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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 27 April 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 13 Nov 2025.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Phillips et al (US 4,102,636).
Regarding Claim 7, Phillips et al disclose a valve (130) actuated by a pneumatic actuator (via 88), comprising: a regulator (86 generally) comprising a pipe (from 34 via 40 to 50) for circulation of a stream of hot air carrying pneumatic power (Col 3, lines 19-22) between an air inlet (48) and an air outlet (59), comprising means for treating the hot air (via exchange at 40) and to sending the treated hot air to the air outlet (to 59 in the Figure), said air outlet being connected to a pneumatic actuator (via 108 where the air outlet is connected upstream to the pneumatic actuator of the regulator), the regulator comprising a reference pressure source (from 62) and an air expansion device (92 in the Figure) comprising a diaphragm (92), said diaphragm (92) being arranged between said hot air stream (from 91) and the reference pressure source (from 120; Col 3, lines 37-44) and being configured to control the flow rate of the hot air stream (via 60) by comparing the pressure of said hot air stream on one side of the diaphragm (at 91) with a reference pressure of the reference pressure source on the other side of the diaphragm (via 120), wherein the regulator (86 generally) comprises an air intake (52; connected to the regulator via 118 and 120) configured to receive a cold source (from 62), and a pipe (from 52 to 54 of 40) connecting said air intake (Figure to 54), so that the cold source forms the reference pressure source (via 120) and a source for cooling said diaphragm (via 120).
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.
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al (US 4,102,636) in view of Wolk et al (US 8,499,555).
Regarding Claim 8, Phillips et al disclose at least one turbomachine (fan 62), and comprising: a regulator (86 generally) comprising a pipe (from 34 via 40 to 50) for circulation of a stream of hot air carrying pneumatic power (Col 3, lines 19-22) between an air inlet (48) and an air outlet (59), comprising means for treating the hot air (via exchange at 40) and to sending the treated hot air to the air outlet (to 59 in the Figure), said air outlet being connected to a pneumatic actuator (via 108 where the air outlet is connected upstream to the pneumatic actuator of the regulator), and an air expansion device (92 in the Figure) comprising a diaphragm (92), said diaphragm (92) being arranged between said hot air stream (from 91) and a reference pressure source (from 120; Col 3, lines 37-44) and being configured to control the flow rate of the hot air stream (via 60) by comparing the pressure of said hot air stream on one side of the diaphragm (at 91) with the reference pressure of a reference pressure source on an other side of the diaphragm (via 120), wherein the regulator (86 generally) comprises an air intake (52; connected to the regulator via 118 and 120) configured to receive a cold source (from 62), and a pipe (from 52 to 54 of 40) connecting said air intake (Figure to 54), so that the cold source forms the reference pressure source (via 120) and a source for cooling said diaphragm (via 120) and at least one channel (64) making it possible to guide fan air from the turbomachine (from the fan 62) toward the diaphragm of the air expansion device (via 120), the fan air of the turbomachine thus forming the cold source and the reference pressure source of the diaphragm (Figure via 120),
But fails to expressly disclose an aircraft comprising the turbomachine.
Wolk et al teaches an aircraft (Figure 1 via 12) comprising at least one turbomachine (38).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the exhaust system of Phillips et al to be used in an aircraft as taught by Wolk et al for the purpose of utilizing the system of Phillips et al in an alternative system such as an exhaust system of an aircraft in which exhaust systems are known and desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 Nov 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant states that Claims 1, 7 and 8 have been amended to provide the limitations directed to the position of the diaphragm within the system. However, only Claim 1 appears to be amended to incorporate these limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 are allowed.
Claim 1 is indicated as allowed for claiming, along with the entirety of the claim limitations, “the cold source forming the reference pressure source is guided directly onto the diaphragm inside the regulator, by the pipe connecting directly said air intake to said diaphragm”. This limitation is neither anticipated by, nor rendered obvious over, the prior art of record.
Conclusion
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 NICOLE GARDNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-4PM 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, KENNETH RINEHART (571-272-4881) or CRAIG SCHNEIDER (571-272-3607) can be reached by telephone. 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.
/NICOLE GARDNER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights