Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/682,562

EXCESS FLOW VALVE FOR CRYOGENIC FLUID TANK

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Feb 09, 2024
Examiner
ARUNDALE, ROBERT K
Art Unit
3753
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Engineered Controls International LLC
OA Round
2 (Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
579 granted / 771 resolved
+5.1% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+24.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
802
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
40.4%
+0.4% vs TC avg
§102
31.8%
-8.2% vs TC avg
§112
25.1%
-14.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 771 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement(s) was/were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) was/were considered by the examiner. 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. Claim(s) 1-5,8-9,11, 12, 17, 18, and 20-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Flynn (U.S. Publication 2006/0124174). In regards to claims 1 and 17 and 21 and 23, Flynn discloses an excess flow valve, comprising: a valve body (12) including: an inner body surface that defines an inlet (I), an outlet (O) and a circumferential groove (G), a chamber extending between the inlet (I) and the outlet (O); and a valve seat (26) adjacent the outlet (O); a piston plug (16) disposed within the chamber and configured to slide axially between an open position and a closed position, wherein the piston plug (16) includes: an inlet end (IE) positioned toward the inlet (I) of the valve body (12); an outlet end (OE) positioned toward the outlet (O) of the valve body (12); a plug (P) at the outlet end (OE) configured to engage the valve seat (26) in the closed position and be disengaged from the valve seat (26) in the open position; an inner piston surface at least partially defining at least a portion of a fluid flow path for fluid between the inlet (I) and the outlet (O); an outer piston surface; and an outer flange (42, 46) extending radially outward from the outer piston surface at the inlet end (IE), wherein the outer flange (42. 46) defines a flange surface; wherein the outer flange (42, 46), the outer piston surface, and the inner body surface at least partially define a spring slot (54) that is outside of the fluid flow path; and a spring (56) disposed in the spring slot (54) and including a first end that engages the flange surface to bias the piston plug (16) toward the open position; and a retainer ring (60) securely positioned within the chamber adjacent the inlet (I) to retain the piston plug (P) and the spring (56) in place within the chamber; wherein the circumferential groove (G) is configured to receive the retainer ring (60) and the outer flange (42, 46) of the piston plug (16) is configured to rest against the retainer ring (60) in the open position. PNG media_image1.png 522 924 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 300 242 media_image2.png Greyscale In regards to claim 2 and 24, the valve body (12) includes an inner ledge (L) extending into the chamber between the inlet (I) and the outlet (O). PNG media_image3.png 404 512 media_image3.png Greyscale In regards to claim 3, the inner ledge (L) partially defines the spring slot (54) and defines a fixed surface that engages a second end of the spring (at least to the same extent illustrated by applicant). In regards to claim 4, a guide (58) adjacent the inner ledge (L), wherein the guide (58) includes a side surface that engages the inner ledge (L) and a fixed surface that partially defines the spring slot (54) and engages a second end of the spring (56). In regards to claim 5, a guide (58) is positioned to partially define the spring slot (54) and engage a second end of the spring (56), wherein the guide (58) further includes an outer guide surface that engages the inner body surface of the valve body (12) and an inner guide surface that engages the outer piston surface of the piston plug (16). In regards to claim 8, the piston plug (16) is configured to slide axially toward the valve seat (26) when a flow rate of the fluid exceeds a predefined threshold flow rate that corresponds with a biasing force of the spring (56). In regards to claim 9, the outer flange (42, 46) is configured to compress the spring (56) as the piston plug (16) slides axially toward the valve seat (26). In regards to claim 11, the inlet (I) is configured to receive and fluidly connect to a first pipe, and wherein the outlet (O) is configured to receive and fluidly connect to a second pipe. In regards to claim 12, the inlet (I) has a first diameter greater than that of the piston plug (16) and the spring (56) to enable the piston plug (16) and the spring (56) to be inserted into the chamber through the inlet (I), wherein the valve seat (26) has a second diameter less than that of the piston plug (16) and the spring (56) to prevent the piston plug (16) and the spring (56) from being removed from the chamber through the outlet (O). In regards to claim 17, Flynn further discloses one or more holes (24) adjacent the plug (P), the one or more holes (24) at least partially forming the fluid flow path between the inlet (I) and the outlet (O). In regards to claim 18, the one or more holes (24) are located adjacent the plug (P) such that the one or more holes (24) are axially positioned between the spring slot (54) and the valve seat (26) in both the open position and the closed position to direct the fluid around the spring (56) in both the open position and the closed position. In regards to claim 20, see the rejection of claim 11. In regards to claim 22, the piston plug (16) is configured to slide axially toward the valve seat (26) when a flow rate of the cryogenic fluid exceeds a predefined threshold flow rate that corresponds with a biasing force of the spring (56), and wherein the spring (56) is configured to compress as the piston plug (16) slides axially toward the valve seat (26). 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) 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flynn in view of Jackson (U.S. Patent 3,741,241). Flynn discloses all of the elements as discussed above. Flynn does not specifically disclose the outlet end of the plug defines a bleed hole that fluidly connects the inlet to the outlet when the piston plug is in the closed position to equalize pressure between the chamber and the outlet to subsequently facilitate the piston plug in returning to the open position by equalizing pressure between the chamber to the outlet. However, Jackson teaches an excess flow valve wherein a piston plug (22) includes a bleed hole (28) which fluidly connects an inlet to an outlet when the piston plug is in the closed position to equalize pressure between the chamber and the outlet to subsequently facilitate the piston plug in returning to the open position by equalizing pressure between the chamber to the outlet. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have designed the piston plug to have a bleed hole (which would have been located on an outlet end of the plug) to facilitate system operation in emergency situations as taught by Jackson (col. 2, lines 12-23). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 10/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that retaining member 60 is not set within a groove. The office disagrees. As illustrated above, retaining member 60 is received within a circumferential groove G. The term “groove” may be defined as , “any channel or rut cut or won in a surface.” See Webster’s New World Dictionary. Accordingly, it is the office’s position that member 60 is received in a groove at least to the extent the term groove is understood and defined by the claim. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior art all disclose setting a retaining ring within a groove wherein the groove directly contacts the retaining ring. US Publications: 2013/0025712, 2002/0189679. US Patents: 3872884, 7591282. 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to R.K. Arundale whose telephone number is 571-270-3453. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881, and Craig Schneider can be reached at 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 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. /ROBERT K ARUNDALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 09, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Oct 07, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 25, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12583271
PNEUMATIC PRESSURE CONTROLLER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578027
Bicycle Tire Inner Tube with Pneumatic Valve
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576676
Automatic Tire Inflation System Hose With Integrated TPMS Sensor
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571484
VALVE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12572163
PRESSURE REDUCER ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+24.5%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 771 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month