18526ETAILED ACTION
The Response filed 19 December 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-22 remain pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reason in view of the newly cited prior art reference Brunner (WO 2022063513, for which the US application – US 2023/0366478 – is referenced).
The applicant argues with respect to claim 1 on pgs. 12-13 of the Response that the prior art lacks “the internal cavity defines a high-pressure fluid flow path that enters into the housing through the third opening and exits the housing through the second opening.” However, Brunner teaches in Fig. 1 an internal cavity defines a high-pressure fluid flow path that enters into the housing 15 through the third opening (in which sleeve 26 is inserted) and exits the housing 15 through the second opening (in which the sleeve 19 is inserted).
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunner (WO 2022063513, for which the US application – US 2023/0366478 – is referenced) in view of Ishikawa (US 5,459,288).
Regarding claim 1, Brunner discloses in Fig. 1 an on/off valve cartridge comprising:
a housing 15 having a first surface (the top surface relative to the page), a second surface (the bottom surface relative to the page) that faces away from the first surface, and a side surface (the right surface relative to the page) that extends between the first surface and the second surface;
an internal cavity formed within and enclosed by the housing 15, the internal cavity including a through hole (comprising the bore in which the sleeve 19 and nut 22 are inserted) that extends from a first opening (in which the nut 22 is inserted) formed in the first surface to a second opening (in which the sleeve 19 is inserted) formed in the second surface, the internal cavity further including a non-through hole that extends from a third opening (in which sleeve 26 is inserted) formed in the side surface and intersects the through hole at an intersection;
a seat (comprising seat 17 and/or seat block 18) positioned within the through hole and below the intersection, the seat including a seat body and a seat hole (that communicates with outlet 13) extending through the seat body;
a radial seal 28 positioned within the through hole and above the intersection, the radial seal 28 including a seal body and a seal hole (through which the needle 16 extends) extending through the seal body;
a poppet 16 positioned within the through hole such that a first portion of the poppet 16 contacts the seat and blocks the seat hole, and a second portion of the poppet 16 is positioned within the seal hole of the radial seal 28, wherein the poppet 16 is movable away from the seat, and an entirety of the poppet 16 is positioned within the through hole between the first surface and the second surface; and
wherein the internal cavity defines a high-pressure fluid flow path that enters into the housing 15 through the third opening and exits the housing 15 through the second opening.
Brunner lacks a seal positioned within the non-through hole between the third opening and the intersection.
Ishikawa teaches in Fig. 4 a seal 55 positioned within a non-through hole (comprising bore 59 and in which the pipe joint 54 is inserted) between the third opening (through which the pipe joint 54 is inserted) and the intersection (with the bore with valve 36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve disclosed by Brunner to include a seal positioned within the non-through hole between the third opening and the intersection to provide a sealed connection with a conduit attached at the port of the non-through hole, as Ishikawa teaches.
Regarding claim 2, Brunner discloses in Fig. 1 a seal retainer 21 positioned within the through hole between the first opening and the radial seal 28; and a seat retainer (comprising sleeve 19 or the portion of the sleeve 19 inserted in the through hole of the housing 15) positioned within the through hole between the seat and the second opening (at least because of the portion of the sleeve 19 inserted in the through hole of the housing 15).
Regarding claim 3, Brunner discloses in Fig. 1 that the first surface and the second surface are both normal to a first direction, and the through hole extends along a first central axis that is parallel to the first direction.
Regarding claim 4, Brunner discloses in Fig. 1 that the side surface is normal to a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction, and the non-through hole extends along a second central axis that is parallel to the second direction.
Regarding claim 5, Brunner discloses in Fig. 1 that the high-pressure fluid with a pressure greater than 15,000 psi (because Brunner discloses 6,000 bars in paragraph 18, which equates to 87,022.64 psi) enters the non-through hole, and the on/off valve cartridge is transitionable from a closed configuration in which flow of the high- pressure fluid through the seat hole is blocked by the first portion of the poppet contacting the seat body to an open configuration in which the first portion is separated from the seat body allowing the high-pressure fluid to flow through the seat hole.
Regarding claim 7, Ishikawa teaches in Fig. 4 that the seal 55 positioned within the non-through hole is a face seal 55 or a metal-to-metal seal (specifically a face seal 55).
Claim 2 (alternatively) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunner in view of Ishikawa, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mauran (US 1,733,421).
Regarding claim 2, alternative to the seat retainer 19 disclosed by Brunner, Mauran teaches in Fig. 2 a seat retainer 44 positioned within the through hole between the seat 42 and the second opening (in which the connector/conduit 40 is inserted).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve in the combination of Brunner and Ishikawa to include a seat retainer between the seat and the second opening, and separate from the connector/conduits extending through the second opening, as Mauran teaches, so that retention of the seat is independent of the connector/conduit inserted in the second opening. This protects the seat’s position from being affected by any manipulation of said connector/conduit, such as by being slightly withdrawn from the housing by accident by being hit, and protects the seat from tampering because a tool would be required to adjust or remove the seater retainer formed as a set screw.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunner in view of Ishikawa, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bredtschneider (US 3,073,566).
Regarding claim 6, Brunner discloses in Fig. 1 that the radial seal 28, 21, 22 includes a seal support 21 and a backup ring 22 that cooperatively form the seal body 28, 21, 22, the seal support 21 and the backup ring 22 each having a respective through hole that cooperatively form the seal hole, and wherein the radial seal 28, 21, 22 further includes a resilient member 28 positioned within the internal cavity to form a liquid-tight seal.
Brunner lacks teaching that the resilient member is compressed by the seal support to form the liquid-tight seal.
Bredtschneider teaches in Figs. 1-3 that the radial seal 39, 41, 42 includes a seal support 41 and a backup ring 42 that cooperatively form the seal body 39, 41, 42, the seal support 41 and the backup ring 42 each having a respective through hole that cooperatively form the seal hole, and wherein the radial seal 39, 41, 42 further includes a resilient member 39 positioned within the internal cavity and compressed by the seal support 41 to form a liquid-tight seal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve in the combination of Brunner and Ishikawa to have the resilient member be compressed by the seal support to form the liquid-tight seal, as Bredtschneider teaches, and because the compression maintains radial expansion of the resilient member into sealing engagement with the poppet extending therethrough and the surrounding housing, even if the resilient member experiences some wear.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-22 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance. The prior art fails to disclose or render obvious, in combination with the other limitations recited:
regarding claim 8, the valve cartridge being received in a hub of a valve body; and
regarding claim 14, moving the valve cartridge through a passage of the internal cavity of the valve body along a second direction that is perpendicular to the fist direction, thereby simultaneously moving both the poppet and the seat relative to the valve body; moving the valve cartridge through an opening of the valve body, thereby removing the valve cartridge, the poppet, the radial seal, and the seat from the internal cavity of the valve body; moving a replacement valve cartridge through the opening, thereby entering the internal cavity of the valve body with the replacement valve cartridge, a replacement poppet positioned within an internal cavity of the replacement valve cartridge, and a replacement seat position within an internal cavity of the replacement valve cartridge.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 Examiner Jonathan Waddy, whose telephone number is 571-270-3146. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (10:00AM-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 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.
/J. W./
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753