DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 9-15 were filed with the amendment dated 01/22/2026.
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 claim amendments have overcome the 35 USC 112 rejections.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have overcome the previously set forth rejection over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2003/002003 (“Wang”). However, a new grounds of rejection is being made in view of the claim amendments. The claims are rejected in view of WO2022/072639 (“Emerson”).
The rejection is made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO2022/072639 (“Emerson”).
With regard to claim 1, Emerson discloses a valve assembly (Fig 4). The phrase “for an aircraft fluid system” is a statement of intended use and the preamble and not given patentable weight (intended use of an apparatus does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art. See MPEP 2114). The valve assembly comprising: a pressure relief valve (100, para [0072]) comprising a blocking member (disc assembly 104; para [0074]) and a pressure relief passage (passage from 108 past seat at 110 toward exit, see annotated Fig 4), the blocking member (104) configured to prevent a fluid flow in the pressure relief passage when the pressure relief valve (100) is in a closed configuration (configuration shown in Fig 4), wherein the pressure relief passage (passage in annotated Fig 4) is connectable to a fluid passage (downstream from seat 110) (the phrase “of the aircraft fluid system to permit pressure relief of the aircraft fluid system” is a statement of intended use and not given patentable weight (intended use of an apparatus does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art. See MPEP 2114)) when the pressure relief valve (100) is in an open configuration (when 104 lifts off seat 110), wherein the pressure relief valve further comprises a biasing member (spring 106) which is configured to apply a biasing force to the blocking member (104) (para [0062]: thereby allow a main spring 106 to close the valve 100);and an actuator (130) operable in a first configuration (configuration of Fig 4) and a second configuration (configuration when 104 lifts up off of seat 110); wherein when the actuator (130) is in the first configuration (Fig 4 configuration), the actuator (130) is configured to apply an actuation force (by fluid in 158d pushing down) to the blocking member (104) which forces the pressure relief valve towards the closed configuration (para [0072]: “In a similar way, to close the valve 100, the first solenoid 126 can be de-energized to depressurize the first side 156d of the piston 132d and the second solenoid 126' can be energized to pressurize the second side 158d of the piston 132d”); and when the actuator is in the second configuration (configuration when 104 lifts up off of seat 110), the actuation force applied to the blocking member (104) is reduced such that the pressure relief valve is openable to permit pressure relief of the fluid system (pressure in 158d is reduced; para [0072]: “o open the valve 100 at least partially, the first solenoid 126 can be energized to pressurize a first side 156d of the piston 132d within the cylinder 134d and the second solenoid 126' can be de-energized to depressurize a second side 158d of the piston 132d within the cylinder 134d”); wherein the biasing force (spring force) applied by the biasing member (spring 106) has the same direction (pushing down in Fig 4) as the actuation force (force from 130/158d pushing down in Fig 4) applied by the actuator (130) and wherein the actuator includes a mechanical member (stem from piston 132d, see annotated Fig 4), wherein when the mechanical member (stem extending from piston 132d) is in an extended configuration (pushing or extended downward as shown in Fi g4) to apply the actuation force to the blocking member (104) when the actuator is in the first configuration (Fig 4 position), and when the mechanical member (stem extending from piston 132d) is in a retracted configuration (stem extending from piston 132d lifts upwards) when the actuator is in the second configuration (when 158d is depressurized and 156d is pressurized to move the stem extending from piston 132 to move upwards to lift 104 up off of seat 110, see para [0072]).
PNG
media_image1.png
865
673
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, Emerson discloses that the blocking member (104) is configured to receive a pressure relief force (force in inlet portion at 108 pushing up on 104) from fluid in the pressure relief passage (passage extends from 108 past seat 110 to exit), the pressure relief force acting against the actuation force (force at 108 pushes upwards against actuation force pushing downwards; see Fig 4).
With regard to claim 4, Emerson discloses that when the actuator (130) is in the second configuration (configuration where 104 lifts up off of seat 110) the actuation force is reduced such that the position of the blocking member (104) is determined substantially by the result of the biasing force (106; para [0062] spring 106 pushes down) and the pressure relief force (pressure pushing upward in 108 when chamber 158d is depressurized, see para [0072]).
With regard to claim 5, Emerson discloses that the actuation force (force pushing down) is greater than a maximum pressure relief (pressure pushing up in 108) force minus the biasing force (spring force pushing down) (to close the valve, actuation force would have to be greater than maximum pressure relief force pushing up to open valve, see Fig 4).
With regard to claim 6, Emerson discloses that the actuator (130) is in the first configuration (configuration of Fig 4 when valve is closed) when the actuator is not supplied with electrical power (in closed position, solenoid 126 is not supplied with electrical power – para [0072]: “to close the valve 100, the first solenoid 126 can be de-energized to depressurize the first side 156d of the piston 132d”).
With regard to claim 7, Emerson discloses a controller (controller 122, para [0072]) configured to control the actuator (130) to be in the first configuration or the second configuration (see Fig 4 and para [0072]; 122 controls turning solenoids 126 and 126’ on or off).
With regard to claim 9, Emerson discloses that the actuator (130) is aligned with the blocking member (104) on a common axis (see annotated Fig 4).
With regard to claim 10, Emerson discloses that the actuator is a solenoid (solenoid valve 126), wherein the solenoid (126) includes one or more coils configured to provide an electromagnetic force when the solenoid is in the second configuration (configuration when valve is open) (“To open the valve 100 at least partially, the first solenoid 126 can be energized”), wherein the electromagnetic force (force on 126) opposes the actuation force (force pushing down by pressure in 158d) such that the actuation force applied to the blocking member is reduced (electromagnetic force of solenoid 126 pressurizes 156d to push upwards on piston 132d to reduce the actuation force in 158d pushing downwards).
With regard to claim 11, Emerson discloses the valve assembly of claim 1 (see above). The phrase “an aircraft fluid system” is a statement of intended use and the preamble and not given patentable weight (intended use of an apparatus does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art. See MPEP 2114).
With regard to claim 12, Emerson discloses that the actuator (130) enters the first configuration (configuration of Fig 4 when valve is closed) upon a loss of the electrical power (solenoid 126 is deenergized, i.e., loses power – para [0072]: “to close the valve 100, the first solenoid 126 can be de-energized”), the loss of electrical power being a result of an electrical failure (the de-energization of the solenoid is a result of stopping electrical power to the solenoid, which is broadly considered to be electrical failure). The phrase “in the aircraft” is a statement of intended use and not given patentable weight (intended use of an apparatus does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art. See MPEP 2114).
With regard to claim 13, Emerson discloses that the fluid system provides a fluid at a regulated pressure (provides fluid a predefined pressure past the seat). The phrase “for use in an aircraft nacelle system, an environmental control system, a de-icing system, or an aircraft thrust reverser system” is a statement of intended use and not given patentable weight (intended use of an apparatus does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art. See MPEP 2114).
With regard to claim 14, Emerson discloses a fluid system according to claim 11 (see above with respect to claim 11). The phrase “[a]n aircraft” is a statement of intended use and the preamble and not given patentable weight (intended use of an apparatus does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art. See MPEP 2114).
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.
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022/072639 (“Emerson”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0381605 (“Prathibha”).
With regard to claim 15, Emerson discloses a method of manufacturing a valve assembly (method inherent in apparatus disclosed), the method comprising: providing a pressure relief valve (100, Fig. 4, para [0072]) comprising a blocking member (disc assembly 104; para [0074]) and a pressure relief passage (passage from 108 past seat at 110 toward exit, see annotated Fig 4), the blocking member (104) configured to prevent a fluid flow in the pressure relief passage when the pressure relief valve (100) is in a closed configuration (configuration shown in Fig 4), wherein the pressure relief passage (passage in annotated Fig 4) is connectable to a fluid passage (downstream from seat 110) when the pressure relief valve (100) is in an open configuration (when 104 lifts off seat 110), wherein the pressure relief valve further comprises a biasing member (spring 106) which is configured to apply a biasing force to the blocking member (104) (para [0062]: thereby allow a main spring 106 to close the valve 100);and an actuator (130) operable in a first configuration (configuration of Fig 4) and a second configuration (configuration when 104 lifts up off of seat 110); wherein when the actuator (130) is in the first configuration (Fig 4 configuration), the actuator (130) is configured to apply an actuation force (by fluid in 158d pushing down) to the blocking member (104) which forces the pressure relief valve towards the closed configuration (para [0072]: “In a similar way, to close the valve 100, the first solenoid 126 can be de-energized to depressurize the first side 156d of the piston 132d and the second solenoid 126' can be energized to pressurize the second side 158d of the piston 132d”); and when the actuator is in the second configuration (configuration when 104 lifts up off of seat 110), the actuation force applied to the blocking member (104) is reduced such that the pressure relief valve is openable to permit pressure relief of the fluid system (pressure in 158d is reduced; para [0072]: “to open the valve 100 at least partially, the first solenoid 126 can be energized to pressurize a first side 156d of the piston 132d within the cylinder 134d and the second solenoid 126' can be de-energized to depressurize a second side 158d of the piston 132d within the cylinder 134d”); wherein the biasing force (spring force) applied by the biasing member (spring 106) has the same direction (pushing down in Fig 4) as the actuation force (force from 130/158d pushing down in Fig 4) applied by the actuator (130) and wherein the actuator includes a mechanical member (stem from piston 132d, see annotated Fig 4), wherein when the mechanical member (stem extending from piston 132d) is in an extended configuration (pushing or extended downward as shown in Fi g4) to apply the actuation force to the blocking member (104) when the actuator is in the first configuration (Fig 4 position), and when the mechanical member (stem extending from piston 132d) is in a retracted configuration (stem extending from piston 132d lifts upwards) when the actuator is in the second configuration (when 158d is depressurized and 156d is pressurized to move the stem extending from piston 132 to move upwards to lift 104 up off of seat 110, see para [0072]).
Emerson discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that the valve assembly is for an aircraft fluid system.
Emerson discloses that the control valve assembly is can be for systems or vessels (para [0049]).
Prathibha teaches that it is known in the art to provide an aircraft fluid system to include a control valve (paras [0023] [0024]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the valve assembly of Emerson in any suitable system, such as the aircraft fluid system of Prathibha, such as replacing the valve of Prathibha with that of Emerson, since the valves are known equivalents and the use of which would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art, and because the valve assembly of Emerson is capable for use in different systems, such as an aircraft fluid system.
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 JESSICA CAHILL whose telephone number is (571)270-5219. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 to 3:00.
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 supervisors can be reached by phone. Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-60073607 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 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.
/JESSICA CAHILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753