DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the response to the amendment dated 3/19/2026. Claim 9 is currently amended. Claims 1-8 and 16-20 have been canceled. No claims are newly added. Presently, claims 9-15 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 103 section on pages 5-6 of the response dated 3/19/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 9-10 and 12-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horstmann (US 6202671) in view of Nihon Plast (JP 5296473 B2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. It is considered that the Horstmann reference (US 6202671) does not disclose or suggest the use of either springs or Belleville washers to provide a pre-load force to bias the poppet against the valve seat. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Horstmann (US 6131878) and van Schoor et al. (US 20190072195).
It is considered that the Horstmann reference discloses a poppet having one or more springs (120) disposed around an extension portion (26a) of the poppet, the one or more springs providing a pre-load force biasing the poppet against the valve seat (the springs 120 urge the poppet to the right in the orientation depicted in figure 2 such that the stem 56 of the poppet is urged against the valve seat on pin portion 73), wherein pressure applied to the poppet overcomes the pre-load as the poppet transitions to [a] first position (it is considered that the as the pressure is provided into the chamber 59 through the channels 113 to move the poppet to the left (in the orientation depicted in figure 2), the springs 120 are compressed to overcome the pre-load of the springs).
PNG
media_image1.png
1308
1044
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further, it is considered that the van Schoor et al. reference teaches a valve assembly wherein a spring assembly that may include a compression spring, a constant force spring, a Belleville spring, a Belleville washer, beveled washer, disc spring, a conical spring, combinations thereof, or still other types of springs (paragraph [0037]).
Therefore, it is considered that the combination of Horstmann (US 6131878) and the van Schoor et al. reference addresses applicant’s concerns and claim language in the amended claim 9.
Since new grounds of rejection were necessitated by applicant’s amendment, the instant Office action is made final.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 3/19/2026 and on 8/18/2023. These drawings are not acceptable.
The drawings are objected to because the drawings lack appropriate cross-hatching (“hatching must be used to indicate section portions of an object...”, see MPEP 608.02(V)(h)(3)). Applicant is advised that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The proposed replacement sheets submitted 3/19/2026 lack cross-hatchings in several locations. An example of the areas in Figure 2 that need appropriate cross-hatching is provided below. Appropriate cross-hatching is needed in figures 2-6 and 9-1
PNG
media_image2.png
886
705
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Additionally, an example of appropriate cross-hatching is provided below in figure 1 from Horstmann (US 6202671).
PNG
media_image3.png
1037
1286
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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
Claims 9-15 contain the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites the limitation “transitions to the first position” in line 8. Claim 9 also recites the limitation “in a first position” in line 15. It appears that the recitation of “transitions to the first position” in line 8 should be “transitions to a first position” and that the recitation of “in a first position” in line 15 should be “in the first position”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 9, 10 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horstmann (US 6131878) in view of Nihon Plast (JP 5296473 B2; provided on the information disclosure statement filed 8/18/2023) and in view of van Schoor et al. (US 20190072195).
Regarding claim 9, the Horstmann reference discloses a resettable poppet valve system comprising:
a pin assembly comprising:
a pin (23, 73) for engaging a moveable poppet (25, 27, 29, 33) closed against a valve seat (see “valve seat” in the annotated figure 2 below);
one or more springs (120) disposed around an extension portion (26a) of the poppet, the one or more springs providing a pre-load force biasing the poppet against the valve seat (the springs 120 urge the poppet to the right in the orientation depicted in figure 2 such that the stem 56 of the poppet is urged against the valve seat on pin portion 73), wherein pressure applied to the poppet overcomes the pre-load as the poppet transitions to [a] first position (it is considered that the as the pressure is provided into the chamber 59 through the channels 113 to move the poppet to the left (in the orientation depicted in figure 2), the springs 120 are compressed to overcome the pre-load of the springs);
and
a valve body (15) coupled to the pin assembly, the valve body having an inlet (see “inlet” in the annotated figure 2 below) and an outlet (see “outlet” in the annotated figure 2 below); and
an internal valve body (see “internal valve body” in the annotated figure 2 below) disposed within the valve body, the internal valve body comprising a resealable port (113) for receiving pressure within a channel (59),
wherein the pin (23, 73) maintains the poppet closed against the valve seat in [the] first position (see the position depicted in figure 2),
wherein the poppet transitions to a second position by movement of the pin (considered the position as depicted in figure 1),
wherein the poppet is disposed within the internal valve body for contacting the valve seat (see figure 2), the poppet comprising:
a sealed piston (34) defining the channel, wherein the pressure received in the channel returns the poppet to the first position (see col. 6, lines 3-58).
PNG
media_image1.png
1308
1044
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Firstly, the Horstmann reference does not disclose a pyrotechnic device controlling the operation of the pin and wherein the pin includes a shoulder for supporting the pin when the pyrotechnic device is disengaged.
However, the Nihon Plast reference teaches a pyroactuator including a pyrotechnic device (igniter 5) which, when activated, supplies an operation chamber (21) with gas so that the piston (3) is moved to the first end portion of the cylinder main body (2) (see page 6, lines 14-21 of the machine translation provided in the IDS dated 8/18/2023) wherein the piston (3) interacts with a shoulder (33a) when the pyrotechnic device (igniter 5) is disengaged (see figure) in order to provide a quick operating piston (see abstract).
The substitution of one known element (the pin with a pyrotechnic device as shown in Nihon Plast) for another (the pin as shown in Horstmann) would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art since the substitution of the pin to be operated by a pyrotechnic device and wherein the pin interacts with a shoulder when the pyrotechnic device is disengaged as shown in Nihon Plast would have yielded predictable results, namely, a quick operating piston to control the locking of the poppet of the Horstmann reference.
Secondly, the Horstmann reference of the combination of the Horstmann reference and the Nihon Plast reference does not disclose wherein the one or more springs are one or more Belleville washers.
However, the van Schoor et al. reference teaches a valve assembly having a spring assembly (158) that may include a compression spring, a constant force spring, a Belleville spring, a Belleville washer, beveled washer, disc spring, a conical spring, combinations thereof, or still other types of springs (paragraph [0037]).
The substitution of one known element (the one or more springs being one or more Belleville washers as shown in van Schoor et al.) for another (the one or more springs as shown in Horstmann) would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art since the substitution of the one or more springs to be one or more Belleville washers shown in van Schoor et al. would have yielded predictable results, namely, an easier manner to adjust the pre-load force by adjusting the number of Belleville washers as opposed to changing the characteristics of a coil springs provided by the Horstmann reference of the combination of the Horstmann reference and the Nihon Plast reference.
In regards to claim 10, the Nihon Plast reference of the combination of the Horstmann reference, the Nihon Plast reference and the van Schoor et al. reference discloses wherein the pyrotechnic device creates pressure in the pin assembly for displacing the pin from the shoulder when the pyrotechnic device is engaged (Nihon Plast: see page 6, lines 14-21 of the machine translation provided in the IDS dated 8/18/2023).
In regards to claim 12, the Nihon Plast reference of the combination of the Horstmann reference, the Nihon Plast reference and the van Schoor et al. reference discloses a crush cap (Nihon Plast: 2a) for maintaining the pin within the pin assembly when the pyrotechnic device is engaged.
In regards to claim 13, the Nihon Plast reference of the combination of the Horstmann reference, the Nihon Plast reference and the van Schoor et al. reference discloses wherein the sealed piston (Nihon Plast: 3a) comprises an O-ring (Nihon Plast: 6).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horstmann (US 6131878) in view of Nihon Plast (JP 5296473 B2; provided on the information disclosure statement filed 8/18/2023) and in view of van Schoor et al. (US 20190072195) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Meyrueix, Jean Rene (EP 0627786 A1; see machine translation provided with the Office action dated 10/23/2025).
In regards to claim 11, the combination of the Horstmann reference, the Nihon Plast reference and the van Schoor et al. reference does not expressly disclose wherein the pyrotechnic device is built to NASA SEB 26100001, wherein the pyrotechnic device is selected from the group consisting of: a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Standard Initiator (NSI), a Triton Standard Initiator (TSI)-200, a TSI-300, an Ensign-Bickford Aerospace & Defense S76-191, and a Pacific Scientific Initiator 103377-500.
However, the Meyrueix, Jean Rene reference teaches a locking system (3) being trigger by an igniter of the type of a NASA Standard Initiator (see page 6, eighth full paragraph of the attached machine translation).
The substitution of one known element (the pyrotechnic device being a NASA Standard Initiator as shown in Meyrueix, Jean Rene) for another (the pyrotechnic device as shown in the combination of the Horstmann reference, the Nihon Plast reference and the van Schoor et al. reference) would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art since the substitution of the pyrotechnic device to be a NASA Standard Initiator as shown in Meyrueix, Jean Rene would have yielded predictable results, namely, a known pyrotechnic device that has been tested to control the operation of the pin of the combination of the Horstmann reference, the Nihon Plast reference and the van Schoor et al. reference.
Further, it is considered that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to design the valve system of the combination of the Horstmann reference, the Nihon Plast reference, the van Schoor et al. reference and the Meyrueix, Jean Rene reference to conform to a known standard, such as NASA SEB 26100001, when designing a valve for controlling liquid propellant in a rocket engine (Horstmann: see abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 15 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to claim 14, the prior art of record does not disclose wherein a fluid and/or gas is sealed at the inlet when the poppet is in the first position in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
In regards to claim 15, the prior art of record does not disclose wherein the fluid and/or gas flows through the inlet, around the internal valve body, and through the outlet when the poppet is in the second position in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
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 Andrew J. Rost whose telephone number is (571) 272-2711. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/ANDREW J ROST/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights