DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 1-15 are pending for consideration following applicant’s amendment filed 6/05/2026.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 10 and 15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites “A system that performs the method of claim 1”. However, a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite as per MPEP 2173.05(p)(II).
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeda (US Patent 3,282,283).
Regarding Claim 1, when making and using the device of Takeda, Takeda necessarily discloses a method for adjusting a valve (including valve element 71) comprising a first stage (first stage including solenoids 41 and 42 to actuate nozzle 34 in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s first stage) and a second stage (second stage including valve element 71), said method comprising the steps: a) only partially limiting a range of movement of a valve spool 71 (the range of motion of the valve spool 71 is partially limited by adjustable bolt 74; i.e. the spool is capable of some movement but is also limited by the bolt) during adjustment of the valve (the range of motion of the valve spool is limited by bolt 74 during adjustment or movement of the valve), wherein the valve spool 71 is movable to open and / or close at least one port (e.g. port 94 coupled to line 97) of the valve; b) applying the valve with a fluid (from pump 14), and c) changing a position of a nozzle 51 of the valve relative to a jet divider 27 until the at least one port 94 is completely closed by the valve spool (as shown in Figure 2, port 94 is closed from the supply port 92), thereby adjusting the valve (i.e. adjusting the position of the valve adjusts the flow through the valve in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s device).
Regarding Claim 2, Takeda further discloses at least one limiting element (bolt 74) is used to partially limit the range of movement of the valve spool 71 (as described above), which element 74 limits the range of movement of the valve spool 71 with respect to a maximum deflection of the valve spool possible during operation of the valve (i.e. if the bolt 74 were removed, the maximum deflection of the spool would be reached when 72 abuts 68).
Regarding Claim 4, Takeda is seen as further disclosing the valve is a servo valve (the valve is a servo valve because it is controlled by the pilot solenoids 41 and 42 and/or because the valve controls the position of piston 102), and the method is used to adjust the first stage (the portion of the valve including the solenoids 41 and 42 to actuate nozzle 34 in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s first stage) and the second stage (second stage including valve element 71) of the servo valve simultaneously (i.e. the method adjusts both the position of the nozzle and the position of the valve element simultaneously via fluid delivered from the nozzle in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s device).
Regarding Claim 5, Takeda further discloses step b) further comprises magnetizing the valve (solenoids 41 and 42 magnetize armature portions 37 and 38).
Regarding Claim 6, Takeda further discloses the step d) adapting at least two air gaps (gap between 37 and 41 and gap between 38 and 42) between an armature of the valve (armature including connected portions 36, 37, and 38) and at least one pole piece (pole pieces inherent in the respective solenoids 41 and 42) arranged adjacent to the armature (as shown in Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 7, Takeda is seen as further disclosing, wherein before magnetization of the valve, a range of movement of an armature (36, 37, and 38) of the first stage (the portion of the valve including the solenoids 41 and 42 to actuate nozzle 34 in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s first stage) of the valve is at least partially limited (the range of the armature is limited by the distance of the gap between the armature and the respective solenoids 41 and 42).
Regarding Claim 8, Takeda further discloses step c) is carried out either manually or automatically (step c is carried out automatically via switches 108 and 109 controlling solenoids 42 and 41).
Regarding Claim 12, Takeda further discloses the valve is a servo valve (the valve controls the position of piston 102 and therefore is readable as a servo valve).
Regarding Claim 13, Takeda further discloses the step d) adapting at least two air gaps (gap between 37 and 41 and gap between 38 and 42) between an armature of the valve (armature including connected portions 36, 37, and 38) and at least one pole piece (pole pieces inherent in the respective solenoids 41 and 42) arranged adjacent to the armature (as shown in Figure 1), wherein the adaptation is carried out in such a way that the at least two air gaps are equal to each other (as shown in Figure 1; furthermore it is noted that the armature is movable and therefore is necessarily movable to a position in which the air gaps are equal to each other).
Regarding Claim 14, Takeda further discloses, wherein before magnetization of the valve in step b), a range of movement of an armature (armature including connected portions 36, 37, and 38) of the first stage of the valve is at least partially limited (movement of the armature is limited by the gaps between the armature and the respective solenoids 41 and 42 as shown in Figure 1).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sopha (US Patent 4,061,155).
Regarding Claim 1, when making and using the device of Sopha, Sopha necessarily discloses a method for adjusting a valve (including spool 19) comprising a first stage (pilot stage 12 to actuate deflectable nozzle 32 in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s first stage) and a second stage (second stage including control valve 11), said method comprising the steps: a) only partially limiting a range of movement of a valve spool 19 (the range of motion of the valve spool 19 is partially limited by the balls 25; i.e. the spool is capable of some movement but is also limited by the balls) during adjustment of the valve (i.e. the range of movement is limited during the adjustment or movement of the valve spool), wherein the valve spool 19 is movable to open and / or close at least one port (e.g. port 22) of the valve; b) applying the valve with a fluid (from a pump coupled to port 21), and c) changing a position of a nozzle 32 of the valve relative to a jet divider (the jet divider defining the paths 34 and 35; i.e. the structure divides the flow into the two paths) until the at least one port 22 is completely closed by the valve spool (such that port 22 is closed from the supply port 21), thereby adjusting the valve (i.e. adjusting the position of the valve adjusts the flow through the valve in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s device).
Regarding Claim 2, Sopha further discloses at least one limiting element (ball 25) is used to partially limit the range of movement of the valve spool 19 (as described above), which element 25 limits the range of movement of the valve spool 19 with respect to a maximum deflection of the valve spool possible during operation of the valve (i.e. if the ball 25 were removed, the maximum deflection of the spool would be greater).
Regarding Claim 4, Sopha is seen as further disclosing the valve is a servo valve (the valve controls the consumer and therefore is readable as a servo valve), and the method is used to adjust the first stage (pilot stage 12 to actuate deflectable nozzle 32 in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s first stage) and the second stage (second stage including control valve 11) of the servo valve simultaneously (i.e. the method adjusts both the position of the nozzle and the position of the valve element simultaneously via fluid delivered from the nozzle in the same manner as achieved by applicant’s device).
Regarding Claim 5, Sopha is seen as further disclosing step b) further comprises magnetizing the valve (this is seen to be achieved by the electrical input 37, which is shown schematically as a solenoid in Figure 1 and therefore inherently includes magnetizing a portion of the valve).
Regarding Claim 8, Sopha further discloses step c) is carried out either manually or automatically (step c is carried out automatically via pressure transducers to generate electrical feedback signals; abstract).
Regarding Claim 9, Sopha further discloses step c) is automated (via regulating circuit 17) and the change in the position of the nozzle 32 is controlled on the basis of pressure readings and/or flow readings (pressure transducers) measured in at least one channel downstream of the jet divider (transducers shown at 14-16 are each provided in respective channels downstream of the jet divider as shown in Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 10, Sopha discloses a system (as shown in Figure 1), that performs the method of claim 1 (as described above), said system comprising: at least one sensor (transducer 15) for measuring a fluid flow (it is noted that “measuring a fluid flow” is a broad recitation that does not specify which parameter of the fluid flow is being measured; furthermore, the specification as filed does not provide a special definition of this term; therefore, the pressure transducer 15 is readable on the recited sensor for measuring a fluid flow) in the at least one port 22 to be opened and/or closed by the valve spool 19, and a control unit 17 which is configured to change the position of the nozzle 32 of the valve relative to the jet divider (the jet divider defining the paths 34 and 35; i.e. the structure divides the flow into the two paths) based on measurement data of the at least one sensor 15 until the at least one port 22 is completely closed by the valve spool (this is achieved during normal operation of the valve).
Regarding Claim 12, Sopha further discloses the valve is a servo valve (the valve controls the consumer and therefore is readable as a servo valve).
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, 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 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda (US Patent 3,282,283).
Regarding Claim 3, Takeda is seen as necessarily further disclosing the at least one limiting element (adjustable bolt 74) is removed from the valve after completion of step c). It is seen that the adjustable bolt and threaded cap nut 68 is necessarily removed after use of the valve for routine maintenance and/or inspection and/or replacement of a damaged internal component of the valve.
Takeda does not specifically disclose removal of the limiting element to provide the maximum deflection of the valve spool possible during operation of the valve.
However, Takeda does specifically teach the bolt 74 is “adjustable” (col. 4, lines 19-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the method of Takeda such that the bolt is adjusted to any desired position, including a position of removing the stud from the interior of the valve to provide the maximum deflection of the valve spool possible during operation of the valve, for the purpose of achieving desired flow characteristics. It is noted that the threading the stud of the bolt such that it no longer protrudes into the valve chamber is readable as removal of the limiting element as claimed.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda (US Patent 3,282,283) in view of LaBrecque et al. (US Patent Application 2022/0196175).
Regarding Claim 11, Takeda discloses the method of claim 1 (as described above), however Takeda does not disclose a method to manufacture an aircraft, said method comprising utilizing the method of claim 1.
LaBrecque teaches a method to manufacture an aircraft (para. 0054) using a two stage valve 100 (as shown in Figure 2, including flapper assembly 170).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the method of Takeda such that the valve is used in a method to manufacture aircraft as taught by LaBrecque for the purpose of utilizing the valve in an alternative manner known in the art.
Claims 11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sopha (US Patent 4,061,155) in view of LaBrecque et al. (US Patent Application 2022/0196175).
Regarding Claim 11, Sopha discloses the method of claim 1 (as described above), however Sopha does not disclose a method to manufacture an aircraft, said method comprising utilizing the method of claim 1.
LaBrecque teaches a method to manufacture an aircraft (para. 0054) using a two stage valve 100 (as shown in Figure 2, including flapper assembly 170).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the method of Sopha such that the valve is used in a method to manufacture aircraft as taught by LaBrecque for the purpose of utilizing the valve in an alternative manner known in the art.
Regarding Claim 15, Sopha discloses the system of claim 10 (as described above), however Sopha does not disclose a method to manufacture an aircraft, said method comprising utilizing the system of claim 10.
LaBrecque teaches a method to manufacture an aircraft (para. 0054) using a two stage valve 100 (as shown in Figure 2, including flapper assembly 170).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the system of Sopha such that the valve is used in a method to manufacture aircraft as taught by LaBrecque for the purpose of utilizing the valve in an alternative manner known in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/05/2026 with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because the amendments to claim 10 now recite an apparatus in combination with method steps of using the apparatus. Therefore, claim 10 is indefinite as per MPEP 2173.05(p)(II).
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/05/2026 with respect to Takeda have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that Takeda fails to teach a reduction of the spool’s travel “during adjustment” of the valve. These arguments are not persuasive because the bolt 74 of Takeda necessarily reduces the spool’s travel both during adjustment of the spool and while the spool is stationary. Applicant’s arguments regarding a “sole purpose”, a “purposeful adjustment procedure”, and an “intentional adjustment procedure” of the limiting element are not persuasive at least because these arguments appear to be directed at a user’s intent or reason for including an element. The claims are defined by the steps and structure recited, and Takeda is seen to disclose all of the elements set forth in claim 1. Furthermore, applicant’s arguments that bolt 74 provides a “permanent” operating range are not persuasive because Takeda specifically discloses the bolt as an “adjustable” bolt as described above. Regarding Claim 3, it is noted that the threaded shaft of the bolt 74 may be removed from the interior of the valve housing a sufficient distance such that the spool contacts member 68 rather than bolt 74 (to define a maximum travel).
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/05/2026 with respect to Sopha have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that the balls 25 of Sopha are part of the normal construction of the valve and therefore are not auxiliary adjustment pieces that temporarily reduce the travel of spool 19 relative to a greater travel available in normal operation, nor that they are removed once adjustment is complete. These arguments are not persuasive because they are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. The claims do not require these features argued by applicant.
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 KEVIN MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached on (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 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.
/KEVIN F MURPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights