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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5 May 2025, 23 June 2025, 17 Sept 2025, 10 April 2026, and 30 April 2026 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The Examiner notes that the strikethrough Patent 1 from the IDS dated 5 May 2025 appears to have the incorrect patent number since the patent’s inventor is not Hanning.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 2, 4 and 6-20 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 2 recites the limitation "the poppet shoulder portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, “the poppet shoulder portion” will be interpreted as “the shoulder portion” from Claim 1, line 3.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the seat seal surface” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the one or more lateral flow apertures” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the central cavity” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the seat carrier” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, “the seat carrier” will be interpreted as referring to “a seat carrier subassembly” from line 1 of Claim 8.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "a radially extending poppet sealing portion" in line 3. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if this is the same sealing portion from Claim 6 (an upward facing radially extending sealing portion) or a different sealing portion. For purposes of examination, they will be interpreted as being the same.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the poppet shoulder portion" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, “the poppet shoulder portion” will be interpreted as “the shoulder portion” from Claim 6, line 9.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the seat seal surface” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the body plug” in lines 14 (two instances) and 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the poppet shoulder portion" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, “the poppet shoulder portion” will be interpreted as “the shoulder portion” from Claim 16, line 7.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the seat seal surface” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims not specifically referenced are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa (US 20080047618) in view of Baranowski Jr (US 3699998).
Regarding Claim 1, Ishikawa discloses a poppet subassembly (Figure 8; 114, 117 and 118). The subassembly comprising:
a poppet (114) including a central portion (generally the area of the valve element 113) disposed between axially extending upper (the upper stem portion attaching to 128 as seen in Figure 8) and lower (the lower stem portion surrounded by the spring 118 and inserted into guide 106 as seen in Figure 8) stem portions, the central portion defining an upward facing radially extending sealing portion (113 which sits on 112) and a downward facing radially extending shoulder portion (on which spring 118 sits below the o-ring 115);
a retaining clip (117); and
a poppet spring (118) disposed around the lower stem portion (Figure 8) and captured between the shoulder portion (on which spring 118 sits below the o-ring 115) and the retaining clip (117),
But fails to expressly disclose where the retaining clip is secured above an enlarged foot portion of the lower stem portion.
Baranowski Jr teach a retaining clip (13), where the retaining clip is secured above and enlarged foot portion (the flange at the lower end of stem 4a as seen in the orientation of Figure 1) of the lower stem portion (Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the poppet of Ishikawa with the enlarged foot portion as taught by Baranowski Jr for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the enlarged foot portion of the poppet of Baranowski Jr with the poppet of Ishikawa) to yield predictable results (to secure the poppet and limit travel of the poppet within the valve).
Regarding Claim 2, Ishikawa discloses where the poppet spring (118) is pre-compressed between the poppet shoulder portion and the retaining clip (to close the valve of Figure 8).
Regarding Claim 6, Ishikawa discloses a valve (Figure 8). The valve comprising:
a valve body housing (34) including a central bore (95) disposed between first (80) and second end ports (150);
a body plug (100) installed in the central bore of the valve body housing (within 34; Figure 8), such that at least one of the one or more lateral flow apertures (109) is in fluid communication with the first end port (with 80 in Figure 8); and
a poppet subassembly (114, 117 and 118) comprising:
a poppet (114) including a central portion (generally the area of the valve element 113) disposed between axially extending upper (the upper stem portion attaching to 128 as seen in Figure 8) and lower (the lower stem portion surrounded by the spring 118 and inserted into guide 106 as seen in Figure 8) stem portions, the central portion defining an upward facing radially extending sealing portion (113 which sits on 112) and a downward facing radially extending shoulder portion (on which spring 118 sits below the o-ring 115);
a retaining clip (117); and
a poppet spring (118) disposed around the lower stem portion (Figure 8) and captured between the shoulder portion (on which spring 118 sits below the o-ring 115) and the retaining clip (117),
wherein the retaining clip (117) is seated in a counterbore in the central bore of the valve body housing (within 95c as seen in Figure 8), with the retaining clip (117) being positioned to compress the poppet spring (Figure 8),
But fails to expressly disclose where the retaining clip is secured above an enlarged foot portion of the lower stem portion.
Baranowski Jr teach a retaining clip (13), where the retaining clip is secured above and enlarged foot portion (the flange at the lower end of stem 4a as seen in the orientation of Figure 1) of the lower stem portion (Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the poppet of Ishikawa with the enlarged foot portion as taught by Baranowski Jr for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the enlarged foot portion of the poppet of Baranowski Jr with the poppet of Ishikawa) to yield predictable results (to secure the poppet and limit travel of the poppet within the valve).
Regarding Claim 7, Baranowski Jr teaches where the retaining clip (13) is axially spaced apart from the enlarged foot portion of the poppet (from the flange of Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 10, Ishikawa discloses a guide ring (125a) installed in an upper recess of the valve body housing (within 149; Figure 8) receiving the upper stem portion of the poppet (Figure 8).
Regarding Claim 11, Ishikawa discloses where the guide ring (125a) includes an O-ring (134) that provides a guiding seal against the upper stem portion of the poppet (Figure 8 with 128a as part of the upper stem portion of the poppet).
Regarding Claim 12, Ishikawa discloses where the poppet spring (118) is pre-compressed between the poppet shoulder portion and the retaining clip (Figure 8).
Claim(s) 3, 5, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Ishikawa (US 20080047618) in view of Baranowski Jr (US 3699998).
Regarding Claim 3, Ishikawa as modified by Baranowski Jr teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly teach where the retaining clip comprises an e-shaped retaining clip.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the retaining clip to be e-shaped since a change in shape of an element involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a secure retaining clip. Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality that having an e-shaped retaining clip, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding Claim 5, Ishikawa as modified by Baranowski Jr teach a gasket seal (116 of Ishikawa in Figure 8) and an enlarged foot portion (the flange of Baranowski Jr at the lower end of stem 4a as seen in the orientation of Figure 1), but fails to expressly disclose where the gasket seal is disposed on the enlarged foot portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the gasket seal to be the enlarged foot portion since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to allow the widest part of the stem to engage with the seal.
Regarding Claim 13, Ishikawa as modified by Baranowski Jr teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly teach where the retaining clip comprises an e-shaped retaining clip.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the retaining clip to be e-shaped since a change in shape of an element involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a secure retaining clip. Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality that having an e-shaped retaining clip, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding Claim 15, Ishikawa as modified by Baranowski Jr teach a gasket seal (116 of Ishikawa in Figure 8) and an enlarged foot portion (the flange of Baranowski Jr at the lower end of stem 4a as seen in the orientation of Figure 1), but fails to expressly disclose where the gasket seal is disposed on the enlarged foot portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the gasket seal to be the enlarged foot portion since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to allow the widest part of the stem to engage with the seal.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa (US 20080047618) in view of Baranowski Jr (US 3699998) in further view of Gotthelf (US 5443083).
Regarding Claim 4, Ishikawa as modified by Baranowski Jr teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly teach where the poppet includes an internal passage extending from the lower stem portion to an upper portion of the poppet downstream of the seat seal surface.
Gotthelf teaches a poppet valve subassembly (Figure 2) with a poppet (48) where the poppet includes an internal passage (54) extending from the lower stem portion (to 42 as seen in Figure 2) to an upper portion of the poppet downstream of the seat seal surface (to 40 as seen in Figure 2).
Since Ishikawa connects chamber 156 to 150 via both 105 and 165,
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the poppet subassembly of Ishikawa as modified by Baranowski Jr with the internal passage as taught by Gotthelf for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (providing the internal passage of the poppet of Gotthelf within the poppet of Ishikawa) to yield predictable results (to allow fluid pressure equalization).
Regarding Claim 14, Ishikawa as modified by Baranowski Jr teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly teach where the poppet includes an internal passage extending from the lower stem portion to an upper portion of the poppet downstream of the seat seal surface.
Gotthelf teaches a poppet valve subassembly (Figure 2) with a poppet (48) where the poppet includes an internal passage (54) extending from the lower stem portion (to 42 as seen in Figure 2) to an upper portion of the poppet downstream of the seat seal surface (to 40 as seen in Figure 2).
Since Ishikawa connects chamber 156 to 150 via both 105 and 165,
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the poppet subassembly of Ishikawa as modified by Baranowski Jr with the internal passage as taught by Gotthelf for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (providing the internal passage of the poppet of Gotthelf within the poppet of Ishikawa) to yield predictable results (to allow fluid pressure equalization).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Ishikawa (US 20080047618) in view of Baranowski Jr (US 3699998) in further view of Gannon (US 2485092).
Regarding Claim 8, Ishikawa as modified by Baranowski Jr teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly teach where a seat carrier subassembly disposed in the valve body housing and secured between an end face of the body plug and a counterbore in the central cavity, with the seat carrier including a seat seal surface for sealing engagement with a radially extending poppet sealing portion of the poppet.
Gannon teach a valve (Figure 1) where a seat carrier subassembly (11 generally) disposed in the valve body housing (10 generally) and secured between an end face of the body plug (of 22 against 43) and a counterbore in the central cavity (32), with the seat carrier including a seat seal surface (at least 48) for sealing engagement with a radially extending poppet sealing portion of the poppet (16; Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve of Ishikawa as modified by Baranowski Jr to provide for the seat carrier subassembly of Gannon for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the seat carrier subassembly of Gannon) to yield predictable results (provide a removable and replaceable valve seat interface).
Regarding Claim 9, Ishikawa discloses where the poppet spring (118) is configured to provide a consistent closing force against the poppet independent of system fluid pressure (Figure 8 via the interaction between ring 117 and the poppet).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 16, the closest prior art appears to be Gannon (US 2485092) in view of Ishikawa (US 20080047618) in view of Baranowski Jr (US 3699998).
Gannon discloses a method of assembling a poppet (15) with a valve body housing (10), the method comprising:
inserting a seat carrier (11 generally) into the valve body housing (into 10; Figure 1) through a lower end of a central cavity of the valve body housing (Figure 1 though 10 from the bottom of the orientation of Figure 1);
providing a poppet subassembly (17, 15 and 18) comprising:
a poppet (15 and 17) including a central portion (15) disposed between axially extending upper stem portion (17), the central portion defining an upward facing radially extending sealing portion (16);
and a poppet spring (18);
installing the body plug (22) over the poppet by threading the body plug with the valve body housing to secure the seat carrier against a counterbore of the valve body housing (Figure 1 against 32),
but fails to expressly disclose the central portion disposed between axially extending upper and lower stem portions, the central portion defining a downward facing radially extending shoulder portion; a retaining clip secured above an enlarged foot portion of the lower stem portion; and a poppet spring disposed around the lower stem portion and captured between the shoulder portion and the retaining clip; installing the poppet subassembly in the central cavity of the valve body housing, with the upper stem portion of the poppet extending through a central bore of the seat carrier such that a counterbore of the body plug engages the retaining clip to move the retaining clip away from the foot portion of the lower stem portion of the poppet and compress the poppet spring to a desired compression.
Ishikawa teaches a valve (Figure 8). The valve comprising:
a valve body housing (34) including a central bore (95) disposed between first (80) and second end ports (150);
a body plug (100) installed in the central bore of the valve body housing (within 34; Figure 8), such that at least one of the one or more lateral flow apertures (109) is in fluid communication with the first end port (with 80 in Figure 8); and
a poppet subassembly (114, 117 and 118) comprising:
a poppet (114) including a central portion (generally the area of the valve element 113) disposed between axially extending upper (the upper stem portion attaching to 128 as seen in Figure 8) and lower (the lower stem portion surrounded by the spring 118 and inserted into guide 106 as seen in Figure 8) stem portions, the central portion defining an upward facing radially extending sealing portion (113 which sits on 112) and a downward facing radially extending shoulder portion (on which spring 118 sits below the o-ring 115);
a retaining clip (117); and
a poppet spring (118) disposed around the lower stem portion (Figure 8) and captured between the shoulder portion (on which spring 118 sits below the o-ring 115) and the retaining clip (117),
wherein the retaining clip (117) is seated in a counterbore in the central bore of the valve body housing (within 95c as seen in Figure 8), with the retaining clip (117) being positioned to compress the poppet spring (Figure 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve of Gannon with the poppet subassembly as taught by Ishikawa for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the poppet subassembly of Ishikawa within the valve of Gannon) to yield predictable results (to secure the poppet and limit travel of the poppet within the valve).
Baranowski Jr teach a retaining clip (13), where the retaining clip is secured above and enlarged foot portion (the flange at the lower end of stem 4a as seen in the orientation of Figure 1) of the lower stem portion (Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the poppet of Ishikawa with the enlarged foot portion as taught by Baranowski Jr for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the enlarged foot portion of the poppet of Baranowski Jr with the poppet of Ishikawa) to yield predictable results (to secure the poppet and limit travel of the poppet within the valve).
Therefore, claim 16 is indicated as allowed for claiming, along with the entirety of the claim limitations, “installing the body plug over the lower stem portion of the poppet by threading the body plug with the valve body housing to secure the seat carrier against a counterbore of the valve body housing, such that a counterbore of the body plug engages the retaining clip to move the retaining clip away from the foot portion of the lower stem portion of the poppet and compress the poppet spring to a desired compression”. This limitation is neither anticipated by, nor rendered obvious over, the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE GARDNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-4PM EST.
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 (571-272-4881) or CRAIG SCHNEIDER (571-272-3607) can be reached by telephone. 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.
/NICOLE GARDNER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights