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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is responsive to the election made without traverse on 1/12/2026.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of superstructure of a valve in the reply filed on 1/12/2026 is acknowledged.
The requirement for restriction mailed 11/12/2025 incorrectly identified claims 6 – 14 to be related to the superstructure of a valve, but claims 5 – 14 are related to the invention. Examiner apologizes for any inconvenience caused.
Claims 5 – 14 are considered in this action.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the first end couple with the actuator” should read “the first end coupled with the actuator”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 5, 9, 12 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent to Kaspers (5,279,325).
Regarding claim 5, Kaspers discloses a pneumatic actuator (5, Fig. 2); superstructure (2, Fig. 2) having a first side coupled with the pneumatic actuator; and a valve stem (18, Fig. 2) coupled to the superstructure, the valve stem comprising a first end and a second end, the first end coupled with the actuator and the second end coupled with the valve – at 20, Fig. 2, the valve stem having an internal flow pathway (25, Fig. 2) that extends from a first port (25, Fig. 2) inside of the actuator to a second port (24, Fig. 2) disposed outside of the actuator (5, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Kaspers inherently discloses a connector – for conduit 30 – coupled to the second port (24, Fig. 6)
Regarding claim 12, Kaspers discloses a controller (3, Fig. 5) mounted to the superstructure (2, Fig. 6), the controller having operating hardware to convert an incoming pneumatic signal into an outgoing pneumatic signal (75, Fig. 6), wherein the superstructure is configured to direct the outgoing pneumatic signal from the controller to the internal flow pathway of the valve stem (18, Fig. 6).
Regarding claims 13, Kaspers discloses a controller (3, Fig. 6) mounted to the superstructure (2, Fig. 6), the controller having operating hardware to convert an incoming pneumatic signal into an outgoing pneumatic signal; and a signal pathway (78, Fig. 6) coupled to the controller and to the internal flow pathway of the valve stem, wherein the signal pathway is configured to direct the outgoing pneumatic signal from the controller to the internal flow pathway of the valve stem (18, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 14, Kaspers discloses the superstructure (2, Fig. 6) forms a sealed cavity (4, Fig. 6) around a portion of the valve stem (18, Fig. 6) that includes the second port (24, Fig. 6).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent to Kaspers (5,279,325) in view of US Patent to Danek (3,799,008).
Kaspers does not disclose the internal flow pathway comprises at least a third port that resides inside of the actuator.
However, Danek also teaching a actuator with a fluid path in the stem teaches a plurality of first ports (71, Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date of the application to have modified valve disclosed by Kaspers with the plurality of first ports taught by Danek as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
In the combination of the prior art elements, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected the elements to maintain their respective properties or functions.
Claims 10 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent to Kaspers (5,279,325) in view of US Patent to US Patent to Priisholm et al. (10,866,581).
Regarding claims 10 – 11, Kaspers does not disclose a hose connected to pneumatic connector.
However, having a hose for a pneumatic connector is well known in the art as taught by Priisholm et al. Priisholm et al. teach hoses (26, Fig. 1) connecting controller (21, Fig. 1) to ports for actuating the valve.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date of the application to have modified the valve disclosed by Kaspers with the hoses taught by Priisholm as means of connecting actuating ports that are remote from the controller.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 – 8 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application to van der Zee et al. (2011/0260085) and US Patent to Fontaine (3,845,932) both disclosing valve stems with fluid flow path.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UMASHANKAR VENKATESAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisors Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607 or Ken 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 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.
/UMASHANKAR VENKATESAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753