DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment dated 6/29/2026. Claims 1, 6-9, 12-16, and 22 are currently amended. Claim 5 has been canceled. Claims 23-26 are newly added. Presently, claims 1-4 and 6-26 are pending.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the rejections of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirai Kazuki (US 10,473,231) in the Rejection of Claims under 102 section on pages 9-12 of the response dated 6/29/2026.
Applicant argues that the Hirai reference does not disclose a poppet valve housing supporting a poppet within the valve body.
However, it is considered that the poppet 11 is received and supported within the poppet valve housing 35 at the portion 35a of the poppet valve housing 35 wherein the poppet valve housing 35 supports the poppet 11 in movement along the axis X during operation of the actuator 31. The poppet 11 is located within the valve body 20 in at least the chamber R1 as depicted in figure 2.
Applicant further argues that the poppet 11 of the Hirai reference is supported by a diaphragm and not a poppet valve housing.
It is considered that the poppet 11 is supported by a poppet valve housing 35 (see above) while also being supported by the diaphragm 12 and the support ring 13. It is considered that the claimed invention does not require that the poppet is only supported by the poppet valve housing.
Applicant argues that the Hirai reference does not disclose the newly added features relating to the poppet being a discrete component.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the poppet has no connection to any diaphragm) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
It is considered that the claims do not require that the poppet does not include a diaphragm as part of the poppet. Therefore, the poppet can include the central part of the poppet that includes the surfaces 11a, the diaphragm 12 and the ring 13.
Therefore, it is considered that the Hirai reference discloses wherein the poppet 11 defines a discrete component in as much as the poppet 11 is individual or distinct component within the poppet valve assembly.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections based on the Hirai Kazuki reference are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Ollivier (US 2002/092564) in view of Hirai Kazuki (US 10,473,231) in the Rejection of Claims under 103 section on pages 12 of the response dated 6/29/2026.
Applicant argues that neither the Ollivier reference nor the Hirai reference does not disclose a poppet valve housing supporting a poppet within a valve body.
However, it is considered that the Hirai reference discloses that the poppet 11 is received and supported within the poppet valve housing 35 at the portion 35a of the poppet valve housing 35 wherein the poppet valve housing 35 supports the poppet 11 in movement along the axis X during operation of the actuator 31. The poppet 11 is located within the valve body 20 in at least the chamber R1 as depicted in figure 2.
Therefore, it is considered that the combination of the Ollivier reference and the Hirai reference addresses applicant’s concerns and claim language relating to a poppet valve housing supporting a poppet within a valve body.
Applicant argues that neither the Ollivier reference nor the Hirai reference does not disclose the newly added features relating to the poppet being a discrete component.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the poppet has no connection to any diaphragm) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
It is considered that the claims do not require that the poppet does not include a diaphragm as part of the poppet. Therefore, the poppet of the Hirai reference can be considered to include the central part of the poppet that includes the surfaces 11a, the diaphragm 12 and the ring 13.
Therefore, it is considered that the Hirai reference discloses wherein the poppet 11 defines a discrete component in as much as the poppet 11 is individual or distinct component within the poppet valve assembly.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections based on the combination of the Ollivier reference and the Hirai Kazuki reference are not persuasive.
Since new grounds of rejection were necessitated by applicant’s amendment, the instant Office action is made final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement dated 6/29/2026 is acknowledged and has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 6/29/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-21, and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirai (US 10473231).
Regarding claim 1, the Hirai reference discloses an isolation valve (100) comprising:
a valve body (it is considered that the combination of 20, 40 and 50 constitutes a valve body);
a valve actuator (31); and
a poppet valve assembly comprising a poppet valve housing (35) and a poppet (11) comprising a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) material (see at least col. 5, lines 27-31), the poppet valve housing supporting the poppet within the valve body (it is considered that the poppet 11 is received and supported within the poppet valve housing 35 at the portion 35a of the poppet valve housing 35 wherein the poppet valve housing 35 supports the poppet 11 in movement along the axis X during operation of the actuator 31), the poppet movable in the valve body by the valve actuator to hold the PTFE material in sealing engagement with an opposing surface (surface 21a as depicted in figure 3) without intervention of an O-ring (the use of an O-ring is not depicted in the figures especially between the surface 11a of the poppet and the surface 21a of the opposing surface of the valve body).
In regards to claim 2, the Hirai reference discloses wherein the poppet (11) is a unitary structure comprised entirely of or constructed entirely from the PTFE material (see at least col. 5, lines 27-31).
In regards to claim 3, the Hirai reference discloses wherein the poppet is devoid of an O-ring seating channel (the poppet 11 is not shown to have an O-ring seating channel as depicted in figure 3).
In regards to claim 4, the Hirai reference discloses wherein the poppet (11) comprises a recess or step (see “recess or step” in the annotated figure 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
565
553
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 6, the Hirai reference discloses wherein the poppet is formed separately to the poppet valve housing (see figure 2 for the poppet valve housing 35 being formed separately from the poppet 11).
In regards to claim 7, the Hirai reference discloses wherein the poppet valve assembly is a unitary structure (it is considered that the poppet 11 forms a unit with the poppet valve housing 35 with a section of the poppet being integrally formed (it is considered that the portion of the poppet 11 that is received within the opening 35a of the poppet valve housing 35 is integrally formed or is needed for proper operation of the isolation valve) with a section defined by the poppet formed integrally with the poppet valve housing (see at least figure 2).
In regards to claim 8, the Hirai reference discloses wherein the poppet comprises a recess or step (see the “recess or step” in the annotated figure 3 below) configured to fit with a matching formation (see “matching formation” in the annotated figure 3 below) inside the poppet valve housing.
PNG
media_image2.png
565
549
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, the Hirai reference discloses an O-ring-less poppet (11) for an isolation valve (100), the isolation valve comprising a valve body (it is considered that the combination of 20, 40 and 50 constitutes a valve body), a valve actuator (31), and a poppet valve housing (35) formed within the valve body, the O-ring-less poppet comprising:
a section (11) of (PTFE) material (see at least col. 5, lines 27-31) defining a sealing surface (11a), the sealing surface devoid of an O-ring seating channel (see at least figure 3), the poppet valve housing supporting the O-ring-less poppet within the valve body, the O-ring-less poppet movable in the valve body by the valve actuator to hold the sealing surface defined by the PTFE material in sealing engagement with an opposing surface (21a) without intervention of an O-ring when the isolation valve is closed (the use of an O-ring is not depicted in the figures especially between the surface 11a of the poppet and the surface 21a of the opposing surface of the valve body).
In regards to claim 10, the Hirai reference discloses wherein the poppet (11) comprises a recess or step (see “recess or step” in the annotated figure 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
565
553
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 11, the Hirai reference discloses wherein the poppet (11) is a unitary structure comprised entirely of or constructed entirely from the PTFE material (see at least col. 5, lines 27-31).
In regards to claim 12, the Hirai reference discloses wherein the poppet valve housing (35) and the O-ring-less poppet together define a poppet valve assembly (it is considered that the poppet valve housing 35 supports the poppet valve 11 at the chamber 35a such that the operation of the poppet valve housing 35 by the actuator 31 causes the poppet 11 to be moved along axis X).
In regards to claim 13, the Hirai reference discloses wherein the poppet is formed separately to the poppet valve housing (see figure 2 for the poppet valve housing 35 being formed separately from the poppet 11).
In regards to claim 14, the Hirai reference discloses wherein the poppet valve housing (35) and the O-ring-less poppet together define a poppet valve assembly (it is considered that the poppet valve housing 35 supports the poppet valve 11 at the chamber 35a such that the operation of the poppet valve housing 35 by the actuator 31 causes the poppet 11 to be moved along axis X), the poppet valve assembly being a unitary structure (it is considered that the poppet 11 forms a unit with the poppet valve housing 35 with a section of the poppet being integrally formed (it is considered that the portion of the poppet 11 that is received within the opening 35a of the poppet valve housing 35 is integrally formed or is needed for proper operation of the isolation valve) with a section defined by the poppet formed integrally with the poppet valve housing (see at least figure 2).
In regards to claim 15, the Hirai reference discloses wherein the poppet comprises a recess or step (see the “recess or step” in the annotated figure 3 below) configured to fit with a matching formation (see “matching formation” in the annotated figure 3 below) inside the poppet valve housing.
PNG
media_image2.png
565
549
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, the Hirai reference discloses a poppet valve assembly for an isolation valve (100) comprising a valve body (20) and a valve actuator (31), the poppet valve assembly comprising:
a poppet valve housing (considered either 35 or, alternatively, the combination of the elements 12, 13 and the portion of element 10 projecting into the opening 35a); and
a poppet (11), the poppet comprising a section (11) of (PTFE) material (see at least col. 5, lines 27-31) defining a sealing surface (11a), the sealing surface devoid of an O-ring seating channel (see at least figure 3), the poppet valve housing supporting the poppet within the valve body (it is considered that the poppet valve housing 35 supports the poppet 11 within the channel 35a of the poppet valve housing 35 wherein the poppet 11 is supported within the chamber R1 of the valve body 20 or, alternatively, the combination of the elements 12, 13 and the portion of element 10 projecting into the opening 35a defining the poppet valve housing supports the poppet 11 within the chamber R1 of the valve body 20), the poppet movable in the valve body by the valve actuator to hold the sealing surface defined by the PTFE material in sealing engagement with an opposing surface (21a) without intervention of an O-ring when the isolation valve is closed (the use of an O-ring is not depicted in the figures especially between the surface 11a of the poppet and the surface 21a of the opposing surface of the valve body).
In regards to claims 17 and 18, the Hirai reference discloses wherein the poppet comprises a recess or step (see the “recess or step” in the annotated figure 3 below) configured to fit with a matching formation (see “matching formation” in the annotated figure 3 below) inside the poppet valve housing.
PNG
media_image2.png
565
549
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 19, the Hirai reference discloses wherein the poppet (11) is a unitary structure comprised entirely of or constructed entirely from the PTFE material (see at least col. 5, lines 27-31).
In regards to claim 20, the Hirai reference discloses wherein the poppet is formed separately to the poppet valve housing (see figure 2 for the poppet valve housing 35 being formed separately from the poppet 11).
In regards to claim 21, the Hirai reference discloses wherein the poppet valve assembly is a unitary structure (10) with the section defined by the poppet formed integrally with the poppet valve housing (considered the combination the elements 12, 13 and the portion of element 10 projecting into the opening 35a; see at least figure 2).
In regards to claim 23, the Hirai reference discloses wherein the poppet (11) is a discrete component (it is considered that the poppet 11 defines a discrete component in as much as the poppet 11 is individual or distinct component within the poppet valve assembly; further, it is considered that the poppet can be considered the combination the central part of the poppet that includes the surfaces 11a, the diaphragm 12 and the ring 13).
In regards to claim 24, the Hirai reference discloses wherein the poppet (11) is a discrete component (it is considered that the poppet 11 defines a discrete component in as much as the poppet 11 is individual or distinct component within the poppet valve assembly; further, it is considered that the poppet can be considered the combination the central part of the poppet that includes the surfaces 11a, the diaphragm 12 and the ring 13).
In regards to claim 25, the Hirai reference discloses wherein the poppet (11) is a discrete component (it is considered that the poppet 11 defines a discrete component in as much as the poppet 11 is individual or distinct component within the poppet valve assembly; further, when the poppet valve housing is considered element 35, it is considered that the poppet can be considered the combination the central part of the poppet that includes the surfaces 11a, the diaphragm 12 and the ring 13).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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(s) 22 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ollivier (US Pre-Grant Publication 20020092564) in view of Hirai (US 10473231).
Regarding claim 22, the Ollivier reference discloses the structure wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would use and/or manufacture an isolation valve (20) comprising:
installing the isolation valve (20) in a gas supply line (considered the line through the element 7) of a process chamber (2);
supplying a gas (from the gas supply 12) through the isolation valve (20); and
processing a substrate (considered the wafers that are processed; see at least paragraph [0027]) in the process chamber (2).
The Ollivier reference does not expressly discloses wherein the isolation valve comprises:
a valve body;
a valve actuator; and
a poppet comprising a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) material, a poppet valve housing supporting the poppet within the valve body, the poppet movable in the valve body by the valve actuator to hold the PTFE material in sealing engagement with an opposing surface without intervention of an O-ring.
However, the Hirai reference teaches an isolation valve (100) comprising:
a valve body (it is considered that the combination of 20, 40 and 50 constitutes a valve body);
a valve actuator (31); and
a poppet (11) comprising a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) material (see at least col. 5, lines 27-31), a poppet valve housing (35) supporting the poppet within the valve body (it is considered that the poppet 11 is received and supported within the poppet valve housing 35 at the portion 35a of the poppet valve housing 35 wherein the poppet valve housing 35 supports the poppet 11 in movement along the axis X during operation of the actuator 31), the poppet movable in the valve body by the valve actuator to hold the PTFE material in sealing engagement with an opposing surface (surface 21a as depicted in figure 3) without intervention of an O-ring (the use of an O-ring is not depicted in the figures especially between the surface 11a of the poppet and the surface 21a of the opposing surface of the valve body)
in order to provide a flow rate adjustment device capable of suppressing the generation of particles when an assembly error or a dimension occurs in members constituting a valve body section and members constituting a valve seat section and accurately adjusting a flow rate of fluid (col. 3, line 64 to col. 4, line 2).
The substitution of one known element (the isolation valve as shown in Hirai) for another (the isolation valve as shown in Ollivier) would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art since the substitution of the isolation valve having a valve body, a valve actuator and a poppet comprising a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) material, a poppet valve housing supporting the poppet within the valve body, the poppet movable in the valve body by the valve actuator to hold the PTFE material in sealing engagement with an opposing surface without intervention of an O-ring shown in Hirai would have yielded predictable results, namely, to provide a flow rate adjustment device capable of suppressing the generation of particles when an assembly error or a dimension occurs in members constituting a valve body section and members constituting a valve seat section and accurately adjusting a flow rate of fluid.
In regards to claim 26, the Hirai reference of the combination of the Ollivier reference and the Hirai reference discloses wherein the poppet (Hirai: 11) is a discrete component (Hirai: it is considered that the poppet 11 defines a discrete component in as much as the poppet 11 is individual or distinct component within the poppet valve assembly; further, it is considered that the poppet can be considered the combination the central part of the poppet that includes the surfaces 11a, the diaphragm 12 and the ring 13).
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 Andrew J. Rost whose telephone number is (571) 272-2711. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 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 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.
/ANDREW J ROST/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/MICHAEL R REID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights