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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 7, 8, 12 and 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, line 3 should be spaced in by two indents to be properly located under “wherein the valve module further comprises”
Regarding claims 7 and 18, the claims should read “wherein the valve poppet…in both the closing direction and the opening direction” (claim 7 amended to include the clearer term “both” of claim 18) because the elements are clearly intended to refer to those of claims 1/12 and 3/14
Claim 8, line 3 should recite “resulting from fluidic forces in both the opening and closing directions” for clarity
Claim 12 should have a colon at the end of the preamble
Claim 12, lines 3-9 should be spaced in by another indent to properly position them under “valve module comprising:”
Claim 12, line 4 should have a comma before “wherein”
Claim 19, line 3 should recite “resulting from fluidic forces in both the opening and closing directions” for clarity
Claim 19, line 3 should have a comma before “wherein”
Claim 20, line 6 “[AB]” should be deleted for clarity
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1 (and thus its dependent claims 2-11), it is unclear whether the claimed system is intended to include the plurality of masks and/or the aircraft of claim 1, line 6, or whether the masks/aircraft are simply intended use. As best understood, for purposes of examination, they are intended use, but Applicant should make the intended interpretation clear on the record in their response to this Office Action, e.g. by amending the preamble of claim 1 to read “A system for delivering gas to a plurality of masks in an interior of an aircraft” and amending lines 5-6 to read “outflow of the gas…to the plurality of masksare intended to be positively recited, they should be included on their own lines in claim 1 in accordance with 37 C.F.R. 1.75 (i) and MPEP 608.01(i).
Regarding claim 12 (and thus its dependent claims 13-20), a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite, see MPEP 2173.05(p).II. Thus, the active step of “adjusts the outflow…to a plurality of masks” is an improper recitation of a method step in an apparatus claim. Additionally, this active phrasing renders it unclear whether the plurality of masks is intended as a component of the claimed regulator or not. As best understood, for purposes of examination, the masks are intended use/not comprised by the regulator, but Applicant should make the intended interpretation clear on the record in their response to this Office Action (e.g. similar to the suggestions above), or if the plurality of masks is intended to be positively recited, it should be included on its own line in claim 12 in accordance with 37 C.F.R. 1.75 (i) and MPEP 608.01(i).
Further regarding claims 1 and 12 (and thus their dependent claims), lines 7-8 of claim 1 and line 5 of claim 12 recite the plurality of sensors “comprises at least one of a pressure sensor and a temperature sensor” (emphasis added) but then lines 10-11 of claim 1 and lines 11-12 of claim 12 require the controller to be configured to receive both pressure and temperature data from “the pressure sensor and the temperature sensor” (emphasis added), which renders claims 1/12 unclear, because both types of sensors appear to be required by the latter portions of the claims. To address this rejection, claim 1, lines 7-8, and claim 12, line 5, could both be amended to recite “at least one of each of”.
Further regarding claims 1 and 12 (and thus their dependent claims), the claims recite “the controller configured to control an amount of flow rate and duration…by transitioning from a closed position to an open position,” wherein it is unclear how a controller itself can transition from a “closed position” to an “open position.” As best understood for purposes of examination, the claims will be considered to read “the controller configured to control an amount of flow rate and duration…by transitioning the valve module from a closed position to an open position”.
Regarding claims 3 and 14 (and thus their dependent claims 4-11 and 15-20), a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite, see MPEP 2173.05(p).II, and it is unclear in the claims what is moving: the poppet or the motor. To address this rejection, Applicant could amend claims 3 and 14 to read “motor that is configured to move the valve poppet…or movethe valve poppet”.
Regarding claims 4 and 15 (and thus their dependent claims 5-11 and 16-20), the claims currently read as if the configuring of the controller is dependent on the pre-set profile…existing(?), which is indefinite, because it is unclear what that would even mean. As best understood, the control configuration utilizes the pre-set profile, such that this rejection could be addressed by amending claims 4 and 15, line 2 of each claim, to recite “utilizing”, or, better yet, the utilizing phrase could be moved to the end of the claim, to make it clearer that the pre-set profile is part of the configuration of the controller.
Regarding claims 5 and 16 (and thus their dependent claims 6-11 and 17-20), it is unclear how an o-ring on a shaft of an electric motor is to “achieve a pressure balance by reducing a valve actuation force,” since an o-ring (415) on/around a reciprocating shaft as depicted in instant Fig. 5 and described in para [0050] of the instant specification as being positioned “to avoid the fluid medium contacting the linear stepper motor 420” would be assumed to increase friction between the o-ring and the shaft and thus inferred to increase the valve actuation force, at least by some small degree. For purposes of examination, an o-ring arranged as claimed and disclosed (i.e. on/around a reciprocating shaft to isolate an associated motor) will be considered capable of providing the claimed functionality, but Applicant should make clear how the intended functionality is to be achieved in light of the disclosed o-ring structure, or, better yet, Applicant could replace the unclear functionality in the claims with e.g. “to avoid fluid medium within the valve module contacting the electric motor”.
Regarding claims 6 and 17, it is unclear how the o-ring seal is to be “configured on a shaft of the electric motor” according to claims 5/16 (wherein the electric motor is separate from the valve poppet per claims 3/14), but then also wherein “the valve poppet is…configured with the o-ring seal” (which is understood to mean that the valve poppet comprises the o-ring seal), that is, it is unclear in the claims how a single o-ring seal can be on both a shaft of the motor as well as on/comprised by the valve poppet. As best understood, in light of e.g. instant Fig. 5, which depicts o-ring 415 on/around a motor shaft and the motor shaft as an extension of the poppet, an o-ring that is on/around a motor shaft that extends from a poppet will be considered to read on the instant claims.
Regarding claims 7-8 and 18-19 (and thus their dependent claims 8-11 and 19-20), in claims 7 and 18, “incurs” is an active method step (which is indefinite, see MPEP 2173.05(p).II). As best understood, for purposes of examination, the claims will be considered to read “configured to incurin the closed position”. However, with regards to claims 7-8 and 18-19, it is unclear, even in the light of the specification, what are the claimed “fluidic forces” (or if they are the same between claims 7/18 and claims 8/19) because, as best understood in view of e.g. instant Figs. 4-5 and paras [0039] and [0051] of the instant specification, a fluidic force is exerted in the opening direction/on the right side of poppet 405 by the pressurized gas in bottle 410, but it is spring 515 and/or the motor, not “fluid,” that exerts a force in the closing direction/on the left side of poppet 405, and it is unclear in claims 8 and 19 what is meant by “to cause fluid leakage tightness”, because “leakage” and “tightness” are opposites. For purposes of examination, a prior art valve that has forces (fluid or otherwise) exerted on either side and which is configured to be held in a fluid-tight closed position will be considered to read on the instant limitations.
Regarding claim 10 (and thus its dependent claim 11) and claim 20, the claims recite the limitation "the energizing" in line 2 of claim 10 and line 3 of claim 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Furthermore, the claims currently read as if the configuration of the controller is dependent on both the energizing of the valve module and the outlet pressure measurement; however, it is unclear how the configuration of a controller is to altered in this manner, e.g. is someone reprogramming the controller when these events occur? Also, it is unclear how the same command could both open and close a valve. As best understood, for purposes of examination, the configuration of the controller is configured to control energization based on the outlet measurement pressure and using separate commands, such that Applicant could address this rejection by amending the claims to read “wherein the controller is configured to control the pressure at the outlet- to arrive at a pre-set value by energizing cause the valve module to open or close an orifice for fluid flow, and if an outlet pressure measured is higher than the pre-set value; wherein a control command to increase the flow area by moving the valve poppet in the opening direction if the outlet pressure measured is lower than the pre-set value.”
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the movement" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant could amend the claim to read “
Claim Interpretation
A “valve module” that has an open and closed position is considered sufficient structure to preempt a 112f interpretation in claims 1-2, and the remainder of the claims recite specific valve structure.
The term “ambient temperature” in claims 1 and 12 is understood in light of the specification to mean the temperature in the vicinity of the sensor/outlet of the valve module, which is intended to be positioned inside of an aircraft and thus subject to cabin temperature.
The phrase “a correction of at least an output pressure at the outlet to a desired output pressure” in claims 1 and 12 is understood to mean that a difference between a current output pressure and a desired output pressure is minimized per standard feedback loop control.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rittner et al. (US 2011/0041853 A1; hereinafter “Rittner”).
Regarding claim 1, Rittner discloses a system (Figs. 1-2), comprising:
a valve module (comprising valve body 15) (Fig. 1);
a controller (electronic control unit 9) (Fig. 1); and
a plurality of sensors (comprising regulator pressure sensor 11 and temperature sensor 14) (Fig. 1);
wherein the controller is operably coupled to the valve module to adjust outflow of gas from an outlet of the valve module to a plurality of masks (plurality of respiratory masks 17) in an interior of an aircraft (paras [0002-3] and [0032]);
wherein the plurality of sensors comprises at least one of a pressure sensor (pressure sensor 11) and a temperature sensor (temperature sensor 14) (Fig. 1);
wherein the controller is configured to receive feedback of sensed data at the outlet of the valve module about at least outlet pressure (control unit 9 controls the movement of the valve body…until the required or predetermined value of pressure within…chamber 5…is reached…pressure…determined by regulator pressure sensor 11, para [0032]) and ambient temperature (temperature sensor 14…outputs the determined temperature value to the electronic control unit 9, para [0031]) from at least the pressure sensor and the temperature sensor and adjust the outflow of gas from the outlet of the valve module by determining an open-valve time (time it takes to reach the require or predetermined pressure value) based on the feedback of sensed data received from each sensor (control unit 9 controls the movement of the valve body…until the required or predetermined value of pressure within…chamber 5 associated with the determined temperature is reached, para [0032]);
wherein the controller is configured to control an amount of a flow rate (the amount of movement of the valve body 15 is controlled by the electronic control unit 9, para [0030]; where the amount/degree of movement dictates the amount of flow rate through a poppet valve by increasing or decreasing the effective open area, see the valve structure of Rittner Figs. 1-2) and duration of time of a flow rate of gas from the valve module (para [0032]; see above) by transitioning from a closed position (sealing position) (Fig. 1; para [0028]) to an open position (regulating position) (Fig. 2) based an operation profile of the valve module associated with a correction of at least an output pressure at the outlet to a desired output pressure (control unit is adapted for causing the motor unit to move the valve body within the regulating position range until the determined pressure within the pressure regulating chamber matches a predefined pressure within the pressure regulating chamber, paras [0018-20] and [0032-33]).
Regarding claim 12, Rittner discloses a pressure control regulator (Figs. 1-2; paras [0007-8]) comprising
a valve module (comprising valve body 15) (Fig. 1) comprising:
a controller (electronic control unit 9) (Fig. 1) communicatively coupled to a plurality of sensors (comprising regulator pressure sensor 11 and temperature sensor 14) (Fig. 1) and an electric motor (electrical motor 8) (Fig. 1; paras [0029-30]) that adjusts outflow of gas from an outlet of the valve module (paras [0018-20] and [0032-33]) to a plurality of masks (plurality of respiratory masks 17) (Fig. 1; paras [0002-3] and [0032]), wherein the plurality of sensors comprises at least one of a pressure sensor (pressure sensor 11) and a temperature sensor (temperature sensor 14) (Fig. 1); and
a valve poppet (valve body 15) connected to the electric motor (Fig. 1) that is configured to control an amount of a flow rate (the amount of movement of the valve body 15 is controlled by the electronic control unit 9, para [0030]; where the amount/degree of movement dictates the amount of flow rate through a poppet valve by increasing or decreasing the effective open area of the valve, see the structure of Rittner Figs. 1-2) and duration of time of a flow rate of gas from the valve module (time it takes to reach the require or predetermined pressure value, see para [0032]) by transitioning from a closed position (sealing position) (Fig. 1; para [0028]) to an open position (regulating position) (Fig. 2) based an operation profile of the valve module associated with a correction of at least an output pressure at the outlet to a desired output pressure (control unit is adapted for causing the motor unit to move the valve body within the regulating position range until the determined pressure within the pressure regulating chamber matches a predefined pressure within the pressure regulating chamber, para [0020]; paras [0018-20] and [0032-33]);
wherein the controller is configured to receive feedback of sensed data at the outlet of the valve module about at least outlet pressure (control unit 9 controls the movement of the valve body…until the required or predetermined value of pressure within…chamber 5…is reached…pressure…determined by regulator pressure sensor 11, para [0032]) and ambient temperature (temperature sensor 14…outputs the determined temperature value to the electronic control unit 9, para [0031]) from at least the pressure sensor and the temperature sensor and adjust the outflow of gas from the outlet of the valve module by determining an open-valve time (time it takes to reach the require or predetermined pressure value) based on the feedback of sensed data received from each sensor (control unit 9 controls the movement of the valve body…until the required or predetermined value of pressure within…chamber 5 associated with the determined temperature is reached, para [0032]).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Rittner discloses the system of claim 1 and the pressure control regulator of claim 12, wherein the controller is configured to adjust the flow rate at the outlet in accordance with feedback of the sensed data from each sensor for gas flow to the plurality of masks (paras [0018-20] and [0031-33]).
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) 3-10 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rittner in view of Frampton (US 2007/0017573 A1; hereinafter “Frampton”) (with claims 4/15 and 10/20 as evidenced by Hamilton et al. (US 3,752,175; hereinafter “Hamilton”)).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Rittner discloses the system of claim 2 and the pressure control regulator of claim 13, further comprising:
[wherein the valve module further comprises:]
a/the valve poppet (valve body 15) coupled to an/the electric motor (electrical motor 8) (Fig. 1; paras [0029-30]) that moves in either in an opening direction (downward in Figs. 1-2) to cause a flow area around a poppet profile region (region of the valve body 15 towards opening 16) to increase or moves in a closing direction (upward in Figs. 1-2) to cause the flow area around the poppet profile region to decrease (Figs. 1-2; paras [0007-8] and [0030]).
While Rittner further discloses that valve poppet can have a cone-shape (para [0026]), Rittner does not explicitly state that the pointed end of the cone is configured toward the opening 16, such that Rittner is silent regarding wherein the poppet profile region is conical. However, Frampton demonstrates that it was known in the aviation gas regulation art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the poppet profile region of a cone-shaped valve body (conical shaped seat engaging head 40) to be conical (Figure). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the cone valve body of Rittner to be positioned so as to have a conical poppet profile region as taught by Frampton, in order utilize a standard gas-flow-regulation valve construction to provide the predictable result of controlled/variable gas flow through a pressure balanced valve (Frampton para [0018].
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Rittner in view of Frampton teaches the system of claim 3 and the pressure control regulator of claim 14, wherein Rittner further discloses, as best understood, the system/regulator further comprising: the controller is configured to maintain a steady uniform pressure value (controlling is carried out until the required or predefined value of pressure…is reached, para [0032]; see also Frampton para [0020]) by responding to changes in altitude by the aircraft [i.e. as reflected by changes in cabin pressure which correlate to aircraft altitude] utilizing a pre-set profile configured for regulation of gas pressure (the control unit is adapted for controlling the motor unit on the basis of…the altitude sensor, para [0018]; altitude sensor 10 outputs the determined pressure of the cabin, paras [0031-32]; a memory storing a table which lists predefined pressure values…depending on the temperature…and the pressure value of the cabin…provides information about the required flow, para [0033]), but Rittner does not explicitly disclose the controller configured to maintain the steady uniform pressure value by increasing flow in response to increases in altitude. However, it would have been inherent or obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the controller of modified Rittner to maintain the steady uniform (predefined/set) pressure value by increasing flow in response to increases in altitude due to physics, because increases in altitude correlate to decreases in ambient/cabin pressure, such that increased flow is required in order to maintain a set pressure as altitude increases, in order to compensate for the corresponding decrease in ambient/cabin pressure (see Hamilton, bottom of the abstract, as evidence of this physical phenomenon/poppet valve operation: “progressively increase the spacing between such poppet and seat [i.e. flow] with further decreases in ambient pressure [i.e. increases in altitude] to thereby adjust the control valve to maintain a substantially constant pressure”).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Rittner in view of Frampton teaches the system of claim 4 and the pressure control regulator of claim 15, wherein Rittner further discloses wherein the valve module comprises an O-ring seal (seal 7) (Fig. 1; para 0027]) configured on a shaft (linear drive 6) of the electric motor (Fig. 1), as best understood, to achieve a pressure balance by reducing a valve actuation force by virtue of having the same positioning as instantly claimed for avoiding fluid medium within the valve module contacting the electric motor (seal 7 for avoiding leakage, para [0027]).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Rittner in view of Frampton teaches the system of claim 5 and the pressure control regulator of claim 16, wherein Rittner further discloses wherein the valve poppet is spring loaded (via spring element 3) (Fig. 1; paras [0028-29]) and, as best understood, configured with the O-ring seal (Fig. 1, where seal 7 is on/around the motor shaft 6 which extends from the poppet 15).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Rittner in view of Frampton teaches the system of claim 6 and the pressure control regulator of claim 17, wherein modified Rittner further teaches wherein in the closed position (Rittner Fig. 1), the conical poppet profile region of the valve poppet is configured to interface with a valve seat (Rittner Fig. 1; valve seat in the opening 16, para [0026]) of a control orifice body (comprising opening 16) of the valve module to cause a closure of a channel (through opening 16) to the flow area, wherein, as best understood, [the] valve poppet incurs fluidic forces in [the] closing direction and in [the] opening direction at the closed position (Rittner Figs. 1-2; paras [0027-29]; see 112 discussion above).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Rittner in view of Frampton teaches the system of claim 7 and the pressure control regulator of claim 18, wherein Rittner further discloses, as best understood, wherein the closed position comprises a shut-off sufficient to cause fluid leakage tightness by providing an adequate sealing stress caused by a net closing force resultant by fluidic forces in both directions (Fig. 1; [i]n the sealing operation the valve body 15 is in the sealing portion as indicated in Fig. 1…the valve body is pushed to the valve seat…there by hermetically closing the opening 16, para [0028]).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Rittner in view of Frampton teaches the system of claim 8 and the pressure control regulator of claim 18, wherein Rittner further discloses wherein the controller is configured to cause a change in the flow area by movement of the valve poppet that is defined by a poppet control profile region (the area around the poppet profile region) (Figs. 1-2; paras [0007-8] and [0030]).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Rittner in view of Frampton teaches the system of claim 9 and the pressure control regulator of claim 19, wherein Rittner further disclose, as best understood, wherein the controller is configured to enable the pressure at the outlet at a pre-set value (predefined pressure) [by] energizing of the valve module to cause to open an orifice (opening 16) for fluid flow, and the controller is configured to generate a control command to reduce the flow area by moving the valve poppet in the closing direction if an outlet pressure measured is higher than the pre-set value; wherein the controller is configured to generate the control command to increase the flow area by moving the valve poppet in the opening direction if the outlet pressure measured is lower than the pre-set value (control unit is adapted for causing the motor unit to move the valve body within the regulating position range until the determined pressure within the pressure regulating chamber matches a predefined pressure within the pressure regulating chamber, para [0020]; control unit 9 causes the electric motor 8 to move the linear drive 6…[in] the regulating position range, oxygen flows, para [0030]; paras [0018-20] and [0032-33]; wherein physics dictates that if the outlet pressure needs to be increased (i.e. outlet pressure is lower than pre-set/predefined value), flow needs to be increased, and the flow/flow area is increased by moving the poppet in the opening direction, and vice versa, as demonstrated by the bottom of Hamilton abstract, such that the controller of Rittner is understood to be configured as claimed).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rittner in view of Frampton as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Horner (US 2020/0298978 1; hereinafter “Horner”).
Regarding claim 11, Ritter in view of Frampton teaches the system of claim 10, but Rittner is silent regarding the nature of the motor, such that modified Rittner is silent wherein the movement of the valve poppet is based on a number of direct current voltage pulses per unit time fed to the electric motor that determines a motor operating speed of the electric motor and subsequent speed of movement of the valve poppet. However, Horner teaches that it was known in the aviation gas control art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for an aviation gas regulating valve to include wherein the movement of the valve is based on a number of direct current voltage pulses per unit time fed to the electric motor that determines a motor operating speed of the electric motor and subsequent speed of movement of the valve (Fig. 1; [m]otors 130 and 140 are configured to control the position of outflow valve 150…includes a brushless direct-current (BLDC) motor, para [0025]; controllers 210 and 220 can control motors 230 and 240 to achieve target speeds…BDC motors can use…PWM [pulse width modulation] signals, para [0047]; see also paras [0050] and [0068-69]), such that it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Rittner to include wherein the movement of the valve is based on a number of direct current voltage pulses per unit time fed to the electric motor that determines a motor operating speed of the electric motor and subsequent speed of movement of the valve as taught by Horner, in order to utilize a known type of motor (PWM-controlled DC motor) to provide the predictable result of a suitable electronic-motor-controlled valve.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional references regarding pressure regulators with feedback control and/or conical poppets: Adams et al. (US 6,035,878 and US 6,539,315 B1); Bloom (US 6,418,956 B1); Fromage (US 2013/0306073 A1); Lessi et al. (US 2011/0174307 A1); Mesmer et al. (US 2022/0305300 A1); Rittner et al. (US 9,119,977 B2); Siska, Jr. et al. (US 2009/0189103 A1); Sulatisky et al. (US 6,758,233 B2); Talty (US 2004/0216742 A1). Reference teaching the inclusion of an o-ring on a poppet valve: Newcombe et al. (US 4,976,460; Fig. 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHRYN E DITMER whose telephone number is (571)270-5178. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30a-4:30p, F 7:30a-11:30a ET.
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, Brandy Lee can be reached at 571-270-7410. 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.
/KATHRYN E DITMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785