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 . 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 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.
DETAILED NON-FINAL ACTION
Status of Claims
New
Currently Amended
Previously Presented/Original
Pending
Examined
24
1-4, 9, 17, 18, 22
5-8, 10-16, 19-21 and 23
1-24
1-23
All claims are drawn to an apparatus. The examined claims are directed to a composition or product.
Status of Previous Objections / Rejections
All prior Office actions were issued by another examiner. At this juncture, Examiner withdraws the previous Office action’s (OA) (i.e, 01/07/2026) objections and 35 USC §102 and §103 rejections in view of amendments to the claims, Applicant’s remarks and a reconsideration of the pertinent objections/rejections. However, after careful reconsideration of the claims, Examiner believes new 35 USC §112(b) rejections are appropriate and has applied such rejections to the noted claims.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 24 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Group I: Claims 1-23, drawn to a gas control valve characterized by the basic alignment of an inflow, drive, and outflow portion containing an axial gear mechanism device and a spherical-cap flow element, classified in CPC F16K1/12 and related.
Group II: Claim 24, drawn to a gas control valve characterized by a specialized inflow portion having a cylindrical flow channel of constant diameter that widens conically at a drive transition with built-in measurement element openings, coupled with a conical round slider element featuring a circular base, a covering face, and an axial blind hole positioned at its tip, CPC F16K37/00, F16K1/36, F16K31/53 and related.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because Group I is directed to the core mechanical configuration of the drive mechanism and flow-directing spherical element. Group II requires different structural features - namely, a specialized, port-equipped conical inlet transition channel and a specific nested blind-hole conical slider tip geometry. Group I does not require the unique conical widening or the measurement openings of Group II to achieve its utility of regulating fluid flow. The subcombination has separate utility such as use in an utilized in an entirely different valve assembly.
Since Applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 24 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Response to Amendment
In their reply dated April 7, 2026, Applicant added new claim 24 and amended the prior claims to address one or more objections, rejections and/or claim interpretations of the prior Office action (OA), to clarify the claim language, and/or to potentially advance prosecution. In view of the claim amendments and the attendant revised scope of the claimed invention, Examiner applies one or more of new claim interpretations and grounds of rejections in this OA including clarity-related rejections.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has considered the information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/17/2026. Please refer to the signed copy of the PTO-1449 form attached herewith.
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 1-23 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 follows, with the underlined portions either causing or intended to assist in an understanding of the indefiniteness rejection.
Claim 1: A control valve for controlling a gas throughflow, having:
an elongate housing which delimits a flow channel and which is divided into an inflow portion, a drive portion and an outflow portion which are arranged beside each other along a longitudinal axis, wherein the gas flows, during operational use of the control valve, through the flow channel from the inflow portion via the drive portion to the outflow portion,
a gear mechanism device which is provided inside the drive portion and which has an output shaft, which can be driven from the exterior and which is parallel with the longitudinal axis, and a round slider element which is arranged in a displaceable manner along the longitudinal axis via the output shaft and which has an external valve seat face which closes an annular gap which is defined between itself and an internal face of the outflow portion by longitudinal displacement in a flow direction, and
a flow element which is provided on the drive mechanism device at the end thereof facing the inflow portion and which has a spherical-cap-like external face which directs the gas which comes from the inflow portion into an annular gap between the gear mechanism device and the internal face of the drive portion.
The phrase “wherein the gas flows, during operational use of the control valve, through the flow channel..." describes an intended operational state when the gas is present rather than an explicit structural limitation. For example, language such as "the flow channel extending from the inflow portion via the drive portion to the outflow portion" would be clearer.
The claim states that the housing is divided into portions arranged "beside each other along a longitudinal axis," which suggests a parallel, side-by-side lateral arrangement, whereas "along a longitudinal axis" implies a sequential, end-to-end axial arrangement. This creates a spatial contradiction. A potential language change could be: ". . .arranged sequentially end-to-end along a longitudinal axis."
The language “the exterior” appears to lack antecedent basis, or it is unclear which exterior is being referenced.
The notion of “an annular gap defined between itself and an internal face of the outflow portion is unclear. Typically a gap would be defined between structures other than itself.
The modifier "-like" is vague and fails to provide a boundary for where a shape stops being a "spherical cap" and becomes something else.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the drive mechanism device” in the claim because the claim previously only referred to “a gear mechanism device.”
Claim 2: The claim mentions “the housing” rather than “elongate housing” which introduces an antecedent basis issue. Also, the difference between the newly introduced “a gear mechanism” and the “gear mechanism device” of claim 1 is unclear.
Claim 14: The language “the drive portion at least partially two mutually separate circular-ring-segment-like channels . . .” is unclear.
Claims 2-23 relate to or depend from claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04-07-2026 have been fully considered. Examiner did not address the claims with prior art at this juncture. Although Examiner withdraws the prior art rejections in view of the claim amendments and/or Applicant’s arguments, and did not uncover any more pertinent prior art, in view of the remaining issues, Examiner will not address any potential allowability issues at this juncture.
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.
Electronic Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or an earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hayden Brewster whose telephone number is (571) 270-1065. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9 AM - 4 PM.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, Applicant may send a communication, via e-mail or fax. Examiner’s direct fax number is: (571) 270-2065. Examiner's official e-mail address is: "Hayden.Brewster@uspto.gov." However, since e-mail communication may not be secure, Examiner will not respond to a substantive e-mail unless Applicant’s communication is in accordance with the provisions of MPEP §502.03 & related sections that discuss the required Authorization for Internet Communication (AIC). Nonetheless, all substantive communications will be made of record in Applicant’s file.
To facilitate the Internet communication authorization process, Applicant may file an appropriate letter, or may complete the USPTO SB439 fillable form available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf, preferably in advance of any substantive e-mail communication. Since one may use an electronic signature with this particular form, Applicant is encouraged to file this form via the Office’s system for electronic filing of patent correspondence (i.e., the electronic filing system (Patent Center)). Otherwise, a handwritten signature is required. In addition to Patent Center, Applicant can submit their Internet authorization request via US Postal Service, USPTO Customer Service Window, or Central Fax. Examiner can also provide a one-time oral authorization, but this will only apply to video conferencing. It is improper to request Internet Authorization via e-mail.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and via 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 available at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice, or Applicant may call Examiner, if preferable. Applicant can access a general list of patent application forms at either https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012 (applications filed on or after September 16, 2012) or https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms (applications filed before September 16, 2012). Note that the language in an AIR form is not a substitute for the requirements of an AIC, where appropriate. The mere filing of an Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form (PTOL-413A) or a Letter Requesting Interview with Examiner, in EFS-Web, may not apprise Examiner of such a request in a timely manner.
If attempts to reach the Examiner are unsuccessful, Applicant may reach Examiner’s supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie at 571-270-3240. The central 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.
/HAYDEN BREWSTER/Examiner, AU 1779
