DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/30/2026 has been entered.
This action is in response to the amendment dated 7/30/2026 that was entered with the submission of the request for continued examination dated 7/30/2026. Claims 53 and 117 are currently amended. Claims 1-52, 54-100, 112, 116 and 118 have been canceled. Claims 121 and 122 are newly added. Presently, claims 53, 101-111, 113-115, 117 and 119-122 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102 section on pages 7-9 of the response dated 7/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 53, 101-105, 108 and 114 under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Fukano et al. (US 7712484) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Davis (US Pre-Grant Publication 2009/0065073).
It is considered that the newly applied reference to Davis addresses applicant’s concerns and claim language relating to a radial flow guide (see “radial flow guide” in the annotated figure 3B below) positioned in the inner chamber inserted and located in the flow path wherein the radial flow guide is compressed between the closure member and the seat (it is considered that the radial flow guide at 110 is located and held between the element 116 of the closure member and the seat 134 wherein the fasteners (see “fasteners” in the annotated figure 3A below) secure and compress the elements together).
Applicant’s arguments, see the Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 103 section on pages 10-12 of the response dated 7/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 115 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukano et al. (US 7712484) in view of Defenbaugh (US 2014314) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Davis (US Pre-Grant Publication 2009/0065073) in view of Defenbaugh (US 2014314).
It is considered that the combination of the Davis reference and the Defenbaugh reference provides the structure and motivation to provide a needle valve having a grooved portion and an ungrooved portion for fluid control.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the rejections of claims 53 and 101-114 under the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as provided in the Office action dated 4/30/2026.
However, it is considered that the combination of the claims 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,222,039 in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,748,401 (Zecchi et al.) addresses the claim amendments provided in the response dated 7/30/2026. It is considered that U.S. Patent No. 7,748,401 teaches a valve assembly having a valve body (2) defining an inner chamber (the element 13 is inserted into the inner chamber) and wherein the valve assembly includes a valve seat (7) that is detachable from a radial flow guide (cylindrical liner 13) that extends from an upper surface (see “upper surface” in the annotated figure 10 below) and a lower surface (see “lower surface” in the annotated figure 10 below) along the longitudinal axis of the valve assembly, the radial flow guide comprising a plurality of castellations (see “castellations” in the annotated figure 10 below) formed in the lower surface wherein the radial flow guide (cylindrical liner 13) is positioned in the inner chamber (see figure 10 for the radial flow guide being outside the flow path and see figure 8 for the radial flow guide 13 being inserted and located within the flow path) and located in the flow path (see at least figure 8), wherein the radial flow guide is compressed between the closure member and the seat.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Since new grounds of rejection were necessitated by applicant’s amendment that was entered with the submission of the request for continued examination dated 7/30/2026, the instant Office action is made non-final.
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.
Claims 53 and 101-111, 113 and 114 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,222,039 in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,748,401 (Zecchi et al.).
With respect to application claim 53, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,222,039 does not disclose wherein the body includes an inner chamber, the radial flow guide is positioned in the inner chamber and located in the flow path, wherein the radial flow guide is compressed between the closure member and the seat.
However, U.S. Patent No. 7,748,401 teaches a valve assembly having a valve body (2) defining an inner chamber (the element 13 is inserted into the inner chamber) and wherein the valve assembly includes a valve seat (7) that is detachable from a radial flow guide (cylindrical liner 13) that extends from an upper surface (see “upper surface” in the annotated figure 10 below) and a lower surface (see “lower surface” in the annotated figure 10 below) along the longitudinal axis of the valve assembly, the radial flow guide comprising a plurality of castellations (see “castellations” in the annotated figure 10 below) formed in the lower surface wherein the radial flow guide (cylindrical liner 13) is positioned in the inner chamber (see figure 10 for the radial flow guide being outside the flow path and see figure 8 for the radial flow guide 13 being inserted and located within the flow path) and located in the flow path (see at least figure 8), wherein the radial flow guide is compressed between the closure member and the seat.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to position the radial flow guide of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,222,039 within an inner chamber such that the radial flow guide is compressed between the closure member and the seaty as taught by U.S. Patent No. 7,748,401 in order to permit the radial flow guide to be inserted and removed when maintenance is required on the radial flow guide.
PNG
media_image1.png
1165
1093
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Similarly, Application claims 101-111, 113 and 114 are rejected on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Patent claims 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8-11 in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,748,401 (Zecchi et al.).
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(s) 53, 101-104, 107, 108 and 114 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Davis (US Pre-Grant Publication 2009/0065073).
Regarding claim 53, the Davis reference discloses a valve assembly, the valve assembly comprising:
a body (128), the body comprising an inlet (130), an inner chamber (see “inner chamber” in the annotated figure 3A below) and an outlet (121), a flow path extending between the inlet and the outlet (it is considered that the flow path extends from the inlet to the outlet as depicted in figure 3A);
a seat (134) located in the flow path;
a closure member (it is considered that the combination of 116, 112, 114, 118 and 302 constitutes a closure member) configured to engage the seat and obstruct the flow path (it is considered that the element 302 contacts the seat 134 to obstruct the fluid flow through the flow path);
an actuator assembly (it is considered that the source and the connections to ports 126 and 122 constitute an actuator assembly) coupled to the closure member (via the connections to the ports 122 and 126 along with the chambers 120 and 124) to move the closure member from a closed state (considered the position in which pressure in the chamber 124 places the element 302 into contact with the seat 134) which obstructs the flow path to an open state (considered the position depicted in figure 3A) which permits fluid flow;
a radial flow guide (see “radial flow guide” in the annotated figure 3B below) positioned in the inner chamber inserted and located in the flow path wherein the radial flow guide is compressed between the closure member and the seat (it is considered that the radial flow guide at 110 is located and held between the element 116 of the closure member and the seat 134 wherein the fasteners (see “fasteners” in the annotated figure 3A below) secure and compress the elements together); and
a longitudinal axis (see “longitudinal axis” in the annotated figure 3A below) extending through the seat, the closure member, and the radial flow guide.
PNG
media_image2.png
1080
1358
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 101, the Davis reference discloses wherein the closure member comprises a diaphragm (116) and a needle (it is considered that the combination of 118 and 302 constitutes a needle).
In regards to claim 102, the Davis reference discloses wherein the closure member comprises a fixed portion (it is considered that the outer edge of the diaphragm 116 that is held between elements 108 and 110 constitutes a fixed portion) and a movable portion (112, 114, 118 and 302), the fixed portion engaging the radial flow guide (see figure 3A for the fixed portion contacting the top of the radial flow guide) and the movable portion engaging the seat (it is considered that the portion 302 of the movable portion engages the valve seat 134).
In regards to claim 103, the Davis reference discloses wherein the flow path comprises a first volume extending from the inlet (130) of the body to the seat (134), the first volume defined by the body, the seat, and the closure member (at 302).
In regards to claim 104, the Davis reference discloses wherein the flow path further comprises a second volume extending from the seat (134) to the outlet (132) of the body, the second volume defined by the body, the seat, and the closure member (at 302).
In regards to claim 107, the Davis references discloses wherein the radial flow guide extends from an upper surface to a lower surface along the longitudinal axis (see “longitudinal axis” in the annotated figure 3A above) of the valve assembly, the radial flow guide comprising a plurality of castellations (see “castellations” in the annotated figure 3B above) formed in the lower surface (see figure 3A and figure 3B).
In regards to claim 108, the Davis reference discloses wherein the closure member comprises a fixed portion (it is considered that the outer edge of the diaphragm 116 that is held between elements 108 and 110 constitutes a fixed portion) and a movable portion (112, 114, 118 and 302), the movable portion comprising a diaphragm (116) and a needle (it is considered that the combination of 118 and 302 constitutes a needle), the needle fixed to the diaphragm (see figure 3A).
In regards to claim 114, the Davis reference discloses wherein the seat (134) is integral with the body (128; it is considered that the seat 134 is integral with the body 128 in as much as the seat 134 is necessary during the operation of the valve assembly and the proper seating of the radial flow guide).
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(s) 105 and 106 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US Pre-Grant Publication 2009/0065073) in view of Perrault et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2009/0026395).
In regards to claim 105, the Davis reference discloses wherein the radial flow guide divides the second volume into an outer chamber (see “outer chamber” in the annotated figure 3B below) and an inner chamber (see “inner chamber” in the annotated figure 3B below), a plurality of flow passages (considered the flow passages between the castellations in the annotated figure 3B below) extending from the outer chamber to the inner chamber.
PNG
media_image3.png
634
633
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Davis reference does not disclose wherein the radial flow guide divides the first volume.
However, the Perrault et al. reference teaches a valve assembles having a body (110) having an inlet (112) and an outlet (114), a closure member (134), and a radial flow guide (122) positioned in an inner chamber between the inlet and the outlet and wherein a first volume extends from inlet (112) to the seat (the radial flow guide 122 is seated on the seat as depicted in figure 3) and defined by the body (110), the seat and the closure member (134) and wherein the radial flow guide (122) divides the first volume to an outer chamber (considered the spaces at the reference numbers 116 and 130 as depicted in figure 3) and an inner chamber (it is considered that the closure member 134 is located in the inner chamber) and a plurality of flow passages (136) extending from the outer chamber to the inner chamber.
The substitution of one known element (the location of the inlet and the outlet as shown in Perrault et al. so that the first volume is defined by the body, the seat and the closure member and wherein the radial flow guide divides the first volume to an outer chamber and an inner chamber and a plurality of flow passages extending from the outer chamber to the inner chamber) for another (the location of the inlet and the outlet as shown in Davis such that the first volume is defined by the body, the seat and the closure member) would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art since the substitution of the inlet and the outlet shown in Perrault et al. would have yielded predictable results, namely, a reversal of the fluid flow from a first port (132) to a second port (130) of the Davis reference while still providing control and regulation of the fluid through the valve assembly.
In regards to claim 106, the combination of the Davis reference and the Perrault et al. reference discloses wherein the plurality of flow passages are defined by the seat and a plurality of castellations (Davis: see “castellations” in the annotated figure 3B above) formed into the radial flow guide.
Claim(s) 109-111, 113, 115, 117 and 120-122 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US Pre-Grant Publication 2009/0065073) in view of Defenbaugh (US 2014314).
In regards to claim 109, the Davis reference discloses wherein the closure member comprises a diaphragm (116) and a needle (it is considered that the combination of 118 and 302 constitutes a needle) wherein the needle comprises a top end (considered the end at the top of element 118), a bottom end (considered the end of 302 at 307, 304) with the longitudinal axis of the valve assembly extending from the top end to the bottom end.
The Davis reference does not disclose wherein the needle comprises a cylindrical portion and a grooved portion with the grooved portion extending from the bottom end to the cylindrical portion and the grooved portion comprising a plurality of grooves.
However, the Defenbaugh reference teaches a valve assembly having a needle (12) that includes a top end (at the end 18), a bottom end (it is considered that the bottom end faces toward the opening in the tube 9 as depicted in figure 1 ), a cylindrical portion (it is considered that the cylindrical portion extends from the tip of the groove 22 to the surface 18 as depicted in figure 1) and a grooved portion (considered the portion of the needle 12 that includes the grooves 22) wherein the grooved portion extends from the bottom end to the cylindrical portion (see figure 2) and wherein the grooved portion comprises a plurality of grooves (see the grooves at 22 as depicted in figure 2) in order to provide a means for readily adjusting the amount of restriction placed on the fluid so that the proper proportion may be delivered (page 1, lines 16-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to design the needle of the Davis reference with a cylindrical portion and a grooved portion having a plurality of grooves as taught by Defenbaugh reference wherein the groove portion extends from the bottom portion to the cylindrical portion in order to provide a means for readily adjusting the amount of restriction placed on the fluid so that the proper proportion may be delivered through the valve assembly.
In regards to claim 110, the Defenbaugh reference of the combination of the Davis reference and the Defenbaugh reference discloses wherein the cylindrical portion comprises a first diameter and the grooved portion comprises a second diameter, the first and second diameters being equal (Defenbaugh: see figure 1 and figure 2).
In regards to claim 111, the Defenbaugh reference of the combination of the Davis reference and the Defenbaugh reference discloses wherein the plurality of grooves (Defenbaugh: 22) of the grooved portion are circumferentially spaced about the longitudinal axis (Defenbaugh: see figure 2 and figure 3).
In regards to claim 113, the Defenbaugh reference of the combination of the Davis reference and the Defenbaugh reference discloses wherein each of the plurality of grooves (Defenbaugh: 22) comprise a bottom surface (Defenbaugh: it is considered that the surface at the intersection of the sloped surfaces defining each groove 22 constitutes the bottom surface), the bottom surface having a radial distance from the longitudinal axis that increases with increasing distance from the bottom end of the needle (Defenbaugh: see figure 2).
Regarding claim 115, the Davis reference discloses a valve assembly, the valve assembly comprising:
a body (128), comprising:
an inlet (130);
an outlet (121); and
a flow path extending between the inlet and the outlet (it is considered that the flow path extends from the inlet to the outlet as depicted in figure 3A);
a seat (134) comprising a seat aperture (see figure 3A) that defines a part of the flow path;
a closure member (it is considered that the combination of 116, 112, 114, 118 and 302 constitutes a closure member), comprising:
a diaphragm (114); and
a needle (it is considered that the combination of 118 and 302 constitutes a needle) attached to the diaphragm (through elements 112, 114), the needle comprising a top end (at 118) and a bottom end (at 307, 304);
an actuator (it is considered that the source and the connections to ports 126 and 122 constitute an actuator assembly) operable to move the closure element between a closed state in which a first portion of the valve element is sealingly engaged with the seat and obstructs the flow path; and
a radial flow guide (see “radial flow guide” in the annotated figure 3B below) comprising a plurality of radial openings (considered the openings between the castellations; see “castellations” in the annotated figure 3B below) that define a part of the flow path, wherein the radial flow guide is secured between the seal and the seat (it is considered that the radial flow guide at 110 is secured between the element 116 of the closure member and the seat 134 wherein the fasteners (see “fasteners” in the annotated figure 3A below) secure and compress the elements together).
PNG
media_image2.png
1080
1358
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Davis reference does not disclose does not disclose wherein the needle comprises an ungrooved portion and a grooved portion, a grooved portion intermediate the bottom end and the ungrooved portion, wherein the grooved portion comprising a plurality of grooves.
However, the Defenbaugh reference teaches a valve assembly having a needle (12) that includes a top end (at the end 18), a bottom end (it is considered that the bottom end faces toward the opening in the tube 9 as depicted in figure 1 ), an ungrooved portion (it is considered that the ungrooved portion extends from the tip of the groove 22 to the surface 18 as depicted in figure 1) and a grooved portion (considered the portion of the needle 12 that includes the grooves 22) wherein the grooved portion extends from the bottom end to the ungrooved portion (see figure 2) and wherein the grooved portion comprises a plurality of grooves (see the grooves at 22 as depicted in figure 2) in order to provide a means for readily adjusting the amount of restriction placed on the fluid so that the proper proportion may be delivered (page 1, lines 16-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to design the needle of the Davis reference with an ungrooved portion and a grooved portion having a plurality of grooves as taught by Defenbaugh reference wherein the groove portion extends from the bottom portion to the ungrooved portion in order to provide a means for readily adjusting the amount of restriction placed on the fluid so that the proper proportion may be delivered through the valve assembly.
It is considered that the recitation of “for use with a system for processing articles” is a recitation of the intended use of the valve assembly. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of preforming the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 117, the Davis reference discloses a valve assembly, the valve assembly comprising:
a body (128), comprising:
an inlet (130);
an outlet (121); and
a flow path extending between the inlet and the outlet (it is considered that the flow path extends from the inlet to the outlet as depicted in figure 3A);
a seat (134) comprising a seat aperture (see figure 3A) that defines a part of the flow path;
a closure member (it is considered that the combination of 116, 112, 114, 118 and 302 constitutes a closure member), comprising:
a seal (it is considered that the outer edge of the diaphragm 114 forms a seal between chamber 124 and chamber 120); and
a valve element (considered 302) that extends from the seal (see figure 3A for the element 302 extending from the seal at the edge of 114 through elements 112, 114, and 118);
an actuator (it is considered that the source and the connections to ports 126 and 122 constitute an actuator assembly) operable to move the closure element between a closed state in which a first portion of the valve element is sealingly engaged with the seat and obstructs the flow path; and
a radial flow guide (see “radial flow guide” in the annotated figure 3B below) comprising a plurality of radial openings (considered the openings between the castellations; see “castellations” in the annotated figure 3B below) that define a part of the flow path, wherein the radial flow guide is secured between the seal and the seat (it is considered that the radial flow guide at 110 is secured between the element 116 of the closure member and the seat 134 wherein the fasteners (see “fasteners” in the annotated figure 3A below) secure and compress the elements together).
PNG
media_image2.png
1080
1358
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Davis reference does not disclose wherein the valve element comprises a first portion and a grooved portion.
However, the Defenbaugh reference teaches a valve assembly having a valve element (12) that a first portion (it is considered that the first portion extends from the tip of the groove 22 to the surface 18 as depicted in figure 1) and a grooved portion (considered the portion of the needle 12 that includes the grooves 22) in order to provide a means for readily adjusting the amount of restriction placed on the fluid so that the proper proportion may be delivered (page 1, lines 16-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to design the valve element of the Davis reference with a first portion and a grooved portion as taught by Defenbaugh reference in order to provide a means for readily adjusting the amount of restriction placed on the fluid so that the proper proportion may be delivered through the valve assembly.
It is considered that the recitation of “for use with a system for processing articles” is a recitation of the intended use of the valve assembly. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of preforming the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is considered that the recitation of “such that a gas can flow through the seat aperture” is a recitation of the intended fluid for the valve assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to utilized a gas through the valve assembly, since the patented structure is capable of retaining such a fluid (i.e., a gas). Selecting a specific fluid to transmit through the valve assembly would amount to a recitation of the intended use of the patented invention, without resulting in any structural difference between the claimed invention and the structure disclosed by the combination of the Davis reference and the Defenbaugh reference, and therefore fails to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963).
In regards to claim 120, the combination of the Davis reference and the Defenbaugh reference discloses wherein the valve element comprises a top end (Davis: at 118), a bottom end (Defenbaugh: considered the lower end of the extension 21 of needle 18), and a longitudinal axis extending from the top end to the bottom end, the grooved portion extending from the bottom end to the first portion (Defenbaugh: see figure 1 and figure 2).
In regards to claim 121, the combination of the Davis reference and the Defenbaugh reference discloses wherein the seat aperture comprises a tapered portion (Davis: considered the lower rounded tapered portions of the seat 134) that tapers laterally away from the groove portion.
In regards to claim 122, the combination of the Davis reference and the Defenbaugh reference discloses wherein the seat (Davis: 134) comprises a discrete component wedged between the body (Davis (128) and the radial flow guide in a longitudinal stack (Davis: see figure 3A).
Claim(s) 119 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US Pre-Grant Publication 2009/0065073) in view of Kinser et al. (US 11112032).
In regards to claim 119, the Davis. reference discloses wherein the radial flow guide comprises an annular flange (at the radial extension at the reference numeral 11 as depicted in figure 3A).
The Davis reference does not disclose wherein the radial flow guide comprises a conical portion and a plurality of radial openings are defined in the conical portion.
However, the Kinser et al. reference teaches a valve assembly having a radial flow guide (tapered cage 122) that includes a conical portion (see figure 3 for the radial flow guide 122 having a conical portion defined at the sections 160a, 160b, and 160c) with the conical portion having a plurality of radial openings (120b and 120a) in order to allow for assembly and separation of the various components of the radial flow guide while providing enough friction when assembled to form an interference tight fit (see at least col. 5, lines 28-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to design the radial flow guide of the Davis reference as having a conical portion that includes a plurality of openings as taught by the Kinser et al. reference in order to allow for assembly and separation of the various components of the radial flow guide while providing enough friction when assembled to form an interference tight fit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew J. Rost whose telephone number is (571) 272-2711. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 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 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.
/ANDREW J ROST/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/MICHAEL R REID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights