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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/06/2026, has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
a controller operated OPV valve including a pilot valve coupled in fluid communication between an actuation chamber of the OPV valve and a pressure sense inlet of the OPV valve; and
a controller operated OPV valve having a pressure sense line…being coupled in fluid communication with the OPV valve
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The independent claims (claims 1, 10, and 16) have been amended to necessitate that that “a…pilot valve [is] coupled in fluid communication between an actuation chamber of the OPV valve and a pressure sense inlet of the OPV valve”.
The office cannot find support for such limitations within applicant’s originally filed disclosure. Applicant’s claims are drawn to an embodiment in which the OPV is operated via a controller, as opposed to a pneumatic mechanical OPV valve as captured in applicant’s parent application 17/691,080. Applicant’s amendment appears to be drawn to the embodiments illustrated in Figs. 2, 3, and 4 which illustrate a pilot valve coupled between an actuation chamber of a pneumatic mechanical OPV valve and a pressure sense line. None of the embodiments of Figs. 2, 3, or 4 illustrate an OPV valve which is operated via a controller. Rather, Fig. 1 is the only figure which illustrates, and is disclosed, as including an OPV which is operated via a controller. Figure 1, and the associated discussion, does not include any indication or illustration of a pilot valve coupled in fluid communication between an actuation chamber of the OPV valve and a pressure sense inlet of the OPV valve.
Claims 5 and 13 necessitate that “a pressure sense line…being coupled in fluid communication with the OPV valve”. The embodiment currently under examination does not support such limitation. The OPV system currently under examination is drawn to a controller operated OPV valve. In the controller operated OPV valve system the pressure sense line provides a signal to the controller and the controller determines operation of the OPV valve. The office cannot find support within applicant’s originally filed disclosure to support limitations necessitating both a controller operated OPV valve and a pressure sense line being coupled in fluid communication with the OPV valve. The office notes that the only illustration of a pressure sense line being coupled in fluid communication with the OPV valve is within Figs. 2, 3, and 4 which are drawn to embodiments not currently examined.
Claims not specifically recited are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Conclusion
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