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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/26/2025 has been entered.
Status of the claims
Claim 1 is/are amended and claim 25 is added. Currently claims 1, 3-25 are pending in this application and claims 4-6, 9, 10, 12-16, 23 are withdrawn.
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.
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, 7, 8, 18-22, 24, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lansky et al (20040173767) in view of Kreuger (6467557) or Wang et al (20140069659) further in view of Allen et al (3072147).
Regarding claim 1, Lansky discloses a fluid control system comprising a first chamber (between 8 and seat part of 3), a second chamber (downstream of valve seating part 3), and a passage (valve seating part 3) extending between said first chamber and said second chamber, a spool shaft 5 adapted to be moveable placed in the passage in a fluid-tight and snug-fit manner (col 2 line 15-20, valve substantially closed), the spool shaft (left side portion of 5 containing a groove 6 extending partly in longitudinal direction, the cross-section of the groove is increasing from the first chamber to the second chamber, an actuator 10 connected to the spool shaft 50 and adapted to move the spool shaft in relation to the passage, wherein the length of the groove 6 within the passage defines a fluid passage (portion of seating passage 3 in which valve 5 extends) for fluid flowing from the first chamber to the second chamber with an orifice area defined by the cross-sectional area of the groove 6 at the side of the first chamber at the beginning of the passage, whereby a flow rate of a fluid flowing from the first chamber to the second chamber is changed by moving the spool shaft 50 relative to the passage to increase the orifice area (col 2 line 1-20) and the length of the passage (portion of seating passage 3 in which valve 5 extends) and the length of the groove 6 are mutually dimensioned such for at least for a part of the extension of the groove within the passage, an increase in the orifice area provided by moving the spool shaft in the passage, results in a decrease of the fluid passage defined as the length of the extension of the groove within the passage.
Lansky fails to disclose valve body/seat and spool shaft made of tungsten carbide which is an inherently non-galling material. Kreuger (col 5, line 5-20) teaches valve/valve parts made of tungsten carbide (col 49, line 47-51) which is an inherently non-galling material. Similarly, Wang (Para 34) teaches valve components made of tungsten carbide.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Lansky with valve made of tungsten carbide as taught by Kreuger/Wang in order to prevent surface damage.
Lansky as modified fails to disclose spool shaft sealingly and movably fit within the passage to prevent flow through shaft passage interface. Allen teaches a fluid control system comprising a first chamber 22, a second chamber 4,10,6 and a passage 18 extending between said first chamber and said second chamber, a spool shaft 17 adapted to be moveable placed in the passage in a fluid-tight and snug-fit manner between the spool shaft and the passage such that fluid is prevented from passing through common interface between the spool shaft and the passage (col 2, line 20-30, flow sealed off in valve closed position means no leakage flow at shaft and passage interface in closed position), the spool shaft 17 containing a groove 19 extending partly in longitudinal direction, the cross-section of the groove is increasing from the first chamber 22 to the second chamber, an actuator 16 connected to the spool shaft 17 and adapted to move the spool shaft in relation to the passage, wherein the length of the groove 19 within the passage 18 defines a fluid passage between the first and second chambers.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Lansky as modified with spool shaft sealingly and movably fit within the passage as taught by Allen in order to provide accurate flow metering without leakage flow.
As to claim 3, in Lansky, the system is contained in a housing 2 where the first chamber defines an inlet side (to 8) and the second chamber an outlet side (to 4).
As to claim 7, the passage (valve seating part of 3), spool shaft 5 and an elongated valve spool core 5,9 comprising the spool shaft are cylindrical in cross section.
As to claim 8, Lansky shows the system is contained in a housing, 2 wherein the housing comprises a through-going opening (right end side of bore 3) in the inlet side of the housing adapted to contain an elongated valve spool core 5,9 comprising the spool shaft (right portion of 5), wherein the elongate valve spool core extends through the through going opening.
As to claim 18, an elongate valve spool core 5,9 comprising the spool shaft 5 comprises two or more grooves 6 in parallel for providing a larger fluid flow rate.
As to claims 19-21, Lansky as modified fails to disclose claimed optimal ranges of grove depth increase rate, turndown ratio, or maximum flowrate. Thus as the general conditions of the claim are disclosed it is not considered inventive to disclose optimum or workable ranges of the grove depth increase rate, turndown ratio, or maximum flowrate. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have used the claimed optimal ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 23. Applicants' written description fails to allege that the improvements would have been unexpected. Furthermore, there is nothing in the record before us to indicate that the selection of such ranges would have been beyond the technical grasp of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Criticality of a range is generally established by showing that the results achieved are unexpected relative to the prior art results. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-70 (Fed. Cir. 1997). To the extent that improved properties were achieved, "[m]ere improvement in properties does not always suffice to show unexpected results." In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746, 751. The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . These cases have consistently held that in such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range." Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC, No. 09-C-916, 2012 BL 233091, at *5 (E.D. Wis. Sept. 12, 2012).
As to claim 22, Lansky shows an elongate valve spool core 5,9 comprising a spool shaft 5 adapted to fit in a snug-fit manner within the passage and an internal shaft 9 extending through the valve housing on only the inlet side.
As to claim 24, in making and/or using the device of Lansky as modified as described in claim 1 rejection above, for operating the fluid control system, one would perform the steps of moving the elongate valve spool core (right side of 5) to control the flow of fluid by changing the orifice area (at the grooves 6).
As to claim 25, Lansky discloses a fluid control system comprising a first chamber (between 8 and seat part of 3), a second chamber (downstream of valve seating part 3), and a passage (valve seating part 3) extending between said first chamber and said second chamber, a spool shaft 5 adapted to be moveable placed in the passage in a fluid-tight and snug-fit manner (col 2 line 15-20, valve substantially closed), the spool shaft (left side portion of 5 containing a groove 6 extending partly in longitudinal direction, the cross-section of the groove is increasing from the first chamber to the second chamber, an actuator 10 connected to the spool shaft 50 and adapted to move the spool shaft in relation to the passage, wherein the length of the groove 6 within the passage defines a fluid passage (portion of seating passage 3 in which valve 5 extends) for fluid flowing from the first chamber to the second chamber with an orifice area defined by the cross-sectional area of the groove 6 at the side of the first chamber at the beginning of the passage, whereby a flow rate of a fluid flowing from the first chamber to the second chamber is changed by moving the spool shaft 50 relative to the passage to increase the orifice area (col 2 line 1-20) and the length of the passage (portion of seating passage 3 in which valve 5 extends) and the length of the groove 6 are mutually dimensioned such for at least for a part of the extension of the groove within the passage, an increase in the orifice area provided by moving the spool shaft in the passage, results in a decrease of the fluid passage defined as the length of the extension of the groove within the passage.
Lansky fails to disclose valve body/seat and spool shaft made of tungsten carbide which is an inherently non-galling material. Kreuger (col 5, line 5-20) teaches valve/valve parts made of tungsten carbide (col 49, line 47-51) which is an inherently non-galling material. Similarly, Wang (Para 34) teaches valve components made of tungsten carbide.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Lansky with valve made of tungsten carbide as taught by Kreuger/Wang in order to prevent surface damage.
Lansky as modified fails to disclose spool shaft sealingly and movably fit within the passage to prevent flow through shaft passage interface. Allen teaches a fluid control system comprising a first chamber 22, a second chamber 4,10,6 and a passage 18 extending between said first chamber and said second chamber, a spool shaft 17 adapted to be moveable placed in the passage in a fluid-tight and snug-fit manner between the spool shaft and the passage such that fluid is prevented from passing through common interface between the spool shaft and the passage (col 2, line 20-30, flow sealed off in valve closed position means no leakage flow at shaft and passage interface in closed position), the spool shaft 17 containing a groove 19 extending partly in longitudinal direction, the cross-section of the groove is increasing from the first chamber 22 to the second chamber, an actuator 16 connected to the spool shaft 17 and adapted to move the spool shaft in relation to the passage, wherein the length of the groove 19 within the passage 18 defines a fluid passage between the first and second chambers.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Lansky as modified with spool shaft sealingly and movably fit within the passage as taught by Allen in order to provide accurate flow metering without leakage flow.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 18-21, 24, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinnell (3187775) in view of Kreuger (6467557) or Wang et al (20140069659) further in view of Allen et al (3072147).
Regarding claim(s) 1 and 25, Pinnell, discloses a fluid control system- comprising a first chamber 11, a second chamber (at 21) and a passage 30 extending between said first chamber and said second chamber, a spool shaft 50 adapted to be moveable placed in the passage in a fluid-tight and snug-fit manner between the spool shaft and the passage, the spool shaft containing a groove 52 extending partly in longitudinal direction, the cross-section of the groove is increasing from the first chamber to the second chamber, an actuator (yoke, col 1,line 65-75) connected to the spool shaft and adapted to move the spool shaft in relation to the passage, wherein the length of the groove 52 within the passage defines a fluid passage for fluid flowing from the first chamber 11 to the second chamber with an orifice area defined by the cross-sectional area of the groove at the side of the first chamber 11 at the beginning of the passage, whereby a flow rate of a fluid flowing from the first chamber to the second chamber is changed by moving the spool shaft relative to the passage to increase the orifice area and the length of the passage and the length of the groove are mutually dimensioned such for at least for a part of the extension of the groove 52 within the passage, an increase in the orifice area (valve moving upward) provided by moving the spool shaft in the passage, results in a decrease (valve moving upward will decrease portion of 50 in 30) of the fluid passage defined as the length of the extension of the groove within the passage.
Pinnell fails to disclose valve body/seat and spool shaft made of tungsten carbide which is an inherently non-galling material. Kreuger (col 5, line 5-20) teaches valve/valve parts made of tungsten carbide (col 49, line 47-51) which is an inherently non-galling material. Similarly, Wang (Para 34) teaches valve components made of tungsten carbide.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Pinnell with valve made of tungsten carbide as taught by Kreuger/Wang in order to prevent surface damage.
Pinnell as modified fails to disclose spool shaft sealingly and movably fit within the passage to prevent flow through shaft passage interface. Allen teaches a fluid control system comprising a first chamber 22, a second chamber 4,10,6 and a passage 18 extending between said first chamber and said second chamber, a spool shaft 17 adapted to be moveable placed in the passage in a fluid-tight and snug-fit manner between the spool shaft and the passage such that fluid is prevented from passing through common interface between the spool shaft and the passage (col 2, line 20-30, flow sealed off in valve closed position means no leakage flow at shaft and passage interface in closed position), the spool shaft 17 containing a groove 19 extending partly in longitudinal direction, the cross-section of the groove is increasing from the first chamber 22 to the second chamber, an actuator 16 connected to the spool shaft 17 and adapted to move the spool shaft in relation to the passage, wherein the length of the groove 19 within the passage 18 defines a fluid passage between the first and second chambers.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Pinnell as modified with spool shaft sealingly and movably fit within the passage as taught by Allen in order to provide accurate flow metering without leakage flow.
As to claim 3, in Pinnell, the system is contained in a housing 21,12, where the first chamber 11 defines an inlet side and the second chamber an outlet side.
As to claim 7, the passage 30, spool shaft 50 and an elongated valve spool core 18-50 comprising the spool shaft are cylindrical in cross section.
As to claim 18, an elongate valve spool core comprising the spool shaft comprises two or more grooves 52,53,54 in parallel for providing a larger fluid flow rate.
As to claims 19-21, Pinnell as modified fails to disclose claimed optimal ranges of grove depth increase rate, turndown ratio, or maximum flowrate. Thus as the general conditions of the claim are disclosed it is not considered inventive to disclose optimum or workable ranges of the grove depth increase rate, turndown ratio, or maximum flowrate. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have used the claimed optimal ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 23. Applicants' written description fails to allege that the improvements would have been unexpected. Furthermore, there is nothing in the record before us to indicate that the selection of such ranges would have been beyond the technical grasp of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Criticality of a range is generally established by showing that the results achieved are unexpected relative to the prior art results. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-70 (Fed. Cir. 1997). To the extent that improved properties were achieved, "[m]ere improvement in properties does not always suffice to show unexpected results." In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746, 751. The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . These cases have consistently held that in such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range." Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC, No. 09-C-916, 2012 BL 233091, at *5 (E.D. Wis. Sept. 12, 2012).
As to claim 24, in making and/or using the device of Pinnell as modified as described in claim 1 rejection above, for operating the fluid control system, one would perform the steps of moving the elongate valve spool core 50 to control the flow of fluid by changing the orifice area (at the grooves 52,53,54).
Claim(s) 1, 8, 11, 17, 22, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenwood (2980392) in view of Kreuger (6467557) or Wang et al (20140069659) further in view of Allen et al (3072147).
As to claims 1 and 25, Greenwood discloses a fluid control system comprising a first chamber (above 11), a second chamber (in 16) and a passage 11 extending between said first chamber and said second chamber, a spool shaft 12 adapted to be moveable placed in the passage in a fluid-tight and snug-fit manner between the spool shaft and the passage, the spool shaft containing a groove 28 extending partly in longitudinal direction, the cross-section of the groove is increasing from the first chamber to the second chamber, an actuator (39) connected to the spool shaft and adapted to move the spool shaft in relation to the passage, wherein the length of the groove 28 within the passage defines a fluid passage for fluid flowing from the first chamber (above 11) to the second chamber (in 16) with an orifice area (at top of 11) defined by the cross-sectional area of the groove 28 at the side of the first chamber (above 11) at the beginning of the passage, whereby a flow rate of a fluid flowing from the first chamber to the second chamber is changed by moving the spool shaft relative to the passage to increase the orifice area and the length of the passage and the length of the groove are mutually dimensioned such for at least for a part of the extension of the groove 28 within the passage, an increase in the orifice area (valve moving upward) provided by moving the spool shaft in the passage, results in a decrease (valve moving upward from the point of travel at which bottom of plug 12 is within 11) of the fluid passage defined as the length of the extension of the groove within the passage.
Greenwood fails to disclose valve body/seat and spool shaft made of tungsten carbide which is an inherently non-galling material. Kreuger (col 5, line 5-20) teaches valve/valve parts made of tungsten carbide (col 49, line 47-51) which is an inherently non-galling material. Similarly, Wang (Para 34) teaches valve components made of tungsten carbide.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Greenwood with valve made of tungsten carbide as taught by Kreuger/Wang in order to prevent surface damage.
Greenwood as modified fails to disclose spool shaft sealingly and movably fit within the passage to prevent flow through shaft passage interface. Allen teaches a fluid control system comprising a first chamber 22, a second chamber 4,10,6 and a passage 18 extending between said first chamber and said second chamber, a spool shaft 17 adapted to be moveable placed in the passage in a fluid-tight and snug-fit manner between the spool shaft and the passage such that fluid is prevented from passing through common interface between the spool shaft and the passage (col 2, line 20-30, flow sealed off in valve closed position means no leakage flow at shaft and passage interface in closed position), the spool shaft 17 containing a groove 19 extending partly in longitudinal direction, the cross-section of the groove is increasing from the first chamber 22 to the second chamber, an actuator 16 connected to the spool shaft 17 and adapted to move the spool shaft in relation to the passage, wherein the length of the groove 19 within the passage 18 defines a fluid passage between the first and second chambers.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Greenwood as modified with spool shaft sealingly and movably fit within the passage as taught by Allen in order to provide accurate flow metering without leakage flow.
As to claim 8, Greenwood shows the system is contained in a housing, 10,21 wherein the housing comprises a through-going opening (at 41) in the inlet side of the housing adapted to contain an elongated valve spool core 12,14,37 comprising the spool shaft 12, wherein the elongate valve spool core extends through the through going opening.
As to claim 11, in Greenwood, the system is contained in a housing 10,21 and the housing further comprises through-going openings (at both ends of 21) at inlet side of the housing adapted to contain an elongated valve spool core 12,14,37 comprising the spool shaft 12, and wherein the elongated valve spool core extends through the openings to compensate for the axial forces (counterbalancing the fluid pressure exerted on the shaft by compensating through an opposing force exerted by housing through the threaded connection at 14).
As to claim 17, Greenwood shows passage 11 containing an O-ring 13 at the inlet side over the groove (in closed position) for establishing a zero flow configuration.
As to claim 22, Greenwood shows an elongate valve spool core 12,14,37 comprising a spool shaft 12 adapted to fit in a snug-fit manner within the passage and an internal shaft 37 extending through the valve housing on only the inlet side.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the rejection of record. However, a new ground of rejection is applied to the amended claims. Kreuger and Wang are cited to show incorporation tungsten carbide as valve material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Atif Chaudry at phone number 571-270-3768. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-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 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.
/ATIF H CHAUDRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753