DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because grayscale representation of objects in the drawings do not allow full understanding of the elements of the drawings. Utility drawings are to be represented in solid black lines. Black and white drawings are normally required, and hatching used to indicate section portions of an object. The drawings filed December 9, 2024, are grayscale CAD renderings of the invention of the application, which are treated essentially in the same manner as color photographs and color drawings.
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
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 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.
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.
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 9 and 12 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 and/or 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 9 recites the limitation “a second flange” in line 2; however, there is no written support for a second flange in the present disclosure. Claim 9 further recites the limitation “the second flange surface” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that the recitation “a second flange” in claim 9, line 2, should read –a second flange surface--.
Similarly, claim 12 recites the limitation “a second flange” in line 4; however, there is no written support for a second flange in the present disclosure. Claim 12 further recites the limitation “the second flange surface” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that the recitation “a second flange” in claim 12, line 4, should read –a second flange surface--.
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.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 12-15, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2021/0341076 (“Martin”) in view of US8763988 (“Dowd”).
Regarding claim 1, Martin discloses a valve system, the valve system comprising:
a valve member (see specification paragraph [0043]) in a conduit (fluid passage, which is regulated by the valve member; see specification paragraph [0043]), wherein the valve member is coupled to an actuation shaft (3; see specification paragraph [0043]);
an electric motor (2) arranged to apply a torque (via gearing 7 and 8) to the actuation shaft; and
a torsional spring (25; see fig. 1 and specification paragraph [0046]) coupled (via recess 24) to the actuation shaft;
wherein the torsional spring is configured to apply a torque to bias the valve member open (torsional spring 25 can be configured to default to a failsafe open or closed position; see specification paragraph [0046]).
Martin does not disclose the conduit being that of an aircraft.
However, Dowd teaches (see specification paragraph [0043]) a butterfly valve member (14) disposed in a conduit of an aircraft (see specification col. 2, lines 23-27) and capable of a failsafe open or closed configuration.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the invention of Martin by employing the valve system in an aircraft, or more specifically, configuring the conduit to be that of an aircraft, as taught by Dowd, to have a valve system in an aircraft having an advantageous torque transmission and gear tooth wear, allowing a smaller, less powerful motor to be used in the valve actuator, and improving the longevity of the valve actuator.
Regarding claim 2, Martin discloses the valve system has a failsafe condition (see specification paragraph [0046]) of the valve member biased open (the valve member, via shaft 3, can be configured to be either failsafe open or failsafe closed); and wherein the failsafe condition is the state in which the valve member is arranged to be placed in, in the event of a failure or error in the operation of the valve system.
Regarding claim 3, Martin discloses the torsional spring (25) provides a greater magnitude of torque to the actuation shaft than a passive resistance; and
wherein the passive resistance is the torque resulting from the resistance of the electric motor (2) in an off condition and an aerodynamic torque generated by fluid flowing through the conduit (torsional spring 25 allows return of valve shaft and valve member to predetermined failsafe position, which can be either failsafe open or failsafe close; see specification paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 4, Martin discloses the electric motor (2) is coupled to the actuation shaft (3) using a gearbox (defined mainly by 7, 8, 13, 14, 19 and 22).
Regarding claim 5, Martin discloses a position sensor (29; see specification paragraph [0052]) arranged to detect a rotational position (via magnet 28) of the actuation shaft (3).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Martin and Dowd discloses the longitudinal axis of the conduit (Dowd, conduit, which is regulated by butterfly disc 14) is arranged to be substantially non-perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the actuation shaft (Martin, 3, as modified by Dowd, 16; see Dowd fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Martin and Dowd discloses the valve member (Dowd, 14) comprises a sealing component (Dowd, 18) arranged circumferential to the valve member; and
wherein the sealing component is configured to reduce flow through the conduit when the valve member is biased closed (Dowd; see fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 8, Martin discloses the actuation shaft (3) comprises a first flange surface (surface defined by a first one of arms 26; see fig. 7 and specification paragraph [0049]) configured to contact a first stop (first surface of housing contacted by the first one of arms 26) when the valve member is biased open (via torsional spring 25); and wherein the first flange surface comprises a surface projecting from the actuation shaft (3; see fig. 7).
Regarding claim 9, Martin discloses the actuation shaft (3) comprises a second flange (second one of arms 26; see fig. 7 and specification paragraph [0049]) configured to contact a second stop (second surface of housing contacted by the second one of arms 26) when the valve member is biased closed (via motor 2); and wherein the second flange surface comprises a surface projecting from the actuation shaft (3; see fig. 7).
Regarding claim 12, Martin discloses the actuation shaft (3) comprises a first flange surface (surface defined by a first one of arms 26; see fig. 7 and specification paragraph [0049]) configured to contact a first stop (first surface of housing contacted by the first one of arms 26) when the valve member is biased open (via torsional spring);
wherein the actuation shaft comprises a second flange (second one of arms 26; see fig. 7 and specification paragraph [0049]) configured to contact a second stop (second surface of housing contacted by the second one of arms 26) when the valve member is biased closed (via motor 2); and
wherein the first flange surface and the second flange surface each comprise a surface (26) projecting from the actuation shaft (3) and are surfaces of a single component (see fig. 7).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Martin and Dowd discloses the valve system is provided in an anti-icing system (Dowd, “containing salt sprays and deicing chemicals”; see specification col. 7, lines 12-15) of an aircraft.
Regarding claim 14, Martin discloses a method for operating a valve system (1), wherein the valve system comprises:
a valve member (see specification paragraph [0043]) coupled to an actuation shaft (3) in a conduit (fluid passage, which is regulated by the valve member; see specification paragraph [0043]);
an electric motor (2); and
a torsional spring (25; see fig. 1 and specification paragraph [0046]) coupled to the actuation shaft;
the method comprising:
the electric motor applying a torque (via gearing 7 and 8) to the actuation shaft; and
the torsional spring applying a torque to bias the valve member open (torsional spring 25 can be configured to default to a failsafe open or closed position; see specification paragraph [0046]).
Martin does not disclose the conduit being that of an aircraft.
However, Dowd teaches (see specification paragraph [0043]) a butterfly valve member (14) disposed in a conduit of an aircraft (see specification col. 2, lines 23-27) and capable of a failsafe open or closed configuration.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the invention of Martin by employing the valve system in an aircraft, or more specifically, configuring the conduit to be that of an aircraft, as taught by Dowd, to have a valve system in an aircraft having an advantageous torque transmission and gear tooth wear, allowing a smaller, less powerful motor to be used in the valve actuator, and improving the longevity of the valve actuator.
Regarding claim 15, Margin discloses in the event of failure or error of the valve system, the torsional spring (25) provides a sufficiently large torque to achieve the failsafe condition (torsional spring 25 can be configured to default to a failsafe open or closed position; see specification paragraph [0046]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 10, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious the valve system, wherein the position of the second stop is adjustable, in combination with the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim(s).
Claim 11 is allowable because it depends on an allowable claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. EP1359355, US12313179, US12065983, US11761554 and US11041449 disclose a valve with a valve actuator comprising an electric motor, a gear train and a torsion spring.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hailey K. Do whose direct telephone number is (571)270-3458 and direct fax number is (571)270-4458. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00AM-5:00PM ET) and Friday (8:00AM-12:00PM ET).
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 supervisors, Kenneth Rinehart at 571-272-4881, or Craig M. Schneider 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAILEY K. DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753