DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1,3,4 and 7-9 are pending and claims 2,5,6 and 10-20 are withdrawn.
This action is in response to the amendment dated 6/26/2026.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages filed 6/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claim(s) 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.
Since applicant’s arguments and amendments necessitated the new grounds for rejection the action is made Non-Final.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species II in the reply filed on 7/14/2025 was previously acknowledged. Claims 2,5,6 and 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/14/2025.
Claim Objections
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the claim objection.
Claim 8 recites the limitation, “ “an” uphole” , this should be changed to - -the uphole - -. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1,3,4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recite the limitations “therein” and “therebetween”, which are unclear as to what/where the intended structure that is linked with the limitations is to be located as claimed.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a first spring disposed in an upper spring chamber to enact force on a second ball”, which is unclear as to which ball is intended to be defined, since the specification discloses the first blocking member 30 abutting the 1st ball seat 26 (see para.0011), should the “second ball” be the - -first ball - -?
Claim 1 recites the limitations “a second spring disposed in a lower spring chamber that engages the sleeve to force the first ball into a first seat”, which is unclear as to how the second spring 50 that engages the sleeve 48 forces the ball into the first seat 26, as shown in applicants, Figure 1, the sleeve 48 forces the ball 64 into the second seat 42.
PNG
media_image1.png
279
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 3 recites the limitation, “a first spring disposed in an upper spring chamber wherein the first spring forcing a second ball into a second seat”, which is unclear if these are additional structural features or the same features recited in claim 1, as, “a first spring disposed in an upper spring chamber to enact force on a second ball”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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) 1,3,4,8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO2020/225525, the office is relying on the US 11933131 document for the rejection) in view of Jones (US 4049017). The claims being rejected as best understood based on the 112 rejections above.
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses an adjustable check valve (see Fig. 1-8), the adjustable check valve comprising:
a first open end (near right end at 42,4,8) and a second open end (near left end at 2,4) to permit fluid to flow through the adjustable check valve;
a housing (10-10c,8,14) with an inlet (the right opening at 42 within 8) and an outlet (the left opening at 2,4);
a sleeve (52) slidably disposed in the housing, the sleeve having a ball holder portion (at section of 62 ) with a first ball (60) disposed therein;
the ball holder portion having a first axial end opposite a ball seat (the surface of 62 that abuts the ball) disposed in a second axial end and a sidewall (the horizontal wall along the opening for 56, see Fig. 6) extending therebetween;
a radial directed port (at 56) disposed in the sidewall of the ball holder portion between the ball seat in the second axial end and the first axial end of the ball holder portion;
a first spring (right spring 58 within 8) disposed in an upper spring chamber (chamber within 8) to enact force on a second ball (46, see Fig. 7);
a second spring (left spring 58 within 10) disposed in a lower spring chamber (the chamber of 10 surrounding the spring 58 and ball 60, see Fig. 6) that engages the sleeve to force the first ball into a first seat (the un-numbered seat at the rightmost of the sleeve shown in Fig 6, where the ball 60 contacts as shown in Fig. 1) to prevent fluid from flowing in an uphole direction (upward through 10 towards 8) in the adjustable check valve;
a set screw (the un-numbered part below numeral 10 in Fig. 6 that abuts spring 58) disposed entirely within the housing and engaged with the housing to apply a desired amount of tension to the second spring; and
wherein the ball holder portion of the sleeve is disposed between the first and second spring (as shown in the figures below, the ball holder portion is arranged in this manner).
PNG
media_image2.png
899
1110
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lee is silent to having the set screw threadably disposed in the housing.
Jones discloses a valve that teaches a set screw (34) threadably (45) disposed entirely within the housing (16) and engaged (at 45 and 32) with the housing to apply a desired amount of tension to the second spring (35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ threads as taught by Jones into the device of Lee to have the set screw threadably disposed in the housing, and engaged with the housing, in order to have a means to set the tension on the spring (Jones, col.4,lns 16-26).
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses a first spring (right spring 58 within 8) disposed in an upper spring chamber (chamber within 8 surrounding right spring 58) wherein the first spring forcing a second ball (46) into a second seat (the seat at 48 abutted by ball 46) in the upper spring chamber.
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses a passageway (the opening 18) that fluidically connects the upper spring chamber and lower spring chamber.
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses the first ball (60) prevents fluid from flowing in “an” uphole direction through the passageway (as shown in Figure 1 above).
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses the first spring and the second ball prevents fluid from flowing in the uphole direction and out of the adjustable check valve (the second ball and first spring prevent fluid from flowing upward and exiting the outlet, see fig.1 above).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ‘525 in view of Gute (US 5107890).
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses all of the features of the claimed invention, including a second spring, although are silent that the second spring has a conical shape.
Gute teaches the use of a spring that has a conical shape (24).
PNG
media_image3.png
364
561
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a conical spring as taught by Gute for the second spring in Lee to have the second spring being conical shaped, since it has been held, that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component (one spring for another) or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. Additionally, the well-known expected outcome of applying a force to the ball valve in order to keep the ball closed against a certain pressure, would result from the combination.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Craig Price, whose telephone number is (571)272-2712 or via facsimile (571)273-2712. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:00AM-4:30PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3607, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
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 Form at;
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/CRAIG J PRICE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights