DETAILED ACTION
The RCE filed 22 December 2025 has been entered. Claims 32-34 and 36-51 are 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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 22 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 32 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The applicant argues with respect to independent claim 51 on pg. 11 of the Response that claim overcomes the prior art. The examiner agrees that independent claim 51 recites allowable subject matter, as discussed in the Allowable Subject Matter below.
The applicant argues with respect to dependent claims 37 and 41-49 on pgs. 11-13 of the Response that claim overcomes the prior art. The examiner agrees that dependent claims 37 and 41-49 recite allowable subject matter, as discussed in the Allowable Subject Matter below.
Claim Objections
Claim 51 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 51, line 21, “the pressure regulating body” should be changed to --the pressure regulating device body-- to maintain consistency in reciting the structure.
In claim 51, last line, “the pressure regulating body” should be changed to --the pressure regulating device body-- to maintain consistency in reciting the structure.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 Rosenberg (US 2004/0267187) in view of Olshevsky (US 2,168,536).
Regarding claim 32, Rosenberg discloses in Fig. 3 a pressure regulating device for compressed gas (wherein “for compressed gas” recites an intended use that isn’t seen as defining over the structure of the prior art per MPEP 2111.02), said device comprising:
a body 32 with a gas inlet 36, a gas outlet 38 and a gas passage fluidly interconnecting the gas inlet 36 and gas outlet 38;
a valve device with a seat 44 in the gas passage and an obturator 46 configured for cooperating with the seat 44; and
a regulator (comprising the chamber formed by bellows 52, 54) housed in a cavity of the body 32, the cavity beinq downstream of the valve device, the regulator delimiting with the cavity a regulating chamber (formed in the bellows 52, 54, in which a regulating fluid is housed, as disclosed in paragraph 25, or between the bellows 52, 54, and the wall of side wall of the body 32 like the applicant’s regulating chamber, as discussed by the applicant in their arguments in the response) with a geometry that varies with the pressure in the regulating chamber (like the applicant’s regulating chamber), and actuating the obturator 46 for regulating a flow of gas through the valve device;
wherein the body 32 is tubular;
wherein the gas inlet 36 and the gas outlet 38 are at longitudinal end portion(s) of the body 32.
Rosenberg 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, wherein the cavity is cylindrical and delimited radially by an inner surface of the cylindrical wall 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 like the bellows disclosed by Rosenberg) 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 Rosenberg 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)) and because Rosenberg is silent with regard to the specific shape of the body. 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 modify the body disclosed by Rosenberg to include at least one end portion attached to the main portion, to provide a modular structure with at least one separate end section, as Olshevsky teaches, because Rosenberg is silent with regard to the assembly of the body and the structure taught by Olshevsky allows for simply assembly of parts inside the body.
Regarding claim 34, Olshevsky teaches n Figs. 1-4 that 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 Rosenberg 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, Rosenberg 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 Rosenberg 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 handling bodily fluids, which have 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, Rosenberg 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 Rosenberg 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 provide a simple way of selectively filling the sealed chamber because Rosenberg is silent with regard to such detail.
Regarding claim 50, Rosenberg discloses in Fig. 3 that the regulator comprises at least one flexible wall delimiting the sealed chamber, 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 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 Rosenberg and Olschevsky to comprise the sealed chamber be delimited by a fixed portion, movable portion, and at least one flexible wall extending between the fixed portion and movable portion, as Wang teaches, for a simpler and more predictable regulator that only uses a single chamber and flexible wall, as opposed to the regulator disclosed by Rosenberg, which relies on two chambers with two flexible walls and separated by a orifice that affects the movement of the obturator.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 36-39, 42-49, and 51 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 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 obturator comprises a poppet located on an upstream side of the seat and configured for contacting the seat, and a stem extending from the poppet through the seat, the stem being attached to the regulator, and wherein 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;
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; and
regarding 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.
Conclusion
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
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753