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 of Species B, Figures 4-5 in the reply filed on 7/29/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 3 and 8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 7/29/2026.
Claims 12-16 are newly added. Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 9-16 are being examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) dated 8/1/2025 has been received and considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they are of inadequate reproduction quality. Formal drawings require that every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. (37 CFR 1.84(l)). The drawings appear to be faded and difficult to discern the various components of the device.
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 Objections
Claims 1-2 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 8, --the-- should be inserted prior to “one or more ports extend” in order to more clearly convey that the limitation of the “one or more ports” was previously introduced.
Claim 2, line 8, --the-- should be inserted prior to “poppet ports”.
Claim 11, line 7, --the-- should be inserted prior to “one or more ports extend” in order to more clearly convey that the limitation of the “one or more ports” was previously introduced.
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 9-10 and 15-16 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 9 recites the limitation "the restricted annular passage" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 is rejected due to its dependency on claim 9.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the restricted annular passage" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 is rejected due to its dependency on claim 15.
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, 5, 7, 11-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (U.S. 4,605,039) in view of Lee, II (U.S. 5,007,454).
Johnson discloses a fast-responding passive flow rate limiting valve for high pressure gas applications, the valve comprising: a body assembly comprising a valve body (24, optionally additionally including 20), an upstream flange (18) and a downstream flange (19), the upstream and downstream flanges connected to the valve body (figs. 2-5); the valve body having a flow passageway extending from an upstream end to a downstream end of the valve body (right to left in fig. 2), the flow passageway comprising a first bore portion (at the area of 25 on the right side) in the upstream end of the valve body in fluid communication with one or more ports (67, forming a port from 25 and 48) spaced around an inner passageway (the passageway in which 22 is located) in the upstream end of the valve body, and the inner passageway and one or more ports extend to a body elongate bore (at the area of 25 on the left side) which extends to the downstream end of the valve body; a poppet (22) arranged and designed to extend into and through the inner passageway (fig. 2), the poppet comprising an inner bore (32) having a poppet port (44/45), the poppet having an open position (fig. 2) and a closed position (fig. 5, see also the description of the poppet moving to a closed position in col. 4, ll. 62-67), in the open position the poppet port is unobstructed and open to the first bore portion (as the port is able to fluidly communicate and is directly axially aligned with 46 as shown in fig. 2) and in the closed position the poppet port is within the inner passageway and at least partially obstructed (partially obstructed as the port is not aligned with 46 as shown in fig. 5, as the port is not axially aligned with the port, the port is interpreted to be at least partially obstructed as fluid flow is not able to directly flow into or out of the port without having to change direction, as opposed to fig. 2); a spring (36) received within the body elongate bore, the spring providing a spring force on the poppet in an upstream direction (toward the right end); wherein the valve rapidly transitions from the open position to the closed position upon an upstream fluid pressure spike acting on the poppet causing a restriction to fluid flow and quickly limiting the flow rate through the valve (as described in col. 4, ll. 62-67, and wherein the term “rapidly transitions” is a broad, subjective temporal term).
While figures 2-5 appear to show a plurality of poppet port, labeled 44/45 in fig. 2, Johnson does not appear to definitively disclose the plurality of poppet ports based on the figures and specification.
However, Lee teaches it was known in the art to have a similar spring biased poppet with multiple radial ports (ports 54).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson by having the poppet have multiple ports as taught by Lee in order to allow more fluid flow through the poppet if so desired by a user for a particular application and especially as it has been held that the duplication of parts for a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.04.
Regarding claim 5, Johnson as modified further discloses wherein the plurality of poppet ports are radially-oriented (see radial orientation in fig. 2 and plurality taught by Lee above).
Regarding claim 7, Johnson as modified further discloses a spring preload adjustment adapter (37) received in a downstream end of the body elongate bore between the spring and the downstream flange and in contact with the spring (fig. 2), wherein a spring preload is sized such that there is always a net positive force to close the poppet at a desired closing differential pressure (col. 3, ll. 63 – col. 4, ll. 7).
Regarding claim 11, Johnson discloses a fast-responding passive flow rate limiting valve for installation between high pressure storage tanks and a flow control valve in a high pressure gas application (intended use in the preamble which has not been given patentable weight), the limiting valve comprising: a valve body (24, optionally additionally including 20) having a flow passageway extending from an upstream end to a downstream end of the valve body (right to left in fig. 2), the flow passageway comprising a first bore portion (at the area of 25 on the right side) in the upstream end of the valve body in fluid communication with one or more ports (67, forming a port from 25 and 48) spaced around an inner passageway (the passageway in which 22 is located) in the upstream end of the valve body, and the inner passageway and one or more ports extend to a body elongate bore (at the area of 25 on the left side) which extends to the downstream end of the valve body; a poppet (22) arranged and designed to extend into and through the inner passageway (fig. 2), the poppet comprising an inner bore (32) having a poppet port (44/45), the poppet having an open position (fig. 2) and a closed position (fig. 5, see also the description of the poppet moving to a closed position in col. 4, ll. 62-67), in the open position the poppet port is unobstructed and open to the first bore portion (as the port is able to fluidly communicate and is directly axially aligned with 46) and in the closed position the poppet port is within the inner passageway and at least partially obstructed (partially obstructed as the port is not aligned with 46 as shown in fig. 5, as the port is not axially aligned with the port, the port is interpreted to be at least partially obstructed as fluid flow is not able to directly flow into or out of the port without having to change direction, as opposed to fig. 2); a spring (36) received within the body elongate bore, the spring providing a spring force on the poppet in an upstream direction (toward the right end); wherein the valve rapidly transitions from the open position to the closed position upon an upstream fluid pressure spike acting on the poppet causing a restriction to fluid flow and quickly limiting the flow rate through the valve (as described in col. 4, ll. 62-67, and wherein the term “rapidly transitions” is a broad, subjective temporal term).
While figures 2-5 appear to show a plurality of poppet port, labeled 44/45 in fig. 2, Johnson does not appear to definitively disclose the plurality of poppet ports based on the figures and specification.
However, Lee teaches it was known in the art to have a similar spring biased poppet with multiple radial ports (ports 54).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson by having the poppet have multiple ports as taught by Lee in order to allow more fluid flow through the poppet if so desired by a user for a particular application and especially as it has been held that the duplication of parts for a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.04.
Regarding claim 12, Johnson as modified further discloses wherein the plurality of poppet ports are radially-oriented (see radial orientation in fig. 2 and plurality taught by Lee above).
Regarding claim 14, Johnson as modified further discloses a spring preload adjustment adapter (37) received in a downstream end of the body elongate bore between the spring and the downstream flange and in contact with the spring (fig. 2), wherein a spring preload is sized such that there is always a net positive force to close the poppet at a desired closing differential pressure (col. 3, ll. 63 – col. 4, ll. 7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 6, and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 9-10 and 15-16 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Achterman (U.S. 7,591,282) discloses a damped shutoff valve with a spring biased poppet and radial ports.
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