Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/939,505

DYNAMIC CONTROL VALVE ASSEMBLY

Non-Final OA §DOUBLEPATENT
Filed
Nov 06, 2024
Priority
Apr 27, 2021 — continuation of 11/536,381 +2 more
Examiner
NICHOLS, PHYLLIS M
Art Unit
3753
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Green Co2 Ip LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 6m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allowance Rate
655 granted / 825 resolved
+9.4% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+19.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
5y 0m
Avg Prosecution
14 currently pending
Career history
834
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
64.6%
+24.6% vs TC avg
§102
19.8%
-20.2% vs TC avg
§112
11.9%
-28.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 825 resolved cases

Office Action

§DOUBLEPATENT
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 . Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claim 31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11821527. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the patent anticipate the claimed invention of the present application. For instance, claim 11 of the patent recites the same claim language as claim 31 of the present invention, with the exception of the recitation of “a stem body” and “port.” Allowable Subject Matter Claims 21-30 and 39-40 are allowed. Claims 32-38 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 an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: Song et al. teaches a control valve assembly for receiving and directing the flow of pressurized liquid carbon dioxide to a liquid storage cylinder and directing the flow of gaseous carbon dioxide to a gaseous storage cylinder, the control valve assembly having a closed position and an open position, comprising: a valve body comprising a chamber, a liquid inlet cavity, a liquid storage port, and a gas outlet cavity but fails to disclose a second poppet and a collar. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bauer (US 3,661,173) teaches a poppet-type valve. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to P. MACADE NICHOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-5428. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00 P.M.. 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 supervisor, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached on 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. /P. MACADE NICHOLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 06, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 14, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12620639
ADAPTER, TESTING APPARATUS, BATTERY CELL, BATTERY, AND ELECTRIC APPARATUS
2y 9m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Patent 12610771
TREATMENT DEVICE AND METHOD FOR THE TREATMENT OF SEMICONDUCTOR OBJECTS
2y 2m to grant Granted Apr 21, 2026
Patent 12607270
SWINGING DOOR CHECK VALVE
1y 6m to grant Granted Apr 21, 2026
Patent 12601438
Sluice Valve Installation Method, and Sluice Valve Installation Structure Used in Sluice Valve Installation Method
1y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595943
ECONOMIZER PORT VALVE
3y 0m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
79%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+19.9%)
5y 0m (~3y 6m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 825 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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