Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/467,476

STEMLESS CHOKE VALVE

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Sep 14, 2023
Examiner
GARDNER, NICOLE
Art Unit
3753
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
New Star Flow Control Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
314 granted / 457 resolved
-1.3% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+15.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
67 currently pending
Career history
524
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
48.2%
+8.2% vs TC avg
§102
24.7%
-15.3% vs TC avg
§112
24.0%
-16.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 457 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
DETAILED ACTION 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 (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. Response to Amendment The Amendment filed on 18 July 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application, of which Claims 11-20 are new. Applicant’s amendments to the drawings, the specification and the Claims overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 26 Feb 2025. Claim Objections Claims 4, 9-10, 14 and 19-20 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: In Claim 4, line 3 “the degree of overlap” should likely read “a degree of overlap”. In Claim 4, line 4 “the state” should likely read “a state”. In Claim 9, line 1 “and variable orifice” should likely read “and the variable orifice”. In Claim 10, line 1 “and variable orifice” should likely read “and the variable orifice”. In Claim 14, line 3 “the degree of overlap” should likely read “a degree of overlap”. In Claim 14, line 4 “the state” should likely read “a state”. In Claim 19, line 1 “and variable orifice” should likely read “and the variable orifice”. In Claim 20, line 1 “and variable orifice” should likely read “and the variable orifice”. Appropriate correction is required. 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 7 and 17-18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the at least one replaceable wear element sleeve" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 17 recites the limitation “the rotating gear” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, “the rotating gear” will be interpreted as the same as “a rotator gear” from Claim 11, line 4. Claim 18 recites the limitation "the at least one replaceable wear element sleeve" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendrick (US 4,901,977) in view of Haro-Valdez et al (US 11,885,438). Regarding Claim 1, Hendrick discloses a stemless valve (Figures 1-3). The valve comprising: a valve body (10) having a longitudinal axis (Col 3, lines 10-42) and defining a central flow passage (20), an upper actuator opening (55) and a service opening (via 16 as formed in the separation of 12 and 14 shown in Figure 1); a cylindrical rotator (18) disposed within the central flow passage (Figure 2), and having a rotator gear (26) exposed through the actuator opening (Figures 2-3), the rotator sealed within the valve body to prevent fluid flow outside the central flow passage (Col 4, lines 14-17); an actuating element (44) passing through the upper actuator opening (through 55 in Figures 2-3), and having an actuating gear (46) which engages the rotator gear (via 48 and 52 in Figure 2), such that movement of the actuating element rotates the rotator around the longitudinal axis within the valve body (Col 4, lines 18-26); a variable orifice (together 28 and 32) comprising a fixed orifice portion (34 fixed via 38; Col 4, lines 5-8) and a rotating orifice portion (28), the rotating orifice portion connected to the rotator (28 is connected via 30; Col 3, lines 59-61), such that rotation of the rotator causes rotation of the rotating orifice portion to open or close, or partially open the variable orifice (Col 4, line 61 – Col 5, line 13), and a bonnet (60; which functions as a bonnet to cover the actuator opening 55) removably attached to the valve body (Figure 2 shows the bonnet 60 covering the opening 55), but fails to expressly disclose the bonnet removably attached to the valve body to cover the service opening, the service opening providing access to the variable orifice. Haro-Valdez et al teach a stemless valve (Figure 1) with a valve body (105), a variable orifice (115), an upper actuator opening (see Annotated Figure A filled with stem 117) and a service opening (filled with gear 140 shown in Annotated Figure A) and a bonnet (see Annotated Figure A), the bonnet removably attached to the valve body (via the fastener shown in Annotated Figure A) to cover the service opening (see Annotated Figure A), the service opening providing access to the variable orifice (see Annotated Figure A). PNG media_image1.png 758 1016 media_image1.png Greyscale Annotated Figure A It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hendrick with the system as taught by Haro-Valdez et al for the advantage of providing access to the orifice plate through removal of the bonnet, thereby allowing access from a side that is most convenient to a user or without deconstruction of the valve. Regarding Claim 2, Hendrick discloses where the actuating element (44) is a rotating rod (Col 4, line 54) extending from the valve body (10) at an angle (Figure 1 shows the rod 44 at a 90 degree angle to the longitudinal axis of the valve body along passageway 20), and the rotator gear and the actuating gear each comprise at least a portion of a bevel gear (Col 4, line 20). Regarding Claim 3, Hendrick discloses where the actuating element (44) extends from the valve body at a 90° angle (Figure 1 shows the rod 44 at a 90 degree angle to the longitudinal axis of the valve body along passageway 20). Regarding Claim 4, Hendrick discloses where the fixed orifice portion comprises a fixed orifice plate (34 fixed via 38; Col 4, lines 5-8) defining at least one opening (36) and the rotating orifice portion comprises a rotating orifice plate (28) defining at least one opening (32), wherein the degree of overlap between the fixed and rotating orifice plates determines the state of the variable orifice (Col 4, line 61 – Col 5, line 13). Regarding Claim 5, Haro-Valdez et al teach where the service opening (see Annotated Figure A), permits installation and removal of the variable orifice (115 after removal of the bonnet). Regarding Claim 6, Hendrick discloses at least one replaceable wear element sleeve (40) disposed within the valve body (Figure 2). Regarding Claim 7, Hendrick discloses the at least one replaceable wear element sleeve but fails to expressly disclose where the at least one replaceable wear element sleeve is accessible through the service opening as taught by Haro-Valdez et al. Haro-Valdez et al also teaches at least one replaceable wear element sleeve (see Annotated Figure A), where the at least one replaceable wear element sleeve (see Annotated Figure A) is accessible through the service opening (see Annotated Figure A by removing the bonnet since Haro-Valdez et al show no other ways to install the at least one replaceable wear element sleeve other than through the service opening). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hendrick with the system as taught by Haro-Valdez et al for the advantage of providing access to the at least one replaceable wear element sleeve through the service opening via removal of the bonnet, thereby allowing access from a side that is most convenient to a user or without deconstruction of the valve. Regarding Claim 8, Hendrick discloses a bonnet (60; which functions as a bonnet to cover the actuator opening 55) which is removably attached to the valve body to cover the actuator opening, but as discussed above, Hendrick fails to expressly disclose where the bonnet covers both the service opening and the actuator opening. Haro-Valdez et al teach a stemless valve (Figure 1) with a valve body (105), a variable orifice (115), an upper actuator opening (see Annotated Figure A filled with stem 117) and a service opening (filled with gear 140 shown in Annotated Figure A) and a bonnet (see Annotated Figure A), the bonnet removably attached to the valve body (via the fastener shown in Annotated Figure A) to cover the service opening (see Annotated Figure A), and the actuator opening (see Annotated Figure A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hendrick with the system as taught by Haro-Valdez et al for the advantage of providing access to the service opening and the actuator opening, thereby allowing access from a side that is most convenient to a user or without deconstruction of the valve. Regarding Claim 9, Hendrick discloses where the rotator (18) and variable orifice (together 28 and 32) define a high-pressure zone (Col 1, lines 16-20), and the actuating rod element (44) is wholly outside the high-pressure zone (Figure 2). Regarding Claim 10, Hendrick discloses where the rotator (18) and variable orifice (together 28 and 32) are wholly contained within the valve body (Figure 2), and can be removed through an end of the valve body (by separating the body as shown in Figure 1). Regarding Claim 11, Hendrick discloses a stemless valve (Figures 1-3). The valve comprising: a valve body (10) having a longitudinal axis (Col 3, lines 10-42) and defining a central flow passage (20), an upper actuator opening (55) and a service opening (via 16 as formed in the separation of 12 and 14 shown in Figure 1); a cylindrical rotator (18) disposed within the central flow passage (Figure 2), and having a rotator gear (26) exposed through the actuator opening (Figures 2-3), the rotator sealed within the valve body to prevent fluid flow outside the central flow passage (Col 4, lines 14-17); an actuating element (44) passing through the upper actuator opening (through 55 in Figures 2-3), and having an actuating gear (46) which engages the rotator gear (via 48 and 52 in Figure 2), such that movement of the actuating element rotates the rotator around the longitudinal axis within the valve body (Col 4, lines 18-26); a variable orifice (together 28 and 32) comprising a fixed orifice portion (34 fixed via 38; Col 4, lines 5-8) and a rotating orifice portion (28), the rotating orifice portion connected to the rotator (28 is connected via 30; Col 3, lines 59-61), such that rotation of the rotator causes rotation of the rotating orifice portion to open or close, or partially open the variable orifice (Col 4, line 61 – Col 5, line 13), and a bonnet (60; which functions as a bonnet to cover the actuator opening 55) removably attached to the valve body (Figure 2 shows the bonnet 60 covering the opening 55), but fails to expressly disclose the bonnet removably attached to the valve body to cover the service opening and the upper actuator opening, the service opening providing access to the variable orifice. Haro-Valdez et al teach a stemless valve (Figure 1) with a valve body (105), a variable orifice (115), an upper actuator opening (see Annotated Figure A filled with stem 117) and a service opening (filled with gear 140 shown in Annotated Figure A) and a bonnet (see Annotated Figure A), the bonnet removably attached to the valve body (via the fastener shown in Annotated Figure A) to cover the service opening (see Annotated Figure A), the service opening providing access to the variable orifice (see Annotated Figure A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hendrick with the system as taught by Haro-Valdez et al for the advantage of providing the bonnet removably attached to the valve body to cover the service opening and the upper actuator opening, the service opening providing access to the variable orifice, thereby allowing access from a side that is most convenient to a user or without deconstruction of the valve. Regarding Claim 12, Hendrick discloses where the actuating element (44) is a rotating rod (Col 4, line 54) extending from the valve body (10) at an angle (Figure 1 shows the rod 44 at a 90 degree angle to the longitudinal axis of the valve body along passageway 20), and the rotator gear and the actuating gear each comprise at least a portion of a bevel gear (Col 4, line 20). Regarding Claim 13, Hendrick discloses where the actuating element (44) extends from the valve body at a 90° angle (Figure 1 shows the rod 44 at a 90 degree angle to the longitudinal axis of the valve body along passageway 20). Regarding Claim 14, Hendrick discloses where the fixed orifice portion comprises a fixed orifice plate (34 fixed via 38; Col 4, lines 5-8) defining at least one opening (36) and the rotating orifice portion comprises a rotating orifice plate (28) defining at least one opening (32), wherein the degree of overlap between the fixed and rotating orifice plates determines the state of the variable orifice (Col 4, line 61 – Col 5, line 13). Regarding Claim 15, Haro-Valdez et al teach where the service opening (see Annotated Figure A), permits installation and removal of the variable orifice (115 after removal of the bonnet). Regarding Claim 16, Hendrick discloses at least one replaceable wear element sleeve (40) disposed within the valve body (Figure 2). Regarding Claim 17, Hendrick discloses where the upper actuator opening (through 55 in Figures 2-3) provides access to the rotating gear (to 26 as shown in Figure 2 by removal of the actuator and 50 and 52). Regarding Claim 18, Hendrick discloses the at least one replaceable wear element sleeve but fails to expressly disclose where the at least one replaceable wear element sleeve is accessible through the service opening as taught by Haro-Valdez et al. Haro-Valdez et al also teaches at least one replaceable wear element sleeve (see Annotated Figure A), where the at least one replaceable wear element sleeve (see Annotated Figure A) is accessible through the service opening (see Annotated Figure A by removing the bonnet since Haro-Valdez et al show no other ways to install the at least one replaceable wear element sleeve other than through the service opening). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hendrick with the system as taught by Haro-Valdez et al for the advantage of providing access to the at least one replaceable wear element sleeve through the service opening via removal of the bonnet, thereby allowing access from a side that is most convenient to a user or without deconstruction of the valve. Regarding Claim 19, Hendrick discloses where the rotator (18) and variable orifice (together 28 and 32) are wholly contained within the valve body (Figure 2), and can be removed through an end of the valve body (by separating the body as shown in Figure 1). Regarding Claim 20, Hendrick discloses where the rotator (18) and variable orifice (together 28 and 32) are wholly contained within the valve body (Figure 2), and can be removed through an end of the valve body (by separating the body as shown in Figure 1). Response to Arguments The Examiner notes that the exploded view of Applicant’s choke valve provided in the Arguments dated 18 July 2025 is not a Figure that was filed with the original Application and while it is illustrative of the amendments to the Claims, the rejection is based on the Figures and Specification as originally filed. Applicant’s amendment has overcome the rejection of record. However, a new ground of rejection is applied to the amended claims. Applicant's arguments filed 18 July 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that there is no motivation to modify Hendrick to disclose a service opening providing access to a variable orifice which is covered by a removeable bonnet. However, Haro-Valdez et al teach a stemless valve (Figure 1) with a valve body (105), a variable orifice (115), an upper actuator opening (see Annotated Figure A filled with stem 117) and a service opening (filled with gear 140 shown in Annotated Figure A) and a bonnet (see Annotated Figure A), the bonnet removably attached to the valve body (via the fastener shown in Annotated Figure A) to cover the service opening (see Annotated Figure A), and the actuator opening (see Annotated Figure A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hendrick with the system as taught by Haro-Valdez et al for the advantage of providing access to the service opening and the actuator opening, thereby allowing access from a side that is most convenient to a user or without deconstruction of the valve. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive. 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 NICOLE GARDNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-4PM EST. 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) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors, KENNETH RINEHART (571-272-4881) or CRAIG SCHNEIDER (571-272-3607) can be reached by telephone. 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. /NICOLE GARDNER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3753 /REINALDO SANCHEZ-MEDINA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 14, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 05, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 20, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jul 18, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 18, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601244
FLEXIBLE PIPE CONNECTION SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12565970
SAFETY DEVICE FOR A TANK INTENDED TO CONTAIN A PRESSURIZED GAS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12529434
SUPPORT BRACKET FOR FLUID CONDUIT ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12516738
VALVE WITH INTEGRATED PRESSURE REGULATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12498067
PIPING MEMBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
69%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+15.8%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 457 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

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

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month