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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/21/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I in the reply filed on 01/21/2025 is acknowledged.
A call to applicant was made on 4/18/2025 regarding the species restriction sent in the requirement for restriction mailed 11/19/2024, where applicant elected species 2, subspecies 2a, more specifically the embodiment shown in figure 3a. Applicant indicated that claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 12 are either generic or directed towards the elected species/subspecies. Subsequently, claims 6, 7, and 9 have been withdrawn.
Claims 10 and 11 were also reviewed. With regards to claim 10, claim 10 appears to be generic to the elected species. With regards to claim 11, claim 11 appears to be directed towards non-elected subspecies 2b (and may also be generic to species 6) since it requires internal pressurization of the container via inert air and is thus withdrawn.
Upon further review of the claims and the disclosure, it appears that claim 1 (and its dependents) is directed towards non-elected species 2, subspecies 2c, figure 3c because this embodiment teaches a regulating valve at the ejection port of the dispensing mechanism (species 2, subspecies 2a only shows a valve the ejection port of the container). Subsequently claims 1-5 are withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that the applicant uses the term ‘electromechical actuator’ in claim 8. This term is not specifically defined in the specification of the application, but based on the totality of the specification this is being interpreted as an actuator that is controlled by a controller.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
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.
Claim 8 is 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 8, the limitation “wherein the controller is configured to transmit a signal to the regulating value to cause the regulating valve and the controller is further configured to transmit another signal to the regulating valve to cause the regulating valve to close” is indefinite because the language does not make clear what response is required in the regulating valve when a signal is transmitted.
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) 8, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbaccia (US 6352031 B1) in view of Wyatt (US 3761929 A).
Regarding claim 8, Barbaccia (US 6352031 B1) discloses a chaff dispensing system, comprising:
a rigid container (Barbaccia, figure 5, item 50) comprising an ejection port (Barbaccia, figure 5, item 152), where the container is adapted to retain chaff material and includes an internal piston (Barbaccia, figure 5, item 66) disposed within the container, the piston being driven by an electromechanical actuator (Barbaccia, figure 5, item 70, solenoid actuated valve) and configured to exert a continual air pressure against the chaff material in the container by maintaining a predetermined set-point pressure throughout dispensation of the chaff material (Barbaccia, figure 5, piston capable of exterting air pressure on material through dispensing);
a regulating valve at the ejection port (Barbaccia, figure 5, item 60), wherein the regulating valve is configured to dispense a volume of the chaff material through the regulating valve (Barbaccia, col 8 lines 8-25) and where the regulating valve is electronic (Barbaccia, figure 5, item 146); and
a controller (Barbaccia, col 5 line 64- col 6 line 8), except:
wherein the controller is electronically coupled to the regulating valve and to the electromechanical actuator and configured to meter the volume of the chaff material to be expelled from the ejection port, wherein the controller is configured to transmit a signal to the regulating valve to cause the regulating valve and the controller is further configured to transmit another signal to the regulating valve to cause the regulating valve to close.
Wyatt (US 3761929 A) teaches a controller (Wyatt, figure 3, item 50) that is electronically coupled to the regulating valve (Wyatt, figure 3, items 38 and 40) and to the electromechanical actuator (Wyatt, figure 3, item 60) and configured to meter the volume of the chaff material to be expelled from the ejection port (Wyatt, col 3 line 60- col 4 line 6, valves opened and closed to control expulsion of chaff), wherein the controller is configured to transmit a signal to the regulating valve to cause the regulating valve and the controller is further configured to transmit another signal to the regulating valve to cause the regulating valve to close (Wyatt, col 3 line 60- col 4 line 6, programmer wired to valves for controlling opening and closing of these valve in operation).
Barbaccia and Wyatt are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft chaff systems. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Barbaccia with the controller electronically controlling operations of valves of Wyatt with a reasonable expectation of success in order to control the ejection of chaff and more broadly in order to implement a controller as suggested in Barbaccia lines 4-8.
Regarding claim 10, Barbaccia as modified by Wyatt teaches the chaff dispensing system of claim 8, further comprising a pressure source (Barbaccia, figure 5, item 68) coupled to an inlet port (Barbaccia, figure 5, item 70) of the container and configured to exert the continual air pressure against the chaff material in the container (Barbaccia, figure 5, air pressure from bottle is used to generate pressure in the chamber moving the piston and in turn exerting air pressure on the chaff material).
Regarding claim 12, Barbaccia as modified by Wyatt teaches the chaff dispensing system of claim 8, wherein the chaff dispensing system is located on an aircraft (Barbaccia, figure 1, item 10) and the controller obtains instructions from a counter measure dispensing system (Wyatt, figure 3, item 52).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-3 of applicant’s reply, filed 04/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 8, 10, and 12 under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 102/103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lager (US 3150848 A) teaches a chaff deployment system with a metering unit
Barbaccia (US 6352031 B1) teaches a chaff deployment system using a piston mechanism
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 RYAN ANDREW YANKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 - 5:00.
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 supervisor, Joshua Michener can be reached at (571) 272-1467. 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.
/RYAN ANDREW YANKEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights