DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's submission filed on 6 July 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 3-15, 18-22 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Page 8, Applicant argues that their amendments differentiate over the art of record Griffiths (US 2015/0192075). Applicant argues that for claim 1, Griffiths does not teach “a flow window” on the controllable pump because spill port (49) of valve (41) is not on pump (39). Applicant’s arguments or based on the interpretation that the limitations “a pump inlet” and “a pump outlet” must be restricted to the ports of pump element (39). Applicant provides an annotated fig 3 of Griffiths to illustrate their point.
Applicant’s arguments are not convincing because applicant’s amendments are broad and do not provide sufficient detail to distinguish over the interpretation that Griffith’s pump unit (37) includes valves pressure drop control valve (41, par 0041) and start valve (43, par 0042); where Griffiths clearly shows the outline of pump unit (37) clearly demarking both valves in the pump unit (Fig 2-fig 4). Claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification (MPEP 2111). In this case, the interpretation that Griffith’s pump unit (37) discloses “a controllable pump” is reasonable because Griffith’s explicitly names it a “pump unit,” which fits the plain language of the term. Furthermore, the interpretation is in light of applicant’s specification, applicant’s specification by showing an assembly of a pump unit, which aligns with applicant’s fluid pump system (100) which includes valves (105) and sov (applicant’s fig 1). Furthermore, the claimed “flow window” is disclosed only as a component of a pump housing (See applicant’s par 0005, 0010, 0021, 0027, 0032). Applicant has not included any special definitions or disavows that prevent the interpretation that Griffith’s pump unit (37) may be interpreted as a pump. Therefore, the interpretation and rejections are maintained.
Applicant indicates that similar arguments should be applied to claims 20 and 22, but include no further arguments. The rejection for claims 20 and 22 will be maintained for the same reasons as the rejection of claim 1. The dependent claim rejections are maintained for the same reason.
Page 9-10, applicant argues that modifying Griffiths so that PDCV (41) High pressure spillway (49) is connected to the low pressure section of the system, that the LP sections would rise in pressure, that the system would reach an equilibrium and that the Griffith’s system would cease to function because the pressure difference HPa-LP would be insufficient to close the spillway.
Applicant alleges that equalizing the pressure across pump (39) would “throw off as the difference HPa-LP would decrease and LP-PLP inlet would increase without any demand or feedback from the system” and that PDCV (41) would cease to function at all.
Applicant’s argument is not based on the actual function of Griffiths because Griffiths explicitly responds to decreases in pressure differential by increases pump flow. Specifically, the pump (39) is operated to maintain the pressure difference HPa-LP (par 0041); such that a pressure differential decrease would actually increase the flow caused by pump (39, “decreasing HPa-PSp causes the VDP 39 to increase its pumped flow rate,” par 0041). This interpretation makes sense because the inventive concept of Griffiths is to maintain a high discharge of pump (39) even when that pressure is not used, so that the discharge can be quickly redirected when that discharge is required (par 0048).
Furthermore, applicant’s allegation that the pressure difference LP-PLP inlet would also increase without any demand or feed back from the system and cause valve (41) to cease to function is not supported by the specification. The specification indicates that the pressure difference LP-PLP inlet is sensed by start valve (43, par 0043, 0046) and not by valve (41) as suggested by applicant. Furthermore, it is unclear how it is physically possible for the discharge of pump (39) to affect the pressure differential of LP-PLP which is the pressure differential across LP pump (32). A person of ordinary skill would recognize that pump (39) is in series downstream of pump (32), such that both the inlet and the outlet of pump (39) are downstream of pump (32). If there were any equalization of pressure across pump (39) that would occur entirely downstream of pump (39) and have no effect on the pressure differential across pump (32).
Furthermore, applicant’s suggestion of a further modification that causes the inoperability of Griffiths, is not sufficient to show inoperability of a reference. The rule is that the presumption of operability is not overcome by a mere showing that it is possible to operate within the disclosure without obtaining the results (See MPEP 716.07; In re Weber, 405 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1969). It is to be presumed also that skilled workers would as a matter of course, if they do not immediately obtain desired results, make certain experiments and adaptations, within the skill of the competent worker. The failures of experimenters who have no interest in succeeding should not be accorded great weight. In re Michalek, 162 F.2d 229, 74 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1947); In re Reid, 179 F.2d 998, 84 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1950)). In this case, since Griffiths discloses operating even as the pressure differential HPa-LP decreases, it is clearly reasonable to conclude that it would continue to operate even if the pressure differential decreased as applicant suggests. Therefore, the rejection under Griffths is maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The claimed acronyms have support because applicant declares the full names of acronyms as follows:
Flow sense valve (FSV) in claim 4
Linear variable differential transformer (LVDT) in claim 6
Linear variable differential transformer (LVDT) in claim 8
Shut off valve (SOV) in claim 14
Flow sense valve (FSV) in claim 19
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the claimed “pump outlet” is not labelled in the figures nor is it assigned an element number for labelling. 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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, Change “an output line” on lines 6-7 of the claim to “the output line” because it receives antecedent basis from “an output line” on line 4.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a flow window on the controllable pump downstream of the pump inlet and upstream of the pump outlet.” The relative positions of the flow window “upstream of the pump outlet” constitutes new matter. Applicant discloses that he the flow passage/window in the pump housing exists (par 0032); applicant does not disclose the relative position of the pump outlet and the flow window. Applicant only discloses that the flow window is on the pump housing (par 0032). The specification is silent on the position of the window and the position of the outlet on the pump housing. Furthermore, the claimed pump outlet position is not described in the specification; while a pump outlet is conventional in the prior art, and schematically shown in applicants figure 1; neither the schematic nor that a pump outlet is conventional in the prior art imply the position of the pump outlet relative to a flow window.
Furthermore, applicant’s figures are a schematic line diagram of the fluid pump system; however the figure is a schematic and no indication is made that they are to scale. Furthermore, it is not reasonable to conclude that the drawings indicate the relative upstream location and downstream location of the pump outlet and the flow window; the schematic drawing is drawn for legibility and uses symbolic drawings of the pump (101). The relative position of outlet lines (103) and bypass line (107) and their intersection with the pump symbol (101) can be changed arbitrarily in a schematic, so that (103) is closer to the inlet line (119) of the pump than bypass line (107) and yet not change the information represented by the schematic drawing, showing the fluid and control connections between the components of the pump system. The courts have held that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue (MPEP 2125).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1, 3-5, 18-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffiths (US 2015/0192075).
PNG
media_image1.png
619
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotations on Griffiths fig 2
Claim 1, Griffiths discloses a fuel circuit (fuel supply system, par 0001) connecting a fuel supply to an outlet (fig. 2, OUTLET is HP outlet on start valve 43, deliver to supply line/HPA and engine-directed flow path; par. 0035, 0040-0041, 0045; fuel supply from low pressure source LP/fuel tank), the fuel circuit comprising:
an inlet line downstream of and connected to the fuel supply (inlet line to pump 39, via fuel filter, par 0035, 0040-0041);
an output line upstream of and connected to the outlet (output line is the branch of HPa leading to start valve 43, par 0041, 0045; the output line starts at the SPLIT into the two branches, the first branch leading to valve 41 and the second branch leading to valve 43);
a controllable pump fluidically connected to the fuel supply and configured to generate a pump flow through the controllable pump (variable displacement pump 39 in actuator pump unit 37 receives fuel from the low pressure source and delivers fuel at high pressure into HPa, par. 0040-0041), and to output an output flow to [the] output line (flow from 39 reaches the branch of Hpa leading to valve 43, par. 0042), wherein the controllable pump comprises: a pump inlet fluidically connected to and downstream of the inlet line (variable displacement pump 39 receives fuel from the low pressure source LP, par. 0040-0041); a pump outlet (the beginning of the branch of HPa leading to start valve 43) fluidically connected to and upstream of the output line (the beginning of said branch is upstream of the body of said branch); and
a flow window (the branch of HPa leading toward spill port 49 of valve 41) on the controllable pump downstream of the pump inlet (LP source near heater 38) … and configured to be revealed at a first displacement of the controllable pump (spill port 49 of pressure drop control valve 41 provide the disclosed low-flow spill path associated with de-stroked operation of variable displacement pump 39, fig. 2, par. 0047-0048; this corresponds to the claimed flow passage revealed at low displacement); and
a flow split system (PDCV 41 with spill port 49 which connects the VDP delivery at pressure HPa to the HP pump outlet at pressure HP at low flow conditions, par 0048), directly connecting the flow window on the controllable pump to the inlet line of the fuel circuit, such that the flow split system directs a portion of a fuel flow to bypass both the pump outlet and the outlet line and flow to the inlet line when an output of the controllable pump is at or below the first displacement such that the flow window is revealed (at low flow conditions fuel is delivered to the outlet of HP pump 33, par 0048; since the fuel is passing down the branch of HPa toward valve 41, that fuel bypasses the pump outlet and branch outlet line that begins at the branch of HPa leading toward valve 43).
Griffiths does not disclose [A] the flow split system directing spill flow during low flow conditions to the claimed “inlet line;” [B] the flow window upstream of the pump outlet.
Regarding [A] “the flow split system directing spill flow during low flow conditions to the inlet line,” Griffiths does not disclose this because spill port 49 of valve 41 discharges to the outlet of pump 33 and not to the inlet of pump 39 (the claimed inlet line). Examiner notes that a person of ordinary skill would recognize that connecting spill port (49) to the common “inlet line” of pump (33) and pump (39) would have no effect on the operation of the Griffin system because the main function of valve (41) when in the low flow state is to provide “rapid response” by redirecting flow from spill port (49) to actuators (par 0048). Similarly, the output of port (47) is directed toward the outlet of pump (33), but it functions as a spill valve during a shift to low flow demands of oil for actuators (par 0047). In both cases, the rapid responses result from maintaining the flow through pump (39) and it is unrelated to flow through pump (33), therefore whether the spill discharges to the inlet or outlet of (33) should have no effect on whether pump (39) has a spill port for its excess output.
It would have been an obvious rearrangement of parts to connecting the spill port (49) of valve (41) to the common inlet of pump (33) and pump (39). The rule is that a rearrangement of parts is obvious when shifting the position of a device would not have modified the operation of the device (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); MPEP 2144.04). In this case, a person of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the ports discharging to the inlet of the “inlet line” rather than the discharge of pump (33) would have no effect on the port’s function as a spill valve, and further that there is no disclosed benefit of discharging the low flow oil to discharge of pump (33). A person of ordinary skill would reasonably expect the Griffiths system functions to remain unchanged if such a change were done.
Similarly, applicant has not disclosed any particular problem solved or benefit of connecting the outlet of their bypass valve to recirculate (121). Applicant’s disclosed invention criticality is that the bypass valve allows the pump to run during low flow conditions, and that the continuous flow prevents overheating. The bypass valve spilling its low flow to recirculate back to the “inlet line” has no disclosed benefit and is therefore obvious design choice.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connection of spill port (49) of Griffiths to the “inlet line” of pump (33) and pump (39) as an obvious rearrangement of parts.
Regarding [B] the flow window upstream of the pump outlet, Griffiths does not disclose this because the outlet of start valve (43) and the spill port (49) of PDCV (41) are both branches off of line HPa, and neither is indicated as upstream of the other in the disclosure.
Nevertheless, it would be an obvious rearrangement of parts to start the branch of HPa leading to valve (41) upstream of the branch of HPa leading to valve (43). A rearrangement of parts is obvious when shifting the position of elements would not have modified the operation of the device (MPEP 2143). In this case, Griffiths shows embodiments of figure 5, which depicts a schematic arrangement with the branch of HPa leading to PDCV (41) starts higher on line HPa than the branch to start valve (43), which shows that a switch in position from the arrangement in fig 2, to the arrangement of fig 5 should not modify the operation of the device. Applicant provides no description or result associated with the arrangement of the flow window upstream of the pump outlet. Therefore, the claimed arrangement is an obvious matter of design choice.
Claim 3, Griffiths makes obvious the fuel circuit of claim 2, wherein the flow split system includes a bypass line in fluid communication with the flow window on the controllable pump (bypass line is the branch from output line HPa which includes the passage to spill port 49 of pressure drop control valve 41 provides the disclosed low-flow spill path associated with de-stroked operation of variable displacement pump 39, fig. 2, par. 0047-0048; PDCV 41 with spill port 49 provides a bypass/spill path in fluid communication with the claimed flow passage).
Claim 4, Griffiths makes obvious the fuel circuit of claim 3, wherein the flow split system includes a flow sense valve (FSV) in the bypass line and comprising a piston, wherein the piston is biased against pressure on the bypass line such that the bypass flow is configured to move the piston (pressure drop control valve 41 is a flow sense valve; it includes a piston as a pressure-responsive valve member/spool controlling flow through spill ports 47, 49 under pressure conditions in the spill/control path, par. 0041, 0047-0048).
Claim 5, Griffiths discloses the fuel circuit of claim 4, wherein the flow split system includes a piston position sensor (position sensor for start valve 43, par 0043; the start valve 43 is broadly associated with the valve 49 and can be considered a component of the flow split system) associated with the piston configured to determine a position of the piston (par 0043).
Claim 18, Griffiths teaches the fuel system of claim 22, wherein the flow split system includes a bypass line in fluid communication with the flow passage of the variable displacement pump (bypass line is the branch from output line HPa which includes the passage to spill port 49 of pressure drop control valve 41 provides the disclosed low-flow spill path associated with de-stroked operation of variable displacement pump 39, fig. 2, par. 0047-0048; PDCV 41 with spill port 49 provides a bypass/spill path in fluid communication with the claimed flow passage).
Claim 19, Griffiths teaches the fuel system of claim 18, wherein the flow split system includes a flow sense valve in the bypass line and comprising a piston, wherein the piston is biased against pressure on the bypass line such that the bypass flow is configured to move the piston (pressure drop control valve 41 is a flow sense valve; it includes a piston as a pressure-responsive valve member/spool controlling flow through spill ports 47, 49 under pressure conditions in the spill/control path, par. 0041, 0047-0048).
Claim 20, Griffiths discloses a method for operating a fuel circuit (fuel supply system, par 0001) delivering fuel from an inlet line to an outlet line (fig. 2, outlet is HP outlet on start valve 43, deliver to supply line/HPA and engine-directed flow path; par. 0035, 0040-0041, 0045; fuel supply from low pressure source LP/fuel tank to the inlet of pump 39), the method comprising:
bypassing flow of a controllable pump (39) from an outlet of the controllable pump (the beginning of the branch of HPa leading to start valve 43) and, the outlet line of the fuel circuit (ports 46 are outlets of the “outlet line” from pump 39), by directing a portion of the flow (spill out of spill port 49 of valve 41) between an inlet of the controllable pump (inlet of 39) and the outlet of the controllable pump (the beginning of the branch of HPa leading to start valve 43) through a flow passage of the controllable pump (through flow passage out of spill port 49),
…
maintaining a desired output flow through the outlet of the controllable pump by directing the rest of the flow through the outlet of the controllable pump (fig 2 shows, valve 41 with port 49 and valve 43 with outlet 46 are the only branches off of the same fluid line, therefore all fluid not going through valve 41 goes through valve 43 and vice versa), and thereby to the outlet line of the fuel circuit and downstream of the controllable pump (since ports 46 are on valve 43, flow through valve 43 will go to the “outline line” through ports 46) to cause a total pump flow within the controllable pump to maintain at least a minimum pump flow (pump 39 continues to operate and cause flow during low flow demand conditions, par 0047-0049).
Griffiths does not disclose the flow passage returns to the inlet line and upstream of the inlet of the controllable pump when the flow passage is open, and wherein the flow passage is separate from the outlet;
that maintains a pump temperature below a high temperature threshold.
Nevertheless, spill port 49 of pressure drop control valve 41 provides the disclosed low-flow spill path associated with de-stroked operation of variable displacement pump 39, and at low flow conditions fuel is delivered to the outlet of HP pump 33 (par. 0047-0048). Griffiths does not explicitly disclose discharge to the claimed inlet line because it routs to the outlet of pump 33.
It would have been an obvious rearrangement of parts to connecting the spill port (49) of valve (41) to the common inlet of pump (33) and pump (39). The rule is that a rearrangement of parts is obvious when shifting the position of a device would not have modified the operation of the device (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); MPEP 2144.04). In this case, a person of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the ports discharging to the inlet of the “inlet line” rather than the discharge of pump (33) would have no effect on the port’s function as a spill valve, and further that there is no disclosed benefit of discharging the low flow oil to discharge of pump (33). A person of ordinary skill would reasonably expect the Griffiths system functions to remain unchanged if such a change were done.
Similarly, applicant has not disclosed any particular problem solved or benefit of connecting the outlet of their bypass valve to recirculate (121). Applicant’s disclosed invention criticality is that the bypass valve allows the pump to run during low flow conditions, and that the continuous flow prevents overheating. The bypass valve spilling its low flow to recirculate back to the “inlet line” has no disclosed benefit and is therefore obvious design choice. Therefore, rerouting spill port 49 to the common inlet of pump 33 and pump 39 would have been an obvious rearrangement of parts because it would not change the spill function of valve 41, there is no function lost from stopping low-flow discharge to the outlet of pump 33.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connection of spill port (49) of Griffiths to the “inlet line” of pump (33) and pump (39) as an obvious rearrangement of parts.
Regarding that maintains a pump temperature below a high temperature threshold.
Nevertheless, Griffiths discloses the benefit of heat rejection when operating the pump less flow (Griffiths, par 0052). Reasonably, the cooling cause by pump flow maintains the pump at a lower temperature, than the higher temperature the pump would reach without cooling. Under a BRI, the temperature the pump would reach without cooling meets the “high temperature threshold.” Applicant has not disclosed the amount nor the intended effect or result of the high temperature threshold (Applicant’s spec par 0004, 0013, 0018, 0030). Therefore, reasonably this BRI interpretation of high temperature threshold reasonably conforms to what is disclosed by applicant.
Claim 22, Griffiths discloses a fuel system comprising: (fuel supply system, par 0001; fig. 2 overall arrangement, par 0040-0041);
a fuel supply (low pressure source LP/fuel tank, par. 0035, 0040-0041);
an outlet (HP outlet on start valve 43 in the downstream delivery path, par. 0045);
a fuel circuit fluidically connecting the fuel supply to the outlet (fig. 2 fuel path from LP source through pumps and valves to downstream outlet, par. 0040-0041, 0045), the fuel circuit comprising:
an inlet line downstream of and connected to the fuel supply (fig. 2, fuel supply from low pressure source LP/fuel tank to the inlet of pump 39);
an outlet line upstream of and connected to the outlet (fig. 2, outlet is HP outlet on start valve 43, deliver to supply line/HPA and engine-directed flow path; par. 0035, 0040-0041, 0045; fuel supply from low pressure source LP/fuel tank to the inlet of pump 39);
a variable displacement pump (variable displacement pump 39 in actuator pump unit 37, par. 0040-0041) , the variable displacement pump comprising:
a pump inlet connected to and downstream of the inlet line; (variable displacement pump 39 receives fuel from low pressure source LP, par. 0040-0041);
a pump outlet connected to and upstream of the outlet line (the beginning of the branch of HPa leading to start valve 43); and
a flow passage on the variable displacement pump (the branch of HPa leading toward spill port 49 of valve 41) downstream of the pump inlet (LP source near heater 38)…, and wherein the variable displacement pump is configured to reveal the flow passage at a low displacement angle and/or position of the controllable pump; (spill port 49 of pressure drop control valve 41 provides the disclosed low-flow spill path associated with de-stroked operation of variable displacement pump 39, fig. 2, par. 0047-0048; this corresponds to the claimed flow passage revealed at low displacement angle and/or position); and
a flow split system directly connecting the flow passage to the inlet line and configured to divert fuel from the pump outlet (PDCV 41 with spill port 49 which connects the VDP delivery at pressure HPa to the HP pump outlet at pressure HP at low flow conditions, par 0048), and thereby from the outlet line of the fuel circuit (flow is taken from HPa to feed valve port 49), and through the flow passage, and thereby to the [supply] line, when the flow passage is revealed. (PDCV 41 with spill port 49 connects VDP delivery at pressure HPa to the HP pump 33 outlet at pressure HP at low flow conditions, par. 0048).
Griffiths does not disclose [A] the flow split system directing spill flow during low flow conditions to the claimed “inlet line,” [B] the flow window upstream of the pump outlet.
Regarding [A] the spill port 49 of pressure drop control valve 41 provides the disclosed low-flow spill path associated with de-stroked operation of variable displacement pump 39, and at low flow conditions fuel is delivered to the outlet of HP pump 33 (par. 0047-0048). Griffiths does not explicitly disclose discharge to the claimed inlet line because it routs to the outlet of pump 33. It would have been an obvious rearrangement of parts to connecting the spill port (49) of valve (41) to the common inlet of pump (33) and pump (39). The rule is that a rearrangement of parts is obvious when shifting the position of a device would not have modified the operation of the device (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); MPEP 2144.04). In this case, a person of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the ports discharging to the inlet of the inlet line rather than the discharge of pump (33) would have no effect on the port’s function as a spill valve, and further that there is no disclosed benefit of discharging the low flow oil to discharge of pump (33). A person of ordinary skill would reasonably expect the Griffiths system functions to remain unchanged if such a change were done. Similarly, applicant has not disclosed any particular problem solved or benefit of connecting the outlet of their bypass valve to recirculate (121). Applicant’s disclosed invention criticality is that the bypass valve allows the pump to run during low flow conditions, and that the continuous flow prevents overheating. The bypass valve spilling its low flow to recirculate back to the inlet line has no disclosed benefit and is therefore obvious design choice. Therefore, rerouting spill port 49 to the common inlet of pump 33 and pump 39 would have been an obvious rearrangement of parts because it would not change the spill function of valve 41, there is no function lost from stopping low-flow discharge to the outlet of pump 33. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connection of spill port (49) of Griffiths to the inlet line of pump (33) and pump (39) as an obvious rearrangement of parts.
Regarding [B] the flow window upstream of the pump outlet, Griffiths does not disclose this because the outlet of start valve (43) and the spill port (49) of PDCV (41) are both branches off of line HPa, and neither is indicated as upstream of the other in the disclosure.
Nevertheless, it would be an obvious rearrangement of parts to start the branch of HPa leading to valve (41) upstream of the branch of HPa leading to valve (43). A rearrangement of parts is obvious when shifting the position of elements would not have modified the operation of the device (MPEP 2143). In this case, Griffiths shows embodiments of figure 5, which depicts a schematic arrangement with the branch of HPa leading to PDCV (41) starts higher on line HPa than the branch to start valve (43), which shows that a switch in position from the arrangement in fig 2, to the arrangement of fig 5 should not modify the operation of the device. Applicant provides no description or result associated with the arrangement of the flow window upstream of the pump outlet. Therefore, the claimed arrangement is an obvious matter of design choice.
Claims 6 - 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffiths in view of Rutar (2022/0307491).
Claim 6, Griffiths teaches the fuel circuit of claim 5. Griffiths does not explicitly disclose: the piston position sensor is a linear variable differential transformer.
Rutar teaches a fluid pump system (variable displacement pump “vdp” with a control system, par 0004, 0016), a controllable pump (vdp 102, par 0016); wherein the piston position sensor is a linear variable differential transformer (Rutar, sensor 138 is a linear variable differential transformer, par 0020).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enable the generic position sensor of Griffiths by using the linear variable differential transformer of Rutar for the predictable result of measuring piston position .
Claim 7, Griffiths teaches the fuel circuit of claim 5.
Griffiths does not explicitly disclose: the controllable pump includes a pump position sensor configured to sense a position of the controllable pump.
Nevertheless, Griffiths discloses servo controller (42) of the variable displacement pump (39, par 0041) where the servo-controller (42) controls displacement of the VDP (39, par 0044, 0047).
Rutar teaches a fluid pump system (variable displacement pump “vdp” with a control system, par 0004, 0016), a controllable pump (vdp 102, par 0016); wherein a servo valve (EHSV connected to controller 142, par 0021) controls the displacement of the pump (par 0007, 0021), wherein a position sensor (sensor 138, par 0020-0021) provides feedback on the position of the electrohydraulic servo valve in order to adjust displacement of the pump (par 0021).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the servo-controller of Griffiths by adding a position sensor for position feedback of the pump taught by Rutar in order to provide the controller feedback to compare to the displacement of the variable displacement pump and thereby actuate an adjustment of the variable displacement valve via the servo valve and thereby improve the responsiveness of the pump (Rutar, par 0021).
Claim 8, Griffiths in view of Rutar teaches the fuel circuit of claim 7. Griffiths does not explicitly disclose: the pump position sensor is a linear variable differential transformer.
Rutar teaches wherein the piston position sensor is a linear variable differential transformer (Rutar, sensor 138 is a linear variable differential transformer, par 0020).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enable the generic position sensor of Griffiths by using the linear variable differential transformer of Rutar for the predictable result of measuring piston position.
Claim 9, Griffiths in view of Rutar teaches the fuel circuit of claim 7, further comprising a flow module (Griffiths control of VDP 39 pump flow rate via valve 41 and servo-controller 42, par 0040-0041) operatively connected to the pump position sensor (Rutar, 138, par 0020-0021, applied on Griffiths servo valve 42), the piston position sensor (Griffiths, position sensor 43), a pump speed source (at a given speed, the auxiliary pump is configured for maximum flow rate, for both low and high engine speeds, par 0020-0022; the main pump also has speed proportional to engine speed, par 0002, 0010), and an output line pressure sensor (Griffiths, differential pressure between outlet and LP is measured, par 0041), and configured to determine flow through the controllable pump and flow through the bypass line and flow split system (flow rate is determined from control via these measurements, par 0041), and to subtract the flow through the bypass line (Griffiths 47/49) from the flow through the controllable pump to determine the output flow (Griffiths, flow through HP port 46 is the flow that does not go through 47/49, par 0043, 0047-0048).
Claim 10, Griffiths in view of Rutar teaches the fuel circuit of claim 9, further comprising the pressure sensor on the output line downstream of the controllable pump (Griffiths, PDCV 41 senses pressure rise, par 0047).
Claim 11, Griffiths in view of Rutar teaches the fuel circuit of claim 9, wherein the flow module is configured to determine pump flow (Griffiths, par 0047) through the controllable pump as a function of a pump position (Griffiths, the servo-controller 42 changes the pump stroke angle, par 0047), a pump speed (Griffiths, the control is configured to change flow of the auxiliary pump based on speed of the main pump which is directly related to engine speed, par 0002, 0020-0022), and an output line pressure (PDCV 41 senses pressure par 0047).
Claim 12, Griffiths in view of Rutar teaches the fuel circuit claim 10, wherein the flow module is configured to determine bypass flow on the bypass line (Griffiths, flow through ports 47/49) and through the flow split system as a function of a piston position (Griffiths, piston position sensor on start valve 43 senses valve position; the start valve determines split flow through ports 46, par 0044- 0045), a piston spring constant (Griffiths, Bias spring in 41 biases into a position to increase pump flow rate, par 0041; bias spring in servo-controller 42 determines pressure required for servo control for changes in flow, par 0047, 0050; bias spring in 43 is a part of the controls of valve 43 and flow through port 46, par 0053-0054, inherently the bias spring in 43 affects flow through the valve 43 as the spring reasonably determines responsiveness to the controlling pressure differential across the control piston of valve 43, par 0053-0054).
Claim 13, Griffiths in view of Rutar teaches the fuel circuit claim 12, wherein the flow module is configured to control the controllable pump to generate a commanded output flow (Griffith, desired flow out of port 46, par 0043) based on the determined output flow from the controllable pump based on the bypass flow and pump flow (output flow of pump 39 which is not directed out of port 47/49 is output via port 46, par 0046, 0048).
Claim 14, Griffiths in view of Rutar teaches the fuel circuit claim 13, further comprising a shut off valve (Griffiths, start valve 43, at high engine speeds the start valves shuts the path 46, abstract, par 0005, 0015, 0018) between the output line (HPa which feeds both valve 41 and vale 43, par 0041) and an engine line (HP line 35 to which HP 46 discharges, par 0043, 0045, 0050; or a shut-off valve, par 0038).
Claim 15, Griffiths in view of Rutar teaches the fuel circuit of claim 14, wherein the SOV is controlled by a solenoid valve (Griffiths, Servo-controller 42, para 0019-0022, 0041, 0044; a servo is known to provide precise variable position electrical control of a valve, solenoids are known to provide two position electrical control of a valve; Servo meets the solenoid limitation under a BRI because it provides positional electrical control of the valve) in communication with fluidically connected to the output line (42 connects to HPaf via servo orifice 44, par 0041, 0047) to fluidly communicate a biased side of the SOV (fig 2 shows a side of 42 with spring) with the output line such that pressure on both sides of the SOV equalizes and cause closure of a biased SOV piston to shut off flow to the engine line (pressure through HPaf will pressure balance in order to destroke pump 39, par 0041, 0044, 0045; decreasing flow of pump 39 meets the plain meaning of shut-off flow under a BRI, the output of the pump to HP 46 decreasing flow to engine line 35, par 0043, 0047).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 GEOFFREY S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5354. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-1800.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached on (469) 295-9278. 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.
/GEOFFREY S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights