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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 06/23/2025, 08/01/2025, and 03/30/2026 are acknowledged by the Examiner.
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 1-2 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 1 recites the limitation "the lower border of the input channel" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Only a lower border of the exit of the input channel is previously introduced in line 19.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the lower border of the input channel" in lines 19-20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Only a lower border of the exit of the input channel is previously introduced in line 19.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claim 1 is rejected, as far as it is definite, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUTER et al. (US 2006-0011236 ).
Regarding Claim 1, SUTER et al. discloses a choke system (100; fig. 1) comprising: a choke body (110) including a input channel (120, 36), a body channel (114), and an output channel (132); a seat including a seat channel (seat described in [0018]; seat channel would align with the upper end of 132) near the output channel (132); a gate (146) comprising an upper border (end of 146 adjacent 144) and a lower border (end of 146 facing 132), wherein the lower border is configured to be positioned to engage the valve seat when the gate (146) is fully closed to block a fluid flow between the seat channel ([0018]); and a valve stem (144) which is coupled to a top surface of the gate (146; as seen in fig. 1); wherein (a) the body channel (114) couples the input channel (120, 36) to the seat channel (aligned with upper end of 132), and (b) the seat channel (aligned with 132) couples the body channel (114) to the output channel (132); wherein (a) the choke assembly (100) is to convey through the body channel (114) and the seat channel (aligned with upper end of 132) when the gate (146) is open and fluid is pressurized in the input channel (see paragraphs [0002], [0015]-[0016], [0018] and figure 7); wherein (a) the input channel including an entry (top end of 120 when viewed in fig. 1) and an exit (36), wherein the input channel exit is between a body channel (114) and the entry of the input channel (top end of 120), (b) the entry of the input channel including a first distance that is a maximum diameter of the entry of the input channel (entry is the largest diameter, as seen in fig. 1); wherein (a) the exit of the input channel includes an upper border (portion of 36 adjacent 120) and a lower border (portion of 36 facing 114), the lower border of the input channel is between the upper border of the input channel (portion of 36 adjacent 120) and an output channel (132), and a second distance is a minimum distance between the lower border of the exit of the input channel and a lower border of a gate when the gate is fully open (as seen in fig. 1); wherein when the gate (146) is fully open the lower border of the gate is a third distance from the upper border of the seat channel (distance from open end of 146 to seat channel which aligns with upper end of 132, as seen in fig. 1); and wherein (a) the seat channel includes a fourth distance that is a maximum diameter of the seat channel (seat channel aligns with top end of 132 and has a diameter, fig. 1), and (b) the upper border of the seat channel is between the valve stem (144) and the lower border of the seat channel (lower end of seat channel would align with 132, fig. 1).
SUTER et al. further discloses wherein orifice 36 has orifice diameter (38) sufficient to receive the fluid from the input channel (120)(see [0018]), a second distance between a lower border (of 36) of the input channel (120) and a lower border of the gate (146) is smaller than a third distance between the lower border of the gate (146) and an upper border of the seat (shown in variation in fig. 7), and the end output channel (132) has a discharge diameter (134) (see paragraph [0016] and figure 5). However, SUTER does not specify specific dimensions, and therefore does not explicitly disclose the first distance being between 4.5 and 5.5 inches, the second distance being greater than 3.75 inches, the third distance being greater than 4.25 inches, and wherein the fourth distance is between 3.6 and 4.4 inches.
Although SUTER et al. doesn’t explicitly disclose the first distance being between 4.5 and 5.5 inches, the second distance being greater than 3.75 inches, the third distance being greater than 4.25 inches, and wherein the fourth distance is between 3.6 and 4.4 inches, or wherein the first distance is 5 inches, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than a prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim 2 is rejected, as far as it is definite, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUTER et al. (US 2006-0011236 ), as applied above, in view of MCCARTY (US 2008-0060704).
Regarding claim 2, SUTER et al. further discloses a second axis (axis of valve seat) is parallel to the first axis (axis of the valve seat would align with the stem axis); and the second axis intersects the seat and the body channel (as seen in figs. 1, 7, 15).
SUTER et al. does not disclose a first ring between the seat and a center of the body channel.
MCCARTY teaches a related choke valve including a retainer ring (136) is disposed between the choke body (portion 132) and the valve seat (362 on 376e) (see paragraphs [0032], [0045] and figures 2-3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20150316169 A1 discloses a related non-threaded stem coupling in a valve.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARINA TIETJEN, whose telephone number is 571-270-5422. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (10:30AM-7:00PM CST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Tom Barrett can be reached at 571-272-4746, Ken Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881, and Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARINA A TIETJEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights