Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/928,946

FLOW CONTROL VALVE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Oct 28, 2024
Examiner
CAHILL, JESSICA MARIE
Art Unit
3753
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Aisan Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
627 granted / 801 resolved
+8.3% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+23.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
832
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
39.3%
-0.7% vs TC avg
§102
30.2%
-9.8% vs TC avg
§112
28.9%
-11.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 801 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-4 were filed with the application on 10/28/2024. 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 10/28/2024 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 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 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. 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. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20160186697 (“Tsuzuki”) in view of WO 2011/029849 (“Suedmo Holding”). With regard to claim 1, Tsuzuki discloses a flow control valve (Figs 1-9), comprising: a housing (58) defining a fluid passage (70), a valve seat (72; para [0052]) having a ring shape (see Fig 2) and being disposed in the housing (72 is within 58), a valve plug (80/84) movable relatively to the valve seat (72) between a valve open position (position in Fig 8) and a valve closed position (position in Fig 2) in an axial direction of the valve seat (72), a seal member (95, para [0054]) interposed between the valve seat (72) and the valve plug (80/84), wherein the seal member (95) has a ring shape (shown in Fig 5) and is configured to seal between the valve seat (72) and the valve plug (80/84) when the valve plug (80/84) is in the valve closed position (see fig 2) (para [0061]), wherein the seal member (95) further comprises an annular base portion (112) attached to one of the valve seat and the valve plug (attached to valve plug; para [0061]), and a seal lip (113) having a circular truncated cone shape and protruding obliquely inward in the axial direction from a surface of the base portion (para [0058]: “first seal lip 113 may have a shape of a conical protruding obliquely inwards in the axial direction from the lower surface of the first base portion 112”), wherein the seal lip (113) is configured to be separated from the other of the valve seat (valve seat 72) and the valve plug when the valve plug (80/84) is in the valve open position (see Fig 8 position), wherein the seal lip (113) is configured to elastically contact the other of the valve seat (valve seat 72) and the valve plug when the valve plug (80/84) is in the valve closed position (Fig 2 and Fig 3 positions) (para [0061]: “the first seal lip 113 of the first seal member 108 may elastically contact (i.e. closely contact) the first valve seat 72 (See FIG 3)”). PNG media_image1.png 526 808 media_image1.png Greyscale Tsuzuki discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing wherein the surface of the base portion has a circular recess extending continuously in a circumferential direction and having an inner surface continuous with an inner circumferential surface of the seal lip. Suedmo Holdings teaches that it is known in the art to modify a seal member for a valve (see Abstract), similar to that of Tsuzuki, to have the surface of the base portion (38) have a circular recess (56) extending continuously in a circumferential direction (see Fig 2 showing continuously arranged) and having an inner surface (inner surface of 56) continuous with an inner circumferential surface of the seal lip (lip 44) (see Figs 2 and 3; and page 7, lines 20-27) for the purpose of allowing room for swelling to ensure no other areas of the seal except for the seal lip to come into contact (see page 7, lines 20-27). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add a circular recess, such as taught by Suedmo Holdings, to the surface of the base portion of Tsuzuki for the purpose of allowing room for swelling to ensure no other areas of the seal except for the seal lip to come into contact as taught by Suedmo Holdings at page 7, lines 20-27. PNG media_image2.png 757 685 media_image2.png Greyscale With regard to claim 2, the combination of Tsuzuki and Suedmo Holdings discloses that the seal lip (113 in Tsuzuki) is tapered in cross-section from a base end to a tip end of the seal lip (Fig 7 shows that lip 133 is thicker/wider at base end compared to tip end). With regard to claim 3, the combination of Tsuzuki and Suedmo Holdings discloses that the inner surface of the recess (56) comprises a concave curved surface having an arcuate cross section (see page 7, line 23 and Fig 3), and wherein the concave curved surface is smoothly continuous with the inner circumferential surface of the seal lip (lip 44 of Suedmo Holdings, Fig 3 of Suedmo Holdings shows 56 smoothly continuous with lip 44). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 4 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious “the seal member comprises a convex curved surface having an arcuate cross-section, and wherein the convex curved surface smoothly connects the concave curved surface to the surface of the base portion” in combination with the other limitations set forth in the independent claim. U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2016/0186697 (Tsuzuki) and WO2011029849 (Suedmo Holdings) are the closest prior art references of record. However, none of the reference teach or suggest a convex curved surface that smoothly connects the concave curved surface to the surface of the base portion. It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsuzuki and/or Suedmo Holdings to arrive at the claimed language without improper hindsight reasoning. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Pat. No. 8,037,897 discloses a seal with a recess. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA CAHILL whose telephone number is (571)270-5219. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 to 3:00. 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 571-272-60073607 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 published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JESSICA CAHILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 28, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601410
FLUID CONTROL ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12584591
GAS SUPPLY SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586705
DIVERTER DEVICE FOR TRANSFORMER FLUIDS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578062
ANTI-LEAKAGE DEVICE FOR HYDROGEN STORAGE CONTAINER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12565939
ELECTRIC DIVERTER VALVE CAPABLE OF REALIZING ACCURATE FLOW CONTROL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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
78%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+23.3%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 801 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