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 26 January 2026 has been entered. Claims 43-72 are pending in the application. Claims 1-42 remain canceled from consideration.
Drawings
Pursuant to the amendments made to the Specification, the drawings filed 24 June 2024 are accepted.
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 62-65 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.
The limitation of Claim 62 line 1 recites “the actuatable port comprises a piston”. A port is an opening. An opening cannot comprise, or be made of, a piston. It is unclear how one is to interpret the presence of an opening being made up of an item, specifically a piston in this instance.
Claims 63-64 are rejected based upon their dependence from claim 62.
The limitation of Claim 65 lines 1-2 recites “the actuatable port comprises a valve plug and a spring”. A port is an opening. An opening cannot comprise, or be made of, a valve plug and a spring. It is unclear how one is to interpret the presence of an opening being made up of an item or items, specifically a valve plug and a spring in this instance.
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.
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.
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 43, 55, and 58-61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bey (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0184218) in view of Dale (U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0259080).
Regarding claim 43, Bey discloses a valve assembly 310 comprising:
a valve housing 312 having an upstream connection 312a, a downstream connection 312b, and a longitudinal bore (through 312, FIG. 4), wherein the valve housing in configured to be connected (the valve housing is able to be connected to any standard conduit regardless of the location of the conduit) to a bypass conduit connected to a main conduit;
a valve 315 positioned in the longitudinal bore; and
a flow restrictor 20 positioned downstream or upstream of the valve (both),
wherein the flow restrictor is configured to restrict a fluid flow through the valve assembly, and the flow restrictor comprises an actuatable port (right end of 20) configured to open to enable the fluid flow through the flow restrictor (FIG. 1, 4; Paragraph 29-31, 35).
Bey does not expressly state the valve housing is connected to a bypass conduit connected to a main conduit.
However, Dale teaches placing a valve 22 on a bypass conduit (5a, 5b) to a main conduit (100) (FIG. 1; Paragraph 46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Bey by placing a valve on a bypass conduit to a main conduit, as taught by Dale, for the purpose of placing the valve assembly in an environment within which the valve assembly is cable of operating in its known and intended manner.
Regarding claim 55, Bey, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 43.
Bey further discloses the flow restrictor has one or more perforations 24 configured to restrict the fluid flow through the flow restrictor (FIG. 1; Col. 4 ln 46-52).
Regarding claim 58, Bey, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 43.
Bey further discloses the valve is a ball valve (FIG. 4).
Regarding claim 59, Bey, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 43.
Bey/Dale further teaches a system (Dale 10) for pressure control in a fluid conduit, the system comprising:
the valve assembly of claim 43 (Bey FIG. 1, 4; Paragraph 29-31, 35; Dale FIG. 1; Paragraph 46); and
a valve actuation system (Dale 30) including a source of actuation fluid (Dale 34) configured to open the valve (FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 60, Bey, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 59.
Bey is silent regarding a second valve assembly.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to place a second valve assembly in series to provide a double redundant shut off, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 61, Bey, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 59.
Bey/Dale further teaches a control system (Dale 40) configured to receive an electronic signal related to a fluid pressure in the main conduit and control the valve actuation system (Dale FIG. 1; Paragraph 45).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 44-54 and 58-66 are allowed.
Claims 56-57 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.
Claims 62-65 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the closest art fails to anticipate or make obvious an insert received in the flow restrictor, the insert having one or more perforations configured to restrict the fluid flow through the flow restrictor, along with the other limitations of the claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art fails to anticipate or make obvious an insert received in the flow restrictor, the insert having one or more perforations configured to restrict the fluid flow through the flow restrictor, along with the other limitations of the claims.
Furthermore, the closest prior art fails to anticipate or make obvious the flow restrictor comprises a second actuatable port configured to independently open to enable the fluid flow through the flow restrictor, along with the other limitations of the claims.
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
Applicant's arguments filed 26 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Bey does not disclose an actuatable port configured to open to enable the fluid flow through the flow restrictor. This argument is not persuasive. As stated above in the body of the rejection, Bey discloses that the right side opening of insert 20 is an actuatable port. Rotation of the sealing element 315 opens and closes the right side of the insert 20 to enable flow through the insert 20. Accordingly, the right side port of the insert 20 is actuatable. The opening and closing of the port enable or disables the fluid flow through the restrictor. Accordingly, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
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 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