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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 1/14/26 is acknowledged and the remaining claims 19-20 are canceled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement has the Crane reference in the NPL but this is a US document so the examiner has lined through this in the IDS and provided it in the Notices of References Cited.
Claim Interpretation
Claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation and the examiner has taken “transition” to mean that the surface has a different diameter than the sealing surface and clearance surface thus is “a transition surface”. The examiner is not sure if transition was intended to mean that the surface is angled and the cage apertures are in the angled transition surface.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, next to last line, “extending through peripheral wall” should be “extending through the peripheral wall”. 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.
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 7 is 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 7 does not make sense as it is not understood what is being compared. The first comparison is unclear as this is an internal diameter of what the examiner understands is at the transition surface but the applicant has shown the transition surface as angled so there is no single diameter but it changes and the second comparison is to the first internal diameter but now has been changed from claim 1 to be “along a full internal circumference of the radially inner surface”, but this conflicts with what it is in claim 1, which is only at the fist axial end of the cage.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, and 7, as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Heymann US 5,014,746.
Regarding claim 1, Heymann discloses a trim assembly (Figs. 1-2) for a regulator, the trim assembly comprising:
a cage 200 including a peripheral wall that extends in an axial direction to define:
a radially outer surface (outside of 200);
a radially inner surface (inside of 200) that includes a sealing surface at a first axial end of the cage that defines a first internal diameter (200 at the bottom that contacts 40), a clearance surface spaced axially from the sealing surface along the peripheral wall and defining a second internal diameter larger than the first internal diameter (angled surface above the sealing surface), and a transition surface that extends along the peripheral wall between the sealing surface and the clearance surface (space between 34 and 200); and
cage apertures 52 extending radially through the peripheral wall, with a transition portion of one or more of the cage apertures extending through peripheral wall at the transition surface, between the radially inner surface and the radially outer surface (see Fig.1 as the cage apertures are in all of the sealing surface, transition surface and clearance surface).
Regarding claim 2, further comprising a plug 32 that includes a sealing element 40, the plug being moveably received within the cage to move axially along a range of travel that includes:
a range of sealing positions in which the sealing element seals against the sealing surface to prevent flow from the first axial end of the cage through the cage apertures (Fig. 1);
a range of transition positions in which the sealing element is aligned in a radial direction with the transition surface to permit flow through the transition portion of the one or more cage apertures (when 32 is raised to be in the transition portion); and
a range of clearance positions in which the sealing element is aligned in the radial direction with and spaced radially inwardly from the clearance surface (when 32 is raised to be in the clearance surface).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the first internal diameter of the sealing surface extends over an axial length corresponding to the range of sealing positions (see Fig. 1, when it is raised along the bottom of the cage).
Regarding claim 7, wherein along the radially inner surface, axially between the sealing surface and the clearance surface, the transition surface defines an internal diameter of the radially inner surface that is larger than the first internal diameter along a full internal circumference of the radially inner surface (see 112 rejection above, but the smallest diameter of the cage is at the bottom where the sealing surface which is the first internal diameter so of course the internal diameter at the transition surface is larger).
Claim(s) 1-2, and 7, as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stares US 4,617,963.
Regarding claim 1, Stares discloses a trim assembly for a regulator, the trim assembly comprising:
a cage 50 and 46 including a peripheral wall that extends in an axial direction to define:
a radially outer surface (outside of 50 and 46);
a radially inner surface (inside of 50 and 46) that includes a sealing surface at a first axial end of the cage that defines a first internal diameter (inside cylindrical part at bottom of 46 in which the bottom of the plug seals at the top corner), a clearance surface spaced axially from the sealing surface along the peripheral wall and defining a second internal diameter larger than the first internal diameter (clearance surface at top of 50 that holds bonnet 38 has a greater diameter than at 46), and a transition surface that extends along the peripheral wall between the sealing surface and the clearance surface (angled part of top of 46 to the clearance surface which is the inner part of 50 that the plug moves); and
cage apertures 68 extending radially through the peripheral wall, with a transition portion of one or more of the cage apertures extending through peripheral wall at the transition surface, between the radially inner surface and the radially outer surface (68 extend through this transition area).
Regarding claim 2, further comprising a plug 30 that includes a sealing element (all of 30), the plug being moveably received within the cage to move axially along a range of travel that includes:
a range of sealing positions in which the sealing element seals against the sealing surface to prevent flow from the first axial end of the cage through the cage apertures (30 seals against the sealing surface when contacting 46 and is seen to be able to move slightly and still prevent flow);
a range of transition positions in which the sealing element is aligned in a radial direction with the transition surface to permit flow through the transition portion of the one or more cage apertures (when 30 is raised from 46); and
a range of clearance positions in which the sealing element is aligned in the radial direction with and spaced radially inwardly from the clearance surface (when the top of 30, above 36, is inside the clearance surface).
Regarding claim 7, wherein along the radially inner surface, axially between the sealing surface and the clearance surface, the transition surface defines an internal diameter of the radially inner surface that is larger than the first internal diameter along a full internal circumference of the radially inner surface (see 112 rejection above, but the smallest diameter of the cage is at the bottom where the sealing surface which is the first internal diameter so of course the internal diameter at the transition surface is larger).
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 (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.
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) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heymann US 5,014,746 in view of Crane US 319,678.
Regarding claim 4, Heymann lacks the sealing element is radially outwardly biased to a neutral diameter that is larger than the first internal diameter and smaller than the second internal diameter. Crane discloses a sealing element that is radially outwardly biased to a neutral diameter that is larger than the first internal diameter and smaller than the second internal diameter. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a sealing element as disclosed by Crane as another sealing element on Heymann to provide better sealing of the valve.
Regarding claim 13, Heymann lacks the first portion of a first cage aperture of the plurality of cage apertures extends axially farther along the peripheral wall than the first portion of a second cage aperture of the plurality of cage apertures. Crane discloses the first portion of a first cage aperture of the plurality of cage apertures extends axially farther along the peripheral wall than the first portion of a second cage aperture of the plurality of cage apertures (See Figs. 1 and 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cage apertures of Stares to have the first portion of a first cage aperture extend axially farther along the peripheral wall than the first portion of a second cage aperture as disclosed by Crane as a matter of simple substitution of shapes and locations of the cage apertures and/or “obvious to try” cage aperture shape and locations of Crane on Heymann to provide better flow as disclosed by Crane.
Claim(s) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stares US 4,617,963 in view of Crane US 319,678.
Regarding claim 4, Stares lacks the sealing element is radially outwardly biased to a neutral diameter that is larger than the first internal diameter and smaller than the second internal diameter. Crane discloses a sealing element that is radially outwardly biased to a neutral diameter that is larger than the first internal diameter and smaller than the second internal diameter. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a sealing element as disclosed by Crane as another sealing element on Stares to provide better sealing of the valve.
Regarding claim 13, Stares lacks the first portion of a first cage aperture of the plurality of cage apertures extends axially farther along the peripheral wall than the first portion of a second cage aperture of the plurality of cage apertures. Crane discloses the first portion of a first cage aperture of the plurality of cage apertures extends axially farther along the peripheral wall than the first portion of a second cage aperture of the plurality of cage apertures (See Figs. 1 and 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cage apertures of Stares to have the first portion of a first cage aperture extend axially farther along the peripheral wall than the first portion of a second cage aperture as disclosed by Crane as a matter of simple substitution of shapes and locations of the cage apertures and/or “obvious to try” cage aperture shape and locations of Crane on Stares to provide better flow as disclosed by Crane.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heymann US 5,014,746 in view of Gabriel US 2019/0353265.
Regarding claim 8, Heymann discloses each cage aperture of a plurality of cage apertures but lacks includes a first portion that extends radially through the peripheral wall with a first circumferential width and a second portion that extends radially through the peripheral wall with a second circumferential width that is larger than the first circumferential width. Gabriel discloses a plurality of cage apertures that includes a first portion that extends radially through the peripheral wall with a first circumferential width and a second portion that extends radially through the peripheral wall with a second circumferential width that is larger than the first circumferential width (see Fig. 3, W1 is a circumferential width that is greater than W2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the cage apertures of Heymann to be of apertures that have a second circumferential width that is larger than the first circumferential width as disclosed by Gabriel as a simple substitution of shapes of the cage apertures and/or “obvious to try” cage aperture shape of Gabriel on Heymann to provide better flow as disclosed by Gabriel.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stares US 4,617,963 in view of Gabriel US 2019/0353265.
Regarding claim 8, Stares discloses each cage aperture of a plurality of cage apertures but lacks includes a first portion that extends radially through the peripheral wall with a first circumferential width and a second portion that extends radially through the peripheral wall with a second circumferential width that is larger than the first circumferential width. Gabriel discloses a plurality of cage apertures that includes a first portion that extends radially through the peripheral wall with a first circumferential width and a second portion that extends radially through the peripheral wall with a second circumferential width that is larger than the first circumferential width (see Fig. 3, W1 is a circumferential width that is greater than W2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the cage apertures of Stares to be of apertures that have a second circumferential width that is larger than the first circumferential width as disclosed by Gabriel as a simple substitution of shapes of the cage apertures and/or “obvious to try” cage aperture shape of Gabriel on Stares to provide better flow as disclosed by Gabriel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 9-12, and 14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reason for the allowance of the claims 4-6 is a trim assembly having the combination of a first resilient member supported by the plug radially inwardly of the sealing element to bias the sealing element radially outwardly to the neutral diameter in combination with the apparatus as cited in claims 1, 2 3, and 4.
The primary reason for the allowance of the claims 9-12 is a trim assembly having the combination of one or more of the first portions extends radially through peripheral wall at the sealing surface in combination with the apparatus as cited in claims 1 and 8.
The primary reason for the allowance of the claim 14 is a trim assembly having the combination of the first portion of the first cage aperture extends onto the transition surface and the first portion of the second cage aperture extends onto the transition surface and onto the sealing surface with the apparatus as cited in claims 1 and 13.
Claims 15-18 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The primary reason for the allowance of the claims 15-18 is a flow device having the combination of a body with a seat supported by the body with a trim assembly that includes a cage and a plug that supports a sealing element and is movable in an axial direction within the cage along a range of axial distances from the seat to control flow from the flow inlet, across the seat, to the flow outlet with the cage including a peripheral wall that defines a radially inner surface having a sealing surface at a first axial end of the cage adjacent to the seat, the sealing surface defines a first internal diameter with a clearance surface extending axially opposite the sealing surface from the seat and defining a second internal diameter larger than the first internal diameter with a transition surface that extends with an increasing diameter between the sealing surface and the clearance surface with cage apertures extending radially fully through the peripheral wall along each of the sealing surface, the transition surface, and the clearance surface.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN BASTIANELLI whose telephone number is (571)272-4921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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 or 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 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.
/John Bastianelli/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
571-272-4921