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 .
Acknowledgments
This office action is in response to the reply filed on 4/13/26. In the reply, the applicant elected claims 1-13 and 15-20 for examination. Examiner agrees. Claim 14 is withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/21/24;4/21/23 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97(b). Accordingly, the IDSs are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tysver et al. (US 2010/0037961) (“Tysver”).
(claim 1) Tysver discloses a system comprising a variable displacement pump VDP (114,18) in fluid communication with an inlet line (Fig. 1, note inlet lines associated with 16) and with an outlet line (48), wherein the VDP includes a variable displacement mechanism (24) configured to vary pressure to the outlet line; and an electromechanical actuator (EMA) 122, 22 operatively connected to actuate the variable displacement mechanism.
Claim 2: a bypass valve BPV (30/40) including a BPV inlet (50/52) in fluid communication with the outlet line, and a BPV outlet (note outlet of 40 upstream of 56) in fluid communication with a bypass line (56) that feeds into the inlet line upstream of the VDP; a minimum pressure shutoff valve MPSOV (84) connected in fluid communication with the outlet line, configured to block flow through the outlet line for shutoff (paragraph 34, Examiner noting the control 84 has in moving the valve element in either direction which would include shutoff positions), wherein the MPSOV is connected in fluid communication with the BPV for triggering recirculation through the BPV (paragraph 34, Examiner noting the control 84 has in moving the valve element in either direction which would include recirculation positions).
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.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tysver in view of Ito et al. (US 2016/0320114) (“Ito”).
Tysver teaches the previous limitations. Tysver is not explicit about a flow sensing valve connected in the outlet line, wherein the FSV includes a sensor configured to generate sensor data indicative of flow out of the outlet line, wherein the FSV includes an FSV inlet, an FSV outlet, and a valve member, wherein a biasing member biases the valve member in a first direction, and wherein pressure of flow through the FSV from the FSV inlet to the FSV outlet biases the valve member in a second direction opposite the first direction. However, Ito, in the analogous art, teaches a flow sensing valve associated with a pump in an outlet line (Fig. 1) which includes a sensor (256a) configured to generate sensor data indicative of flow out of the outlet line (Fig. 5), wherein the FSV includes an FSV inlet (note inlet upstream of 252), an FSV outlet (note outlet downstream of 252), and a valve member (252) , wherein a biasing member (253) biases the valve member in a first direction, and wherein pressure of flow through the FSV from the FSV inlet to the FSV outlet biases the valve member in a second direction opposite the first direction (Fig. 5). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize a flow sensing valve as taught by Ito into the apparatus of Tysver as it allows the valve to function as both a check valve and flow measuring device, simplifying the overall structure.
Claim 12: Tysver and Ito teach the previous limitations. Ito further teaches that the sensor includes a position sensor (256a) operatively connected to monitor position of the valve member in the FSV to generate the sensor data (Fig. 5; paragraphs 55- 56).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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 4-10 are further objected to based on dependency.
Claim 13 is 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-13, 15-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12454950. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are anticipated or made obvious by the patented claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEANNA K HALL whose telephone number is (571)272-2819. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am- 4:30pm 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 supervisor, Kevin Sirmons can be reached at 571-272-4965. 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.
/DEANNA K HALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights