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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 22-33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/03/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) was/were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) was/were considered by the examiner.
Specification
The substitute specification submitted on 05/04/2026 is NOT entered because the substitute specification includes a claim set and abstract.
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:
Claim 1: “reducer, an expander, and an isolation valve arranged before a control valve”;
Claim 1: “a bore of a pipe connecting to an input of the reducer is larger than a bore of a pipe connecting to an output of the reducer” (the office notes that the only Figure illustrating the claim language of claim 1 is Fig. 15B);
Claim 1: “in each of the at least two flow paths, a bore of a pipe connecting to an input of the expander is smaller than a bore of a pipe connecting to an output of the expander”;
Claim 4: “an expander arranged after the control valve”;
Claim 7: “on each of the flow paths at least one other fluid flow control device is arranged between the reducer and the isolation valve and/or between the expander and the control valve” (the office notes that the only Figure illustrating the claim language of claim 1 is Fig. 15B);
Claim 10: “the Y connector is respectively clamped to each of the reducers and each of the reducers is clamped to a respective one of the isolation valves” (the office notes that the only Figure illustrating the claim language of claim 1 is Fig. 15B);
Claim 11: “the Y-connector and each of the reducers form one integrated unit, and wherein each of the isolation valves is clamped to the each of the reducers of the integrated unit” (the office notes that the only Figure illustrating the claim language of claim 1 is Fig. 15B);
Claim 12: “on each of the flow paths, the reducer and the isolation valve form a respective integrated unit, and wherein the Y- connector is clamped to the each respective integrated unit” (the office notes that the only Figure illustrating the claim language of claim 1 is Fig. 15B);
Claim 13: “each of the at least two flow paths includes a second reducer arranged after the isolation valve” (the office notes that the only Figure illustrating the claim language of claim 1 is Fig. 15B);
Claim 14: “the second reducer and the isolation valve are formed as an integrated unit” (the office notes that the only Figure illustrating the claim language of claim 1 is Fig. 15B);
Claim 15: “an output of the second reducer is of smaller bore-width than an output of the first reducer” (the office notes that the only Figure illustrating the claim language of claim 1 is Fig. 15B);
Claim 16: “each of the at least two flow paths includes a reducer arranged after a isolation valve and before the control valve” (the office notes that the only Figure illustrating the claim language of claim 1 is Fig. 15B);
Claim 17: “on each of the at least two flow paths, the isolation valve and the reducer arranged after the isolation valve form an integrated unit clamped to the Y-connector” (the office notes that the only Figure illustrating the claim language of claim 1 is Fig. 15B);
Claim 18: “each of the isolation valves is connected to the three-way ball valve by a respective one of the reducers” (the office notes that the only Figure illustrating the claim language of claim 1 is Fig. 15B);
Claim 21: “he inlet comprises a Y-connector integrated with at least two Y-pattern globe valves, and wherein each of the Y- pattern globe valves connect to a respective one of the flow paths”(the office notes that the only Figure illustrating the claim language of claim 1 is Fig. 15B);
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, “each flow path including a reducer, an expander, and an isolation valve arranged before a control valve”. It is unclear and indefinite whether applicant intends each of the reducer, expander and isolation valve to be arranged before the control valve or merely the isolation valve.
Claim 3 necessitates that, “the modular skid is configured to reduce a velocity of media flowing in piping of the modular skid before the control valve.” However, at least one reading of claim 1 necessitates a reducer located upstream of the control valve. It is the office’s understanding that the reducer will lead to an increase in velocity per Bernoulli’s principle. Additionally, the term “reduce” is a relative term and therefore the metes and bounds of the term are unclear and indefinite.
Claim 4 necessitates, “an expander arranged after the control valve.” It is unclear and indefinite whether this is the same as, or different from, the expander recited in claim 1.
Claim 5 necessitates that, “each of the isolation valves is connected to the Y-connector by a respective one of the reducers.” It is unclear and indefinite whether applicant merely intends a reducer to be located between the Y-connector and the isolation valve or rather, that the Y-connector and isolation valve are directly coupled via a reducer.
Claim 6 necessitates that, “each of the isolation valves is connected to the second Y- connector by a respective one of the expanders.” It is unclear and indefinite whether applicant merely intends an expander to be located between the Y-connector and the isolation valve or rather, that the Y-connector and isolation valve are directly coupled via an expander.
Claim 17 necessitates that, “on each of the at least two flow paths, the isolation valve and the reducer arranged after the isolation valve form an integrated unit clamped to the Y-connector.” It is unclear and indefinite where applicant draws support for the second recited isolation valve.
Claim 18 necessitates that, “each of the isolation valves is connected to the three-way ball valve by a respective one of the reducers.” It is unclear and indefinite whether applicant intends direct or indirect coupling between the isolation valve and ball valve.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to R.K. Arundale whose telephone number is 571-270-3453. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM 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, and 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ROBERT K ARUNDALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights