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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/20/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 4/20/26 has been entered. Claims 1-4 and 6-8 remain pending in the application. Application’s amendments to the Drawings, Specification, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed with exceptions noted in the action below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 and 6-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection on the newly amended claims calls upon a different combination including duplication of parts. Additionally, the arguments pertaining to the art as applied were answered in the Advisory action dated 3/5/26 and the Final Rejection dated 11/18/25.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the seven valves per claim 1 with an electric, two regulating and four smart valves comprising different valves must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 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 1-4, and 6-8 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 “at least one electric valve” and “at least two electric regulating valves”, and/or to another smart valve of the fluid system by at least one digital multiplexed data communications bus, and “at least two smart valves”. It is unclear how many valves are being claimed because it is unclear if the electric valve and the electric regulating valves are the same or different structures. Additionally, another smart valve is claimed which indicates two smart valves and then “at least two smart valves” are claimed after introducing another two smart valves. The specification also labels the regulating valves as 30, 40, and 50 and also labels the smart valves as 30, 40, and 50. It is unclear if there are two or four smart valves claimed, if there are two electric regulating valves and an electric valve for a total of three valves or if those refer to the same valves for a total of two valves. For examination purposes Examiner will consider that at least seven valves have been claimed.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3395688 to Grant et al. (Grant) in view of U.S. PGPUB 20130233408 to Horner et al. (Horner408).
Regarding claim 1, Grant teaches one flow conduit for a fluid (40, Figure 1) at least one electric valve (42 and/or 46, Figure 1) for regulating the flow of fluid in said fluid conduit by movement of a regulating member in said fluid conduit, a central computer (64, Figure 1) configured to be able to issue control instructions to each electric regulating valve depending on the in-flight conditions of said aircraft, and an electric circuit (connections required and shown in Figure 1) for powering said computer and each electric regulating valve, characterized in that at least two electric regulating valves, are each equipped with an integrated actuator (60 and 66, Figure 1) connected to the central computer and/or to another smart valve of the fluid system by at least one digital multiplexed data communications bus (shown in Figure 1), said integrated actuator comprising: an electronic control board (60, Figure 1) equipped with one input port connected to said digital bus (shown in Figure 1), an electric motor (Paragraph 0014) controlled by said electronic control board and configured to be able to move said regulating member in said fluid conduit (Paragraphs 0014 and 0020), software loaded on said electronic control board and configured to be able to determine control instructions of the electric motor from data received on one input port of said board (Paragraphs 0014 and 0020), wherein the fluid system comprises at least two smart valves (42 and 46, Figure 1) connected to each other by the digital bus (shown in Figure 1).
Grant is silent on said first smart valve, referred to as master valve, being configured to be able to determine and transmit control data to said second smart valve, referred to as slave valve, as well as the electric valve, the at least two electric regulating valves, and the two smart valves being different structure as five valves are not shown in the device.
Horner408 teaches said first smart valve, being configured to be able to determine and transmit control data to said second smart valve, (Paragraphs 0044-0047). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Grant with the teachings of Horner408 to provide said first smart valve, referred to as master valve, being configured to be able to determine and transmit control data to said second smart valve, referred to as slave valve. Doing so would simplify operation and allow for more balanced flow.
The modified device of Grant discloses the claimed invention except for providing the electric valve, the at least two electric regulating valves, and the four smart valves being different structure as seven valves are not shown in the device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide four duplicates of valves 42 and 46, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). Doing so would increase capacity and/or provide backup devices.
Regarding claim 2, Grant teaches wherein at least one smart valve (42 and/or 46, Figure 1) is connected to at least one analogue sensor for measurement of a fluid quantity carried by the associated fluid conduit (62 and/or 68, Figure 1 Paragraph 0020). and in that said electronic board of this smart valve comprises at least one input port connected to this analogue sensor so that the measurements supplied by this analogue sensor can form control data (Paragraphs 0014 and 0020).
Regarding claim 3, Grant teaches wherein said electric motor of said integrated actuator of at least one smart valve is a synchronous motor comprising means for indicating its position (Paragraph 0014).
Regarding claim 6, Grant teaches wherein the fluid system comprises two digital buses connecting the controller to the smart valves, each digital bus being a unidirectional data bus, opposite in direction to the other bus, or a bidirectional bus (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, Grant teaches wherein said fluid is air so as to form an air system of an aircraft (air is disclosed throughout the specification especially the background and claims).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant in view of Horner 408 and EP1619121 to Whitney et al. (Whitney).
Regarding claim 4, Grant is silent on wherein said integrated actuator of at least one smart valve comprises a reducing gear mechanically connecting said electric motor and said regulating member.
Whitney teaches wherein said integrated actuator of at least one smart valve comprises a reducing gear mechanically connecting said electric motor and said regulating member (Paragraph 0039, Figure 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Grant with the teachings of Whitney to provide wherein said integrated actuator of at least one smart valve comprises a reducing gear mechanically connecting said electric motor and said regulating member. Doing so would allow speed and/or power of the valve closure to be increased.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant in view of Horner 408 and U.S. PGPUB 20090105889 to Cowans et al. (Cowans).
Regarding claim 8, Grant is silent on wherein said fluid is a two-phase fluid so as to form a vapor cycle system.
Cowans teaches wherein said fluid is a two-phase fluid so as to form a vapor cycle system (Figures 1, 6, and/or 10 and Paragraphs 0032 and 0063). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Grant with the teachings of Cowans to provide wherein said fluid is a two-phase fluid so as to form a vapor cycle system. Doing so would allow the device to control temperature within the cabin.
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 STEVEN S ANDERSON II whose telephone number is (571)272-2055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 574-272-6460. 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.
/STEVEN S ANDERSON II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights