Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/713,022

FLOW CONTROL DEVICE FOR INSERTING INTO CONTAINER OPENINGS

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
May 23, 2024
Examiner
CARROLL, JEREMY W
Art Unit
3754
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Pmi South America Consumer Goods Ltda
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
511 granted / 684 resolved
+4.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
718
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
40.0%
+0.0% vs TC avg
§102
24.7%
-15.3% vs TC avg
§112
25.6%
-14.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 684 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
DETAILED ACTION 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 5-10 are 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. Regarding claims 5, and 8-10, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Regarding claim 7, the phrase "especially" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 6 depends from claim 5 above and therefore inherit the deficiencies thereof. 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(s) 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smaldone et al. (US 20180118417 A1) in view of Balison et al. (US 1447117 A). Claim 1, Smaldone discloses a body (102, 104), a drive assembly (115) and a fluid passageway arrangement (FIG 7), wherein the drive assembly is configured to restrict or allow the fluid flow from a container into the flow control device ([0024]); wherein the body is configured in a substantially cylindrical shape (FIG 3) and houses the fluid passageway arrangement (FIG 7); wherein the fluid passageway arrangement communicates the inner side of the flow control device with the outside environment (FIG 7); characterized in that the fluid passageway arrangement comprises, contiguously, a pressure equalization chamber (130; [0027]) and an output duct (105), wherein the pressure equalization chamber (130) is configured to accumulate fluid, in order to allow pressure homogenization thereof ([0027]). But is silent on the output duct presents a substantially circular cross section. Balison teaches the output duct presents a substantially circular cross section (FIG 1-3, 5). 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 device of Smaldone with circular cross section as taught by Balison in order to provide a simple of substitution of one known element for another. Claim 2, the modified apparatus of Smaldone teaches near its terminal end, the output duct has a conical section, whose cross section decreases towards the output end of the output duct (Balison: Page 1, line 96-99; FIG 1-3, 5). Claims 3 and 11, Smaldone discloses the fluid passageway arrangement further comprises a vent tube (170; FIG 5; [0040]). Claims 4 and 12-13, Smaldone discloses the body has a threaded section, whose thread corresponds to the inner thread of the container opening, enabling the flow control device to be threaded onto the container opening (110; FIG 3). Claims 5, 8-10, Smaldone discloses the drive assembly (125) comprises: a valve assembly, which internally crosses the flow control device, and is configured to restrict the fluid flow from the container into the device; a drive mechanism (115), which is configured, upon actuation, to move the valve assembly to allow the fluid to flow into the device; and an elastic element ([0036]), preferably a spring, which is arranged concentrically around a portion of the valve assembly, wherein the elastic element is configured to assist the valve assembly return to its original position. Claim 6, Smaldone discloses the valve assembly comprises a valve element (125) and at least one gasket (120) for sealing purposes. Claim 7, Smaldone discloses the drive mechanism comprises at least one pin (145) and one drive element (115), especially a button or lever. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY W CARROLL whose telephone number is (571)272-4988. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM. 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, Paul Durand can be reached at (571) 272-4459. 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. JEREMY W. CARROLL Primary Examiner Art Unit 3754 /Jeremy Carroll/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 23, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595165
Reed Switch Pump
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588785
Condiment Dispensing Apparatus, System, And Methods Of Use
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583731
BEVERAGE DISPENSER WITH ADVANCED PORTION CONTROL AND POINT-OF-SALE INTEGRATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583733
TAP FOR DISPENSING EITHER A FIRST OR A SECOND LIQUID
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12564294
SHOWER DOOR ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+12.2%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 684 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