DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-13, 24, 25, 27-30, 33, and 36-41 are pending for consideration following applicant’s amendment filed 6/09/2026.
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 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 38 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al. (US Patent Application 2022/0390037) in view of Arav (US Patent 4,543,977).
Regarding Claim 38, Allen discloses a valve closure device for a break check valve (abstract), the valve closure device comprising: a valve member 130a configured to rotate from an open position (as shown in Figure 5A) to a closed position (as shown in Figure 5C) only when a pipe system fitting 60 initially coupled to the break check valve is separated from the break check valve (para. 0040); and a hydraulic dampener 260 coupled to the valve member 130a in each of the open position and the closed position of the valve member (as shown in Figures 5A and 5C), the hydraulic dampener configured to resist rotation of the valve member 130a towards the closed position of the valve member (via fluid within the cylinder; para. 0060); the hydraulic dampener 260 defining: a first end (mounting end 322 of piston 320) configured to be coupled to a valve body 110 of the break check valve (via connection with position block 150); a second end (lower end as shown in Figures 5A-5C) distal from the first end with respect to an axis of the valve closure device (i.e. opposite from end 322); and a port 388 (opening in the cylinder in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s device) configured to restrict flow of fluid from the hydraulic dampener during operation thereof (para. 0060).
Allen does not disclose the hydraulic dampener comprising a nozzle received in the port.
Arav teaches a valve device and further teaches a nozzle 13 received in an exit port 29. Arav further teaches the nozzle 13 being able to be replaced with a new nozzle rated for either greater or lesser flow than the nozzle (col. 3, lines 9-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Allen to include a changeable nozzle in the exit port as taught by Arav for the purpose of allowing a user to change the rate at which the valve opens and closes.
Regarding Claim 39, Allen in view of Arav is seen as further disclosing the nozzle (13 as taught by Arav as described above) is able to be selectively assembled to and removed from a cylinder (cylinder 310 of Allen) of the valve closure device (Arav teaches the resistance to movement can be changed by using different sizes of orifice in throttle 13; col. 3, lines 9-11; changing the size of the orifice requires the nozzle to be selectively assembled and removed as the term “change” is defined as “replace (something) with something else”). It is noted that the limitation of the nozzle “selectively assembled to and removed from” is a broad recitation which does not require any particular manner of assembly and removal. Arav specifically teaches (col. 2, lines 36-38) the nozzle 13 is inserted into the passage 29 (and therefore the nozzle is inherently “selectively” assembled). Furthermore, the limitation of the nozzle selectively removed from a cylinder is met by the nozzle 13 of Arav because this nozzle is inherently capable of being removed (i.e. any manner of removal, including forcible removal or cutting of the nozzle, is readable on these claim limitations; that is, under sufficient force the nozzle is necessarily removable).
Claims 38 and 39 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al. (US Patent Application 2022/0390037) in view of Hunnicutt et al. (US Patent 8,540,207).
Regarding Claims 38 and 39, Allen discloses all of the elements of these claims (as described above) except Allen does not disclose a nozzle is received in the port, the nozzle able to be selectively assembled to and removed from a cylinder of the valve closure device.
Hunnicutt teaches a valve device and further teaches a nozzle 59 is received in a port of the valve member (in the port defined at end 29b), the nozzle 59 able to be selectively assembled to and removed from a cylinder of the valve closure device 29 (via the threaded connection of 59 with 29b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Allen to include a changeable nozzle in the exit port as taught by Hunnicutt for the purpose of allowing a user to change the rate at which the valve opens and closes.
Claim 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al. (US Patent Application 2022/0390037) in view of either Arav (US Patent 4,543,977) or Hunnicutt et al. (US Patent 8,540,207) as applied to claim 38 above, and further in view of Hart et al. (US Patent 4,819,909).
Regarding Claim 41, Allen in view of either Arav or Hunnicutt does not disclose the dampener comprises a filter.
Hart teaches a valve device including a timing assembly 40 controlling the movement speed of the valve and further teaches a fitting 67 comprises a filter 59.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Allen in view of either Arav or Hunnicutt to include a filter in the dampener as taught by Hart for the purpose of preventing debris from entering the damping chamber.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-13, 24, 25, 27-30, 33, 36, and 37 are allowed.
Claim 40 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/09/2026 with respect to claim 38 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that the claim requires “a nozzle received within the port” and therefore overcomes the combinations of Allen in view of Arav or Allen in view of Hunnicutt. These arguments are not persuasive because both Arav and Hunnicutt teach features readable on the recited nozzle (13 of Arav or 59 of Hunnicutt as described above). It is noted that the other independent claims 1, 24, and 37 all require the combination of a nozzle and a fitting, while claim 38 requires a nozzle (and does not require a fitting).
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 KEVIN MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-4pm.
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, 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 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.
/KEVIN F MURPHY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights