bottom end of 7), the skeleton frame (7) defining a plurality of windows (71); and lattice structure (102/110) in the windows (71) (see Figs 4 and 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
422
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
462
775
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
362
662
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Zecchi discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that one or more of the frame walls at least partially define two or more windows that are spaced apart in an axial direction between the first end portion and the second end portion.
Zecchi discloses one window in an axial direction.
Hageman teaches that it is known in the art to modify a valve cage, similar to that of Zecchi with a plurality of frame walls (see annotated Fig 3) between a first end portion (top) and a second end portion (bottom) to include two or more windows (32a’) that are spaced apart in an axial direction between the first end portion and the second end portion (see annotated Figs 3-4).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make two or more windows in an axial direction, such as taught by Hageman, in the cage of Zecchi for the purpose of providing additional flow control through the cage as the valve plug moves upwards (see paras [0023] [0026])
PNG
media_image4.png
802
854
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, Zecchi (as modified above) discloses that a first inner diameter of the skeleton frame (7) is less than a second inner diameter of the lattice structure (102/110) (shown best in Fig 7, see annotated Fig).
With regard to claim 3, Zecchi (as modified above) discloses that a first outer diameter of the skeleton frame (7) is greater than a second outer diameter of the lattice structure (102/110) (shown best in Fig. 7, see annotated Fig).
With regard to claim 10, Zecchi (as modified above) discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing at least a portion of the windows are hexagonal shaped.
Applicant has not disclosed that having the at least a portion of the windows be hexagonal shaped solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Rather, the specification states that different shapes can be used (see para [0040]).
Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the at least a portion of the windows of Zecchi any suitable shape, such as hexagonal, because the shape of the window does not appear to provide any unexpected results.
With regard to claim 11, Zecchi (as modified above) discloses that at least a portion of the windows (71) are polygonal shaped (shape shown in Figs. 6 and 7 are polygonal – closed figure with straight lines).
Claims 4, 5, 6, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2007/0272316 (“Zecchi”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2013/0320252 (“Hageman”) as set forth above for claim 1, and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 10,487,961 (“Eilers”).
With regard to claim 4, Zecchi (as modified by Hageman above) discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing the cage is composed of multiple layers of a same material bonded together.
Eilers teaches a cage for a valve, similar to that of Zecchi, and teaches that it is known in the art to make a cage the same material (metal) of multiple layers bonded together (multiple layers of metal, additive manufacturing to bond together, see col. 4, line 52 to col. 5, line 15).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make at least part of the cage of Zecchi composed of multiple layers of the same material bonded together, such as taught by Eilers, for the purpose of having greater customization and design options for the windows and/or lattice structure (see, Eilers at col. 5, lines 1-14).
With regard to claim 5, Zecchi (as modified by Eilers above) discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing the cage includes stainless steel.
Zecchi/Eilers disclose the use of metal generally (Eilers col. 4, line 52 to col. 5, line 15).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make the cage of Zecchi/Eilers out of any suitable material, such as stainless steel, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (See MPEP 2144.07).
With regard to claim 6, Zecchi (as modified above) discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that the lattice structure is a triply periodic lattice structure.
Applicant disclosed in the specification that the lattice structure can be a variety of shapes, and that the triply periodic lattice structure is just in some examples (para [0041]) and, therefore, not critical.
Eilers teaches a cage for a valve, similar to that of Zecchi, and teaches that it is known in the art to make the lattice structure of the cage a triply periodic structure (col. 4, lines 52-58).
Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the lattice structure of Zecchi any suitable shape such as a triply periodic structure because the shape of the lattice structure does not appear to provide any unexpected results.
With regard to claim 19, Zecchi discloses a method (inherent in apparatus) comprising: a cage for a valve (see Figs 1-7), the cage having a central axis (see annotated Figs), the cage including: a first end portion (top of 7, see annotated Figs); a second end portion (bottom of 7, see annotated Figs) opposite the first end portion; and a wall (portion/body of 7, see annotated Figs) between the first end portion (top) and the second end portion (bottom), the wall including a skeleton frame (7) extending between the first end portion and the second end portion and defining a plurality of windows (71), the wall including lattice structure (102/10) in the windows (71).
Zecchi discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing constructing, via an additive manufacturing process, and that one or more of the frame walls at least partially define two or more windows that are spaced apart in an axial direction between the first end portion and the second end portion.
Eilers teaches that it is known in the art to modify a valve cage, similar to that of Zecchi, to be made by additive manufacturing process (col. 4, lines 58-65).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize any suitable manufacturing process, such as additive manufacturing as taught by Eilers, for the cage of Zecchi, for the purpose of having greater freedom of design and ease of manufacturing (see Eilers at col. 5, lines 5-15).
Zecchi (as modified by Eilers) discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that one or more of the frame walls at least partially define two or more windows that are spaced apart in an axial direction between the first end portion and the second end portion.
Zecchi discloses one window in an axial direction.
Hageman teaches that it is known in the art to modify a valve cage, similar to that of Zecchi with a plurality of frame walls (see annotated Fig 3) between a first end portion (top) and a second end portion (bottom) to include two or more windows (32a’) that are spaced apart in an axial direction between the first end portion and the second end portion (see annotated Figs 3-4).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make two or more windows in an axial direction, such as taught by Hageman, in the cage of Zecchi for the purpose of providing additional flow control through the cage as the valve plug moves upwards (see paras [0023] [0026]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2007/0272316 (“Zecchi”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2013/0320252 (“Hageman”) and U.S. Pat. No. 10,487,961 (“Eilers”) as set forth above for claim 19, and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 3,780,767 (“Borg”).
With regard to claim 20, Eilers discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing machining an inner surface of the skeleton frame to create a smooth guide surface for a plug of the valve.
Borg teaches a valve with a cage, similar to that of Eilers, and teaches that it is known in the art to modify aa cage by machining an inner surface of the skeleton frame to create a smooth guide surface for a plug of the valve (see col. 3, lines 51-55: “final machining for smooth passage therewithin of plug 31”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize machining, such as taught by Borg, of the cage/skeleton frame of Eilers for the purpose of creating a smooth passage of the plug within the cage/skeleton frame (see Borg at col. 3, lines 51-55).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9, 12-15, and 17-18 are allowed.
Conclusion
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 JESSICA CAHILL whose telephone number is (571)270-5219. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 to 3:00.
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 571-272-60073607 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.
/JESSICA CAHILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753