DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 1-14 as filed 4/02/2025 are pending for consideration.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “has as head end” (line 6 of the claim) should be “has a head end”. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 10 be found allowable, claim 12 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 6-14 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 6 recites “the second spring biasing the poppet against the first spring to the open position by default” and further recites “a piston adjacent the first spring”. These limitations are unclear because applicant’s piston is adjacent to spring 24 and therefore spring 24 must be the claimed first spring. However, it is this same first spring 24 which biases the poppet to the open position by default (not the second spring as claimed). Therefore, it appears that the above limitation should be “the first spring biasing the poppet against the second spring to the open position by default” and the claim is interpreted accordingly.
Claim 7 recites “the head”. It is unclear whether this limitation is intended to recite “the head end” or further introduce “a head”.
Claim 8 recites “the head”. It is unclear whether this limitation is intended to recite “the head end” or further introduce “a head”.
Claim 13 recites “avoiding step shifts in pressure due to slipping”. The metes and bounds of this limitation are unclear, as it is unclear what is specifically required by a “step shift in pressure”. As best understood a seal moving along a body does not necessarily result in a step shift in pressure and therefore it is unclear what is intended by these limitations.
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 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) 1, 3, 6, 8, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gotthelf (US Patent 6,986,338).
Regarding Claim 1, Gotthelf discloses a pressure-reducing valve comprising: a valve body 10 defining an inlet 12, an outlet 14, a chamber (chamber including the region within which the conical poppet valve 24 is provided), and a flow path from the inlet to the outlet through the chamber (through the seat or nozzle 22); a poppet 24 and valve seat 22 disposed in the chamber (as shown in Figure 1), the poppet 24 moveable over a stroke distance with respect to the valve seat 22 between open and closed positions for flow through the flow path (movable from the closed position shown in Figure 1 to an open position against the force of spring 26), the poppet being in the open position by default (via the spring 34 being stronger than the spring 26; col. 3, lines 1-3), wherein the poppet 24 has a head end (the conical end as shown in Figure 1) and a shank end (opposite end of the poppet, provided within the plug 28 as shown in Figure 1), wherein the poppet has a gland (circumferential groove on the poppet provided for the unnumbered o-ring which seals against the plug 28 as shown in Figure 1) disposed circumferentially near the shank end (the groove for the o-ring described above is a circumferential groove near the rightmost end of the poppet which defines the shank end); and a non-slip seal (the unnumbered o-ring provided within the gland is readable as a non-slip seal in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s o-ring; it is noted that the o-ring necessarily stays within the circumferential groove or gland and therefore does not “slip” relative to the plunger and therefore is seen to be readable as a non-slip seal as claimed) disposed between the gland and the valve body in the chamber (as shown in Figure 1; it is noted that the plug 28 is seen to be readable as part of the valve body), the non-slip seal sealing the poppet 24 against the valve body in the chamber (as described above), the non-slip seal experiencing elastic deformation upon movement of the poppet over the stroke distance (an o-ring as shown in Figure 1 inherently experiences elastic deformation because an o-ring, to achieve a seal, must be compressed at least slightly; therefore, the o-ring shown in Figure 1 is seen to necessarily experience elastic deformation upon movement of the poppet over the stroke distance because the o-ring experiences elastic deformation at all positions of the poppet), the elastic deformation providing elastic potential energy (the compression of the o-ring inherently provides elastic potential energy) that acts to bias the poppet against the movement (the compression of the o-ring and the resulting elastic potential energy creates a static friction to movement of the poppet and therefore is seen to act to bias the poppet against the movement).
Regarding Claim 3, Gotthelf further discloses the poppet 24 is pressure-actuated (via pressure acting on piston 30).
Regarding Claim 6, Gotthelf discloses a pressure-reducing valve comprising: a valve body 10 defining an inlet 12, an outlet 14, a chamber (chamber including the region within which the conical poppet valve 24 is provided), and a flow path from the inlet to the outlet through the chamber (through the seat or nozzle 22); a poppet 24 having a head end (the conical end as shown in Figure 1), a shank end (opposite end of the poppet, provided within the plug 28 as shown in Figure 1), and a gland (circumferential groove on the poppet provided for the unnumbered o-ring which seals against the plug 28 as shown in Figure 1) disposed circumferentially near the shank end (the groove for the o-ring described above is a circumferential groove near the rightmost end of the poppet which defines the shank end); a valve seat 22 disposed in the chamber (as shown in Figure 1), the poppet 24 moveable over a stroke distance with respect to the valve seat 22 between open and closed positions for flow through the flow path (movable from the closed position shown in Figure 1 to an open position against the force of spring 26); a first spring 34 and an opposed second spring 26, the second spring 26 biasing the poppet 24 against the first spring 34 to the open position by default (as best understood as described above; it appears that this limitation should be the first spring biasing the poppet to the open position by default and this is achieved by Gotthelf because the spring 34 is stronger than the spring 26; col. 3, lines 1-3); a piston 30 adjacent the first spring 34, the first spring 34 acting on the piston 30 to move the poppet (via 32), the piston defining a plenum (part 18b of cavity 18; part 18b being provided between the piston 30 and the left end of the seat sleeve 22); a pressure tap (passage 20) connecting the outlet 14 to the plenum 18b (col. 2, lines 20-25), wherein pressure in the outlet 14 serves as feedback to the piston 30 through the pressure tap 20, the pressure acting on the piston 30 against the first spring 34 (because the pressure is fed to plenum 18b on the opposite side of the piston 30 from the spring 34) to thereby regulate movement of the poppet 24 (via coupling 32); and a non-slip seal (the unnumbered o-ring provided within the gland is readable as a non-slip seal in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s o-ring; it is noted that the o-ring necessarily stays within the circumferential groove or gland and therefore does not “slip” relative to the plunger and therefore is seen to be readable as a non-slip seal as claimed) disposed between the gland and the valve body in the chamber (as shown in Figure 1; it is noted that the plug 28 is seen to be readable as part of the valve body), the non-slip seal experiencing elastic deformation upon movement of the poppet over the stroke distance (an o-ring as shown in Figure 1 inherently experiences elastic deformation because an o-ring, to achieve a seal, must be compressed at least slightly; therefore, the o-ring shown in Figure 1 is seen to necessarily experience elastic deformation upon movement of the poppet over the stroke distance because the o-ring experiences elastic deformation at all positions of the poppet), the elastic deformation providing elastic potential energy (the compression of the o-ring inherently provides elastic potential energy) that acts to bias the poppet against the movement (the compression of the o-ring and the resulting elastic potential energy creates a static friction to movement of the poppet and therefore is seen to act to bias the poppet against the movement).
Regarding Claim 8, Gotthelf further discloses the head (the conical portion of the poppet) has a head diameter (for the purpose of this claim, the diameter of the conical portion of the poppet at the narrowest end of the conical portion is relied upon as readable on the recited diameter), and a chamber diameter of the chamber at the non-slip seal (i.e. the diameter of the chamber within plug 28 as shown in Figure 1) is greater than the head diameter (the diameter of the chamber within plug 28 is greater than the narrowest diameter of the conical portion defining the head of the poppet).
Regarding Claim 13, as best understood Gotthelf is seen as further disclosing the non-slip seal (the unnumbered o-ring described above provided to seal against plug 28) is non-slip along the valve body in the chamber over the stroke distance (this is seen to be achieved because the o-ring necessarily stays within the circumferential groove or gland; the term “non-slip along the valve body” is not given a specific definition and therefore because the seal does not “slip” relative to the plunger it is seen to be non-slip along the valve body in the chamber over the stroke distance as claimed), thereby avoiding step shifts in pressure due to slipping (as best understood as described above; the valve is capable of providing smooth pressure changes and “avoiding step shifts in pressure due to slipping” because the seal maintains a sealing contact between the poppet and the valve body).
Regarding Claim 14, Gotthelf further discloses an additional non-slip seal on the piston 30 (unnumbered o-ring seal provided within a circumferential groove on piston 30 as shown in Figure 1; this seal necessarily stays within the circumferential groove on the piston and therefore is seen to be readable as a “non-slip seal” as claimed).
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.
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 2, 5, 7, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gotthelf (US Patent 6,986,338).
Regarding Claims 2 and 7, Gotthelf further discloses the head (conical portion of the poppet) bears against the valve seat when in the closed position (as shown in Figure1) and the head has a diameter D (as shown in Figure 1). Gotthelf is silent on the ratio of the diameter of the head of the poppet to the stroke distance and therefore does not disclose a ratio of diameter D to the stroke distance is 625:1 to 200:1.
However, modifications of the ratio of the diameter of the poppet head to the stroke distance require a mere change in size/proportion and it has been generally held that a mere change in size/proportion is within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that decreasing the stroke of the valve will create a larger resistance to fluid flow while increasing the diameter of the head (and more specifically the corresponding passage through the valve seat) will decrease the resistance to fluid flow.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Gotthelf such that the ratio of the diameter of the poppet head to the stroke distance is any desired ratio, including a ratio between 625:1 and 200:1, for the purpose of providing a desired flow characteristic through the valve. It is further noted that applicant’s specification as filed does not describe any unexpected result derived from the claimed ratio.
Regarding Claims 5, 10, and 12, Gotthelf is silent on the stroke distance of the valve and therefore does not disclose the stroke distance is from one to three mils (thousandths of an inch).
However, modifications of the stroke distance require a mere change in size/proportion and it has been generally held that a mere change in size/proportion is within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that decreasing the stroke of the valve will create a larger resistance to fluid flow while increasing the stroke distance will allow for greater flow through the valve.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Gotthelf such that the stroke distance of the valve is any desired distance, including a distance from one to three mils (thousands of an inch), for the purpose of providing a desired flow characteristic through the valve. It is further noted that applicant’s specification as filed does not describe any unexpected result derived from the claimed stroke distance.
Claims 4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gotthelf (US Patent 6,986,338) in view of Shima et al. (US Patent 9,400,506).
Regarding Claims 4 and 9, Gotthelf further discloses the non-slip seal is an o-ring (as shown in Figure 1 as described above). However, Gotthelf is silent on the material of the o-ring and therefore does not disclose the o-ring is an elastomer o-ring.
Shima teaches a pressure regulating valve (abstract) and further teaches the use of an elastomer o-ring 38 (col. 5, lines 37-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Gotthelf such that the o-ring is an elastomer o-ring as taught by Shima for the purpose of utilizing a readily available material known in the art to be suitable for use in o-ring seals.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gotthelf (US Patent 6,986,338) in view of Koenig et al. (US Patent Application 2017/0123439).
Regarding Claim 11, Gotthelf further discloses the second spring 26 is a coil spring (as shown in Figure 1).
Gotthelf does not disclose the first spring is a Belleville spring.
Koenig teaches a spring biased fluid regulator and further teaches a first spring 45 to bias a piston 49 is a Belleville spring (para. 0035) and a second spring 24 to bias a poppet 25 is a coil spring (para. 0032).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Gotthelf such that the first spring is a Belleville spring as taught by Koenig for the purpose of providing an alternative spring structure which is more compact and known in the art to be suitable for biasing a piston in a fluid regulator.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cavaliere (US Patent 6,505,838) teaches a peripheral seal which does not slip relative to a piston and a valve body (Figure 5). Saito et al. (US Patent 9,897,219) teaches a piston controlled pressure reducing valve.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-4pm.
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 supervisor, Craig Schneider can be reached on (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 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.
/KEVIN F MURPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
