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 .
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 1 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US1925323 (“Hopkins”).
Regarding claim 1, Hopkins discloses (see detail of fig. 2) a trim assembly for a pressure relief valve, the trim assembly comprising:
a cage (mainly defined by 13) having:
a lip (lip defined at least partially by inner surface 15) having an inner surface (15) that is tapered toward a central axis (surface 15 tapers downwardly, relative to the orientation of figs. 1 and 2, toward a central longitudinal axis of bushing 3) of the cage;
a mounting flange (internally threaded flange engaging threads 14 of bushing 3) spaced from the lip; and
a body (portion through which openings 19 extend) between the lip and the mounting flange, the body including a plurality of first openings (19) radially spaced about a circumference of the body.
Regarding claim 5, Hopkins discloses a nozzle (3) to couple to a valve body (1) of the pressure relief valve (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Hopkins discloses the cage (mainly defined by 13) couples to an end (top end, relative to the orientation of fig. 1) of the nozzle (3).
Regarding claim 7, Hopkins discloses a nozzle ring (cage, mainly defined by 13, operates as a nozzle ring having discharge opening 11) coupled to the nozzle (3).
Claims 1-3, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US3854494 (“Zahorsky”).
Regarding claim 1, Zahorsky discloses a trim assembly for a pressure relief valve, the trim assembly comprising:
a cage (54) having:
a lip (lip defined at bottom portion of member 54, relative to the orientation of fig. 1; see annotated fig. 1, below) having an inner surface (radially inner surface; see annotated fig. 1, below) that is tapered toward a central axis (central longitudinal axis of shaft 32 or cage 54) of the cage;
a mounting flange (upper threaded portion of cage 54, relative to the orientation of fig. 1; see annotated fig. 1, below) spaced from the lip; and
a body (portion of cage 54 through which first openings 56 extend; see annotated fig. 1, below) between the lip and the mounting flange, the body including a plurality of first openings (56) radially spaced about a circumference of the body.
PNG
media_image1.png
813
661
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Zahorsky discloses a disc (22) and a disc holder (28) to retain the disc, the disc holder to be received by a central opening (opening extending longitudinally through cage 54) of the cage (54).
Regarding claim 3, Zahorsky discloses the lip (see annotated fig. 1, above) surrounds at least a portion (bottom portion, relative to the orientation of fig. 1) of an outer surface (radially outer surface) of the disc holder (28).
Regarding claim 5, Zahorsky discloses a nozzle (20) to couple to a valve body (12) of the pressure relief valve (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Zahorsky discloses a nozzle ring (24) coupled to the nozzle (20).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopkins, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of engineering expedient.
Regarding claim 4, Hopkins discloses the lip (lip defined at least partially by inner surface 15) having an angle from an outer surface (radially outer surface through which openings 19, extend) of the body (portion through which openings 19 extend); however, Hopkins is silent to the angle being approximately between 40 degrees and 60 degrees.
Hopkins, however, teaches (page 3, lines 63-70) that the rapidly increasing discharge area formed by the inner surface (15) allows for quick opening of the pressure relief valve, while minimizing flow through the plurality of first openings (19).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the invention of Hopkins by configuring the lip to have an angle of approximately between 40 degrees and 60 degrees from the outer surface of the body, to allow for the quick opening of the pressure relief valve.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopkins, as applied to claims 1 and 5-7 above, in view of GB359654 (“Ackermann”).
Regarding claim 8, Hopkins discloses the nozzle ring (cage, mainly defined by 13, operates as a nozzle ring having discharge opening 11) including inner threads (female threads which engage male threads 14), the inner threads formed along at least a portion (bottom portion, relative to the orientation of fig. 1) of an inner surface (radially inner surface) of the nozzle ring.
Hopkins does not disclose the nozzle ring including outer threads formed along at least a portion of an outer surface of the nozzle ring
Ackermann teaches (see fig. 3) a cage (15) functioning as a nozzle ring (15), the nozzle ring including inner threads (female threads of member 15 cooperating with male threads of valve body 2) and outer threads (male threads of member 15, which engage with female threads of flow control ring 18), the inner threads formed along at least a portion (bottom portion, relative to the orientation of fig. 3) of an inner surface (radially inner surface) of the nozzle ring and the outer threads formed along at least a portion (bottom portion, relative to the orientation of fig. 3) of an outer surface (radially outer surface) of the nozzle ring, to engage with a flow control ring (18), allowing adjustable flow control through a plurality of first openings (17).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the invention of Hopkins by configuring the nozzle ring to have outer threads, the outer threads formed along at least a portion of an outer surface of the nozzle ring, to engage with a flow control ring, allowing adjustable flow control through the plurality of first openings, as taught by Ackermann.
Regarding claim 10, Hopkins discloses the invention as claimed except for a flow control ring coupled to the cage.
Ackermann teaches a trim assembly (mainly defined by 15 and 18; see fig. 3) including a flow control ring (18) coupled to a cage (15) to control flow (see specification page 3, lines 5-9) through a plurality of first openings (17).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the invention of Hopkins by employing a flow control ring coupled to the cage, to allow adjustable flow control through the plurality of first openings, as taught by Ackermann.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 11-16 and 18-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 9, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious the trim assembly for a pressure relief valve, the trim assembly comprising: a cage having: a lip tapered toward a central axis of the cage; a mounting flange spaced from the lip; and a body between the lip and the mounting flange, the body including a plurality of first openings radially spaced about a circumference of the body; a nozzle to couple to a valve body of the pressure relief valve; and a nozzle ring coupled to the nozzle, wherein the nozzle ring includes inner threads and outer threads, the inner threads formed along at least a portion of an inner surface of the nozzle ring and the outer threads formed along at least a portion of an outer surface of the nozzle ring, in further combination with wherein the nozzle ring couples to the nozzle via the inner threads and the nozzle ring couples to the cage via the outer threads.
Regarding claim 11, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious the trim assembly for a pressure relief valve, the trim assembly comprising: a cage having: a lip tapered toward a central axis of the cage; a mounting flange spaced from the lip; and a body between the lip and the mounting flange, the body including a plurality of first openings radially spaced about a circumference of the body; a nozzle to couple to a valve body of the pressure relief valve, wherein the cage couples to an end of the nozzle; and a flow control ring coupled to the cage, in further combination with wherein the flow control ring includes a plurality of second openings radially spaced along a side wall of the flow control ring.
Regarding claim 14, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious the pressure relief valve comprising: a valve body defining a fluid passageway between an inlet and an outlet; a nozzle coupled to the valve body, the nozzle defining the inlet of the valve body, the nozzle having a sealing surface defining an orifice of the fluid passageway; a disc holder movably coupled to the valve body, the disc holder to move relative to sealing surface to control fluid flow through the fluid passageway; and a cage coupled to the nozzle, the cage having a lip tapered toward a central axis of the cage; a nozzle ring coupled to the nozzle, the cage having an inner surface that includes threads to threadably couple to the nozzle ring; and in further combination with a flow control ring, the flow control ring movably coupled relative to the cage, the flow control ring to adjust a size of an opening of a cage to effect fluid flow characteristics of a fluid flowing through the opening of the cage.
Regarding claim 18, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious the trim assembly for a pressure relief valve comprising: a disc; a disc holder to retain the disc; a nozzle, the disc to move relative to the nozzle to control fluid flow through a fluid valve; and a cage having a central bore to slidably receive the disc, the cage having a first end and a second end opposite the first end and a side surface between the first and second ends, the side surface having a plurality of passages radially spaced relative to a longitudinal axis of the central bore, the cage including a boss protruding within the central bore and extending from the second end toward the first end, wherein the central bore has an arcuate profile between the boss and the first end, the arcuate profile having a first diameter and an opening of the first end having a second diameter, in further combination with the first diameter being greater than the second.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/comments filed April 16, 2026, have been fully considered.
With regards to amended claim 9, 11 and 14, these claims, including dependents thereof, are found allowable over the prior art.
With regards to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection(s) of claims 1-8 and/or 10 over Rodger, Ackermann and/or Kraut, and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 4 over Kraut, Applicant’s amendment have overcome the previous prior art rejection(s); however, the amended claims have motivated a new grounds of rejection, see Office action, above.
With regards to claims 18-20, Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous prior art and claims 18-20 are now found allowable.
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