DETAILED ACTION
Final Rejection
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 19 August 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-7 and 9-16 remain pending in the application. Claim 8 is canceled from consideration.
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.
Claims 1-3, 9-10, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Despres (U.S. Patent 9,897,257).
Annotated Image 1 from Despres FIG. 4
PNG
media_image1.png
313
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Despres discloses a device 200/225 comprising:
a first single unitary body, which includes:
a housing 212,
wherein the housing includes:
an inlet 232, and
an outlet230; and
a second single unitary body 260, which includes:
a pressure reducing mechanism (internal components of 260), which is contained within the housing, and is disposed between the inlet and the outlet,
wherein the pressure reducing mechanism includes a movable portion (see Annotated Image 1 above) connected to a valve (poppet),
wherein the pressure reducing mechanism is configured to receive a fluid having a first pressure (high pressure) which enters via the inlet, direct a flow of the fluid towards the outlet at a second pressure (intermediate pressure), and wherein the pressure reducing mechanism does not include a bellows and/or a diaphragm (Col. 9 ln 39-50; requires only one of the three features disclosed in the passage, therefore not requiring up to two of the features including the presence of a bellows structure having a number of diaphragm elements) (FIG. 1-5, 12; Col. 9 ln 39-50, Col. 12 ln 20-Col. 13 ln 52, Col. 16 ln 29-Col. 17 ln 27).
Regarding claim 2, Despres discloses the pressure reducing mechanism further comprises a stem 410,
wherein the valve includes a poppet valve 404,
wherein a first end of the stem is connected to one side of the movable portion (See FIG. 4),
a second end of the stem is connected to the poppet valve (See FIG. 4),
wherein the pressure reducing mechanism operates such that the poppet valve is in an open state when the movable portion moves towards the inlet, and the poppet valve is in a closed state when the movable portion is at rest or moves towards the outlet (FIG. 4-5, 12; Col. 16 ln 29-57, Col. 18 ln 60-Col. 19 ln 10).
Regarding claim 3, Despres discloses the housing and the pressure reducing mechanism does not have any welds or welded components (FIG. 1-5).
Regarding claim 9, Despres discloses a third single unitary body 242, which includes:
a second pressure reducing mechanism (same as seen in Annotated Image 1 above), which is contained within the housing, and is disposed between the pressure reducing mechanism and the outlet, wherein the second pressure reducing mechanism is configured to receive the fluid from the pressure reducing mechanism having the second pressure, and then direct the flow of the fluid towards the outlet at a third pressure (sub-atmospheric pressure) (FIG. 4-5, 12; Col. 16 ln 29-Col. 17 ln 19).
Regarding claim 10, Despres discloses the first pressure is higher than sub-atmospheric pressure (FIG. 5; Col. 16 ln 29-Col. 17 ln 19).
Regarding claim 12, Despres discloses the second pressure is lower than the first pressure (FIG. 5; Col. 16 ln 29-Col. 17 ln 19).
Regarding claim 13, Despres discloses a fluid supply system 200/225 comprising:
a container body 212, which defines an internal cavity 218 for storing a fluid at a first pressure (high pressure); and
a pressure regulator device, which is disposed in the internal cavity, and includes:
a first single unitary body 260, which includes:
a housing (See Annotated Image 1 above),
wherein the housing includes:
an inlet (See FIG. 4), and
an outlet (See FIG. 4); and
a second single unitary body (internal components of 260), which includes:
a pressure reducing mechanism (poppet/pressure sensing assembly (FIG. 4), which is contained within the housing, and is disposed between the inlet and the outlet, wherein the pressure reducing mechanism includes a movable portion connected to a valve, wherein the pressure reducing mechanism is configured to receive a fluid having a first pressure (high pressure) which enters via the inlet, direct a flow of the fluid towards the outlet at a second pressure (intermediate pressure), and wherein the pressure reducing mechanism does not include a bellows and/or a diaphragm (Col. 9 ln 39-50; requires only one of the three features disclosed in the passage, therefore not requiring up to two of the features including the presence of a bellows structure having a number of diaphragm elements) (FIG. 1-5, 12; Col. 9 ln 39-50, Col. 12 ln 20-Col. 13 ln 52, Col. 16 ln 29-Col. 17 ln 27).
Regarding claim 14, Despres discloses the pressure reducing mechanism further comprises a stem 410,
wherein the valve includes a poppet valve 404,
wherein a first end of the stem is connected to one side of the movable portion (See FIG. 4),
a second end of the stem is connected to the poppet valve (See FIG. 4),
wherein the pressure reducing mechanism operates such that the poppet valve is in an open state when the movable portion moves towards the inlet, and the poppet valve is in a closed state when the movable portion is at rest or moves towards the outlet (FIG. 4-5, 12; Col. 16 ln 29-57, Col. 18 ln 60-Col. 19 ln 10).
Regarding claim 15, Despres discloses a second pressure regulator device 242, wherein an inlet of the second pressure regulator device is connected to the outlet of the pressure regulator device (FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 16, Despres discloses a filter device 246 connected to the inlet of the pressure regulator device (FIG. 1; Col. 13 ln 35-36).
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by an alternate interpretation of Despres (U.S. Patent 9,897,257).
Regarding claim 1, Despres discloses a device 200/225 comprising:
a first single unitary body, which includes:
a housing 212,
wherein the housing includes:
an inlet 232, and
an outlet230; and
a second single unitary body 242, which includes:
a pressure reducing mechanism (internal components of 260), which is contained within the housing, and is disposed between the inlet and the outlet,
wherein the pressure reducing mechanism includes a movable portion (see Annotated Image 1 above) connected to a valve (poppet),
wherein the pressure reducing mechanism is configured to receive a fluid having a first pressure (intermediate pressure) which enters via the inlet, direct a flow of the fluid towards the outlet at a second pressure (sub-atmospheric pressure), and wherein the pressure reducing mechanism does not include a bellows and/or a diaphragm (Col. 9 ln 39-50; requires only one of the three features disclosed in the passage, therefore not requiring up to two of the features including the presence of a bellows structure having a number of diaphragm elements) (FIG. 1-5, 12; Col. 9 ln 39-50, Col. 12 ln 20-Col. 13 ln 52, Col. 16 ln 29-Col. 17 ln 27).
Regarding claim 11, Despres discloses the second pressure is sub-atmospheric pressure (FIG. 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Despres in view of Kluz (U.S. Patent 10,302,224).
Regarding claim 4, Despres discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above from claim 1.
Despres is silent regarding the first single unitary body is made of a metal.
However, Kluz teaches the method of manufacturing a three dimensional structure via sintering and powdered metal deposition, the powdered metal being made of stainless steel (Col. 4 ln 33-50; claim 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, to modify Despres by making the first and second single unitary bodies out of stainless steel, as taught by Kluz, for the purpose of utilizing a material known in the art to be a common material used to make the body of valve components, the material providing strength and durability.
Regarding claim 5, Despres, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above from claim 1.
Despres/Kluz further teach the metal includes a stainless steel (Kluz Col. 4 ln 33-50).
Regarding claim 6, Despres discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above from claim 1.
Despres is silent regarding the second single unitary body is made of a metal.
However, Kluz teaches the method of manufacturing a three dimensional structure via sintering and powdered metal deposition, the powdered metal being made of stainless steel (Col. 4 ln 33-50; claim 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, to modify Despres by making the first and second single unitary bodies out of stainless steel, as taught by Kluz, for the purpose of utilizing a material known in the art to be a common material used to make the body of valve components, the material providing strength and durability.
Regarding claim 7, Despres, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above from claim 6.
Despres/Kluz further teach the metal includes a stainless steel (Kluz Col. 4 ln 33-50).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Despres fails to disclose a pressure reducing mechanism not including a bellows and/or a diaphragm. In Despres Column 9 lines 39-50 requires only one of the three features disclosed in the passage, therefore not requiring up to two of the features including the presence of a bellows structure having a number of diaphragm elements. Despres Column 9 lines 39-50:
“pressure regulators comprising a pressure-sensing assembly including one or more of: (i) a bellows structure having a number of diaphragm elements, material of construction, thickness, and elasticity, so that the travel distance of the poppet element at least partially attenuates pressure-spiking behavior of fluid dispensed from the vessel at inception of fluid dispensing; (ii) orifice size of the pressure regulator device that at least partially attenuates pressure-spiking behavior of fluid dispensed from the vessel at inception of fluid dispensing, (iii) regulator geometry that at least partially attenuates pressure-spiking behavior of fluid dispensed from the vessel at inception of fluid dispensing”.
According to the above passage, the feature, “a bellows structure having a number of diaphragm elements, material of construction, thickness, and elasticity, so that the travel distance of the poppet element at least partially attenuates pressure-spiking behavior of fluid dispensed from the vessel at inception of fluid dispensing”, is not necessary. As long as one of the other features set forth above are present, the remaining elements are not necessary. While the figures of Despres show the presence of a bellows having multiple diaphragm elements, the presence of said bellows having multiple diaphragm elements, as set forth in the above citation, is not a required element for the Anti-spike Pressure Management Of Pressure-regulated Fluid Storage And Delivery Vessels. Accordingly, Despres has disclosed all of the elements set forth in newly amended claims 1 and 13. Therefore applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of Despres and Lord is improper and one cannot simply replace the internal components of a pressure reducing mechanism with the internal components of a different pressure reducing mechanism. While this argument is not considered persuasive, Applicant’s argument is moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the secondary reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHRISTOPHER D BALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9984. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00-3:00.
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) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig M 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 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.
/CHRISTOPHER D BALLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753