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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
In light of the amended claims filed May 26, 2026, the drawing objection(s), set forth in the Office action dated February 27, 2026, are now withdrawn. The drawings filed December 9, 2024, are acceptable.
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 1-5, 7-15, 17 and 27-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US3331590 (“Battenfeld”).
Regarding claim 1, Battenfeld discloses an adapter insert for a control valve of a process plant for forming a steam converter, the adapter insert comprising:
an insert body (at least partially defined by “6” and “16”) with a distance extension section (section of member(s) “6” and “16” disposed between housing “2” and the housing cover, see annotated figure, below) configured to be arranged between a valve housing (“2”) and a housing cover (see annotated figure, below) of the control valve, wherein:
the distance extension section comprises a fluid inlet connection opening (“9”), which, in an assembled state of the adapter insert, is located at least sectionally between the valve housing and the housing cover of the control valve; and
the insert body forms a fluid collection chamber (annular space “10” and/or “19”) which, in the assembled state of the adapter insert, extends at least sectionally between the valve housing and the housing cover of the control valve; and
the insert body comprises at least one fluid passage channel (channel extending through hub “6” which communicates with grooves “8” of flow regulating element “4”) configured to direct fluid from the fluid collection chamber, via a flow regulating element (“4”), into an interior (“3”) of the control valve.
PNG
media_image1.png
841
784
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Battenfeld discloses the fluid inlet connection opening (“9”) extends completely through (opening “9” extends fully through member “16” to communicate with chamber “10”) the distance extension section (section of member(s) “6” and “16” disposed between housing “2” and the housing cover, see annotated figure, above).
Regarding claim 3, Battenfeld discloses the distance extension section (section of member(s) “6” and “16” disposed between housing “2” and the housing cover, see annotated figure, above) has a coupling surface (see interface surface of member(s) “6” and “16” with housing “2”) which is formed complementary in shape to the valve housing (“2”; see assembly of figure) and another coupling surface (bottom surface of member “16”, relative to the orientation of figure, within which piston chamber “19” and “20” is/are defined), which is formed complementary in shape to the housing cover (see bottom cover adjacent to piston chamber “20”; see annotated figure, above), wherein the fluid inlet connection opening (“9”) is located between the coupling surfaces.
Regarding claim 4, Battenfeld discloses the distance extension section (section of member(s) “6” and “16” disposed between housing “2” and the housing cover, see annotated figure, above) is configured to create a spacing between the valve housing (“2”) and the housing cover (see annotated figure, above), the spacing being matched to a size of a connection piece and/or a fluid supply device (“23”).
Regarding claim 5, Battenfeld discloses the fluid inlet connection opening (“9”) is alignable by rotating the adapter insert (mainly defined by “6” and “16”) and/or the insert body during assembly (members “16” and “2” are formed separately and assembled, so member “16” is capable of being aligned in any desired orientation prior or during assembly).
Regarding claim 7, Battenfeld discloses the fluid collection chamber (“10”) extends in the circumferential direction (fluid collection chamber “10” is annularly shaped) of the adapter insert (“6” and “16”) around a stroke axis (longitudinal axis of valve member “4”) and/or a valve rod of the control valve.
Regarding claim 8, Battenfeld discloses the fluid collection chamber (“10”) is formed as an annular cavity (circumscribing valve member “4”).
Regarding claim 9, Battenfeld discloses the fluid collection chamber (“10”) is completely enclosed by the insert body (“6” and “16”).
Regarding claim 10, Battenfeld discloses the fluid collecting chamber (“19”) has a base surface (surface of chamber “19” disposed above piston 18, relative to the orientation of the figure) for collecting fluid which is uniformly planar and/or flat (see figure), the base surface being formed at a deepest region (deepest region of chamber “19” relative to shallow region of chamber “20”) of the fluid collecting chamber.
Regarding claim 11, Battenfeld discloses the at least one fluid passage channel (channel extending through hub “6” which communicates with grooves “8” of flow regulating element “4”) includes, at least sectionally, a bent, inclined, and/or curved course (channel extending through hub “6” is annularly shaped and causes a relatively spiral flow therethrough via radial opening “9” and grooves “8”).
Regarding claim 12, Battenfeld discloses a fluid collection chamber limiting element (“5” and/or “6”) configured to define a dimension, a shape, and/or a cross-section of the fluid collection chamber (“10”).
Regarding claim 13, Battenfeld discloses the fluid collection chamber (“10”) is integrally formed with the insert body (“6” and “16”). With regards to recitations pertaining to the method of manufacturing and/or assembly (e.g., “three-dimensional printing”), "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by- process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 27, Battenfeld discloses a control valve of a process plant, comprising:
a valve housing (“2”) with an inlet opening (opening extending through inlet “1”) and an outlet opening (opening extending through outlet “5”), and a passage opening (opening “3”) arranged therebetween; and
a housing cover (see annotated figure, above) with a through-opening (opening through which stem “4” extends) arranged opposite the passage opening, wherein the control valve further comprises:
an adapter insert (mainly defined by “6” and “16”).
With regards to the flow regulating element and/or the steam convertor, since these element are listed with “and/or” configuration with the adapter insert, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, only one of the adapter insert, flow regulating element or steam convertor is required by the claim.
Regarding claim 28, Battenfeld discloses a fluid supply device and/or a connection piece (valve connecting to opening “9” to supply water therethrough) extends between the valve housing (“2”) and the housing cover (see annotated figure, above) of the control valve, wherein the fluid supply device and/or the connection piece are rotatable and/or alignable during assembly by the adapter insert (members “16” and “2” are formed separately and assembled, so member “16” is capable of being aligned in any desired orientation prior or during assembly).
Regarding claim 29, Battenfeld discloses the fluid inlet connection opening (“9”) leads into the fluid collection chamber (“10”), and the at least one fluid passage channel (channel extending through hub “6” which communicates with grooves “8” of flow regulating element “4”) leads out of the fluid collection chamber (to chamber “11”).
Regarding claim 30, Battenfeld discloses the at least one fluid passage channel (channel extending through hub “6” which communicates with grooves “8” of flow regulating element “4”) is configured to extend from the fluid collection chamber (“10”) to at least one inlet opening (opening extending through inlet “1”) of the flow regulating element (“4”).
Regarding claim 31, Battenfeld discloses the flow regulating element (mainly defined by “4” and “6”) comprises a sleeve-shaped body (“6”) with at least one fluid distribution channel (channel extending through protrusion “6”) leading into at least one throttle channel (“8”) configured to discharge fluid, from the fluid collection chamber (“10”), into the interior of the control valve so as to come into contact with steam within the interior of the control valve.
Regarding claim 14, Battenfeld discloses an adapter insert for a control valve of a process plant for forming a steam converter, the adapter insert comprising:
an insert body (mainly defined by “6” and “16”) comprising:
a distance extension section (section of member(s) “6” and “16” disposed between housing “2” and the housing cover, see annotated figure, above) configured to be arranged between a valve housing (“2”) and a housing cover (see annotated figure, above) of the control valve,
at least one fluid passage channel (channel extending through hub “6” which communicates with grooves “8” of flow regulating element “4”) which extends from a fluid collecting chamber (“10”) to at least one inlet opening (openings defined between ribs “13”) of a flow regulating element (“12”) configured to distribute fluid, from the fluid collecting chamber via the at least one fluid passage channel, into an interior (“14”) of the control valve.
Regarding claim 15, Battenfeld discloses the flow regulating element is connected to the insert body (“6” and “16”), the at least one fluid passage channel (channel extending through hub “6” which communicates with grooves “8” of flow regulating element “4”) extending from a deepest region (region closest to interior of valve housing “2”) of the fluid collecting chamber (“10”) to the at least one inlet opening (openings defined between ribs “13”).
Regarding claim 17, Battenfeld discloses the adapter insert (“6” and “16”) is formed in one piece and/or in layers, and/or is produced in one piece, the adapter insert and/or the insert body being rotationally symmetrical (see figure).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Battenfeld, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of engineering expedient.
Regarding claim 6, Battenfeld discloses the distance extension section (section of member(s) “6” and “16” disposed between housing “2” and the housing cover, see annotated figure, above) is configured and/or dimensioned, in the assembled state of the adapter insert (“6” and “16”), to form a spacing (see distance between valve housing “2” and housing cover in annotated figure, above) between the valve housing (“2”) and the housing cover (see annotated figure above) sized to be larger than a diameter of a connection piece (valve connected to flange through which opening “9” extends) configured to engage the fluid inlet connection opening (“9”).
Battenfeld is silent to the spacing being in a range of at least approximately 2 times the diameter of the connection piece.
However, Battenfeld illustrates (see figure) the spacing being about three times the diameter of the connection piece. Additionally, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention would know to dimension the spacing to be sufficient to allow sufficient stroke of the piston (“18”), while avoiding excessively large spacing dimension to optimize device weight.
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 Battenfeld by configuring the spacing to be in a range of at least approximately 2 times a diameter of the connection piece, to allow for sufficient room for assembly and disassembly of the connection piece and sufficient stroke distance of the actuator piston.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-24 and 32 are allowed.
Claim 16, 25 and 26 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 16, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious the adapter insert, wherein the insert body has one or more clamping surfaces configured to clamp the flow regulating element between the insert body and a valve seat of the control valve, in combination with the limitations of the base claim and any intermediate claim(s).
Regarding claim 18, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious the flow regulating element for connection with an adapter insert for a control valve of a process plant for forming a steam converter, the flow regulating element comprising: a sleeve-shaped body configured to: receive fluid from a fluid collection chamber of the adapter insert via a fluid passage channel of the adapter insert, and distribute the received fluid with at least one fluid distribution channel, wherein the at least one fluid distribution channel is configured to: fluidically connect to the fluid passage channel, extends at least partially in an axial direction of the sleeve-shaped body, and leads into at least one throttle channel to discharge the received fluid into an interior of a control valve, and wherein the sleeve-shaped body comprises at least two sleeves with at least one inner sleeve and an outer sleeve surrounding the at least one inner sleeve.
Regarding claim 25, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious the steam converter for a control valve of a process plant, the steam converter comprising: an adapter insert; and a flow regulating element connected thereto, the flow regulating element comprising a sleeve-shaped body configured to distribute fluid with at least one fluid distribution channel, wherein the at least one fluid distribution channel extends at least partially in an axial direction of the sleeve-shaped body and leads into at least one throttle channel, and wherein the sleeve- shaped body comprises at least two sleeves with at least one inner sleeve and an outer sleeve surrounding the at least one inner sleeve, in combination with the limitations of the base claim.
Claims 19-24, 26 and 32 are allowable because they depend on an allowable base claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 26, 2026, have been fully considered.
With regards to the drawing objections, in light of the claim amendments, which removed the “lantern” limitation, the objection to the drawings filed December 9, 2024, is/are withdrawn. The drawings filed December 9, 2024, are acceptable.
With regards to the claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), amendments filed May 26, 2026, overcome these objection(s) and/or rejection(s).
With regards to Applicant’s arguments concerning the prior art rejection of the claims, Applicant’s amendment has overcome the rejection of record. However, the amended claims have necessitated new ground(s) of rejection rendering Applicant's arguments regarding Beurskens, Grotloh and/or Huang, including further combinations thereof, moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US4442047 discloses a multi-nozzle spray desuperheater.
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