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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendment dated 9/10/2026. The amendments to the specification and drawings have been received and accepted. The previous claim objection has been withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment. The previous claim interpretation under 112(f) remains but is not repeated below for brevity. Claims 1-3 and 5-21 remain pending. Claims 18-21 are newly presented. Any new ground(s) of rejection below have been made due to applicant’s amendment. This action is Final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/11/2026 was before the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection on 6/12/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 102 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nalini et al. (U.S. 8,235,354).
Nalini discloses a valve for regulating a fluid flow between a first (12) and a second (13) port of a valve housing (11), said valve comprising a piston (17) movably arranged within a valve cylinder (31), the piston comprising a front surface (20, 22), the piston being axially movable within the valve cylinder at least between an opened position in which said fluid can flow between said first and second ports and a closed position in which the front surface of the piston blocks a flow of the fluid (col. 2, ll. 64 – col. 3, ll. 10), a balance chamber (34) being arranged behind the piston, opposite to the front surface, and wherein the front surface of the piston comprises at least a first opening with a first channel (23, 24b) connected to the balance chamber and a second opening with a second channel (23, 24a) connected to the balance chamber, each of said first and second opening being arranged at a distance from a center of the front surface of the piston (from the center at B best depicted in figs. 5a-5b), wherein the first opening is arranged at a first radial distance from the center of the front surface of the piston, and the second opening is arranged at a second radial distance from the center of the front surface of the piston, wherein the first radial distance is greater than the second radial distance (best depicted in fig. 5b, first opening 24b is farther from the center than second opening 24a), wherein the first and second openings are arranged at positions within the front surface of the piston defining a first radius from the center of the front surface of the piston to the first opening and a second radius from the center of the front surface of the piston to the second opening, wherein an angle formed between the first and second radii is greater than 20 degrees and less than 160 degrees (for instance, a radius formed from the center to one of the openings of 24a on the top or bottom end (along F) as compared to a radius formed from the center to one of the openings of 24b on the left or right end (along E) forms a 90 degree angle between the first and second radii).
Regarding claim 19, Nalini further discloses wherein the first radial distance is at least 3% greater than the second radial distance (as evident from fig. 5b).
Regarding claim 20, Nalini further discloses wherein the piston has a radial extension measured at the front surface, wherein each of the first radial distance and the second radial distance are at least 40% of the radial extension (as evident from fig. 5b, with 24a and 24b both being at least 40%).
Regarding claim 21, Nalini further discloses wherein the piston comprises a hollow space (the space within 22), and the channels connect the first and second opening to the hollow space (fig. 2 and 5a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 103 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nalini et al..
In the event that applicant is not convinced that the first radial distance is at least 3% greater than the second radial distance, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nalini by having the first distance be at least 3% greater than the second radial distance, since it has been held that a change of relative size/dimensions involves only routine skill in the art and there is no apparent criticality in the applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP2144.04. The motivation for doing so would be to have the openings placed in any relative radial distance with respect to each other and the radial center as desired by a user for a particular application and fluid flow characteristics.
Regarding claim 20, in the event that applicant is not convinced that each of the first radial distance and the second radial distance are at least 40% of the radial extension, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nalini by having each of the first radial distance and the second radial distance are at least 40% of the radial extension, since it has been held that a change of relative size/dimensions involves only routine skill in the art and there is no apparent criticality in the applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP2144.04. The motivation for doing so would be to have the openings placed in any relative radial distance with respect to the radial center as desired by a user for a particular application and fluid flow characteristics.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5 to the top of page 6 of the response, filed 9/10/2026, with respect to amended claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102 rejection of amended claim 1 has been withdrawn. The closest prior art of record includes the following: Banks (U.S. 3,318,577) discloses a balanced valve. Figure 5 of Banks discloses a balanced valve with a housing, cylinder, piston, and balance chamber. The piston has two openings. The cylinder has one or more window openings. However, the piston openings are not in the arrangement as claimed by the applicant with respect to the window openings of the cylinder. Applicant defines the recitation of “in front of one of the window openings” as a position within a section of the front surface of the piston, visible in front view, which is bordered by radial lines extending from the center to the edges of the window opening. While it could be argued one of the openings of Banks is “in front of one of the window openings”, the other opening would also be in front of the window opening, and not be “not in front of one of the window openings” as recited by the applicant.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 and 5-17 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: claim 1 has been amended to include the limitations from previous claim 4. Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous 102 rejection of claim 4 have been found persuasive. Further, with respect to claim 1 and the Nalini reference, Nalini is not seen to have window opening(s) in the cylinder and there is no readily apparent motivation to include window openings (and necessarily as well the claimed arrangement of the piston openings with respect to the window openings) as this would require substantial reconstruction and modification to the structure forming the fluid flow path and Nalini functions properly as is.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
