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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) was/were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) was/were considered by the examiner.
Regarding the IDS received on 02/04/2025, Patent cites 1 and 2, and Publication cites 1-4 were cited on the IDS received 11/04/2025. Accordingly, the noted cites were considered in relation to the 11/04/2025 IDS submission.
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, the “the OPV valve capable of sensing pressure with the supply line upstream from the outlet of the supply line” and a “controller capable of opening the OPV valve whenever a difference between a sensed pressure within the supply line and ambient pressure exceeds a predetermined threshold” as recited in at least claim 1; the system including both a pilot valve and an isolation valve as recited in at least claim 4; the features of at least claim 5, the features of at least claim 6 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 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 1-20 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 1 necessitates that, “the OPV valve capable of sensing pressure with the supply line upstream from the outlet of the supply line” and a “controller capable of opening the OPV valve whenever a difference between a sensed pressure within the supply line and ambient pressure exceeds a predetermined threshold”. As best understood, applicant provides at least two embodiments of the OPV system. In the first embodiment, the OPV valve is a pneumatic-mechanical valve (as claimed in parent application 17/691,080) which is responsive to directly sensed signals (i.e. the signal operates directly on the valve). In the second embodiment, now claimed, the OPV valve is responsive to signals provided by a controller wherein the sensed signals are first provided to the controller. See para. [0042] which further describes these distinct embodiments. See also claims 10 and 16.
It is unclear and indefinite how applicant intends the OPV valve to operate as recited. For purposes of examination, the office regards the OPV valve as only opening in response to the controller.
Claim 1 necessitates “a selectively moveable pilot valve operable by the controller to deactivate the OPV valve”. See claim 1 and para. [0054]. In addition, claim 4 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. For purposes of examination, the office regards the pilot valve and isolation valve as the same component. See also claims 10 and 12.
Claim 2 necessitates that the OPV valve comprises a regulating valve while claim 3 necessitates that the OPV valve comprises a relief valve. Applicant’s specification does not make clear the distinction between a regulating valve and a relief valve. Additionally, the only applicable illustrations to the claimed embodiment are schematics which do not illustrate details of the valve. For purposes of examination, the office regards a regulating valve and a relief valve as being the same. See also claim 11.
Claim 5 and 6 combine embodiments similarly to claim 1. 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 6. See also claims 13 and 14.
Claims 17-19 necessitate the OPV sensing pressure and determining pressure differences. However, as necessitated by claim 16 and discussed in relation to claims 1 and 10, applicant’s invention is drawn to a OPV valve which is operated in response to a controller which receives sensed condition signals and determines threshold values. Accordingly, it is unclear and indefinite how applicant intends the system to operate.
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) 1-4, 7-12, 15, 16 and 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.
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 4 and 12, the OPV valve comprises a relief valve (see the rejection of claims 2 and 3), 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 upstream from the OPV valve.
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 and 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
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