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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 1/26/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/26/26.
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 claimed subject matter of:
Claim 1 (please see 112(b) below)
Claim 8
Claim 9
Claim 11
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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 1 does not appear to have antecedent basis in the specification, as best understood (please see 112(b) below).
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 10 not been further treated on the merits.
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.
Examiner notes on claim interpretation:
The preambles have been interpreted as limiting the structure of the claimed invention (MPEP 2111.02).
Claim 1 recites “an integrated three function valve”; absent further recitations, the “three functions” are broadly interpreted.
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 1-9, 11 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 recites “an inner spool configured to be actuated in a first direction and a second direction responsive to a pressure differential acting across the inner spool”. This is indefinite. The specification beginning at [0153] states:
[0153]The inner spool 220 and intermediate spool 240 are configured such that a first pressure chamber 480 is bounded by an outer surface of the inner spool 220, the first land 221, the second land 222 and an inner surface of the intermediate spool 240. The intermediate spool 240, sleeve 260 and valve housing 280 have openings such that the first pressure chamber 480 is in fluid communication with the first actuator chamber 122.
[0154]The inner spool 220 and the intermediate spool 240 are configured such that a second pressure chamber 500 is bounded by an outer surface of the inner spool 220, the fourth land 224, the fifth land 225 and an inner surface of the intermediate spool 240. The intermediate spool 240, sleeve 260 and valve housing 280 have openings such that the second pressure chamber 500 is in fluid communication with the second actuator chamber 124.
[0155]In the event that the hydraulic pressure in the first actuator chamber 122 is greater than the hydraulic pressure in the second actuator chamber 124, the pressure in the first pressure chamber 480 is greater than the pressure in the second pressure chamber 500. This pressure differential causes a pressure differential force 520 to act on the inner spool 220 in the second direction.
Annotated Fig. 5:
PNG
media_image1.png
532
1180
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
668
1092
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The areas of the wall of first land 221 and the wall of second land 222 are shown as equal sized. With equal areas under equal pressure, there will not be an imbalance in forces; rather, the forces will be balanced and the inner spool 220 will not be moved one way or the other by the fluid under pressure in the chamber 480. The same analysis applies to pressure chamber 500 with the walls of lands 224 and 225. With no imbalance of forces on the surfaces of either chamber 480 or 500, the specification’s description of a “pressure differential force” is not understood. As a result, the claimed “an inner spool configured to be actuated in a first direction and a second direction responsive to a pressure differential acting across the inner spool” is likewise not understood and is indefinite.
Claim 5 recites “a solenoid piston operable to actuate the intermediate spool to the bypass position”. This is indefinite. The specification identifies “300” as a “solenoid piston” at [0103] for example and Fig. 1 contains 300 for example:
PNG
media_image3.png
674
618
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The part identified in the figures as “300” is not a solenoid piston, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The piston 300 is not part of a solenoid assembly and the piston itself is not actuated by a coil of the solenoid; 300 is described as fluidly actuated by valve 160 (ex. [0103]) and no coil for the actuation of piston is shown or described. The claim is indefinite as to the structure being claimed.
Claim 9 recites “The hydraulic system according to claim 8, wherein: the ITFV is a first ITFV and the system comprises a second ITFV”. This is indefinite. Whereas the “first ITFV” appears to be referring to the valve introduced in Claim 1, the “second ITFV” is indefinite as to the metes and bounds of the structure being claimed.
Those claims not specifically mentioned above are rejected as being rendered indefinite by virtue of their dependence on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-6, 8, 9, and 11, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by York et al. (US 3439707)
Regarding Claim 1,
An integrated three function valve (ITFV) (Figs. 5-8) for an actuator of a flight control surface (ex. Col. 1, lines 26-35, Col. 5, lines 35-61), the ITFV comprising: an inner spool (145) configured to be actuated in a first direction and a second direction responsive to a pressure differential acting across the inner spool (ex. note 143 and 167 and 155); and an intermediate spool (141, or 15’) configured to be actuated in the first direction and second direction between an active position and a bypass position; wherein the inner spool is located within the intermediate spool (Figs. 5-8).
PNG
media_image4.png
420
804
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2,
The ITFV according to claim 1, comprising: an activation chamber (with 59’) for receiving hydraulic fluid (note 69’), and a bypass spring (59’), wherein the intermediate spool is configured to be actuated based upon the forces from the bypass spring and hydraulic fluid in the activation chamber.
Regarding Claim 3,
The ITFV according to claim 1, further comprising: a first pressure chamber (with 143, note 165 for example, ex. Col. 10, line 68-Col. 11, line 7); and a second pressure chamber (note chamber connected to 167 for example); wherein the inner spool is configured to be actuated in response to a pressure difference between the first pressure chamber and the second pressure chamber.
PNG
media_image4.png
420
804
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4,
The ITFV according to claim 3, further comprising: a pressure differential spring (155) configured to bias the inner spool towards an equilibrium position.
Regarding Claim 5,
The ITFV according to claim 1, comprising: a solenoid piston (49’) operable to actuate the intermediate spool to the bypass position.
Examiner note: Given the indefinite claim language, the piston of York is being held to meet to the claim language inasmuch as this is a piston like applicant’s disclosed piston.
Regarding Claim 6,
The ITFV according to claim 1, wherein the ITFV is configured such that in the event the inner spool is fixed relative to the intermediate spool a force acting on the inner spool above a threshold will drive the intermediate spool to the bypass position (ex. 11, line 26- Col. 12, line 8).
Regarding Claim 8,
A hydraulic system for a flight control surface, comprising: an ITFV as claimed in claim 1 (see Claim 1 citations); and a hydraulic actuator (31’) comprising a first actuator chamber and a second actuator chamber; wherein the inner spool of the ITFV is configured to be actuated based upon a pressure difference between the first actuator chamber and the second actuator chamber (ex. note 143 and 167 and 155).
Regarding Claim 9,
The hydraulic system according to claim 8, wherein: the ITFV is a first ITFV and the system comprises a second ITFV (ex. Col. 5, lines 44-48 and Col. 10, lines 32-41)
Regarding Claim 11,
An aircraft (ex. Col. 1, lines 26-45, Col. 5, lines 11-60) comprising: a hydraulic system according to claim 8 (see Claim 8 citations).
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.
Claim 7, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over York in view of Vanderlaan (US 4009642).
Regarding Claim 7, York teaches the inventio substantially as claimed except for
The ITFV according to claim 1, further comprising: a position sensor configured to measure the position of the inner spool.
Vanderlaan teaches
For a valve (Figs. 1-2),
a position sensor (146) configured to measure the position of a spool.
Since both references are directed to valves, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve of York to include a position sensor as taught by Vanderlaan in order to provide a sensor for monitoring the position of the spool, thereby allowing for determination of the position of the spool for feedback or for alerting the operator if a malfunction occurs.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Those items on the 892 each teach elements of the instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL QUANDT whose telephone number is (571)272-1247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-5pm.
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 supervisor, NATHANIEL WIEHE can be reached at (571)272-8648. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
MICHAEL QUANDT
Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/MICHAEL QUANDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3745