DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Action is in response to the applicant's reply of 3/11/2026. In view of the applicant's amendments, the previously presented objections to the drawings, claims and specification, as well as all previously presented 35 USC 112(b) rejections, have been withdrawn. Section 112(f) is no longer invoked.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 10-19 are withdrawn.
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 § 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 2 and 3 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 2 The re is insufficient antecedent basis for “the … at least one flow restrictor” in that no single flow restrictor has been previously recited. Additionally, the phrase “is the, or one of the at least one flow restrictor” allows the device to have only a single flow restrictor, however, the claim depends from claim 1 which requires at least two flow restrictors, in that claim 1 recites “at least one flow restrictor” and then separately recites the elongated tubing without designating the elongated tubing as one of the at least one flow restrictors. Accordingly, claim 2 conflicts with claim 1. To overcome these rejections, the examiner suggests that sub-paragraph “d.” of claim 1 be amended “wherein the secondary flow path at least one flow restrictor, comprises an elongating tubing … housing.” and that claim 2 be amended “The fluid flow control device according to claim 1, wherein at least a part of the length of the elongated tubing that is arranged outside the valve element housing is located upstream of the chamber.” Claim 3 depends from claim 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4-9, and 20 are allowed
Subject to the foregoing rejections, claims 2 and 3 are allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The limitations of claims 1 and 20 were not located in one reference, or a reasonable combination of references, particularly with regard to the elongated tubing features in a fluid flow control device having a common fluid source supplying separate primary and secondary path inlets and outlets. In this regard, and in light of the applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 20, the examiner has interpreted the required elongated tubing to be positioned within an annulus between the production string and casing, as shown in Fig. 4B.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of Rong et al. (US20190195047) [Fig. 3C], Zhao (US20170089173) [Fig. 8], and Mathiesen et al. (US20150040990) [Figs. 2,4] discloses all claim 1 and claim 20 elements other than the elongated tubing.
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 GEORGE STERLING GRAY whose telephone number is (313)446-4820. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4 Eastern - M-F.
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 supervisor, Tara Schimpf can be reached at 571-270-7741. 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.
/GEORGE S GRAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights