DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 2, and 4-11 were filed with the amendment dated 01/20/2026.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 08/26/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to amended claim 1, Applicant argues that FR 3037377 (“Schrader”) fails to disclose a “flow restrictor shaped to allow a fluid to pass from the inlet to the outlet at a first flow rate when a differential pressure between the outlet and the inlet is below a threshold, and at a second flow rate, significantly lower than the first flow rate, when the differential pressure between the outlet and the inlet is above the threshold” because Schrader shows that the valve has only two states: open or closed (see Remarks at page 2). Applicant further states that when the pressure P is less than 4 bar, the valve is in the closed position and the flow rate is zero, and when the pressure is 4 bar, the valve is in the open position (Remarks at page 2). The examiner respectfully disagrees. As the claim is so broadly recited, Schrader meets the required claim language. Schrader discloses that when a differential pressure is below a threshold (below 4 bar), the flow restrictor (61/610) allows fluid to pass from the inlet (3) to the outlet at a first flow rate (Fig 3 position, when pressure from inlet pushing left is balanced against pressure within 61 pushing toward the right). Schrader also discloses that when a differential pressure between the outlet and inlet is above a threshold (i.e., 4 bar) the flow rate is significantly lower (i.e., zero in Fig. 2 state) or moving toward Fig. 2 state so that the opening for fluid to pass through to the outlet reduces in size, thus reducing the flow rate (see Translation at page 2, last 11 lines through page 3, line 6).
Applicant further argues that Schrader fails to teach “wherein the flow restrictor comprises a restrictor piston and a restrictor seat, the restrictor piston is adapted to be pushed towards the restrictor seat by a fluid flowing from the inlet to the outlet, the restrictor seat has a restrictor hole coinciding with the outlet and the restrictor piston comprises a restrictor end, arranged opposite the restrictor hole, shaped in a complementary manner to the restrictor hole so that the restrictor end closes the restrictor hole when pushed against the restrictor hole” (see Remarks at pages 2 to 3). Applicant argues that the Non-Final Office Action appears to argue that the central orifice of piston 6 is considered to be the leak (see Remarks page 3). However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not actually require a “leak” that passes through the restrictor hole when the restrictor end contacts the restrictor seat. Rather, the claims require that the restrictor seat has a restrictor hole that is closed by the restrictor end. Schrader meets this requirement because the restrictor end (610) closes off the hole (at 20) when the restrictor end (610) seats at the restrictor seat (22). The claims do not require that the fluid pass through the restrictor hole when the restrictor end contacts and closes on the restrictor seat. As such, the claims remain rejected.
The rejection is made FINAL.
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, 2, 4, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by FR3037377 (“Schrader”).
With regard to claim 1, Schrader discloses a fluidic device (see Figs 1-8, note, embodiment of Figs 6-8 operate identically to that of Figs 1-5, see Translation last sentence), comprising an inlet (3’) and an outlet (4’) connected by a body (1c+1d) forming a channel (pathway shown between 3’ and 4’) between the inlet (3’) and the outlet (4’), wherein the fluidic device (1) comprises a non-return valve (at 6/91) shaped to prevent a fluid from passing from the outlet (4’) to the inlet (3’) (See Translation: “In the closed position, the head 91 bears on the seat 92 in order to close off 5 the fluid passage between the inlet duct 30 and the housing”), and a flow restrictor (2/610) shaped to allow a fluid to pass from the inlet (3’) to the outlet (4’) at a first flow rate when a differential pressure between the outlet (4’) and the inlet (3’) is below a threshold (when differential pressure is only enough to move 610 slightly towards 2, which allows for a first flow rate that is larger accounting for the larger space between 610 and 2), and at a second flow rate, significantly lower than the first flow rate, when the differential pressure between the outlet (4’) and the inlet (3’) is above the threshold (when higher differential pressure pushes 6/610 to nearly touch 2, the second flow rate is significantly lower as the opening between 610 and 2 is smaller than when 610 is farther from 2); and the flow restrictor (610/2) comprises a restrictor piston (610) and a restrictor seat (22, see Figs 7-8), the restrictor piston (610) is adapted to be pushed towards the restrictor seat (22) by a fluid flowing from the inlet (3’) to the outlet (4’) (see Fig 7), the restrictor seat (22) has a restrictor hole (20) coinciding with the outlet (4’, see Fig 7) and the restrictor piston (610) comprises a restrictor end (end of 610, see Fig 7), arranged opposite the restrictor hole (20), shaped in a complementary manner to the restrictor hole (20) so that the restrictor end (end of 610) closes the restrictor hole (20) when pushed against the restrictor hole (20) (when 610 contacts 2/22, 20 is closed off, see Figs 7-8 and compare with Figs 1-3 which works the same).
4
PNG
media_image1.png
841
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, Schrader discloses that the non-return valve (6/91) comprises a non-return piston (91) and a non-return seat (92), wherein the non-return piston (91) is adapted to be pushed towards the non-return seat (92) by a fluid flowing from the outlet (4’) to the inlet (3’) (if fluid flows from 4’ toward 3’, fluid would contact inner surface of 91 pushing 91 closed against seat 92 and assisted by spring 8), wherein the non-return seat (92) has a non-return hole (hole/port within seat 92) coinciding with the inlet (3’; see Fig 7) and the non-return piston (91) comprises a non-return end (end of 91, see annotated Figs), arranged opposite the non-return hole (see Fig 7), shaped in a complementary manner to the non-return hole (hole within seat 92) so that the non-return end closes the non-return hole (shown in Fig 7) when pushed against the non-return hole (shown in Fig 7).
With regard to claim 4, Schrader discloses that the restrictor end (end of 610) is pierced by a leak (as so broadly recited, opening at end of 610 is the leak, see annotated Figs) opposite the restrictor hole (20) (see Figs 7 and 8).
With regard to claim 8, Schrader discloses that the non-return piston (91) further comprises at least one non-return through-hole (64).
With regard to claim 9, Schrader discloses that the restrictor piston (610) further comprises at least one restrictor through-hole (through hole is opening at 610, annotated as “leak” in annotated Figs, and it is a through hole because leads through to 64).
With regard to claim 10, Schrader discloses that the non-return seat (92), coinciding with the inlet, is made of the same material as the body (1c+1d, same material because 92 is part of 1c, see Fig 7) or with a plug mounted on the body, and the restrictor seat (22), coinciding with the outlet (4’) (seat 22 leads to 4’ so is considered to be “coinciding with the outlet”), is made of the same material as the body or with a plug mounted on the body (1c+1d) (22 is a plug 2 mounted on the body 1d, see Fig 7).
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR3037377 (“Schrader”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2009/0320931 (“Wears”).
With regard to claim 11, Schrader discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing the non-return seat is made with the plug mounted on the body.
Schrader discloses that the non-return seat (92) is coinciding with the inlet and is part of the body (1c).
Wears teaches that it is known in the art to provide a valve seat (22) that coincides with the inlet (14/18) and is made with a plug (22) mounted on a body (12) for the purpose of inserting a valve seat in a valve housing/body (see Figs 1-2).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a seat made with a plug mounted on the body as taught by Wears in place of the seat of Schrader since the valve seats are known equivalents and the use of which would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 are allowed.
Claim 7 is 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.
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 JESSICA CAHILL whose telephone number is (571)270-5219. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 to 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 supervisors can be reached by phone. Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-60073607 or Kenneth 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 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.
/JESSICA CAHILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753