Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/421,526

Automatic Gas Valve with Gas Pressure Regulator Poppet Lockout

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jan 24, 2024
Examiner
ARUNDALE, ROBERT K
Art Unit
3753
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Unknown
OA Round
4 (Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
579 granted / 771 resolved
+5.1% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+24.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
802
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
40.2%
+0.2% vs TC avg
§102
31.8%
-8.2% vs TC avg
§112
25.1%
-14.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 771 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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. Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorter et al. (U.S. Patent 6,748,932), hereinafter “Sorter” in view of Hughes et al. (U.S. Patent 3,923,079), hereinafter “Hughes”. In regards to claims 1 and 9, Sorter discloses gas valve comprising: a housing (34) having a gas flow path and a poppet seal (seal between 38, 40 and 42) at an orifice commonly utilized for either of a gas pressure regulator and a solenoid actuator (20) located therein, when actuated; said gas pressure regulator having an open (Fig. 3) and closed (Fig. 4) configuration wherein until reaching a predetermined pressure, the gas pressure regulator permits gas flow through the housing (34), but upon reaching the predetermined pressure, the gas pressure regulator prevents gas flow through the gas flow path at the poppet seal (seal between 38, 40 and 42), the gas pressure regulator having a regulator spring (50); and said solenoid actuator (20) having a plunger (36) and has an on configuration permitting gas flow through gas flow path with the plunger (36) spaced apart from a poppet (38, 40) in a first direction relative to the orifice and an off (Fig. 4) configuration preventing gas flow through the gas flow path at the poppet seal (seal between 38, 40 and 42) with a plunger (38, 40) against the poppet (38, 40), with the poppet seal (seal between 38, 40 and 42) against the orifice being the only seal in the gas flow path of the housing (34); and wherein when the solenoid valve (20) is in the on configuration, the gas pressure regulator operates between the open and closed configuration depending upon gas pressure with all spring bias against the poppet (38, 40) removed from acting from upstream of the orifice against the poppet the-first direction. See col. 8, line 58 – col. 9, line 5. Sorter does not specifically disclose that the solenoid plunger is spring biased. Hughes teaches a control valve having a solenoid actuator with a spring biased plunger. See the Final Rejection dated 02/26/2025. PNG media_image1.png 534 480 media_image1.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have designed solenoid actuator of Sorter to include a biasing spring to ensure a closed position of the plunger in an un-energized state of the solenoid as is well-known for conventional solenoid actuators. Sorter, as modified, discloses that the regulator spring (Sorter 50) and plunger spring (Hughes “S”) are on opposite sides of the orifice. In regards to claim 2, the poppet (38, 40) is upstream in the gas flow path of the orifice, and said poppet (38, 40) sealing against the orifice port to provide the poppet seal (seal between 38, 40 and 42). In regards to claims 3, 10, and 13 the gas pressure regulator has a piston (46) extending through the orifice and connecting to the poppet (38, 40). In regards to claims 4 and 11, the solenoid actuator (20) and the plunger (36) are colinearly disposed with the piston (46). In regards to claims 5 and 12, the housing has an inlet and an outlet and an axis extending through the plunger (36) is perpendicularly disposed relative to one of the inlet and outlet. In regards to claims 6 and 14, a solenoid of the solenoid valve is disposed externally of the housing (34). In regards to claims 7 and 15, the gas pressure regulator has a spring (50) biasing the poppet (38, 40) away from the port. In regards to claims 8 and 16, the gas pressure regulator has a spring (50) biasing the poppet (38, 40) away from the port, and the solenoid actuator (20) has a spring (via modification by Hughes) biasing the plunger (36) to seal the poppet (38, 40) against the port in the off configuration, wherein upon energizing the solenoid, the plunger (36) is moved away from the port permitting the gas pressure regulator to regulate pressure. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection as outlined above. As discussed above, Sorter as modified by Hughes teaches applicant’s invention as claimed. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to R.K. Arundale whose telephone number is 571-270-3453. 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, and 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. /ROBERT K ARUNDALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 24, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 31, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 21, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 07, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 21, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 27, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 11, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 19, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 31, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12583271
PNEUMATIC PRESSURE CONTROLLER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578027
Bicycle Tire Inner Tube with Pneumatic Valve
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576676
Automatic Tire Inflation System Hose With Integrated TPMS Sensor
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571484
VALVE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12572163
PRESSURE REDUCER ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+24.5%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 771 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month