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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 25, 2026, has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings received on September 25, 2024, are acceptable.
Specification
The specification received on September 25, 2024, is acceptable.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8-11 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US12435793 (“Cao”).
Regarding claim 8, Cao discloses (see figs. 17-19) a control valve, comprising:
a valve body (“2110”) defining an inlet (“2118”, an outlet (“2114”), and a fluid flow path (mainly defined by “2112a”, “2112b”, “2112c” and “2112d”) extending between the inlet and the outlet;
a valve seat (“2116”) disposed in the fluid flow path;
a control element (mainly defined by “2126”);
a valve stem (portion of member “2122” extending through a center bore of thermal buffer “2124”; see fig. 17) coupled to the control element and configured to move the control element between a closed position (see fig. 17), in which the control element sealingly engages the valve seat, and an open position (see fig. 19), in which the control element is spaced from the valve seat;
an extension (“2120”) coupled to the valve body and comprising an extension cavity (cavity delimited by inner surface “2125” of extension “2120”);
a bonnet (“2130” and “2160”) coupled to the extension to close the extension cavity;
an actuator stem (mainly defined by “2143”, “2132” and/or “2133”) movably disposed in the bonnet;
a thermal displacer (thermal buffer “2124”) configured to limit thermal conductivity between process fluid flowing through the fluid flow path and the bonnet; and
a stem connector (“2128”) configured to couple the actuator stem to the valve stem, wherein the stem connector has an outer diameter (radially outer diameter of connector member “2128”) that is less than an outer diameter (radially outer diameter of thermal buffer “2124”) of the thermal displacer but is larger than an outer diameter (radially outer diameter of portion of member “2122” extending through a center bore of thermal buffer “2124”; see fig. 17) of the valve stem such that the stem connector provides a stop that engages an end of the thermal displacer (thermal buffer “2124” abuts connector member “2124”; see fig. 17) to retain the thermal displacer within the extension cavity between the stem connector and the control element.
Regarding claim 9, Cao discloses (see specification col. 12, lines 63-66) the thermal displacer (“2124”) is made of a non-metallic material (“cryogenic temperature resistant material such as PTFE, PCTFE, UHMWPE, TFM™ 1600 PTFE”).
Regarding claim 10, Cao discloses (see specification col. 12, lines 63-66) the thermal displacer (“2124”) is made entirely of PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene), PCTFE (polychlorotrifluoroethylene), or PEEK (polyether ether ketone) (thermal buffer “2124” is made from “cryogenic temperature resistant material such as PTFE, PCTFE, UHMWPE, TFM™ 1600 PTFE”).
Regarding claim 11, Cao discloses the thermal displacer (“2124”) is clamped to the valve stem (portion of member “2122” extending through a center bore of thermal buffer “2124”; see fig. 17) via the stem connector (“2128”; see fig. 17).
Regarding claim 15, Cao discloses (see figs. 17-19) a control valve, comprising:
a valve body (“2110”) defining an inlet (“2118”), an outlet (“2114”), and a fluid flow path (mainly defined by “2112a”, “2112b”, “2112c” and “2112d”) extending between the inlet and the outlet;
a valve seat (“2116”) disposed in the fluid flow path;
a control element (mainly defined by “2126”);
a valve stem (portion of member “2122” extending through a center bore of thermal buffer “2124”; see fig. 17) coupled to the control element and configured to move the control element between a closed position (see fig. 17), in which the control element sealingly engages the valve seat, and an open position (see fig. 19), in which the control element is spaced from the valve seat;
an extension (“2120”) coupled to the valve body and comprising an extension cavity (cavity delimited by inner surface “2125” of extension “2120”);
a bonnet (“2130” and “2160”) coupled to the extension to close the extension cavity; and
a thermal displacer (thermal buffer “2124”) disposed within the extension cavity and having a cylindrical body (see specification col 12, lines 57-63; see by example thermal buffer “124” in fig. 6C) and a central aperture (see aperture extending through thermal buffer “2124” in fig. 17) that is formed in the cylindrical body and sized to receive the valve stem to couple the thermal displacer to the valve stem (see fig. 17), the thermal displacer configured to limit thermal conductivity between process fluid flowing through the fluid flow path and the bonnet (see specification col. 12, line 63, through col. 13, line 8),
wherein the valve stem extends entirely through the thermal displacer (see fig. 17) and the cylindrical body entirely surrounds a portion of the valve stem extending through the thermal displacer (see fig. 17).
Regarding claim 16, Cao discloses (see specification col. 12, lines 63-66) the thermal displacer (“2124”) is made of a non-metallic material (“cryogenic temperature resistant material such as PTFE, PCTFE, UHMWPE, TFM™ 1600 PTFE”).
Regarding claim 17, Cao discloses a stem connector (“2128”) coupled to the valve stem (portion of member “2122” extending through a center bore of thermal buffer “2124”; see fig. 17), wherein the thermal displacer (“2124”) is retained between the control element (“2126”) and the stem connector (see fig. 17).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6 and 21 are allowed.
Claims 12-14, 18, 19 and 22 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 1, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious the control valve, wherein the thermal displacer is disposed within the extension cavity, in combination with the remainder limitations of the claim.
Claims 2-4, 6 and 21 are allowable because they depend on allowable base claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious the control valve, wherein the extension comprises an extension body, further comprising a clearance gap between an inner surface of the extension body and the thermal displacer, in combination with the limitations of the base claim.
Regarding claim 13, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious the control valve, wherein a guide sleeve is coupled to an end of the valve stem and a vapor barrier disposed between the guide sleeve and the thermal displacer, in combination with the limitations of the base claim.
Regarding claim 14, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious the control valve, wherein a sealing element is at least partially disposed between the valve stem connector and the thermal displacer, in combination with the limitations of the base claim.
Regarding claim 18, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious the control valve, wherein the extension comprises an extension body, further comprising a clearance gap between an inner surface of the extension body and the cylindrical body of the thermal displacer, in combination with the limitations of the base claim.
Regarding claim 19, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious the control valve, wherein a guide sleeve is coupled to an end of the valve stem and a vapor barrier disposed between the guide sleeve and the thermal displacer, in combination with the remainder limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 22, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious the control valve, wherein one end of the actuator stem is disposed in the stem connector and one end of the valve stem is disposed in the stem connector, in combination with the limitations of the base claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 25, 2026, have been fully considered.
With regards to the objections to the drawings and specification, in light of the cancellation of claims 7 and 20, and amendment of claim 14, since the subject matter at questions is no longer required by the claims, the objections to the drawings and specification are now withdrawn.
With regards to the prior art rejection of claims 1-4, 6 and 21 over Cao, the claim amendments overcome this/these rejection(s) and claims 1-4, 6 and 21 are now allowable.
With regards to the prior art rejection of claims 8 and 15, including dependents thereof, over Cao, the amendments filed August 25, 2026, have overcome the previous rejection; however, claims 8-11 and 15-17 remain rejected under a different embodiment of Cao, see Office action above. Since the new rejection was driven by Applicant’s amendments, the current Office action is made final.
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 Hailey K. Do whose direct telephone number is (571)270-3458 and direct fax number is (571)270-4458. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00AM-5:00PM ET) and Friday (8:00AM-12:00PM ET).
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, Kenneth Rinehart at 571-272-4881, or Craig M. Schneider 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAILEY K. DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights