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.
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 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, at least one of the cage apertures including a transition portion that extends through the peripheral wall at the clearance surface and 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, and would be seen as being one of the cage apertures that is at the clearance surface and the transition 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 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) 1-3, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heymann US 5,014,746.
Regarding claim 1, and subsequently claims 2-3 and 7, Heymann is difficult to see regarding the cage apertures as you have to compare Fig. 1 to Fig. 2 for the cage apertures 52 but they are seen to cover the whole of the clearance and transition surface. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify one of the cage apertures to have a transition portion that extends through the peripheral wall at the clearance surface and the transition surface, between the radially inner surface and the radially outer surface as a matter of simple substitution of shapes of a cage aperture and/or to provide better flow by modifying the shape of the aperture.
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) 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.
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 5-6 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.”
Response to Arguments
The examiner has withdrawn the 102 rejections to Stares and 103 rejections to Stares in view of Crane and Stares in view of Gabriel.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, the examiner would like to note that claim 1 was not amended as discussed during the interview. Regarding applicant’s arguments to the 102 rejection of claims 1-3 and 7 to Heymann, the applicant argues about the larger window openings 38 but the examiner is not using the larger window openings in the rejection, only the cage apertures 52 in Figs. 1-2 which show apertures at the transition and clearance surfaces (see lower guide ring 40 in Fig. 1, and outside and just above it are cage apertures 52 which are the clearance and transition surfaces) so the rejection stands. Since the applicant has amended the claims, the applicant also added a 103 rejection as this is seen as obvious. Regarding applicant’s arguments to the 103 rejections of Heymann in view of Crane and Heymann in view of Gabriel, these are based solely on the 102 rejection arguments which are addressed above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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)272-4921 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
Prosecution Insights