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 5, and 12-14 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.
Claims 5 and 13 combine embodiments of applicant’s invention. It is unclear and indefinite how applicant intends the OPV to be responsive to controller signals and also include the features of claims 5 and 13. It is the office’s understanding that the pressure sense line is in not in fluid communication with the OPV valve within the currently claimed embodiment.
Claim 10 necessitates “a selectively moveable pilot valve operable by the controller to deactivate the OPV valve”. See claim 1 and para. [0054]. In addition, claim 12 necessitates an isolation valve as described in para. [0058]. It is unclear and indefinite whether applicant intends the pilot valve and isolation valve to be distinct components. See the most recent amendment to claim 4 which rectified a similar issue.
Claims not specifically recited are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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) 1-3, 5-11, 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surawski et al. (U.S. Publication 2014/0345700), hereinafter “Surawski” in view of Tichborne et al. (U.S. Patent 2014/0238501), hereinafter “Tichborne”.
In regards to claim 1 and 10, Surawski discloses over-pressure vent (OPV) system for a fuel tank of an aircraft, the OPV system comprising: an OPV valve (30) in fluid communication with a supply line (14) of a nitrogen enriched air distribution system (NEADS) such that the OPV valve (30) is capable of venting pressure from the supply line (14), the OPV valve (30) being coupled in fluid communication with the supply line (14) upstream from an outlet (coupling of 14 to 12) of the supply line from which the NEADS delivers nitrogen enriched gas to the fuel tank; the OPV system further comprising a controller (34); and wherein the OPV valve further comprises a selectively moveable pilot valve (26) operable by the controller (34) to deactivate the OPV valve during descent phases of aircraft flight to prevent the OPV valve from being triggered to vent pressure during descent phases of the aircraft flight.
The office notes that valve 26 controls flow to valve 30. Accordingly, it is the office’s position that OPV valve 30 is deactivated in a closed position of valve 26 and that controller 34 is capable of providing such function as controller 34 controls the open/closed position of valve 26.
Surawski discloses that a controller 34 is responsive to a sensed condition (para. [0011]). However, Surawski does not specifically disclose that the controller operates the OPV valve.
However, Tichborne teaches a fuel system wherein a relief valve (31) is operated via a controller (20) in response to a sensed signal.
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 OPV valve of Surawski to be operated via a controller as taught by Tichborne to facilitate operation modifications (i.e. electronic adjustment of operation parameters), remote operation, and reduce direct fluid communication framework.
In regards to claims 2, 3, and 11, Surawski discloses that the OPV valve is a regulating valve/relief valve (at least to the extent that the valve regulates an overpressure within the flow line). See para. [0010].
In regards to claims 5, 6, 13, and 14 as best understood, Surawski discloses that a pressure sense line (i.e. sensor 32) in fluid communication with the supply line of the NEADS upstream from the outlet of the supply line, the pressure sense line (32) being coupled in fluid communication with the OPV system such that the OPV system is capable of sensing the pressure within the supply line through the pressure sense line.
In regards to claims 7 and 15, Surawski does not specifically disclose a mass flow sensor on the supply line. However, Tichborne teaches a flow sensor 38 which measures flow rate along a supply line.
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 system of Surawski to include a flow sensor to ensure proper flow to a fuel tank as taught by Tichborne (para. [0061]).
Tichborne does not specifically disclose the type of flow sensor. However, mass flow sensors are a well-known type of flow sensor withing the fluid arts. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have utilized a mass flow sensor as the flow sensor to provide a low cost sensor.
In regards to claim 8, the OPV valve (30) is capable of being coupled in fluid communication with the supply line (14) of the NEADS between first and second mass flow sensors. The office notes that claim 8 does not positively recite first and second mass flow sensors.
In regards to claim 9, the outlet (coupling of 14 to 12) of the supply line (14) is a first outlet of the supply line. The office notes that the following recitation of claim 9 is not positively recited by the claim, “the OPV valve being capable of being coupled in fluid communication with the supply line of the NEADS upstream from a junction at which the supply line branches off to the first outlet and a second outlet of the supply line.”
In regards to claims 16-20, 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
Claim(s) 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surawski in view of Tichborne and Behbahani-Pour (U.S. Publication 2017/0283083).
Surawski, as modified, discloses all of the elements as discussed above.
In regards to claims 4 and 12, the OPV valve comprises a relief valve (see the rejection of claims 2 and 3).
Surawski does not specifically disclose that the OPV system further comprising an isolation valve (pilot valve as recited in claim 1) capable of being coupled in fluid communication with the supply line of the NEADS.
However, Behbahani-Pour teaches a fuel system wherein the system includes at least one isolation valve (see para. [0085] and [0086]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the system of Surawski to include an isolation valve to prevent the supply of flammable gas in the case of fire within the system as taught by Behbahani-Pour (para. [0086]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/27/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that, “The Office Action admits that ‘Surawski does not specifically disclose that the controller operates the OPV valve.’ Office Action at p. 7. Therefore, Surawski certainly does not teach or suggest "wherein the OPV valve further comprises a selectively moveable pilot valve operable by the controller to deactivate the OPV valve during descent phases of aircraft flight to prevent the OPV valve from being triggered to vent pressure during descent phases of the aircraft flight."
Applicant appears to combining two distinct features of applicant’s invention which are not mutually exclusive: 1) a controller capable of opening the OPV valve in response to a sensed condition, and 2) a pilot valve operable by the controller to deactivate the OPV valve. The office agrees that Surawski does not specifically disclose a controller capable of opening the OPV valve in response to a sensed condition and thus relies on Tichborne for teaching such feature. However, Surawski DOES disclose a pilot valve operable by the controller to deactivate the OPV valve (see discussion above in relation to claims 1 and 10).
Applicant states traversal of the office’s position of valve 26 controlling flow to valve 30 such that OPV is deactivated in a closed position of valve 26 and that controller 34 provides such function because controller 34 controls the position of valve 26. However, applicant does not actually provide any traversal. Rather, applicant concludes that “Surawski fails to teach or suggest ‘wherein the OPV valve further comprises a selectively moveable pilot valve operable by the controller to deactivate the OPV valve during descent phases of aircraft flight to prevent the OPV valve from being triggered to vent pressure during descent phases of the aircraft flight,’ as recited in Claim 1.” The office disagrees. It is the office’s position that Surawski does disclose the recited function and that the newly added claim language does not meaningly amend the function of the controller, OPV valve or pilot valve. Stated differently, if the OPV is deactivated, the OPV is prevented from being triggered to vent pressure during descent phases of the aircraft flight.
Applicant argues that conclusory statements are insufficient to support an obviousness rejection. The office agrees. However, the office has not made any conclusory statements in support of an obviousness rejection. Rather, the office provides a clear teaching, suggestion or motivation in support of the proposed modification (i.e. electronic adjustment of operation parameters, remote operation, and reduce direct fluid communication framework).
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 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
Prosecution Insights