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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/04/2026 has been entered. Following applicant’s amendment filed 2/04/2026, applicant lists claims 1-5, 7-14, 24, 25, and 27-35 as pending with claims 8, 14, 31, and 32 withdrawn from consideration. However, it is noted that claim 35 recites a first exit port defined in the second end of the hydraulic dampener, and further comprising a second exit port in the second end. These features are directed to the non-elected species II as set forth in the election of species requirement mailed 5/08/2025. Because species I was elected in applicant’s response filed 7/07/2025, claim 35 is hereby withdrawn as it is directed to a non-elected species. Therefore, claims 8, 14, 31, 32, and 35 are withdrawn. Claims 1-5, 7, 9-13, 24, 25, 27-30, 33, and 34 are treated on their merits.
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 24, 25, and 27-30 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 24 recites “wherein the exit port comprises or defines a nozzle” in the last line of the claim. These limitations are unclear because the claim previously recites “a nozzle received within the exit port” in the sixth to last line of the claim.
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 1-4 and 9-13 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 1, 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); and 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 the hydraulic dampener defining 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); wherein the port 388 comprises or defines a nozzle (port 388 defines a reduced cross-section relative to the interior 368 and therefore is seen to define a nozzle as claimed).
Allen does not disclose a fitting is received in the port, the fitting able to be selectively assembled to and removed from a cylinder of the valve closure device, the fitting being able to be replaced with a new fitting rated for either greater or lesser flow than the fitting.
Arav teaches a valve device and further teaches a fitting 13 received in an exit port 29, the fitting 13 able to be selectively assembled to and removed from a cylinder of the valve closure device (Arav teaches the resistance to movement can be changed by using different sizes of orifice in the throttle 13; col. 3, lines 9-11; changing the size of the orifice requires the fitting to be selectively assembled and removed as the term “change” is defined as “replace (something) with something else”), the fitting 13 being able to be replaced with a new fitting rated for either greater or lesser flow than the fitting (col. 3, lines 9-11). It is noted that the limitation of the fitting “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 fitting 13 is inserted into the passage 29 (and therefore the fitting is inherently “selectively” assembled). Furthermore, the limitation of the fitting selectively removed from a cylinder is met by the fitting 13 of Arav because this fitting is inherently capable of being removed (i.e. any manner of removal, including forcible removal or cutting of the fitting, is readable on these claim limitations; that is, under sufficient force the fitting is necessarily removable).
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 fitting 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 2, Allen further discloses the hydraulic dampener 260 is able to recharge and reset automatically (via refilling the chamber with fluid via openings 388 in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s device).
Regarding Claim 3, Allen further discloses the port 388 is one of an air bleed port defined in a position between the first end and the second end of the hydraulic dampener, an exit port defined in the second end, and a gas fill port (388 is readable at least as an exit port defined in the second end as shown in Figures 5A-5C).
Regarding Claim 4, Allen further discloses the port 388 is the air bleed port (port 388 is at least capable of bleeding air; it is noted that one of the ports 388 between the first end and the second end as shown in Figure 5A is relied upon for the “port”).
Regarding Claim 9, Allen further discloses a position block 150 secured to the valve body 110 and defining a pivot bore 258, the hydraulic dampener being secured to the position block (para. 0047).
Regarding Claim 10, Allen further discloses the valve member 130a is a first valve member, the valve closure device further comprising a second valve member 130b configured to rotate from an open position of the second valve member (as shown in Figure 5A) to a closed position of the second valve member (as shown in Figure 5C) only when the pipe system 60 fitting initially coupled to the break check valve is separated from the break check valve (para. 0040).
Regarding Claim 11, Allen further discloses the hydraulic dampener 260 is coupled to the second valve member 130b in each of the open position and the closed position of each of the second valve member (as shown in Figures 5A and 5C; the hydraulic dampener is continuously coupled to the second valve member 130b), the hydraulic dampener 260 configured to resist rotation of the second valve member 130b towards the closed position of the second valve member (para. 0080).
Regarding Claim 12, Allen further discloses the hydraulic dampener 260 further comprises: a cylinder 310; and a piston 320 slidably coupled to and positioned at least partially within the cylinder (as shown in Figures 5A-5C), one of the piston and the cylinder coupled to the first valve member and the second valve member (the cylinder 310 is coupled to the first and second valve members 130a and 130b via respective linkages 340b and 340d as shown in Figure 5B), an axis of each of the piston and the cylinder configured to be aligned with an axis of a valve bore (these axes are all aligned along the center bore of the valve at axis 101) of the break check valve.
Regarding Claim 13, Allen further discloses the hydraulic dampener 260 further comprises: a cylinder 310; and a piston 320 slidably coupled to and positioned at least partially within the cylinder 310, one of the piston and the cylinder coupled to the first valve member 130a and the second valve member 130b (cylinder 310 is coupled to the valve member 130a and the second valve member 130b via respective linkages 340b and 340d), an axis of each of the piston 320 and the cylinder 310 configured to be aligned with an axis 101 of a valve bore of the break check valve (bore through the center of the valve body).
Claims 1-4, 9-13, 33, and 34 is/are 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 1-4 and 9-13, Allen discloses all of the elements of these claims (as described above) except Allen does not disclose a fitting is received in the port, the fitting able to be selectively assembled to and removed from a cylinder of the valve closure device, the fitting being able to be replaced with a new fitting rated for either greater or lesser flow than the fitting.
Hunnicutt teaches a valve device and further teaches a fitting 59 is received in a port of the valve member (in the port defined at end 29b), the fitting 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), the fitting being able to be replaced with a new fitting rated for either greater or lesser flow than the fitting (it is at least possible for the fitting 59 to be replaced with a new fitting rated for either greater or lesser flow than the fitting).
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 fitting 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.
Regarding Claim 33, Allen in view of Hunnicutt further discloses the fitting (59 as taught by Hunnicutt as described above) is configured to be threadably assembled to and threadably removed from the cylinder (as taught by Hunnicutt; col. 7, lines 16-18).
Regarding Claim 34, 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); and 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 the hydraulic dampener defining 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 a fitting is received in the port, the fitting configured to be threadably assembled to and threadably removed from a cylinder of the valve closure device, the fitting being able to be replaced with a new fitting rated for either greater or lesser flow than the fitting.
Hunnicutt teaches a valve device and further teaches a fitting 59 is received in a port of the valve member (in the port defined at end 29b), the fitting 59 configured to be threadably assembled to and threadably removed from a cylinder of the valve closure device (col. 7, lines 16-18), the fitting 59 being able to be replaced with a new fitting rated for either greater or lesser flow than the fitting (it is at least possible for the fitting 59 to be replaced with a new fitting rated for either greater or lesser flow than the fitting).
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 fitting 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 7 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) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hart et al. (US Patent 4,819,909).
Regarding Claim 7, Allen in view of Arav does not disclose the fitting 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 Arav to include a filter in the fitting of the dampener as taught by Hart for the purpose of preventing debris from entering the damping chamber.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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.
Claims 24, 25, and 27-30 as best understood would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/04/2026 with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that the combination of Allen in view of Arav fails to teach the new limitations of “the port comprises or defines a nozzle”. These limitations are not persuasive because the port 388 of Allen defines a decreased cross-sectional area relative to the interior 368 and therefore defines a nozzle as claimed. It is noted that this claim does not require the nozzle itself to restrict flow (and therefore this limitation does not fully incorporate the previously indicated allowable subject matter of previously presented claim 5), nor does the claim recite the nozzle as a separately formed element. Therefore, the port 388 of Allen defines a nozzle and the fitting (in the manner taught by Arav) is installed within the port/nozzle of Allen.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 33 and 34 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, newly applied Hunnicutt teaches the new limitations of a fitting 59 threadably assembled to and threadably removed from an exit port.
Conclusion
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 on (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