DETAILED ACTION
The Response filed 19 June 2026 has been entered. Claims 32-34 and 36-51 remain pending. Claims 1-31 and 35 have been 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons in view of the newly cited prior art reference – Thompson (US 35,402).
The applicant argues with respect to claim 32 on pgs. 7-8 of the Response that the prior art lacks the obturator comprising a poppet located on an upstream side of the seat and configured for contacting the seat, a stem extending from the poppet through the seat, and the stem being attached to the regulator. However, Thompson discloses in Figs. 1-2 the obturator (G) comprises a poppet (G) located on an upstream side of the seat (o) and configured for contacting the seat (o), and a stem (connecting the obturator (G) to the diaphragm (F)) extending from the poppet (G) through the seat (o), the stem being attached to the regulator (at the diaphragm (F)).
The applicant argues with respect to claim 32 on pg. 9 of the Response that the claim is in condition for allowance because it has been amended to include the allowable subject matter of claim 36, indicated in the previous office action. However, as indicated in the previous office action, the entire combination of limitations set forth in claim 36 was indicated as being allowable subject matter, but the currently amended claim 32 doesn’t incorporate all of the limitations of previously presented claim 36, because claim 32 lacks the recitation of “the stem comprises a conical portion adjacent the poppet and showing a radial play with the seat of less that 0.02mm.”
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 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (US 35,402) in view of Olshevsky (US 2,168,536).
Regarding claim 32, Thompson discloses in Figs. 1-2 a pressure regulating device for compressed gas (wherein the recitation of “for compressed gas” is seen as a recitation of an intended use and handled fluid that doesn’t define over the structure of the prior art, per MPEP 2111.02 and 2115), said device comprising:
a body (A, D) with a gas inlet (indicated with the inlet flow arrow), a gas outlet (indicated with the outlet flow arrow) and a gas passage fluidly interconnecting the gas inlet and gas outlet;
a valve device (o, G) with a seat (o) in the gas passage and an obturator (G) configured for cooperating with the seat (o); and
a regulator (comprising regulating chamber 1) housed in a cavity (comprising “annular gas-chamber 4”) of the body (A, D), the cavity being downstream of the valve device (o, G), the regulator delimiting with the cavity a regulating chamber (1) with a geometry (because of the diaphragm (F) delimiting one side of the regulating chamber 1) that varies with the pressure in the regulating chamber (1), and actuating the obturator (G) for regulating a flow of gas through the valve device (o, G);
wherein the body (A, D) comprises a cylindrical wall;
wherein the gas inlet and the gas outlet are at longitudinal end portion(s) of the body;
wherein the cavity is cylindrical (because the “annular gas chamber 4” is “annular”) and delimited radially by an inner surface of the cylindrical wall of the body (A, D); and
wherein the obturator (G) comprises a poppet (G) located on an upstream side of the seat (o) and configured for contacting the seat (o), and a stem (connecting the obturator (G) to the diaphragm (F)) extending from the poppet (G) through the seat (o), the stem being attached to the regulator (at the diaphragm (F)).
Thompson lacks the body comprising a cylindrical wall extending over the whole length of the body, with a nominal outer diameter along the regulator and the valve device that is a maximum outer diameter of the body.
Olshevsky teaches in Figs. 1-4 a body 12, 14, 17 comprising a cylindrical wall (shown in Fig. 3) extending over the whole length of the body 12, 14, 17, with a nominal outer diameter along the regulator (comprising regulator bellows 13) and the valve device (with obturator 26) that is a maximum outer diameter of the body 12, 14, 17, wherein the cavity (in which the regulator bellows 13 are disposed) is cylindrical and delimited radially by an inner surface of the cylindrical wall of the body 12, 14, 17.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the body disclosed by Thompson to be cylindrical with a consistent outer diameter and a cylindrical interior that houses the regulator, as Olshevsky teaches, as an obvious shape (MPEP 2144(IV)(B)). Furthermore, the cylindrical shape provides a strong housing that minimizes corners in which stress can be concentrated.
Regarding claim 33, Olshevsky teaches in Figs. 1-4 that the body 12, 14, 17 comprises a main portion 12, 14 with the nominal outer diameter and at least one end portion 17 with the nominal outer diameter (like the applicant’s end portions 18.2, 18.3 each have a portion with the maximum nominal outer diameter and a narrower section) and attached to the main portion 12, 14.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the body in the combination of Thompson and Olshevsky to be configured with an end portion attached to the main portion, and both possessing the nominal outer diameter, as Olshevsky teaches, to provide the consistent outer diameter discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and wherein the modular structure provides for easy assembly of components inside of the body, and similar to the modular structure disclosed by Olshevsky.
Regarding claim 34, Olshevsky teaches in Figs. 1-4 that the attachment of the at least one end portion 17 to the main portion 12, 14 of the body 12, 14, 17, but lacks teaching that the body portions are welded together. However, such a structure defines an process that isn’t seen as defining over the final structure of the prior art (MPEP 2113).
Claims 40-41 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Olshevsky, as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 6,360,546).
Regarding claim 40, Thompson discloses a pressure regulating device, as previously discussed, but lacks teaching the specific pressure of fluid that the device is able to handle, including being for delivering a flow of gas in the presence of an absolute pressure at the gas outlet that is less than 0.9 bar.
Wang teaches in Figs. 1-2 the pressure regulating device 80 for delivering a flow of gas in the presence of an absolute pressure at the gas outlet that is less than 0.9 bar (because the outlet pressure can be as low as 10 psig, as disclosed in col. 7, lines 38-44, which translates to 0.689 bar).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the pressure regulating device in the combination of Thompson and Olshevsky to be able to deliver gas (regardless of whether the device actually delivers gas or liquid) at less than 0.9 bar, as Wang teaches, because the device is intended for gas burners, which use low pressures, and so a cheaper device can be made compared to a more robust design to handle higher pressures that may require stronger and/or thicker materials, fasteners, etc.
Regarding claim 41, Thompson discloses a pressure regulating device, as previously discussed, but lacks a port fluidly connected via a plug to a sealed chamber of the regulator and configured for fluidly connecting an external source of auxiliary gas to the sealed chamber for adjusting a pressure of the auxiliary gas in the sealed chamber.
Wang teaches in Fig. 2 a port (in which the “fill screw 85” is disposed) fluidly connected via a plug 85 to a sealed chamber 98 of the regulator and configured for fluidly connecting an external source of auxiliary gas to the sealed chamber 98 for adjusting a pressure of the auxiliary gas in the sealed chamber 98 (col. 8, lines 23-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the regulator in the combination of Thompson and Olshevsky to comprise a port with which the sealed chamber can be filled with fluid from an external source and a plug to selectively seal the port during operation, as Wang teaches, to be able to provide a consistent auxiliary fluid for the regulator and a sealed environment for the auxiliary fluid, as opposed to relying on atmospheric air, as Thompson discloses, whose pressure may change, such as with temperature, and may allow debris or moisture in the regulator that may hinder operation of the regulator.
Regarding claim 50, Thompson discloses in Figs. 1-2 that the regulator comprises at least one flexible wall (F) delimiting the sealed chamber 1, but lacks teaching that the regulator comprises a fixed portion, a movable portion and at least one flexible wall attached to the fixed portion and the movable portion in a gas-tight fashion, the sealed chamber of the regulator being delimited by the at least one flexible wall, the fixed portion and the movable portion.
Wang teaches in Fig. 2 that the regulator comprises a fixed portion 82, a movable portion 88 and at least one flexible wall 84 (in the form of bellows, as shown in the drawings) attached to the fixed portion 82 and the movable portion 88 in a gas-tight fashion, the sealed chamber 98 of the regulator being delimited by the at least one flexible wall 84, the fixed portion 82 and the movable portion 88.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the regulator in the combination of Thompson and Olschevsky to comprise a sealed chamber delimited by a fixed portion, movable portion, and at least one flexible wall (in the form of bellows) extending between the fixed portion and movable portion, as Wang teaches, because bellows are well known in the art to be made of metal, the metallic bellows provide a more durable flexible wall than the diaphragm disclosed by Thompson. Furthermore, metallic bellows would be more resistant to high temperatures than a diaphragm, which would be beneficial because the regulating device is intended for use with a gas burner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 51 is allowed.
Claims 36-39, and 42-49 are 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art fails to disclose or render obvious, in combination with the other limitations recited in claim 51, a device for a gas cylinder, said device comprising: a main body with a male portion configured for engaging with a collar of the gas cylinder, a gas inlet in the male portion, a gas outlet and a gas passage interconnecting the gas inlet with the gas outlet; a shut-off valve for the gas passage, housed in the main body.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. The prior art fails to disclose or render obvious, in combination with the other limitations recited:
regarding claim 36, the stem comprises a conical portion adjacent the poppet and showing a radial play with the seat of less than 0.02mm;
regarding claim 37, the cavity comprises a bottom adjacent the seat, the pressure regulating device comprising a compression wave spring resting on the bottom and acting on the regulator, and wherein the regulator comprises a shouldered end face engaging with the compression wave spring;
regarding claim 38, the valve device is a first valve device, the seat is a first seat, the obturator is a first obturator, the regulator is a first regulator, the cavity is a first cavity and the regulating chamber is a first regulating chamber, the pressure regulating device further comprising a second valve device fluidly in series with and downstream of the first valve device, with a second seat in the gas passage and a second obturator configured for cooperating with the second seat, and a second regulator housed in a second cavity of the body, downstream of the second valve device, delimiting with the second cavity a second regulating chamber with a geometry that varies with the pressure in the second regulating chamber, and actuating the second obturator for regulating a flow of gas through the second valve device;
regarding claim 42, the port to the sealed chamber opens out of the body;
regarding claim 43, the port to the sealed chamber shows a main axis that is transversal to a longitudinal axis of the pressure regulating device;
regarding claim 44, the plug for the sealed chamber comprises a threaded portion engaging with a fixed portion of the regulator and a conical needle portion engaging with an auxiliary seat formed in the fixed portion;
regarding claim 46, the plug for the sealed chamber is entirely located in a channel between the port and the sealed chamber of the regulator; and
regarding claim 47, at an end opposed to the sealed chamber 98 of the regulator, an engagement surface for engaging with a tool by insertion of the tool into the port.
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 Examiner Jonathan Waddy, whose telephone number is 571-270-3146. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (10:00AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881 or Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/J. W./
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KEVIN F MURPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights