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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/02/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-10 and 12-13 remain(s) pending in the application. Claims 14-15 remain withdrawn in accordance with the election dated 06/03/2024. Applicant's amendments to the Claims are responsive to the rejections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 09/02/2025, hereinafter FOA_2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, have been fully considered but is not persuasive. Specifically, the argument that “Appropriate correction has been made”, is not accurate. The corrections do not alleviate the issue with the claims. Specifically, with respect to claim 1, it is still unclear how the seal, located on the piston, prevents leakage from the actuator. Preventing leakage from the actuator would require the seal to be located at another location, such as at a penetration of the cylinder housing. With respect to claim 10, no amendment has been made. Therefore, the rejections under 112(b) remain.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman; Timothy S. et al. US 20170254417 A1, hereinafter Coleman, in view of Jordan; Holger US 20090066034 A1, hereinafter Jordan, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, the argument that Coleman fails to disclose the limitation “a control spool” is accurate. Instead, Coleman is silent regarding a control spool. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made via Coleman in view of NORTHROP AIRCRAFT INC GB 759375 A, hereinafter Northrop.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(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 1-2, 4-6, 9-10 and 12-13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 Ln 5-7 states the limitation " a seal positioned between the piston and the housing, the seal configured to isolate the fluid in the chamber so as to isolate the fluid portions of the chamber and prevent leakage from the actuator”. It is unclear how the seal may prevent leakage from the actuator when the seal lies completely within the chamber on the piston as claimed in Ln 10-11. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indeterminate. For examination, the limitation was interpreted as the seal isolates portions of the chamber from one another.
Claim 10 Ln 1-3 states the limitation "the pressure relief conduit extends at least partially in an axial direction through the housing between the chamber and the energizer”. It is unclear how the conduit may pass through the housing when the seal groove is located within the piston. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indeterminate. For examination, the limitation was interpreted as the conduit passes through the piston.
Claims 2, 4-6, 9 and 12-13 are rejected for their dependence upon claim 1.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman; Timothy S. et al. US 20170254417 A1, hereinafter Coleman, in view of Jordan; Holger US 20090066034 A1, hereinafter Jordan, in further view of NORTHROP AIRCRAFT INC GB 759375 A, hereinafter Northrop. The references is/are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because the references is/are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (piston seal configurations); or the references is/are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (piston sealing, applications of piston sealing actuators). MPEP2141.01(a) I.
Regarding claim 1, as far as is determinate, Coleman discloses (Fig. 5 and 6) a wing flap system (the preamble term ‘wing flap system’ is interpreted as intended use in accordance with MPEP 2111.02 II.) comprising:
a housing (220) comprising at least one chamber (250) for holding a fluid [0004];
a piston (230) comprising an axis (CL), the piston positioned partially within the chamber [0036]; and
a seal (260/280) positioned between the piston and the housing, the seal configured to isolate the fluid in the chamber so as to isolate portions of the chamber and prevent leakage from the actuator ([0036] and as depicted (260/280) isolates portions of the chamber from one another);
wherein the piston and the housing are configured to move relative to each other along the axis (Pg 3 Ln 1-21);
wherein the piston comprises a seal groove (290) in which the seal is positioned, the seal comprising a seal body (260) and an energizer (280), wherein a cavity (282) is defined between the seal groove, the seal body and the energizer, the energizer biasing the seal body against the other of the piston or the housing [0036];
wherein the actuator comprises at least one pressure relief conduit (275, 245) located between the energizer and the chamber, and configured to equalize fluid pressure built up in the cavity and pressure in the chamber [0036].
Coleman fails to explicitly state that the energizer contacts a bottom of the seal groove. Instead, Coleman discloses an energizer that is silent regarding contact with the bottom of the seal groove and depicts the energizer as not in contact with the seal groove in at least one location (the cross section depicted in Fig. 5 and 6).
Jordan discloses (Fig. 3 and 4) an actuator comprising:
a housing (3) comprising at least one chamber (H) for holding a fluid ([0024, 0037] “pressurized fluid”);
a piston (2, [0002] “piston rod or a piston”) comprising an axis (depicted centerline thereof), the piston positioned partially within the chamber ((2) is depicted as positioned/extending into (H)); and
a seal (15/16) positioned between the piston and the housing [0060-0061];
wherein the piston and the housing are configured to move relative to each other along the axis [0002];
a seal groove (14) in which the seal is positioned ((15/16) is depicted as positioned in (14)), the seal comprising a seal body (15) and an energizer (16) that contacts a bottom of the seal groove (depicted as in contact with the seal groove bottom, [0054]), wherein a cavity (the depicted space in Fig. 4 between the left surface (15/16) and the left surface of (14)) is defined between the seal groove, the seal body and the energizer (the cavity is depicted as located between the left surface (15/16) and the left surface of (14)), the energizer biasing the seal body ([0054] states biasing the seal);
wherein the actuator comprises at least one pressure relief conduit (17c, 17d) located between the energizer and the chamber and configured to equalize fluid pressure built up in the cavity and pressure in the chamber [0060-0061];
wherein the pressure relief conduit is configured to fluidly communicate the chamber with the cavity [0060-0061] for the purpose of relieving pressure that would otherwise lead to seal damage and system breakdown [0002, 0004].
One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element (energizer that contacts a bottom of the seal groove) for another (energizer that does not contact the bottom of the seal groove), and the results of the substitution (radially loading the sealing ring [0054]) would have been predictable. Because both Coleman and Jordan teach energizers, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the energizer that contacts a bottom of the seal groove for the energizer that does not contact the bottom of the seal groove to achieve the predictable result of radially loading the sealing ring.
Coleman further fails to explicitly state that the wing flap system further comprises a control spool, wherein the control spool is configured to selectively communicate a fluid supply with the chamber, such that a pressure within the chamber increases, wherein the control spool is configured to selectively communicate a fluid exhaust with the chamber, the fluid exhaust having a pressure which is lower than a pressure of the fluid supply.
Northrup discloses (Fig. 1, 2) an actuator (3) comprising:
a housing (37) comprising at least one chamber (21) for holding a fluid (“operation fluid”);
a piston (39) comprising an axis (depicted centerline thereof), the piston positioned partially within the chamber (depicted as located within the chamber); and
a seal (50/53, 51/53) positioned between the piston and the housing, the seal configured to isolate a fluid in the chamber (Pg 3 Ln 1-21);
wherein the piston and the housing are configured to move relative to each other along the axis (Pg 3 Ln 1-21);
wherein the piston comprises a seal groove (50, 51) in which the seal is positioned, the seal comprising a seal body (53);
wherein the actuator comprises at least one pressure relief conduit (54/49) and configured to relieve fluid pressure built up in the region between the energizer and the chamber (Pg 3 Ln 1-21);
the actuator further comprising a control spool (11), wherein the control spool is configured to selectively communicate a fluid supply with the chamber, such that a pressure within the chamber increases (Pg 2 Ln 33-43, 70-81), wherein the control spool (11) is configured to selectively communicate a fluid exhaust with the chamber, the fluid exhaust having a pressure which is lower than a pressure of the fluid supply (Pg 2 Ln 33-43, 70-81) for the purpose of controlling the entrance and egress of fluid to the chamber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify Coleman, by providing a control spool, as taught by Northrop, for the purpose of controlling the entrance and egress of fluid to the chamber.
Regarding claim 2, Coleman discloses (Fig. 5 and 6) the piston and housing are configured to move relative to each other under the action of the fluid ([0002] discloses examples of the device such as a hydraulic drive, pneumatic drive, which move relative to each other under the action of the fluid).
Regarding claim 4, Coleman discloses (Fig. 5 and 6) the pressure relief conduit is configured to limit a rate of fluid transfer between the cavity and the chamber to a given rate of fluid transfer (fundamentally, a conduit limits a rate of fluid transfer as a function of its size, furthermore, [0010, 0036]).
Regarding claim 5, Coleman discloses (Fig. 5 and 6) the piston comprises a piston head (230) which defines a movable boundary of the chamber (the boundary being the piston separating the chamber (250) into two sub chambers on either side of the piston).
Regarding claim 6, Coleman discloses (Fig. 5 and 6) the seal is configured to isolate a relatively high pressure fluid within the chamber on a first side of the seal from a relatively low pressure fluid on a second side of the seal [0036].
Regarding claim 9, Coleman discloses (Fig. 5 and 6) the pressure relief conduit (245) is formed in a radially extending surface of the seal groove [0038].
Regarding claim 10, as far as is determinate, Coleman discloses (Fig. 5 and 6) the pressure relief conduit (275) extends at least partially in an axial direction through the housing between the chamber and the energizer ([0036-0037], as interpreted above under 112(b), the conduit extends through the piston).
Regarding claim 12, Coleman discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1 except fails to explicitly state an actuator application such as an aircraft comprising: the actuator as claimed in claim 1. Instead, Coleman discloses several potential applications of the actuator such as pumps, hydraulic drives, engines, pneumatic drives and other hydraulic or pneumatic machines [0002].
Northrup further discloses (Fig. 1, 2) an aircraft comprising: a wing flap system comprising the actuator.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known application (aircraft) for another (generic application), and the results of the substitution (actuating a device such as an aircraft component) would have been predictable. Because both Coleman and Northrup teach hydraulic actuator applications, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute on application for the other to achieve the predictable result of actuating a component on an aircraft.
Regarding claim 13, Coleman discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1 except fails to explicitly state the method of operating the actuator of claim 1. Instead, Coleman is silent regarding the method of operating the actuator.
Northrup discloses (Fig. 1, 2) a method of operating an actuator (3) comprising:
a housing (37) comprising at least one chamber (21) for holding a fluid (“operation fluid”);
a piston (39) comprising an axis (depicted centerline thereof), the piston positioned partially within the chamber (depicted as located within the chamber); and
wherein the piston and the housing are configured to move relative to each other along the axis (Pg 3 Ln 1-21);
the actuator further comprising a control spool (11), wherein the control spool is configured to selectively communicate a fluid supply with the chamber, such that a pressure within the chamber increases (Pg 2 Ln 33-43, 70-81) for the purpose of controlling the entrance and egress of fluid to the chamber.
the method comprising:
-supplying the fluid to the chamber, the fluid having a fluid pressure which is higher than a pressure on a side of the seal which is exterior to the chamber (Pg 3 Ln 1-21); and
moving the piston and the housing relative to each other under the action of the fluid pressure (Pg 3 Ln 1-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify Coleman, by providing a control spool and method of operating the actuator, as taught by Northrop, for the purpose of controlling the entrance and egress of fluid to the chamber thereby controlling the actuation of the actuator.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW WIBLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9836. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at 571-272-8648. 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.
/MATTHEW WIBLIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745