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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendment and RCE dated 7/14/2026. The previous 112 rejection has been withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment. Claims 1-20 remain pending and are being examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/14/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Advisory Action on 7/8/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fischer et al. (U.S. 6,877,525).
Fischer discloses an assembly comprising: a tube (20) having a first port (at the bottom) and a second port (at the top); a sleeve (26) fixedly disposed within the tube (fig. 1); a stem (44) disposed, and axially movable, within the sleeve (figs. 2-3), wherein the stem has a flanged distal end (40) integral to the stem such that the stem has a unitary construction (as it is all one piece), the flanged distal end having an outer diameter that is larger than an inner diameter of the sleeve (see fig. 2, notice how the widest part of 40 is wider than the inner diameter of the sleeve at 30), and a rim (46) formed at a proximal end thereof; a spring (52) mounted around the stem and axially interposed between the sleeve and the rim of the stem (fig. 2); and a seal (42) mounted to the stem, wherein: refrigerant is configured to be received at the first port to push the stem in a distal direction, compressing the spring, thereby preventing the stem from moving in the distal direction beyond a particular axial position, while allowing refrigerant to flow to the second port (fig. 3), and as pressure level at the first port is reduced, the spring is configured to push the stem in a proximal direction until the seal reaches the sleeve, thereby preventing the stem from moving further in the proximal direction, and blocking refrigerant flow to the first port (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Fischer further discloses wherein the stem has a cylindrical portion (at 44), the flanged distal end, and an annular groove (42) interposed between the cylindrical portion and the flanged distal end, wherein the seal is mounted in the annular groove (figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 3, Fischer further discloses wherein the stem has a blind cavity (48) and one or more circumferential slots (50) formed in the cylindrical portion, wherein refrigerant is configured to be received at the first port to flow through the blind cavity, pushing the stem in the distal direction, then laterally outward through the one or more circumferential slots, then around the flanged distal end to the second port (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Fischer further discloses wherein an outer diameter of the flanged distal end (40) is smaller than an inner diameter of the tube (fig. 1) such that refrigerant is configured to be discharged from the one or more circumferential slots to flow through an annular gap formed between the flanged distal end and the tube (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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer in view of Kuhn et al. (U.S. 2022/0260165).
Fischer discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose the sleeve comprising a tapered end that facilitates inserting.
Kuhn teaches it was known in the art to have a similar sleeve that has a tapered end that facilitates inserting (see the inwardly tapered end where the lead line is for 21 in fig. 2).
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 sleeve of Fischer by having the sleeve have a tapered end as taught by Kuhn in order to more easily align and insert the sleeve into the tube.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer in view of Wynn (U.S. 4,129,145).
Fischer discloses the claimed invention and further discloses the spring resting on the rim (fig. 2) but does not appear to disclose the sleeve having an annular groove formed in a proximal end with a distal end of the spring received in the annular groove of the sleeve.
Wynn teaches it was known to have a sleeve with an annular groove formed in an end (groove 20 formed by shoulder 18) with a spring received in the groove of the sleeve (fig. 1B-1C).
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 sleeve of Fischer by having the sleeve have an annular groove formed in a proximal end with a distal end of the spring received in the annular groove of the sleeve as taught by Wynn in order to more securely receive the spring in the sleeve and prevent unwanted radial movement of the spring which could lead to damage or breaking of the spring, increasing the longevity of the device.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer in view of Salisbury (U.S. 3,001,546).
Fischer discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose the spring coiled in increasing outer diameter in the distal direction such that coils closer to the rim have a smaller diameter compared to coils closer to the sleeve.
Salisbury teaches it was known to have a check valve with a spring (36) with coils that have a smaller diameter towards a rim (near 30) as compared to coils closer to a sleeve (equivalent structure at 20)(notice the coils narrowing in diameter as the coils extend from 20 to 30).
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 spring of Fischer such that the spring increases in outer diameter in the distal direction such that coils closer to the rim have a smaller diameter compared to coils closer to the sleeve as taught by Salisbury in order to provide an equivalent functioning spring but can be a shorter overall length for a more compact overall assembly and have better buckling resistance.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer in view of Qiu (U.S. 2010/0096028).
Fischer discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose wherein the seal is a first seal, wherein the sleeve has an annular groove, and wherein the assembly further comprises: a second seal disposed in the annular groove of the sleeve such that the second seal is configured to seal between an exterior surface of the sleeve and an interior surface of the tube.
Qiu teaches it was known in the art to have a similar valve with a sleeve that has a similar “first seal” (26) and wherein the sleeve (1) has an annular groove (the groove for 101), and wherein the assembly further comprises: a second seal (101) disposed in the annular groove of the sleeve such that the second seal is configured to seal between an exterior surface of the sleeve and an interior surface of the tube (fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fischer such that the sleeve has an annular groove and seal disposed in the annular groove such that the second seal is configured to seal between an exterior surface of the sleeve and an interior surface of the tube as taught by Qiu in order to provide a better seal between the tube and sleeve to prevent unwanted leakage and maintain the fluid in the desired area of the valve.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 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.
Claims 10-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claim 10, while Fischer discloses the stem having a flanged distal end that is larger in diameter than an inner diameter of the sleeve and a rim at a proximal end. Fischer is silent as to how the rim is formed or at what period of time (as the applicant’s claim recite the rim being formed by deformation after inserting the stem and mounting the spring). Any such modifications would require the addition of a specific process (deformation), at a specific period of time (after inserting the stem and mounting the spring), which are intertwined. While deformation to form a component is known, the specific deformation of the rim would need to be taught, as well as the temporal aspect as part of the deformation, which would require further modifying of the modifying reference which is not seen to be obvious absent impermissible hindsight bias.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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