DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-8 are pending.
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, second to last line, it is suggested that “that connected” be changed to --a second end of the control rod connected--.
In claim 1, second to last line, it is suggested that “blind” be changed to --closed--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses “means” or a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means of guiding the weight” in claim 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “the guiding means comprise at least one guiding ring…” in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-8 are rejected (wherein claims 2-8 inherit their rejections due to their dependencies) 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 1, the phrase "tending in use" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). As understood, the recitation refers to the at least one first spring 12 biasing the valve body 9 against the seat 11.
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 1-5 and 7-8 (as understood: all) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kowan (US 2,094,951).
Regarding claim 1, Kowan discloses in Fig. 1 a gas distribution system of an aircraft comprising a check valve (wherein “a gas distribution system of an aircraft” isn’t seen as positively reciting the aircraft, because the recitation is seen as a name of device and/or because “of an aircraft” is seen as reciting an intended use that isn’t seen as defining over the structure of the prior art, per MPEP 2111.02), the valve comprising a valve body 20 provided with a control rod 38, 40, 44 of the valve body 20, the valve being intended to slide along a first axis between a closed position in which the valve engages in use with a seat 24 of the distribution system and an open position in which the valve body 20 is moved away from the seat 24, the valve comprising at least one first spring 56 arranged outside the control rod 38, 40, 44 and tending in use to hold the valve body 20 against the seat 24, the valve comprising an assembly comprising at least one weight 50, 52 (wherein the guide 50, 52 is considered a weight because it inherently has weight) and at least one second spring 54 which are arranged at least partially inside the control rod 38, 40, 44, the second spring 54 being connected at a first of its two ends to the control rod 38, 40, 44 and at a second of its two ends to the weight 50, 52, a housing (the interior space of the control rod 38, 40, 44) being provided in the control rod 38, 40, 44 so as to open at a first axial end at a first end of the control rod 38, 40, 44, opposite to that (i.e. a second end of the control rod 38, 40, 44) connected to the valve body 20, and so as to be blind (i.e. closed) at a second axial end opposite to the first axial end.
Regarding claim 2, Kowan discloses in Fig. 1 that the control rod 38, 40, 44 is only partially hollowed out (because the control rod 38, 40, 44 has a closed end formed by the valve head 38).
Regarding claim 3, Kowan discloses in Fig. 1 that the control rod 38, 40, 44 extends longitudinally along the first axis, the housing extends coaxially to the first axis.
Regarding claim 4, Kowan discloses in Fig. 1 that the second spring is fixed at its first end to one side of the control rod, the side whose normal is the axis along which the control rod extends longitudinally.
Regarding claim 5, Kowan discloses in Fig. 1 comprising means of guiding the weight relative to the control rod.
Regarding claim 7, Kowan discloses in Fig. 1 that the weight 50, 52 and the control rod 38, 40, 44 are shaped to allow laminar air flow between the weight 50, 52 and the control rod 38, 40, 44 when the weight 50, 52 moves relative to the control rod 38, 40, 44 (because the fluid above the piston 44 of the control rod 38, 40, 44 inherently flows between the control rod 38, 40, 44 and weight 50, 52 when the valve body 20 moves, because the only supply/exhaust for fluid above the valve body 20 is the hole 64 through the weight 50, 52, and the exterior of the valve body 20 is sealed by seal 46 on the piston 44).
Regarding claim 8, Kowan discloses in Fig. 1 the distribution system as discussed above. Regarding the recitation that the distribution system is a system for distributing inerting gas, such a recitation is a recitation of intended use that isn’t seen as defining over the prior art (MPEP 2111.02), and the handled fluid isn’t seen as defining over the structure of the prior art (MPEP 2115).
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.
Claims 5-6 (alternatively: 5; as understood: both) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowan in view of Carlson et al. (US 2,701,581).
Regarding claim 5, alternative to the teaching of Kowan as a means of guiding the weight relative to the control rod discussed above, Carlson teaches in Figs. 1-4 means 18 of guiding the weight 19 relative to the control rod 32, 33 (wherein said means are in the form of interior shoulders 18 extending from the control rod 32, 33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Kowan to include means of guiding the weight in the form of interior shoulders on the control rod, as Carlson teaches, to minimize possible contact between the control rod and the weight during reciprocation of the valve body, which minimizes friction/drag and provides for a more predictable response of the valve (i.e. a more precisely calibrated valve) because the predefined, consistent biasing forces of the springs are the only forces that the upstream fluid pressure overcomes to open the valve.
Regarding claim 6, Carlson teaches in Figs. 1-4 that the guiding means 18 comprise at least one guiding ring 18 arranged within the control rod 32, 33 and through which the weight 19 moves relative to the control rod 32, 33.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Jonathan Waddy, whose telephone number is 571-270-3146. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (10:00AM-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 or 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.
/J. W./
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753