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 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, 5-11, 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 Guy (U.S. Patent 3,901,266).
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
Guy teaches a pressure control valve wherein a solenoid valve is configured to move from a first position to a second position, the first position fluidly connecting a chamber (19) with a sense line (22), and the second position fluidly connecting the chamber (19) to the ambient environment wherein the solenoid valve is connected in series between the sense line (22) and the chamber (19). See col. 2, lines 42-60.
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 Guy to achieve the system operation disclosed by Carpignano such as the elimination of external piping, lower part count and smaller size.
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 claims 9-11, 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 filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that, “Carpignano does not disclose a sense line fluidly communicating with a valve inlet of the pressure regulating valve.” The office disagrees. As discussed above, Carpignano explicitly discloses that, “housing 2 has a further channel 40…This channel leads from the conduit 6…This channel 40 may be used…to supply pressure at the inlet port 4 to the one or more control devices attached to the control tower. This pressure feedback may be used by the one or more control devices to control there pressure in chamber 28 and hend the position of the piston.” See para. [0063].
Accordingly, it is the office’s position that Carpignano does disclose a sense line (40) in fluid communication with a valve inlet (6) of the pressure regulating valve.
Applicant argues that, “Carpignano fails to disclose a solenoid valve connected in series between a valve inlet (via a sense line) and the chamber.” The office disagrees. 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).
Accordingly, it is the office’s position that Carpignano does disclose a solenoid valve (i.e. control device) connected in series between a valve inlet (6) (via a sense line (40)) and the chamber (28).
Applicant argues that, “Carpignano does not disclose a solenoid valve having two functional positions”. While the office does reference the solenoid valve (i.e. control device) cited by Carpignano, the office does not rely on Carpignano for solenoid functionality. Rather, as discussed above, the office looks to Guy. Guy teaches a pressure control valve wherein a solenoid valve is configured to move from a first position to a second position, the first position fluidly connecting a chamber (19) with a sense line (22), and the second position fluidly connecting the chamber (19) to the ambient environment wherein the solenoid valve is connected in series between the sense line (22) and the chamber (19). See col. 2, lines 42-60.
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 Guy to achieve the system operation disclosed by Carpignano such as the elimination of external piping, lower part count and smaller size.
Accordingly, it is the office’s position that Carpignano, as modified by Guy, does disclose the solenoid functionality necessitated by applicant.
Applicant argues that, “Carpignano fails to disclose…a pressure setting valve in fluid communication with the chamber, the pressure setting valve being configured to vent gas to an ambient environment when a pressure within the chamber exceeds a threshold value.” While the office does reference the pressure setting valve (7) cited by Carpignano, the office does not rely on Carpignano for pressure setting valve functionality. Rather, as discussed above, the office looks to Jones. 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.
Accordingly, it is the office’s position that Carpignano, as modified by Jones, does disclose the pressure setting valve functionality necessitated by applicant.
Applicant argues that Jones does not disclose a solenoid valve having the functionality necessitated by claim 1 (page 10 of applicant’s Remarks). However, the office does not rely on Jones for teaching solenoid functionality.
In response to applicant's arguments against the Jones individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
Applicant argues that Guy does not disclose a solenoid having the functionality necessitated by claim 1 (page 11 of applicant’s Remarks). The office disagrees. As discussed above, Guy teaches a solenoid valve is configured to move from a first position to a second position, the first position fluidly connecting a chamber (19) with a sense line (22), and the second position fluidly connecting the chamber (19) to the ambient environment wherein the solenoid valve is connected in series between the sense line (22) and the chamber (19). See col. 2, lines 42-60, which explicitly disclose, “When the solenoid is energized the armature moves against the action of the spring 27 and the beam is tilted to force the ball 23 onto the seating 22a . As a result, no fluid is supplied to the chamber 20 and the pressure within the chamber 20 is equal to atmospheric pressure because of leakage from the chamber for instance past the armature through a clearance 25a. If there is no fluid pressure at the inlet 11, then the valve element constituted by the piston 16 and skirt 15 will assume a random position, but if there is fluid pressure at the inlet or the outlet then the valve element will assume the closed position as previously explained.
When the solenoid is de-energized fluid under pressure flows through the inlet passage 22 into the two chambers 19, 20 and the valve element, under the action of the pressure in the chamber 19, moves to the open position to permit fluid flow between the inlet and outlet.”
Applicant argues that there is no motivation to modify Guy with Carpignano or Jones. However, the office action never suggests utilizing Guy as a base reference modified by Carpignano or Jones. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments regarding modifying Guy in view of Carpignano or Jones are irrelevant to this action.
Applicant argues that because the cited references do not disclose or suggest the claimed solenoid valve configuration, the cited references likewise fail to disclose or suggest the corresponding method steps recited in claim 9. However, as discussed above, it is the office’s position that the cited references do disclose or suggest the claimed solenoid configuration. Accordingly, the cited references disclose or suggest the corresponding method steps recited in claim 9.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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