Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/923,513

FLUID CONTROL VALVE AND FLUID CONTROL DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Oct 22, 2024
Examiner
LE, MINH Q
Art Unit
3753
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Horiba Stec Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
589 granted / 735 resolved
+10.1% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+16.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
759
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
43.2%
+3.2% vs TC avg
§102
38.5%
-1.5% vs TC avg
§112
16.5%
-23.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 735 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/22/2024 was filed after the mailing date of the Application on 10/22/2024. 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 § 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. Claim(s) 1, 3-4, and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shakudo et al. (US 11,982,371) and in view of Glime, III et al. (US 2024/0240726). With regards to claim 1: Shakudo et al. discloses (refer to Fig. 1 below) a fluid control valve (3) comprising: a valve body (32) that can come into contact and separate from a valve seat (31); an actuator (33) that causes the valve body (32) to move; a diaphragm member (332a) provided between the valve body (32) and the actuator (33) and having a protruding part (P) protruding toward the valve body (32); and a sphere (S) housed inside the protruding part, wherein the actuator (33) moves the valve body (32) by pressing a distal end of the protruding part (P) through the sphere (S). Shakudo et al. does not disclose the sphere is formed of a ceramic material. PNG media_image1.png 1544 1329 media_image1.png Greyscale Fig. 1 Glime, III et al. discloses (refer to Fig. 2 below) a fluid control valve (200) comprising: a valve body (230, 280) that can come into contact and separate from a valve seat (220); an actuator (270, 275) that causes the valve body to move; a sphere (290) acts as bearing between the actuator and the valve body to move the valve body, wherein the sphere is formed of a ceramic material which has a greater hardness the a material of the actuator and that of the valve body (see [0025]-[0027]) for reduce wear between the contact surfaces therebetween (see [0018]). PNG media_image2.png 1666 1171 media_image2.png Greyscale 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 fluid control valve of Shakudo et al. to have the sphere (S) made of ceramic material as taught by Glime, III et al. to provide the better bearing between the actuator and the diaphragm. Shakudo et al., as modified, discloses the fluid control valve of claim 1. With regards to claim 6: Shakudo et al., as modified, discloses the fluid control valve of claim 1, wherein the sphere is not subjected to surface coating. With regards to claim 7: Shakudo et al., as modified, discloses (refer to Fig. 3 below) a fluid control device (100) comprising: the fluid control valve (3) according to claim 1; a fluid sensor (4) that measures fluid flowing through a flow path; and a valve control unit (5) that controls the fluid control valve on a basis of a measurement value of the fluid sensor (4). With regards to claim 3: Shakudo et al., as modified, discloses the fluid control valve of claim 1, except in the diaphragm member, the protruding part has a wall thickness of 100 to 130 μm. 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 diaphragm member to have the wall thickness of 100 to 130 μm for a particular application/system wherein this range of thickness work best, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). PNG media_image3.png 1231 1273 media_image3.png Greyscale Fig. 3 With regards to claim 4: Shakudo et al., as further modified, discloses the fluid control valve according to claim 3, wherein the diaphragm member has a flange part expanding outward with respect to the protruding part from a base end of the protruding part, and the flange part has a wall thickness of 100 to 130 μm. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shakudo et al. and Glime, III et al., and further in view of Okada et al. (US 2006/0208214). With regards to claim 2: Shakudo et al., as modified, discloses the fluid control valve of claim 1, wherein the sphere is formed of ceramic material. Shakudo et al., as modified, does not disclose the sphere is formed of alumina. Okada et al., discloses (see [0009]) the ceramic material includes alumina. 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 modified fluid control valve of Shakuda et al. to have the sphere being formed of alumina which is a ceramic material as disclosed by Okada et al. to provide the same expected result of reducing wear between the contact surfaces. Shakudo et al., as further modified, discloses the fluid control valve of claim 2. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shakudo et al. and Glime, III et al., and further in view of Muramoto (US 2016/0296990). With regards to claim 5: Shakudo et al., as modified, discloses the fluid control valve of claim 1. Shakudo et al., as modified, does not disclose the diaphragm member is constituted of a metal sheet, and the protruding part is formed by plastically deforming the metal sheet by drawing. Muramoto discloses (see [0043]-[0052]) a metal diaphragm having the protruding part is formed plastically deforming the metal sheet by drawing. 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 fluid control valve of Shakuda et al. to be made of metal sheet for the particular application wherein this material works best, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and have the protruding part is formed plastically deforming the metal sheet by drawing as taught by Muramoto. Shakudo et al., as further modified, discloses the fluid control valve of claim 5. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Minh Le, whose telephone number is 571-270-3805. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:30AM-5:00PM EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881 or Craig Schneider can be reached 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. /MINH Q LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 22, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12583278
PNEUMATIC GAUGE AND PRESSURE CONTROL DEVICE AND PNEUMATIC SYSTEM INCLUDING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584298
Backflow Alert System
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12571488
VALVE ELEMENT AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING VALVE ELEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12572160
Monitoring Corrosion and Flushing Corrosive Media from Dead Legs in Piping
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12571481
TIMING ADJUSTMENT VALVE AND SUCKBACK VALVE PROVIDED WITH SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+16.7%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 735 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month