Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/957,025

VALVE CORE WITH MICROPOROUS STRUCTURE AND SOLENOID VALVE USING VALVE CORE

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Nov 22, 2024
Examiner
BALLMAN, CHRISTOPHER D
Art Unit
3753
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Suzhou Rayontech Technology Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
359 granted / 468 resolved
+6.7% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+20.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
496
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
47.0%
+7.0% vs TC avg
§102
33.8%
-6.2% vs TC avg
§112
18.3%
-21.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 468 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
DETAILED ACTION Non-Final Rejection 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 22 November 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the valve core, microporous structure, solenoid valve, flow channel, valve seat, valve cover, and limiting structure must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it refers to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art. If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives. Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps. Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Emory (U.S. Patent 11,009,142). Regarding claim 1, Emory discloses a valve core 234/214 with a microporous structure 234, comprising a sealing component 24 and a microporous material 234, wherein the sealing component is located at an upper end of the microporous material, and the sealing component seals (from 216) a top of the microporous material; and the microporous material is a flexible material with a microporous structure, the microporous material allows fluid to pass through, and the microporous material is arranged to change a fluid flow rate by varying a degree of compressive deformation (FIG. 5; Col. 8 ln 44-Col. 9 ln 43). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 7-10 are allowed. Claims 2-6 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: the closest prior art fails to anticipate or make obvious when the electromagnetic component is not energized, the elastic component presses the valve core, such that the microporous material is in a compressed state, and the microporous material seals the flow channel on the valve body; when the electromagnetic component is energized, the valve core overcomes the clastic force of the elastic component to release the microporous material, allowing the flow channel on the valve body to be open, along with the other limitations of the claims. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art fails to anticipate or make obvious the sealing component is a magnetic material, along with the other limitations of the claims. Additionally, the closest prior art fails to anticipate or make obvious a magnetic material is arranged in the microporous material, along with the other limitations of the claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Klein (U.S. Patent 7,851,204) discloses a porous material making up a valve core similar to the one disclosed in the present application. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER D BALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9984. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00-3:00. 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 supervisor, Craig M 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 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. /CHRISTOPHER D BALLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3753 /CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 22, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595864
APPARATUS FOR NOISE REDUCTION IN VALVES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584563
SANITARY VALVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578022
A PNEUMATIC VALVE WITH FLEXI-SEALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12565935
BALL VALVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12565736
STATIC MIXER FOR ELECTRICAL SUBMERSIBLE PUMP (ESP) HIGH GAS/OIL RATIO (GOR) COMPLETIONS
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
77%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+20.6%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 468 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