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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 Feb 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, however the Non-Final Rejection of 18 Nov 2025 has been withdrawn to allow Examiner to clarify the Rejection of Claims 1 and 14 in view of Applicant’s Arguments filed 16 Feb 2026.
First, Applicant argues that Claims 1 and 14 are not product by process claims. However, the structure of the metallic nanoparticles having diameters ranging from 10 nm to 1000 nm and present as a colloidal disperse phase in the plastic acting as a dispersion medium is directed to method of forming the material and therefore the patentability is directed to the end material and not the process that the material is formed by. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Next, Applicant argues that Claims 1 and 14 are patentable over the prior art since the prior art fails to teach or disclose the entirety of the limitations of Claims 1 and 14. However, as discussed below, Kress et al teach a sealant (an o-ring of Col 2, lines 14-24) where the sealant (an o-ring of Col 2, lines 14-24) is formed from a plastic mixed with metallic additives (Col 1, lines 7-13), wherein the plastic of the sealant comprises PTFE, nylon or polyethylene (Kress et al teach polyethylene in Col 4, lines 34-40), wherein the presence of material originating from the sealant containing the metallic particles is detectable in a downstream product as an indication of damage to the sealant (Col 4, lines 11-16) and McDaniel et al teach a polymeric composite used with a valve seal (¶ 891 with polymer with metallic additives) with metallic nanoparticles having diameters ranging from 10 nm to 1000 nm (¶ 1725) and present as a colloidal disperse phase in the plastic acting as a dispersion medium (¶ 1725). Therefore, it is the combination in it’s entirety that teaches the limitations of the Claims.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the a sealant to be made from a plastic mixed with metallic additives; wherein the plastic in the at least one plastic element comprises PTFE, nylon, or polyethylene; wherein the metallic additives in the at least one plastic element are metallic nanoparticles having diameters ranging from 10 nm to 1000 nm and present as a colloidal disperse phase in the plastic acting as a dispersion medium; and wherein a presence of material originating from the at least one plastic element containing the metallic nanoparticles is detectable in a downstream product as an indication of damage to the at least one plastic element since selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a commonly used material that is inexpensive and durable.
Therefore, these arguments are unpersuasive.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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, 5, 8-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Kress et al (US 6,177,113) in view of O’Donnell (US 2,598,131) in further view of Federal-Mogul Sealing Systems GmbH (DE 10 2007 027 585; and the English Translation provided by Applicant on the IDS dated 18 Dec 2023) in further view of McDaniel et al (US 2010/0210745).
Regarding Claim 1, Kress et al disclose a device (generally at 32 in Figure 2) for controlling the flow of a cryogenic medium1. The device having2:
a fitting (the “fitted connections” of Col 2, lines 14-24) which is constructed from a plurality of interacting functional elements (the components of disclosed pumps, blades or impellers of Col 2, lines 14-24);
wherein at least one of the functional elements (an o-ring of Col 2, lines 14-24) comprises at least one plastic element (Col 2, lines 14-24), the at least one plastic element being made from a plastic mixed with metallic additives (Col 1, lines 7-13); and
wherein the plastic in the at least one plastic element comprises PTFE, nylon or polyethylene (Kress et al teach polyethylene in Col 4, lines 34-40), and
wherein the presence of material originating from the at least one plastic element containing the metallic particles is detectable in a downstream product as an indication of damage to the at least one plastic element (Col 4, lines 11-16),
but fails to expressly disclose wherein the fitting comprises a valve connectable to a supply line for the cryogenic medium and configured for metered addition of the cryogenic medium into a container; wherein the valve is constructed from a plurality of metallic parts detachably connected to one another; and wherein the at least one plastic element is arranged between at least two metallic parts in the plurality of metallic parts, and
wherein the metallic additives used in the at least one plastic element are metallic nanoparticles having diameters ranging from 10 nm to 1000 nm and present as a colloidal disperse phase in the plastic acting as a dispersion medium3.
O'Donnell teaches wherein the fitting comprises a valve (36 generally, including 10 and 44) connectable to a supply line (from suction pipe 33 via 1 generally) for the cryogenic medium4 and configured for metered addition of the cryogenic medium5 into a container (where the addition of the medium into the container (P) is metered when the valve (36 generally) is opened), wherein the valve (36 generally) is constructed from a plurality of metallic parts (the cross-hatching of Figure 5 of at least elements 10 and 44 show these elements formed of a metal; see MPEP 608.02(IX)) detachably connected to one another (via the threads disclosed in Col 3, lines 22-26), wherein at least one plastic element (packing 46 or seal 48) is arranged between at least two metallic parts in the plurality of metallic parts (10 and 44 in Figure 5 or parts 36 and 44 in Figure 5).
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 Kress et al with the valve as taught by O'Donnell for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the valve of O’Donnell with the valves of the system of Kress et al) to yield predictable results (to process food product).
Federal-Mogul Sealing Systems GmbH teach wherein the metallic additives (¶ 4 of page 2 teaches “metal powder”) used in the plastic element (¶ 13 of page 2 teaches at least “thermoplastics”) are metallic nanoparticles (¶ 4 of page 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Kress et al, as modified by O’Donnell, such that the metallic additives are metallic nanoparticles as taught by Federal-Mogul Sealing Systems GmbH since selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a commonly used material that is inexpensive and durable and easily mixed into the plastic material.
McDaniel et al teach a polymeric composite used with a valve seal (¶ 891 with polymer with metallic additives) with metallic nanoparticles having diameters ranging from 10 nm to 1000 nm (¶ 1725) and present as a colloidal disperse phase in the plastic acting as a dispersion medium (¶ 1725).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the metallic particles of Kress et al, as modified by Federal-Mogul Sealing Systems GmbH to be made from plastic wherein the metallic additives used in the at least one plastic element are metallic nanoparticles having diameters ranging from 10 nm to 1000 nm and present as a colloidal disperse phase in the plastic acting as a dispersion medium since selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a commonly used material that is inexpensive and durable.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the valve of Kress et al such that at least one of the functional elements comprises at least one plastic element that is arranged between at least two metallic parts in the plurality of metallic parts, the at least one plastic element being made from a plastic mixed with metallic additives; wherein the plastic in the at least one plastic element comprises PTFE, nylon, or polyethylene; wherein the metallic additives in the at least one plastic element are metallic nanoparticles having diameters ranging from 10 nm to 1000 nm and present as a colloidal disperse phase in the plastic acting as a dispersion medium; and wherein a presence of material originating from the at least one plastic element containing the metallic nanoparticles is detectable in a downstream product as an indication of damage to the at least one plastic element since selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a commonly used material that is inexpensive and durable.
Regarding Claim 5, Kress et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above including wherein the at least one plastic element comprises a sealant (an o-ring of Col 2, lines 14-24) made from the plastic mixed with metallic additives (Col 1, lines 7-13),
but fails to expressly disclose where the plurality of metallic parts of the valve comprises a valve housing and a shut-off element; wherein the sealant is disposed on a valve seat of the valve housing; and wherein the shut-off element can be moved from a closed state to an open state against the action of a spring, and wherein the shut-off element rests on the sealant when the shut-off element is in the closed state.
O’Donnell teaches where the plurality of metallic parts of the valve comprises a valve housing (44 and 10) and a shut-off element (36);
wherein the at least one plastic element (packing 46 or seal 48) comprises a sealant made from the plastic mixed with metallic additives (as disclosed by Kress et al as discussed above) wherein the sealant is disposed on a valve seat (Figure 5 shows the sealant carried by the valve head and disposed on the valve seat of 44) of the valve housing (Figure 4); and
wherein the shut-off element (36) can be moved from a closed state to an open state against the action of a spring (53; Col 3, lines 34-39), and wherein the shut-off element (36) rests on the sealant when the shut-off element is in the closed state (Figure 5).
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 Kress et al with the valve as taught by O'Donnell for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the valve of O’Donnell with the valves of the system of Kress et al) to yield predictable results (to process food product).
Regarding Claim 8, Kress et al disclose a plastic where the plastic is mixed with the metallic additives (Col 1, lines 7-13) but fails to expressly disclose where the valve housing is constructed from a front housing part and a rear housing part; and wherein the at least one plastic element comprises a further sealant made from a plastic that is arranged between the front housing part and the rear housing part.
O’Donnell teaches where the valve housing (44 and 10 generally) is constructed from a front housing part (10) and a rear housing part (44); and wherein the at least one plastic element (packing 46 or seal 48) comprises a further sealant (packing 46) made from the plastic (Col 3, lines 26-32) mixed with metallic additives (as disclosed by Kress et al as discussed above) that is arranged between the front housing part and the rear housing part (Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Kress et al with the valve as taught by O'Donnell for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the valve of O’Donnell with the valves of the system of Kress et al) to yield predictable results (to process food product).
Regarding Claim 9, Kress et al, as modified by O’Donnell, Federal-Mogul Sealing Systems GmbH and McDaniel, teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly teach where the shut-off element is equipped with a disk-shaped front section that is configured to rest on the sealant in the closed state; and wherein the sealant has a shape that corresponds to the disk-shaped front section of the shut-off element.
O’Donnell teaches where the shut-off element (36) is equipped with a disk-shaped front section (generally at 47 in Figure 5) that is configured to rest on the sealant (48) in the closed state (Figure 5); and wherein the sealant has a shape (in the same way that Applicants sealant is disk shaped looking at the front profile of the ring 48) that corresponds to the disk-shaped front section of the shut-off element (Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Kress et al with the valve as taught by O'Donnell for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the valve of O’Donnell with the valves of the system of Kress et al) to yield predictable results (to process food product).
Regarding Claim 11, Kress et al, as modified by O’Donnell, Federal-Mogul Sealing Systems GmbH and McDaniel, teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly teach where the shut-off element is movable within the valve housing to adjust a flow rate of the cryogenic medium through the valve housing.
O’Donnell teaches where the shut-off element (36) is movable within the valve housing (Figure 5) to adjust a flow rate of the cryogenic medium through the valve housing (by unseating from the valve seat by a greater and greater distance against the bias of the spring 53).
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 Kress et al with the valve as taught by O'Donnell for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the valve of O’Donnell with the valves of the system of Kress et al) to yield predictable results (to process food product).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Kress et al (US 6,177,113) in view of O’Donnell (US 2,598,131) in further view of Federal-Mogul Sealing Systems GmbH (DE 10 2007 027 585; and the English Translation provided by Applicant on the IDS dated 18 Dec 2023) in further view of McDaniel et al (US 2010/0210745) in further view of Talton (US 8,074,906).
Regarding Claim 6, Kress et al, as modified by O’Donnell, Federal-Mogul Sealing Systems GmbH and McDaniel, teach a container (Col 4, lines 17-26 of Kress et al) and a mixing device for a food product (Col 2, lines 14-21 of Kress et al), but fails to expressly teach where the container is integrated in a mixing device for a food product.
Talton teaches a device (13; Figure) and a container (1 generally) wherein the container (1 generally) is integrated in a mixing device (via at least 40) for a food product (Col 3, lines 62-64).
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 Kress et al, as modified by O’Donnell, Federal-Mogul Sealing Systems GmbH and McDaniel with the system as taught by Talton for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the system of Talton with the system of Kress et al) to yield predictable results (to provide for an simplified device).
Regarding Claim 7, The recitation of the actual fluid handled has been given no patentable weight in the apparatus claims, MPEP 2115.
However, in view of compact prosecution, Kress et al, as modified by O’Donnell, Federal-Mogul Sealing Systems GmbH and McDaniel, fail to expressly teach wherein liquid nitrogen or liquid carbon dioxide is used as the cryogenic medium.
Talton teaches a device (13; Figure) with a cryogenic medium (disclosed a liquid nitrogen in Col 4, line 27) wherein liquid nitrogen or liquid carbon dioxide is used as the cryogenic medium (Col 4, line 27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the system of Kress et al with the fluid as taught by Talton, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claim(s) 14-15 and 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over O’Donnell (US 2,598,131) in view of Kress et al (US 6,177,113) in further view of McDaniel et al (US 2010/0210745).
Regarding Claim 14, O’Donnell discloses a device (Figure 5) for controlling the flow of a cryogenic medium6. The device (Figure 5) comprising:
a valve housing (44 and 10) defining a valve seat (Figure 5 with the valve seat being the interaction of 47 and 48);
a shut-off element (36) received in the valve housing (Figure 5), the shut-off element (36) being movable relative to the valve housing between an open state in which the cryogenic medium7 is permitted to flow through the valve housing (Col 3, lines 34-39) and a closed state (Figure 5) in which the shut-off element is seated on the valve seat (Figure 5); and
a sealant (seal 48) formed from a plastic (Col 3, lines 28-30), wherein the sealant is configured to form a seal between the valve seat and the shut-off element when the shut-off element is in the closed state (Figure 5);
but fails to expressly disclose where the sealant is formed from a plastic mixed with metallic additives,
wherein the plastic of the sealant comprises PTFE, nylon or polyethylene,
wherein the metallic additives in the sealant are metallic nanoparticles having diameters ranging from 10 nm to 1000 nm and present as a colloidal disperse phase in the plastic acting as a dispersion medium8,
wherein the presence of material originating from the sealant containing the metallic particles is detectable in a downstream product as an indication of damage to the sealant.
Kress et al teach a sealant (an o-ring of Col 2, lines 14-24) where the sealant (an o-ring of Col 2, lines 14-24) is formed from a plastic mixed with metallic additives (Col 1, lines 7-13),
wherein the plastic of the sealant comprises PTFE, nylon or polyethylene (Kress et al teach polyethylene in Col 4, lines 34-40),
wherein the presence of material originating from the sealant containing the metallic particles is detectable in a downstream product as an indication of damage to the sealant (Col 4, lines 11-16).
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 O’Donnell with the plastic as taught by Kress et al for the advantage of detecting breakage of the plastic components of the system to prevent contamination within the system or further damage to the system by the broken component, as taught by Kress et al (Col 4, lines 11-16).
McDaniel et al teach a polymeric composite used with a valve seal (¶ 891 with polymer with metallic additive) with metallic nanoparticles having diameters ranging from 10 nm to 1000 nm (¶ 1725) and present as a colloidal disperse phase in the plastic acting as a dispersion medium (¶ 1725).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the metallic particles of Kress et al, which modifies O’Donnell, to be made from plastic wherein the metallic additives used in the at least one plastic element are metallic nanoparticles having diameters ranging from 10 nm to 1000 nm and present as a colloidal disperse phase in the plastic acting as a dispersion medium since selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a commonly used material that is inexpensive and durable.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the valve of O’Donnell such that wherein the plastic of the sealant comprises PTFE, nylon, or polyethylene; wherein the metallic additives in the sealant are metallic nanoparticles having diameters ranging from 10 nm to 1000 nm and present as a colloidal disperse phase in the plastic acting as a dispersion medium; and wherein a presence of material originating from the sealant containing the metallic nanoparticles is detectable in a downstream product as an indication of damage to the sealant since selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a commonly used material that is inexpensive and durable.
Regarding Claim 15, O’Donnell discloses where the valve housing (44 and 10 generally) comprises a front housing part (10) and a rear housing part (44); and wherein the sealant (seal 48) is a first sealant (seal 48) and the device further comprises a second sealant (packing 46) disposed between the front housing part and the rear housing part (Figure 5),
But fails to expressly disclose wherein the second sealant is formed from the plastic mixed with the metallic additives.
Kress et al teach a sealant (an o-ring of Col 2, lines 14-24) where the second sealant (an o-ring of Col 2, lines 14-24) is formed from a plastic mixed with metallic additives (Col 1, lines 7-13).
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 O’Donnell with the plastic as taught by Kress et al for the advantage of detecting breakage of the plastic components of the system to prevent contamination within the system or further damage to the system by the broken component, as taught by Kress et al (Col 4, lines 11-16).
Regarding Claim 18, O’Donnell discloses where the sealant (48) is disposed on a front section of the shut-off element (Figure 5 with the “front” interpreted as the upstream section interfacing with the seat) and is configured to be engaged with the valve seat to form the seal therebetween (Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 19, O’Donnell discloses where the sealant (generally at 47) is disposed in a groove (Figure 5 within 36) or formed around a front section of the shut-off element (Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 20, O’Donnell discloses a device (Figure 5) for controlling the flow of a cryogenic medium9. The device (Figure 5) comprising:
a valve housing (44 and 10) defining an annular shoulder (where 53 sits) and a valve seat (Figure 5 within the valve seat being the interaction of 47 and 48) downstream from the annular shoulder (Figure 5);
a shut-off element (36) axially received in the valve housing and comprising a front section facing the valve seat (Figure 5 at 36) and a rear section (50) facing the annular shoulder (where 53 sits shown in Figure 5), wherein the shut-off element is axially movable relative to the valve housing into and between a closed state in which the rear section is spaced apart from the annular shoulder and the front section is seated on the valve seat (Figure 5) and a fully open state in which the front section is spaced apart from the valve seat such that the cryogenic medium10 is permitted to flow through the valve housing (when 48 separates from the housing as seen in Figure 5);
a spring (53) configured to bias the shut-off element into the closed state (Figure 5) until a differential pressure between an interior space of the valve housing and an interior of the container exceeds a pressure limit (Col 3, lines 33-39),
wherein the pressure limit depends upon the substance used as the cryogenic medium11; and
a sealant (seal 48) formed from a plastic (Col 3, lines 28-30), wherein the sealant is configured to form a seal between the valve seat and the front section of the shut-off element when the shut-off element is in the closed state (Figure 5);
But fails to expressly disclose a fully open state in which the rear section is seated on the annular shoulder and the front section is spaced apart from the valve seat, wherein the sealant is formed from a plastic comprising PTFE, nylon, or polyethylene mixed with metallic additives comprising metallic nanoparticles having diameters ranging from 10 nm to 1000 nm and that are present as a colloidal disperse phase in the plastic acting as a dispersion medium, wherein a presence of material originating from the sealant containing the metallic nanoparticles is detectable in a downstream product as an indication of damage to the sealant.
Kress et al teach a sealant (an o-ring of Col 2, lines 14-24) where the sealant (an o-ring of Col 2, lines 14-24) is formed from a plastic mixed with metallic additives (Col 1, lines 7-13),
wherein the plastic of the sealant comprises PTFE, nylon or polyethylene (Kress et al teach polyethylene in Col 4, lines 34-40),
wherein the presence of material originating from the sealant containing the metallic particles is detectable in a downstream product as an indication of damage to the sealant (Col 4, lines 11-16).
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 O’Donnell with the plastic as taught by Kress et al for the advantage of detecting breakage of the plastic components of the system to prevent contamination within the system or further damage to the system by the broken component, as taught by Kress et al (Col 4, lines 11-16).
McDaniel et al teach a polymeric composite used with a valve seal (¶ 891 with polymer with metallic additive) with metallic nanoparticles having diameters ranging from 10 nm to 1000 nm (¶ 1725) and present as a colloidal disperse phase in the plastic acting as a dispersion medium (¶ 1725).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the metallic particles of Kress et al, which modifies O’Donnell, to be made from plastic wherein the metallic additives used in the at least one plastic element are metallic nanoparticles having diameters ranging from 10 nm to 1000 nm and present as a colloidal disperse phase in the plastic acting as a dispersion medium since selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a commonly used material that is inexpensive and durable.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the valve of O’Donnell such that wherein the plastic of the sealant comprises PTFE, nylon, or polyethylene; wherein the metallic additives in the sealant are metallic nanoparticles having diameters ranging from 10 nm to 1000 nm and present as a colloidal disperse phase in the plastic acting as a dispersion medium; and wherein a presence of material originating from the sealant containing the metallic nanoparticles is detectable in a downstream product as an indication of damage to the sealant since selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a commonly used material that is inexpensive and durable.
Regarding Claim 21, O’Donnell, as modified by Kress et al and McDaniel et al teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly teach where the pressure limit is 2-2.5 bar when liquid nitrogen is used as the cryogenic medium12.
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 pressurized gas to be where the pressure limit is 2-2.5 bar since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide an optimal pressure based on user defined Criteria.
Regarding Claim 22, O’Donnell, as modified by Kress et al and McDaniel et al teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly teach where the pressure limit is 7-9 bar when liquid carbon dioxide is used as the cryogenic medium13.
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 pressurized gas to be where the pressure limit is 7-9 bar since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide an optimal pressure based on user defined Criteria.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over O’Donnell (US 2,598,131) in view of Kress et al (US 6,177,113) in further view of McDaniel et al (US 2010/0210745) in further view of Lyons (US 4276901).
Regarding Claim 23, O’Donnell discloses where the shut-off element (36 generally) comprises an inner section (shaft 49) extending axially between the front section and the rear section (Figure 5);
But fails to expressly disclose wherein the inner section comprises an axial bore and a radial bore that provides a flow path for the cryogenic medium past the rear section when the rear section is seated on the annular shoulder when the shut-off element is in the closed state.
Lyons teaches a valve with a front section (at 61) and a rear section (at 57) with an inner section (between the front section and the rear section of Figure 1) wherein the inner section comprises an axial bore (33) and a radial bore (37) that provides a flow path for the cryogenic medium14 past the rear section when the rear section is seated on the annular shoulder when the shut-off element is in the closed state (Figure 1).
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 device of O’Donnell, as modified by Kress et al and McDaniel et al with the axial bore and radial bore as taught by Lyons for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the bores of Lyons with the valve of O’Donnell) to yield predictable results (to reduce valve weight and allow fluid flow through the valve).
Conclusion
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
1 The recitation of the actual fluid handled (here: a cryogenic medium) has been given no patentable weight in the apparatus claims, MPEP 2115.
2 The transitional phrase “having” here is being interpreted as open terminology, allowing the inclusion of other components in addition to those recited. See MPEP 2111.03(IV).
3 The limitation “a colloidal disperse phase in the plastic acting as a dispersion medium” renders this claim a product by process claim. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113.
4 The recitation of the actual fluid handled (here: a cryogenic medium) has been given no patentable weight in the apparatus claims, MPEP 2115.
5 The recitation of the actual fluid handled (here: a cryogenic medium) has been given no patentable weight in the apparatus claims, MPEP 2115.
6 The recitation of the actual fluid handled (here: a cryogenic medium) has been given no patentable weight in the apparatus claims, MPEP 2115.
7 The recitation of the actual fluid handled (here: a cryogenic medium) has been given no patentable weight in the apparatus claims, MPEP 2115.
8 The limitation “a colloidal disperse phase in the plastic acting as a dispersion medium” renders this claim a product by process claim. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113.
9 The recitation of the actual fluid handled (here: a cryogenic medium) has been given no patentable weight in the apparatus claims, MPEP 2115.
10 The recitation of the actual fluid handled (here: a cryogenic medium) has been given no patentable weight in the apparatus claims, MPEP 2115.
11 The recitation of the actual fluid handled (here: a cryogenic medium) has been given no patentable weight in the apparatus claims, MPEP 2115.
12 The recitation of the actual fluid handled (here: a cryogenic medium) has been given no patentable weight in the apparatus claims, MPEP 2115.
13 The recitation of the actual fluid handled (here: a cryogenic medium) has been given no patentable weight in the apparatus claims, MPEP 2115.
14 The recitation of the actual fluid handled (here: a cryogenic medium) has been given no patentable weight in the apparatus claims, MPEP 2115.
Prosecution Insights