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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendment and RCE dated 4/29/2026. The previous 112 rejections have been partially withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment. Claims 5-17 and 21-32 remain pending. Claims 21-26 remain withdrawn. Claims 30-32 are newly presented. This action is Non-Final.
Claim Objections
Claims 21-26 are objected to because of the following informalities: the status identifier for claims 21-26 should be “(Withdrawn – Previously Presented”). Appropriate correction is required.
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 28-29 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.
Claim 28 is rejected as the scope of the claim is unclear. Per the preamble, a cage assembly is recited. However, claim 28 recites additional components, such as a lower cage portion including a plurality of removably coupled segments, with the body being one of the segments and the body to be removably coupled to a second body of a second one of the segments. Thus, it is unclear if the applicant is claiming a cage or an assembly with the cage and additional components including removably coupled segments with the body being a first one of the segments to be removably coupled to a second body of a second one of the segments. The cage as elected by the applicant without traverse in the response dated 11/3/2025 encompasses the components of the body, seal ring, biasing element, metal washer, and spacer as depicted in figure 3B.
Claim 29 is rejected due to its dependency on claim 28.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 102 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 5-6, 13-16, and 27-30, claims 28-29 as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schmitt (U.S. 3,645,289).
Schmitt discloses a cage assembly for use with a fluid valve, the cage comprising: a body (C) structured to be positioned within a trim bore of the fluid valve (is at least capable of being positioned within another component, see fig. 1, (C) is within the component B described in col. 1, ll. 46-48 and shown with passages 5 and 2 in fig. 1), the body defining an outer surface between a first end (towards the right) and a second end (towards the left), the body having a central aperture (extending horizontally in fig. 1), the body including a first counter bore (towards the right end where the right end of 20 resides) and a second counter bore (towards the right end where the right end of 17 resides) adjacent the first end of the body; a seal ring (20) positioned in the first counter bore, the seal ring including a first aperture (fig. 1); and a spring (17) provided in the second counter bore, the spring between the first end of the body and the seal ring (fig. 1), the spring to impart a force on the seal ring (fig. 1), the spring including a second aperture, the central aperture of the body, the first aperture of the seal, and the second aperture of the spring structured to provide a fluid flow path of the cage assembly (notice the fluid flow through the apertures as shown by the arrows in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Schmitt further discloses wherein the seal ring expands in a radial direction at least partially toward a longitudinal axis of the central aperture when the spring imparts the force to the seal ring (the spring applies a pressing force on the seal ring, as the spring applies a pressing/biasing force on the seal ring, at least some amount of radial expansion will result, however small that may be and especially as the applicant’s seal ring is radially constrained in a similar manner).
Regarding claim 13, Schmitt further discloses wherein the first end of the cage includes a third counter bore (at 10), the third counter bore to receive a second end of another cage (the third counter bore is at least capable of receiving another component including another component such as a second end of another cage).
Regarding claim 14, Schmitt further discloses wherein the first counter bore defines a first shoulder to receive the seal ring (fig. 1, at the right end of 20) and the second counter bore defines a second shoulder different than the first shoulder to receive the spring (fig. 1, at the right end of 17).
Regarding claim 15, Schmitt further discloses wherein the second shoulder defines a spring seat (at 18), the spring seat is positioned between the first shoulder and the first end of the body (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Schmitt further discloses wherein the body is a cylindrical body (figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 27, Schmitt further discloses a valve seat coupled to the body of the cage (at 10).
Regarding claim 28, Schmitt further discloses wherein the cage includes an upper cage portion (such as a component like 1 or S) and a lower cage portion (C, 40, 51), the lower cage portion including a plurality of removably coupled segments (C, 40, 51, another of 17 and another of 20), wherein the body (C) is a first one of the segments, the body to removably couple to a second body of a second one of the segments (as all the components are coupled together, see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 29, Schmitt further discloses wherein the segments are stackable (as shown in fig. 1, if rotated 90 degrees all the components would be vertically stacked).
Regarding claim 30, Schmitt further discloses wherein the first counter bore has a first diameter (the diameter for the counter bore where the right end of 20 resides) and the second counter bore has a second diameter (the diameter for the counter bore where the right end of 17 resides), the first diameter different than the second diameter (fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 103 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt.
Schmitt discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose wherein a diameter to height ratio of the body is at least one of equal to or greater than one.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schmitt such that a diameter to height ratio of the body is at least one of equal to or greater than one, since a change in size/proportion of a component generally involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.04. The motivation for doing so would be to have the body have less height such that it is more compact and saves space in the vertical direction.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt in view of Zhou (U.S. 8,794,592).
Schmitt discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose a metal washer coupled to a first surface of the seal ring.
Zhou teaches it was known in the art to have spacer rings (such as 14, 12, 10, 7) stacked amongst sealing components (such as 13, 8, etc.) with the spacer rings made of metal (col. 5, ll. 50-53).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schmitt by having a metal washer coupled to any of the components like the spring and seal ring, including a first surface of the seal ring as taught by Zhou in order to provide spacer rings amongst the components such as the spring and seal member such that the assembly will be functionally equivalent but have more durable and robust points of contact between components such as the spring and seal ring and cage.
Regarding claim 8, Schmitt discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose a spacer positioned between the seal ring and the spring.
Zhou teaches it was known in the art to have spacer rings (such as 14, 12, 10, 7) stacked amongst sealing components (such as 13, 8, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schmitt by having a spacer ring coupled to any of the components including between the spring and seal ring as taught by Zhou in order to provide spacer rings amongst the components such as the spring and seal member such that the assembly will be functionally equivalent but have more durable and robust points of contact between components such as the spring and seal ring.
Regarding claim 9, Schmitt as modified further discloses wherein the spacer is positioned in the first counter bore (as taught above by Zhou, now residing between the spring and seal ring and thus within the overall footprint of the first counter bore).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt in view of Hartmann et al. (U.S. 6,206,021).
Schmitt discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose the seal ring composed of at least one of plastic or an elastomeric material.
Hartmann teaches it was known in the art to have a seal made of elastomeric material (col. 4, ll. 52-57).
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 seal ring of Schmitt by having the ring be made of an elastomeric material as taught by Hartmann in order to provide a material for the seal ring that is known to prevent unwanted leakage (col. 4, ll. 52-57 of Hartmann) and is relatively inexpensive and easy to acquire and especially as it has been held that selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.07.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt in view of Palmer (U.S. 6,565,065).
Schmitt discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose the spring being a Belleville washer.
Palmer teaches it was known in the art to alternatively use a coil spring or Belleville spring for biasing (see col. 6, ll. 42-44).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schmitt such that the spring is a Belleville washer as taught by Palmer as Palmer teaches that spring and Belleville washers are alternative functional equivalents and the Belleville washer can provide for a more compact biasing element.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 31-32 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: regarding claim 10 and the Schmitt reference, as there are multiple instances of the seal ring (20) and spring (17) (and thus multiple counter bores associated with each), these components are not coaxially aligned with the central aperture of the cage body. Additionally, due to these multiple instances, it is not seen to be obvious to modify the device of Schmitt such that the first and second counter bores and the central aperture are coaxially aligned. Regarding claims 31 and 32, the first diameter associated with the first counter bore in Schmitt is greater than the second diameter of the second counter bore and thus the opposite of that as claimed by the applicant in claims 31 and 32. It is neither seen to be obvious to modify the diameters of the first and second counter bores of Schmitt such that they are in the relation as claimed by the applicant as the device functions properly as it in Schmitt and having the second counter bore diameter greater than the first counter bore diameter could render Schmitt unsuitable for its intended purpose as the spring diameter would need to be larger than the seal diameter and thus have at least portions of the seal reside inward of the diameter of the spring and potentially not within any counter bore.
Baba et al. (U.S. 4,911,413) discloses a valve with two counter bores and a spring and seal ring. However, the spring and seal ring (and counter bores) are located within the overall valve housing (1). This is not able to be reasonably called a body that is structured to be positioned within a trim bore of a fluid valve, as the entire assembly would need to be of a size to be placed within the envelope of another, larger valve.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R REID whose telephone number is (313)446-4859. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-5pm est.
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 supervisors can be reached by phone. Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607, or Ken 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.
/MICHAEL R REID/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights