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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group B, claims 5 and 15-16, in the reply filed on 7/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4 and 6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/28/2026.
It is noted that, in the Requirement for Restriction dated 5/28/2026, claim 15 was inadvertently listed in a separate group from claim 14. Claim 15 depends from claim 14. In order to correct this, the examiner will examine claim 14 as well as part of the elected group B. It is noted that Claims 4 and 6 remain withdrawn as part of non-elected groups A and C, respectively, as lack of unity between these groups was shown in the Requirement for Restriction dated 5/28/2026 and also as evidenced by the art rejections below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) dated 2/11/2025 has been received and considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because hatching has not been shown to indicate sectional portions of the figures in accordance with 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3). See in particular figures 3-8.
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 § 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.
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) 1-3, 7-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCormick et al. (U.S. 9,845,901).
McCormick discloses a control valve, comprising: an inlet (210); an outlet (212); a cage (202) downstream of the inlet and upstream of the outlet, wherein the cage comprises a plurality of ports (316, 318, see multiples of each shown in at least fig. 3); wherein each port of the cage has a converging-diverging profile (best shown in figs. 3 and 5) and comprises: a port inlet (316); a port outlet (318) having a cross-sectional area; a throat (506) positioned between the port inlet and the port outlet, wherein the throat has a cross-sectional area (best shown in figs. 3 and 5); a converging section (502) extending from the port inlet to the throat; and a diverging section (504) extending from the throat to the port outlet; wherein each port has an AR ratio defined by the ratio of the cross-sectional area of the port outlet to the cross-sectional area of the throat (see the ratio of the area of the opening at 318/510 to the area of the opening at 506).
While McCormick does show in figs. 3 and 5 the area of the port outlet being substantially greater than the area of the throat, McCormick is silent as to wherein the AR ratio of at least one port is at least 6.0 (or at least 7.0 for claim 2).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McCormick by having the ratio of the cross-sectional area of the port outlet to the cross-sectional area of the throat be at least 6.0 (or at least 7.0 for claim 2), since it has been held that a change in size / relative dimensions of a component(s) generally involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.04 and as there is no demonstrated criticality to the specific ratio of 6.0 or 7.0. The motivation for doing so would be to have fluid passages through the cage be sized as desired by a user for a particular application and desired fluid flow characteristics (as contemplated by McCormick, see col. 7, ll. 46-50).
Regarding claim 2, McCormick as modified further discloses wherein the AR ratio of the at least one port is at least 7.0 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 3, McCormick as modified discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose wherein the AR ratio of each port is at least 6.0.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McCormick by having each of the ports have the AR ratio of 6.0, since it has been held that the duplication of essential working components of a device generally involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.04. The motivation for doing so would be to have each of the ports provide the desired fluid flow characteristics (as contemplated by McCormick, see col. 7, ll. 46-50).
Regarding claim 7, McCormick as modified further discloses wherein the throat is positioned closer to the port inlet than the port outlet along the port (fig. 5, col. 8, ll. 58-60).
Regarding claim 8, McCormick as modified further discloses wherein the diverging section is characterized by a diffusion angle α from about 5 degrees to about 20 degrees (see col. 9, ll. 15-18 describing the angle as being about between 2 and 4 degrees, with 4 degrees considered to be “about” 5 degrees).
In the event that applicant is not convinced that 4 degrees is “about” 5 degrees to “about” 20 degrees, 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 angle of the taper of the diverging section such that it is from about 5 degrees to about 20 degrees, since it has been held that a change in size/shape of a component generally involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.04 and as there is no demonstrated criticality to the specific range of about 5 degrees to about 20 degrees. The motivation for doing so would be to have fluid passages through the cage be sized/shaped as desired by a user for a particular application and desired fluid flow characteristics (as contemplated by McCormick, see col. 7, ll. 46-50).
Regarding claim 9, McCormick as modified further discloses wherein the diffusion angle α ranges from about 6 degrees to about 15 degrees (see col. 9, ll. 15-18 describing the angle as being about between 2 and 4 degrees, with 4 degrees considered to be “about” 6 degrees).
In the event that applicant is not convinced that 4 degrees is “about” 6 degrees to “about” 15 degrees, 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 angle of the taper of the diverging section such that it is from about 6 degrees to about 15 degrees, since it has been held that a change in size/shape of a component generally involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.04 and as there is no demonstrated criticality to the specific range of about 6 degrees to about 15 degrees. The motivation for doing so would be to have fluid passages through the cage be sized/shaped as desired by a user for a particular application and desired fluid flow characteristics (as contemplated by McCormick, see col. 7, ll. 46-50).
Regarding claim 10, McCormick as modified further discloses wherein the diffusion angle α is about 7 degrees (see col. 9, ll. 15-18 describing the angle as being about between 2 and 4 degrees, with 4 degrees considered to be “about” 7 degrees).
In the event that applicant is not convinced that 4 degrees is “about” 7 degrees, 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 angle of the taper of the diverging section such that it is about 7 degrees, since it has been held that a change in size/shape of a component generally involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.04 and as there is no demonstrated criticality to the specific angle of about 7 degrees. The motivation for doing so would be to have fluid passages through the cage be sized/shaped as desired by a user for a particular application and desired fluid flow characteristics (as contemplated by McCormick, see col. 7, ll. 46-50).
Regarding claim 11, McCormick as modified further discloses wherein the inlet port of each port has a cross-sectional area (at 508), and wherein the cross-sectional area of the port outlet of each port is greater than the cross-sectional area of the port inlet of the corresponding port (as shown in fig. 5, see also fig. 3).
Regarding claim 12, McCormick discloses a control valve, comprising: an inlet (210); an outlet (212); a cage (202) downstream of the inlet and upstream of the outlet, wherein the cage comprises a plurality of ports (316, 318, see multiples of each shown in at least fig. 3); wherein each port of the cage has a converging-diverging profile (best shown in figs. 3 and 5) and comprises: a port inlet (316); a port outlet (318); a throat (506) positioned between the port inlet and the port outlet; a converging section (502) extending from the port inlet to the throat; and a diverging section (504) extending from the throat to the port outlet.
While McCormick does disclose the diverging section having an angle of about between 2 degrees and 4 degrees (col. 9, ll. 15-18), McCormick does not appear to disclose wherein the diverging section is characterized by a diffusion angle α ranging from 6 degrees to about 15 degrees.
However, 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 angle of the taper of the diverging section such that it is from 6 degrees to about 15 degrees, since it has been held that a change in size/shape of a component generally involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.04 and as there is no demonstrated criticality to the specific range of 6 degrees to about 15 degrees. The motivation for doing so would be to have fluid passages through the cage be sized/shaped as desired by a user for a particular application and desired fluid flow characteristics (as contemplated by McCormick, see col. 7, ll. 46-50).
Regarding claim 13, McCormick as modified discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose wherein the diffusion angle α is about 7 degrees.
However, 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 angle of the taper of the diverging section such that it is about 7 degrees, since it has been held that a change in size/shape of a component generally involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.04 and as there is no demonstrated criticality to the specific angle of about 7 degrees. The motivation for doing so would be to have fluid passages through the cage be sized/shaped as desired by a user for a particular application and desired fluid flow characteristics (as contemplated by McCormick, see col. 7, ll. 46-50).
Regarding claim 14, McCormick as modified further discloses wherein the converging section or the diverging section comprises a curved profile (the converging section at the area of 518 is curved, as it is an arcuate taper).
Regarding claim 15, McCormick as modified further discloses wherein the converging section or the diverging section comprises a frustoconical profile (diverging section is frustoconical, see figs. 3 and 5).
Regarding claim 17, McCormick as modified further discloses wherein the throat of each port is positioned closer to the port inlet than the port outlet along the port of the corresponding port (fig. 5, col. 8, ll. 58-60).
Regarding claim 18, McCormick as modified discloses the claimed invention and further discloses wherein the port outlet of each port has a cross-sectional area (figs. 3-6) and the throat of each port has a cross-sectional area (figs. 3-6), wherein each port has an AR ratio defined by the ratio of the cross-sectional area of the port outlet of the port to the cross-sectional area of the throat of the port (see the ratio of the area of the opening at 318/510 to the area of the opening at 506).
While McCormick does show in figs. 3 and 5 the area of the port outlet being substantially greater than the area of the throat, McCormick is silent as to wherein the AR ratio of at least one port is at least 6.0 (or at least 7.0 for claim 2).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McCormick by having the ratio of the cross-sectional area of the port outlet to the cross-sectional area of the throat be at least 6.0 (or at least 7.0 for claim 19), since it has been held that a change in size / relative dimensions of a component(s) generally involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.04 and as there is no demonstrated criticality to the specific ratio of 6.0 or 7.0. The motivation for doing so would be to have fluid passages through the cage be sized as desired by a user for a particular application and desired fluid flow characteristics (as contemplated by McCormick, see col. 7, ll. 46-50).
Regarding claim 19, McCormick as modified further discloses wherein the AR ratio of the at least one port is at least 7.0 (see the rejection of claim 18 above).
Regarding claim 20, McCormick as modified further discloses wherein the inlet port of each port has a cross-sectional area (at 508), and wherein the cross-sectional area of the port outlet of each port is greater than the cross-sectional area of the port inlet of the corresponding port (as shown in fig. 5, see also fig. 3).
Claim(s) 5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCormick in view of Singleton (U.S. 6,505,646).
McCormick as modified discloses the claimed invention and further discloses wherein the diverging section comprises a frustoconical profile (at 504).
McCormick does not appear to disclose wherein the converging section comprises a frustoconical profile.
Singleton teaches it was known in the art to have a similar cage for a control valve that has converging and diverging sections each with a frustoconical profile (see 8 in fig. 3, notice how there is a converging section that is frustoconical and tapers to a throat and then a diverging section also frustoconical that tapers outward).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify McCormick by having the converging section comprise a frustoconical profile as taught by Singleton in order to provide an easier to manufacture converging portion from the port to the throat yet still allows for a curvature at the port opening.
Regarding claim 16, McCormick as modified discloses the claimed invention and further discloses wherein the diverging section comprises a frustoconical profile (at 504).
McCormick does not appear to disclose wherein the converging section comprises a frustoconical profile.
Singleton teaches it was known in the art to have a similar cage for a control valve that has converging and diverging sections each with a frustoconical profile (see 8 in fig. 3, notice how there is a converging section that is frustoconical and tapers to a throat and then a diverging section also frustoconical that tapers outward).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify McCormick by having the converging section comprise a frustoconical profile as taught by Singleton in order to provide an easier to manufacture converging portion from the port to the throat yet still allows for a curvature at the port opening.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dinerman et al. (U.S. 8,979,067) discloses a cage type cartridge with curved passageways through the cage.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R REID whose telephone number is (313)446-4859. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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 can be reached by phone. Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607, or Ken 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.
/MICHAEL R REID/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights