DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-23 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The foreign reference – EP 1281049 A0 – cited in the IDS filed 11 June 2025 was not considered because only a copy of a citation of its related application – WO 01/086235 – was provided rather than a copy of the reference. The foreign reference – EP 2511783 A2 – cited in the IDS filed 24 October 2025 was not considered because a copy of the reference was not provided.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, line 4, “and or” should be changed to --or-- to correlate with “at least one of”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 9, 15, 18-20, and 22-23 are rejected (wherein claims 20 and 23 inherit their rejections due to their dependencies) 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.
In claim 9, line 2, it is unclear whether either of “a first end” or “a second end” recited, and understood as being of the traveler, is any different from the “distal end” introduced in claim 1. As understood, one of the first and second ends introduced in claim 9 is the same as the distal end introduced in claim 1, and the relationship should be clarified.
In claim 15, line 2, it is unclear whether either of “a first end” or “a second end” recited, and understood as being of the traveler, is any different from the “distal end” introduced in claim 1. As understood, one of the first and second ends introduced in claim 9 is the same as the distal end introduced in claim 1, and the relationship should be clarified.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "magnetic sensor" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As understood, the recitation refers to the sensor introduced in claim 17, and a common name should be used.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "magnetic sensor" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As understood, the recitation refers to the sensor introduced in claim 17, and a common name should be used. Note that the “magnetic sensor” is recited again in the last line.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the frequency" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As understood, the recitation refers to the frequency with which the valve, or an upstream flow control device, opens/closes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 3-16 (as understood: 9 and 15) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rull et al. (US 2012/0168005) in view of Walton et al. (US 5,964,446).
Regarding claims 1 and 10-11, Rull discloses in Figs. 1-3 a valve assembly comprising:
a housing assembly defining a valve seat 15, an inlet (comprising two-dimensional inlet port of inlet 13), an outlet (comprising the two-dimensional outlet port of outlet 14), and a flow path extending from the inlet to the outlet, the housing assembly further defining an aperture 19 located fluidly between the inlet and the valve seat 15, wherein the housing assembly comprises:
a valve body defining a first chamber (comprising the conduit extending from inlet port of the inlet 13 to the aperture 19) that receives fluid from the inlet, and a third chamber (comprising the conduit extending from chamber with the traveler 2 and seat 15 to the outlet port of outlet 14) from which fluid flows through the outlet; and
a valve cap 6, wherein the valve cap defines a second chamber (comprising the space containing the traveler 2 and ram 12 defined by both housing portions 5, 6 regardless of the diaphragm 7 therein because the chamber isn’t seen as necessarily being a fluidly isolated space, such that the valve cap 6 is seen as also defining said space, and because the diaphragm 7 is seen as alternatively being removed per paragraph 45 describing alternatively screwing the ram 12 into the traveler 2) fluidly connected between the inlet and the outlet and between the first chamber and the third chamber; and
a pressure-actuated traveler 2 positioned within the second chamber and moveable between a first position, in which the traveler 2 engages the valve seat 15, and a second position, in which the traveler 2 is displaced from the valve seat 15 and allows fluid flow through the second chamber, wherein the traveler 2 comprises a plunger (comprising the lower portion of the traveler 2, including guide portion 18) located at a distal end thereof, wherein the plunger is received within the aperture 19 and slides within the aperture 19 as the traveler 2 moves between the first position and the second position, wherein the plunger defines at least one slot 21 that permits fluid flow therethrough from the first chamber into the second chamber when the traveler 2 is displaced from the valve seat 15, and wherein the at least one slot 21 extends from an inlet end to an outlet end;
wherein an effective orifice size of the plunger, defined as a cumulative cross-sectional area of the at least one slot 21 through which fluid flows at the outlet end of the at least one slot 21, continuously increases as the traveler 2 is displaced from the first position towards the second position; and
wherein a displacement amount of the traveler 2 from the first position varies based on at least one of (i) a pressure differential across the plunger (paragraph 35) or (ii) a size and shape of the at least one slot 21.
Rull lacks teaching that the valve cap is removably coupled to the valve body.
Walton teaches in Fig. 1 a similar valve cap 62 that is removably coupled to the valve body 12 via bolts 64 (col. 7, lines 2-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the attachment of the valve cap to the valve body in Rull to be removable, as Walton teaches, because Rull is silent with regard to such details concerning assembly. Furthermore, the removable configuration using bolts taught by Walton is simple, so it provides for simple assembly as well simple repairs in the case of any damages.
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Rull discloses in Figs. 1-3 that there is at least one spring 10 operably coupled to the traveler 2 to bias the traveler 2 towards the first position (paragraph 33), wherein the at least one spring 10 is mounted within the housing assembly, and wherein the displacement amount of the traveler 2 from the first position varies based on at least one parameter of the at least one spring 10 (paragraph 41).
Rull lacks teaching that the at least one spring is removably mounted within the housing assembly. However, in modifying Rull in view of Walton so that the valve cap is removably mounted with the valve body and the diaphragm is removably mounted in between, as Walton teaches in Fig. 1, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the spring disclosed by Rull is housed in the valve cap and therefore would be removably mounted within the housing assembly, as Walton similarly teaches with spring 66. Furthermore, a removable spring allows replacement, such as in the case of wear leading to an insufficient biasing force.
Regarding claim 4, Rull discloses in Figs. 1-3 that there is at least one spring 10 operably coupled to the traveler 2 to bias the traveler towards the first position (paragraph 33), and wherein the traveler 2 is displaceable from the first position towards the second position when a pressure differential across the plunger exceeds a threshold pressure related to at least one parameter of the at least one spring 10 (paragraph 35).
Regarding claim 5, Rull discloses in Figs. 1-3 that a flow rate of fluid through the valve assembly is controlled by at least one of: a number of slots 21 defined in the plunger (inherently), a size and shape of the at least one slot 21 (inherently), and or the pressure differential across the plunger (inherently).
Regarding claims 6 and 12, Rull discloses in Figs. 1-3 that the plunger comprises at least one curved edge (as shown in the annotation of Fig. 2 below), and wherein the at least one slot 21 is at least partially defined by the at least one curved edge.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Curved edge)]
PNG
media_image1.png
614
438
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 7 and 13, Rull discloses in Figs. 1-3 that the traveler 2 comprises at least one straight edge (as shown in annotation of Fig. 2 below), and wherein the at least one slot 21 is at least partially defined by the at least one straight edge.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Straight edges)]
PNG
media_image1.png
614
438
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 8 and 14, Rull discloses in Figs. 1-3 that the plunger defines between two slots 21 and twelve slots 21 therethrough.
Regarding claims 9 and 15, Rull discloses in Figs. 1-3 that the traveler 2 extends along an axis from a first end to a second end, and wherein the slots 21 are defined in an axisymmetric arrangement about the axis.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rull in view of Walton, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Collins et al. (US 2021/0270386).
Regarding claim 2, Rull and Walton teach a valve assembly, as previously discussed, but lacks a sensor assembly configured to detect a position of the traveler within the second chamber.
Collins teaches in Fig. 8 and paragraph 194 a sensor assembly (comprising sensor 782) configured to detect a position of the traveler 714 within the second chamber (in which the piston portion of the traveler 714 reciprocates).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve assembly in the combination of Rull and Walton to include a sensor assembly configured to detect a position of the traveler within the second chamber to provide feedback, as Collins teaches (paragraph 195), so the user can monitor operation and condition of the valve, including whether the valve is broken and/or leaking.
Claims 17-20 and 22-23 (as understood: all) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rull et al. (US 2012/0168005) in view of Walton et al. (US 5,964,446) and Collins et al. (US 2021/0270386).
Regarding claim 17, Rull in view of Walton teach a valve assembly, as discussed above in the rejections of claims 1 and 10-11, but Rull and Walton both lack a printed circuit board assembly comprising at least one sensor, the printed circuit board assembly positioned on the housing assembly such that the at least one sensor is affected by the at least one magnet as the traveler moves within the at least one chamber.
Collins teaches in Fig. 8 a printed circuit board assembly 772, 786, 782 comprising at least one sensor 782, the printed circuit board assembly positioned on the housing assembly such that the at least one sensor 782 is affected by the at least one magnet 780 as the traveler 714 moves within the at least one chamber.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve assembly in the combination of Rull and Walton to include a sensor that senses the position of the reciprocating traveler to provide feedback to a user/computer, as Collins teaches (paragraph 195), so the user can monitor operation and condition of the valve, including whether the valve is broken and/or leaking.
Regarding claim 18, Collins teaches in Fig. 8 that the at least one magnetic sensor 782 is a Hall sensor 782 (paragraph 194).
Regarding claim 19, Collins teaches in Fig. 8 that the printed circuit board assembly 772, 786, 782 (i) determines a position of the at least one magnet 780 relative to the at least one magnetic sensor 782, and (ii) determines the position of the traveler 714 based on the position of the at least one magnet 780 relative to the at least one magnetic sensor 782 (paragraphs 194-195).
Regarding claim 20, Collins teaches in Fig. 8 that the printed circuit board assembly 772, 786, 782 determines a flow rate of fluid through the flow path based on the position of the traveler 714 (because the control unit 772 determines the position of the traveler 714, as disclosed in paragraph 195, which is directly correlated to the flow through the valve, as disclosed in the abstract).
Regarding claim 22, Rull in view of Walton and Collins teach a valve assembly as previously discussed, but Rull lacks teaching about anything regarding frequency, including a frequency between 5 and 50 Hertz (Hz). However, the valve disclosed by Rull is seen as being capable of handling fluid flowing at a pulsed pattern with a frequency between 5 and 50 Hz because Rull teaches that the valve is intended to be used downstream of a pump to maintain pressure downstream of the pump (paragraph 2), and pumps inherently supply fluid with a pulse pattern.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the valve assembly in the combination of Rull, Walton, and Collins to be downstream of a pump as taught by Rull in paragraph 2 to maintain pressure downstream of the pump, and to handle a pulse pattern of flow with a frequency of 5 to 50 Hz because the applicant merely discloses using/detecting frequencies between 5 and 50 Hz (paragraph 131) without any criticality (MPEP 2144.04), and 5-50 Hz is a practical rate of pumping that supplies a consistent and frequent supply of fluid without being so excessive that structures are susceptible to damage, such as be fast or jerky movements that cause damaging vibrations.
Regarding claim 23, Rull discloses a valve that is biased closed and adjustable to inlet flow, but is silent with regard to the flow rate of the fluid, including whether the flow rate is up to 5 gallons per minute (GPM). However, the valve disclosed by Rull is seen as being capable of handling a flow rate up to 5 GPM because “up to 5 gallons per minute” includes any flow rate equal to or below 5 GPM and the valve disclosed by Rull biased closed and adjustable to inlet flow. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the valve provide a flow rate up to 5 GPM because the applicant merely discloses up to 5 GPM as an example of flow rate (paragraph 132) without disclosing any criticality (MPEP 2144.04), and the valve disclosed by Rull is biased closed, adjustable to inlet flow, and intended for periodic use downstream of pumps, rather than continuous use that would deliver flow greater than 5 GPM.
Claim 22 (alternatively and as understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rull in view of Walton and Collins, as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Raven (AU 2013277513).
Regarding claim 22, Rull in view of Walton and Collins teach a valve assembly as previously discussed, but Rull lacks teaching about anything regarding frequency, including a frequency between 5 and 50 Hertz (Hz).
Raven teaches in Figs. 1-10 a fluid delivery system comprising a pump(s) 36 that inherently pumps fluid in a pulsed pattern with a frequency. Rull discloses that the valve is for use with pumps to maintain pressure downstream of the pump (paragraph 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the valve assembly in the combination of Rull, Walton, and Collins to be downstream of the pump taught by Raven to maintain pressure downstream of the pump taught by Raven, because Rull broadly discloses that the valve disclosed by Rull is for use downstream of pumps to maintain pressure without limiting the use case (paragraph 2) and Raven teaches the desire for pressure regulation such as through the use of pressure reducing valve(s) 44.
In modifying Rull, Walton, and Collins in view of Raven to be downstream of the pump taught by Raven, it would have been obvious to operate the pump to pump fluid at a frequency between 5 and 50 Hz, because the applicant merely discloses using/detecting frequencies between 5 and 50 Hz (paragraph 131) without any criticality (MPEP 2144.04), and 5-50 Hz is a practical rate of pumping that supplies a consistent and frequent supply of fluid without being so excessive that structures are susceptible to damage, such as be fast or jerky movements that cause damaging vibrations.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rull et al. (US 2012/0168005) in view of Walton et al. (US 5,964,446), Collins et al. (US 2021/0270386), and Raven (AU 2013277513).
Regarding claim 21, Rull in view of Walton and Collins teach a valve assembly, as discussed above in the rejections of claims 1, 10, and 17, but Rull, Walton, and Collins lack teaching that the fluid flows to the flow path in a pulsed pattern including a plurality of fluid pulses, the pulsed pattern having a frequency, and wherein the printed circuit board assembly is configured to detect each fluid pulse of the plurality of fluid pulses.
Raven teaches in Figs. 1-10 a fluid delivery system comprising a pump(s) 36 that inherently pumps fluid in a pulsed pattern with a frequency. Rull discloses that the valve is for use with pumps to maintain pressure downstream of the pump (paragraph 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the valve assembly in the combination of Rull, Walton, and Collins to be downstream of the pump taught by Raven to maintain pressure downstream of the pump taught by Raven, because Rull broadly discloses that the valve disclosed by Rull is for use downstream of pumps to maintain pressure without limiting the use case (paragraph 2) and Raven teaches the desire for pressure regulation such as through the use of pressure reducing valve(s) 44.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Jonathan Waddy, whose telephone number is 571-270-3146. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (10:00AM-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 or 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.
/J. W./
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights