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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/05/2026, has been entered.
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.
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) 1, 5-8, 16-21, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpignano (U.S. Publication 2018/0163892) in view of Jones (U.S. Publication 2016/0200442) and further in view of Quaglia et al (U.S. Patent 10,712,754), hereinafter “Quaglia”.
In regards to claim 1, Carpignano discloses a pressure regulating system comprising: a pressure regulating valve including a valve inlet (6) and a valve outlet (8); a regulating piston (16) positioned in a fluid pathway between the valve inlet (6) and the valve outlet (8); the regulating piston (16) is configured to move from a closed position to an open position, the closed position fluidly isolating the valve inlet (6) from the valve outlet (8), and the open position fluidly connecting the valve inlet (6) to the valve outlet (8), wherein the chamber (28) has a closed volume when the regulating piston (16) is in the closed position; a chamber (28) in fluid communication with the regulating piston (16); a pressure setting valve (7, see para. [0047]) in fluid communication with the chamber (28); a solenoid valve (control device as discussed in paras. [0047] and [0058]) in fluid communication with the chamber (28); and a sense line (40) fluidly communicating with the valve inlet (6) with the solenoid valve (control device as discussed in paras. [0047] and [0058]). See also para. [0063].
Carpignano discloses a pressure setting valve (7) but not explicitly disclose the function as being configured to vent gas to an ambient environment when a pressure within the chamber exceeds a threshold value. However, Jones teaches a pressure regulation system which includes a pressure setting valve (82). Jones teaches that the pressure setting valve (82) is configured to vent gas to an ambient environment when a pressure within a chamber exceeds a threshold value. See para. [0034].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have utilized the pressure setting valve to vent to an ambient environment in an overpressure situation to protect the fluid control system from overpressure and utilize a pressure-setting valve in a well-known manner in the fluid arts.
Fig. 2A of Carpignano illustrates a turret for fluidly coupling pressure sensing valve 7 and a solenoid control device to chamber 28 and that the solenoid control device may be used to vary the pressure within chamber 28. However, Carpignano does not explicitly illustrate this fluid coupling
Quaglia teaches a pressure control valve wherein a solenoid valve (110) is configured to move from a first position to a second position, the first position fluidly connecting a chamber (146) with a sense line (140), and the second position fluidly connecting the chamber (146) to the ambient environment wherein the solenoid valve is connected in series between the sense line (140) and the chamber (146) wherein, in the second position, the solenoid valve (110) fluidly connects the chamber (146) to a venting orifice (orifice to ambient coupled to exhaust duct 144) . See col. 6, lines 15-26 and 33-54 and col. 7, lines 5-11.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have designed the fluid coupling of the solenoid valve of Carpignano as taught by Quaglia to achieve the system operation disclosed by Carpignano such as the elimination of external piping, lower part count and smaller size.
The office notes that Carpignano, as modified, discloses that the chamber (Carpignano 28) has a closed volume when the regulating piston (Carpignano 16) is in the closed position.
Carpignano does not explicitly disclose that the system further comprises: a manual override cam positioned within the chamber, the manual override cam having a manual override volume which substantially fills or overlaps the closed volume of the regulating pressure chamber. However, Jones teaches that the pressure regulation system includes a manual override cam (14) which substantially fills or overlaps a closed volume of a regulating pressure chamber (74).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have designed they system of Carpignano to include a manual override cam to facilitate closure of the valve independent of the pressure within the system (i.e. manual control) as taught by Jones.
To the extent that the claim necessitates that the solenoid valve be connected in series between the valve inlet via the sense line and the chamber the office notes that Carpignano discloses that channel 40 may be utilized to fluidly connect the inlet port to the one or more control devices to control the pressure in chamber 28. As such, Carpignano discloses that a solenoid (i.e. control device) is connected in series between the valve inlet (i.e. inlet port 4) via the sense line (i.e. channel 40) and the chamber (i.e. chamber 28). Additionally, Guy teaches that passage 22 fluidly couples inlet 11 to second chamber 19 via solenoid 26. As such, Guy also teaches a solenoid connected in series between a valve inlet via a sense line and the chamber.
In regards to claim 5, Carpignano, as modified, discloses that the pressure setting valve (7) and the solenoid valve are integrated into a body of the pressure regulating valve. See Figs. 2A and 4.
In regards to claim 6, Carpignano discloses that the sense line (40) is directly connected to an inlet chamber or the body of the pressure regulating valve.
In regards to claim 7, Carpignano does not specifically disclose the system including two pressure regulating valves in series. However, Jones teaches that the pressure regulating system may include at least two pressure regulating valves arranged in series. See Fig. 2 and Abstract.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have placed a second pressure regulating valve system, including the same components, downstream of the first pressure regulating valve system to provide system redundancy in case of valve failure as taught by Jones. See para. [0006].
In regards to claim 8, Jones teaches that the threshold value and the second threshold value are different from each other. See para. [0037].
In regards to claim 16, the solenoid valve (Quaglia 110) is configured such that venting is limited to the chamber .
In regards to claim 17, the solenoid valve (Quaglia 110) is configured not to continuously vent gas from the sense line.
In regards to claim 18, the venting orifice is part of the solenoid valve.
In regards to claim 19, the vented volume is defined by the chamber and the solenoid valve.
In regards to claims 20-21, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the Claimed method, it can be assumed that the device will perform the claimed process. See MPEP 2112.02
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection as outlined above.
As discussed above, it is the office’s position that Quaglia teaches a solenoid valve, and operation thereof, as necessitated by applicant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to R.K. Arundale whose telephone number is 571-270-3453. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881, and Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/ROBERT K ARUNDALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights