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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 24 Oct 2025 has been entered.
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 Objections
Claims 1, 4 and 7-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 1 “the circulation” should likely read “a circulation”.
In claim 1, line 3 “to sending” should likely read “to send”.
In claim 1, line 8 “the flow rate” should likely read “a flow rate”.
In claim 1, line 9 “the pressure” should likely read “a pressure”.
In claim 1, line 10 “the reference pressure” should likely read “a reference pressure”.
In claim 4, line 1 “according to Claim 1 wherein” should likely read “according to Claim 1, wherein” with a comma.
In claim 7, line 3 “the circulation” should likely read “a circulation”.
In claim 7, line 5 “to sending” should likely read “to send”.
In claim 7, line 12 “the reference pressure” should likely read “a reference pressure”.
In claim 8, line 3 “the circulation” should likely read “a circulation”.
In claim 8, line 5 “to sending” should likely read “to send”.
In claim 8, line 11 “the reference pressure” should likely read “a reference pressure”.
In claim 8, lines 16 and 18 “the turbomachine” should likely read “the at least one turbomachine”.
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 1-8 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 treated hot air" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "each temperature-sensitive mechanical and/or electronic element" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since Claim 2 recites “at least one temperature-sensitive mechanical and/or electronic element”, Claim 3 will be interpreted as “a temperature-sensitive mechanical and/or electronic element of the at least one temperature-sensitive mechanical and/or electronic element”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the treated hot air" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the treated hot air" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the reference pressure source" initially in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims not specifically referenced are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Phillips et al (US 4,102,636).
Regarding the following claims, the recitation of the actual fluid handled (here “hot air”; “cold source”, “fan air”, “primary engine air”, “air” etc) has been given no patentable weight in the apparatus claims, MPEP 2115
Regarding Claim 1, Phillips et al disclose a regulator (86 generally), comprising a pipe (from 34 via 40 to 50) for the 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), 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 the reference pressure of the 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).
Regarding Claim 2, Phillips et al disclose at least one temperature-sensitive mechanical and/or electronic element arranged upstream or downstream of the diaphragm and pipes (heat exchanger wheel 42) allowing the cold source to be guided toward said at least one temperature- sensitive mechanical and/or electronic element the cold source allowing the cooling of said at least one temperature-sensitive mechanical and/or electronic element upstream or downstream of the cooling of the diaphragm (Figure).
Regarding Claim 3, Phillips et al disclose where each temperature-sensitive mechanical and/or electronic element is selected from the group consisting of: a solenoid, mechanical and/or electronic component of a torque motor, mechanical and/or electronic component of a servo-valve (heat exchanger wheel 42 is connected to shaft 44 which is operated by a motor (taught in Phillips US 3,978,913 incorporated by reference into Phillips et al)).
Regarding Claim 4, Phillips et al disclose where the regulator comprises a channel (64) collecting the cold source from an air turbomachine (from the fan 62) and connected to the air intake configured to receive the cold source (to 52 in the Figure).
Regarding Claim 5, Phillips et al disclose where the cold source is fan air (from fan 62) collected by the channel from the turbomachine (via 64 as shown in the Figure).
Regarding Claim 6, Phillips et al disclose where the cold source is primary engine air (from fan 62; as discussed above “primary engine air” has been given no patentable weight in the apparatus claims, MPEP 2115) collected by the channel from the turbomachine (from 62).
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 the 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 the 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 the 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 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 the 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) 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 24 Oct 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As directed to Claim 1, Applicant argues that controller 86 of Phillips et al is not a regulator and does not disclose a regulator for supplying a pneumatic actuator with hot air carrying pneumatic power. First, the Examiner notes that the recitation of the actual fluid handled (here “hot air’; “cold source”, “fan air’, “primary engine air’, “air’ etc) has been given no patentable weight in the apparatus claims, MPEP 2115. The controller 86 of Phillips et al functions as a controller by utilizing the pressure of the air at the diaphragm to control and regulate the flow through the valve opening 128 and regulator 86 supplies a pneumatic actuator of the regulator via 108. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant further argues that the hot air is not carrying pneumatic power for supplying a pneumatic actuator since the outlet 59 and conduit 108 cannot be considered as connected. However, the outlet 59 is connected upstream to the conduit 108, which carries the air; here “hot air’; “cold source”, “fan air”, “primary engine air’, “air’ etc) has been given no patentable weight in the apparatus claims, MPEP 2115. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant further argues that the diaphragm 92 is not "arranged between said hot air stream and the reference pressure source”. However, diaphragm 92 is physically arranged between the hot air stream (from 91 via 108) and the reference pressure source (from 120 via 118 and 62). Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant further argues that there is no mention in Phillips on cooling air reaching the diaphragm, only air that was hot within 40. The Examiner notes that the recitation of the actual fluid handled (here “hot air”; “cold source”, “fan air’, “primary engine air’, “air” etc) has been given no patentable weight in the apparatus claims, MPEP 2115. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant further argues that the diaphragm of Phillips does not compare a hot air stream and a cold air stream. The Examiner notes that the recitation of the actual fluid handled (here “hot air’; “cold source’, “fan air’, “primary engine air’, “air’ etc) has been given no patentable weight in the apparatus claims, MPEP 2115. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Last, Applicant argues that the diaphragm 92 has only a small impact on controlling the valve element. Regardless, the diaphragm 92 is connected to valve 130 to regulate and control the flow through the valve system by comparing the pressures of 108 and 120. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
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