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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality: “when connected” in line 8 should read “when the piston is connected”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the RAT re-stow pump," in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “the RAT re-stow pump assembly,”.
Claims 10-12 recite the limitation "The drive assembly" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “The drive system”.
Claims 2-12 are rejected as being indefinite because they depend from claim 1.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by O’Connor (US 4,400,143).
Regarding claim 1, O’Connor discloses a drive system (the “power tool” described in Col. 4 lines 21-23 and all the parts shown circled and labeled “drive system” in an annotated version of Figure 1 of O’Connor, hereinafter Figure 1x, below, collectively) suitable for operating a ram air turbine (RAT) re-stow pump assembly comprising a pump piston and a cylinder in which the pump piston moves axially in a reciprocating linear motion when driven by the drive system (the drive system of O’Connor is suitable for this intended use), the drive system (the “power tool” described in Col. 4 lines 21-23 and all the parts shown circled and labeled “drive system” in Figure 1x below, collectively) comprising:
a rotary drive shaft (32 in Figures 1-6); and
a linear link member (22 in Figures 1-6) having a first end (right end of 22 in Figure 1) connected (via 37 and 41 in Figure 1) to the rotary drive shaft (32) (Col. 3 lines 29-40) and a second end (24 in Figure 1) arranged to be connected, in use, to a pump piston (13 in Figures 1-4) (Col. 3 lines 17-20), the link member (22) configured such that rotation of the drive shaft (32) is translated to reciprocal linear motion of the piston (13) when connected to the link member (22) (Col. 3 lines 41-48, Col. 4 line 60 – Col. 5 line 7);
wherein the drive shaft (32) is provided with an attachment fitting (50 in Figure 6) configured to attach to a rotary power tool (the “power tool” described in Col. 4 lines 21-23), in use, to drive rotation of the drive shaft (32) (Col. 4 lines 21-23, Col. 4 line 66 – Col. 5 line 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
750
1428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1x: an annotated version of Figure 1 of O’Connor
Regarding claim 2, O’Connor discloses a drive system housing (the housing of the “drive system” shown circled in Figure 1x above, which includes 14, 16, 17, and the right end portion of 10 to the right of 12 in Figure 1) having a first end (17) configured to receive the drive shaft (32) (Col. 3 lines 29-34) and a second end (the right end portion of 10 to the right of 12 in Figure 1) configured to accommodate, in use, the pump piston (13) for linear movement thereof (Col. 5 lines 3-5, apparent when Figure 1 is viewed in relation to Figure 2).
Regarding claim 3, O’Connor discloses that the first end (17) of the drive system housing (the housing of the “drive system” shown circled in Figure 1x above, which includes 14, 16, 17, and the right end portion of 10 to the right of 12 in Figure 1) defines a hole (the hole in 17 shown in Figure 6, which receives 32 and 33/34 in Figure 6) through which the drive shaft (32) passes (apparent from Figure 6, Col. 3 lines 29-34).
Regarding claim 4, O’Connor discloses a bearing (33 or 34 in Figure 6) in the hole (the hole in 17 shown in Figure 6, which receives 32 and 33/34 in Figure 6) between the drive shaft (32) and the drive system housing (the housing of the “drive system” shown circled in Figure 1x above, which includes 14, 16, 17, and the right end portion of 10 to the right of 12 in Figure 1) (apparent from Figure 6, Col. 3 lines 29-34).
Regarding claim 5, O’Connor discloses that the second end (the right end portion of 10 to the right of 12 in Figure 1) of the drive system housing (the housing of the “drive system” shown circled in Figure 1x above, which includes 14, 16, 17, and the right end portion of 10 to the right of 12 in Figure 1) is configured to be attached to a housing (the portion of 10 shown circled and labeled “pump assembly housing” in Figure 1x above) of the pump assembly (it is apparent from Figure 1x above that the right end portion of 10 to the right of 12 is integrally attached to the “pump assembly housing”).
Regarding claim 8, O’Connor discloses that the second end (24) of the link member (22) is connected to the piston (13), in use, by a fixed pin (21 in Figure 1) connection (Col. 3 lines 17-20).
Regarding claim 10, O’Connor discloses that the drive assembly (the “power tool” described in Col. 4 lines 21-23 and all the parts shown circled and labeled “drive system” in an annotated version of Figure 1 of O’Connor, hereinafter Figure 1x, below, collectively) further comprises the power tool (the “power tool” described in Col. 4 lines 21-23 plays a role in driving piston 13 and was properly interpreted as being a constituent part of the drive system).
Regarding claim 13, O’Connor discloses a ram air turbine (RAT) re-stow pump assembly (shown in Figure 1) (the pump assembly shown in Figure 1 can be used to re-stow a ram air turbine) comprising:
a pump assembly housing (the portion of 10 shown circled and labeled “pump assembly housing” in Figure 1x above) configured to accommodate a pump piston (13 in Figures 1-4) reciprocally linearly moveable within a cylinder (apparent when Figure 1x is viewed in relation to Figure 2, Col. 5 lines 3-5); and
a drive system (all the parts shown circled and labeled “drive system” in Figure 1x above, collectively) comprising:
a rotary drive shaft (32 in Figures 1-6); and
a linear link member (22 in Figures 1-6) having a first end (right end of 22 in Figure 1) connected (via 37 and 41 in Figure 1) to the rotary drive shaft (32) (Col. 3 lines 29-40) and a second end (24 in Figure 1) connected to the pump piston (13) (Col. 3 lines 17-20), the link member (22) configured such that rotation of the drive shaft (32) is translated to reciprocal linear motion of the piston (13) (Col. 3 lines 41-48, Col. 4 line 60 – Col. 5 line 7);
wherein the drive shaft (32) is provided with an attachment fitting (50 in Figure 6) configured to attach to a rotary power tool (the “power tool” described in Col. 4 lines 21-23), in use, to drive rotation of the drive shaft (32) (Col. 4 lines 21-23, Col. 4 line 66 – Col. 5 line 1).
Regarding claim 14, O’Connor discloses that the drive system (all the parts shown circled and labeled “drive system” in Figure 1x above, collectively) further comprises a drive system housing (the housing of the “drive system” shown circled in Figure 1x above, which includes 14, 16, 17, and the right end portion of 10 to the right of 12 in Figure 1) having a first end (17) configured to receive the drive shaft (32) (Col. 3 lines 29-34) and a second end (the right end portion of 10 to the right of 12 in Figure 1) configured to accommodate the pump piston (13) for linear movement thereof (Col. 5 lines 3-5, apparent when Figure 1 is viewed in relation to Figure 2).
Regarding claim 15, O’Connor discloses that the first end (17) of the drive system housing (the housing of the “drive system” shown circled in Figure 1x above, which includes 14, 16, 17, and the right end portion of 10 to the right of 12 in Figure 1) defines a hole (the hole in 17 shown in Figure 6, which receives 32 and 33/34 in Figure 6) through which the drive shaft (32) passes (apparent from Figure 6, Col. 3 lines 29-34).
Regarding claim 16, O’Connor discloses that the drive system (all the parts shown circled and labeled “drive system” in Figure 1x above, collectively) further comprises a bearing (33 or 34 in Figure 6) in the hole (the hole in 17 shown in Figure 6, which receives 32 and 33/34 in Figure 6) between the drive shaft (32) and the drive system housing (the housing of the “drive system” shown circled in Figure 1x above, which includes 14, 16, 17, and the right end portion of 10 to the right of 12 in Figure 1) (apparent from Figure 6, Col. 3 lines 29-34).
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connor.
Regarding claim 9, O’Connor discloses that the attachment fitting (50) is a socket connector (50) (Col. 4 lines 21-23, Col. 4 line 66 – Col. 5 line 1).
However, O’Connor does not expressly disclose: the attachment fitting is a hex connector.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the socket connector (50) of O’Connor with a hex connector because Applicant has not disclosed that a hex connector provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the socket connector of O’Connor because the socket connector of O’Connor allows a rotary power tool to attach to and drive rotation of the drive shaft just as well.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify O’Connor to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, O’Connor discloses that the power tool (the “power tool” described in Col. 4 lines 21-23) is a rotary power tool (the “power tool” described in Col. 4 lines 21-23) (Col. 4 line 60 – Col. 5 line 1).
However, O’Connor does not expressly disclose: the power tool is an electric drill.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the rotary power tool (the “power tool” described in Col. 4 lines 21-23) of O’Connor with an electric drill because Applicant has not disclosed that an electric drill provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the rotary power tool of O’Connor because the rotary power tool of O’Connor can connect to and drive rotation of the drive shaft just as well.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify O’Connor to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, O’Connor discloses that the power tool (the “power tool” described in Col. 4 lines 21-23) is a rotary power tool (the “power tool” described in Col. 4 lines 21-23) (Col. 4 line 60 – Col. 5 line 1).
However, O’Connor does not expressly disclose: the power tool is a cordless power tool.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the rotary power tool (the “power tool” described in Col. 4 lines 21-23) of O’Connor with a cordless power tool because Applicant has not disclosed that a cordless power tool provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the rotary power tool of O’Connor because the rotary power tool of O’Connor can connect to and drive rotation of the drive shaft just as well.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify O’Connor to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasscer et al. (US 2016/0288919), hereinafter Sasscer, in view of O’Connor (US 4,400,143).
Regarding claim 19, Sasscer discloses a ram air turbine (RAT) assembly (100 and the “ram air turbine” described in Paragraphs 0030 and 0011, collectively) comprising:
a RAT (the “ram air turbine” described in Paragraphs 0030 and 0011);
a RAT actuator (103 in Figures 1A-1C); and
a RAT re-stow pump assembly (107 in Figures 1A-1C) configured to re-stow the RAT (“ram air turbine”) via the RAT actuator (103) (Paragraph 0022).
However, Sasscer does not disclose: the RAT re-stow pump assembly comprises: a pump assembly housing configured to accommodate a pump piston reciprocally linearly moveable within a cylinder; and a drive system comprising: a rotary drive shaft; and a linear link member having a first end connected to the rotary drive shaft and a second end connected to the pump piston, the link member configured such that rotation of the drive shaft is translated to reciprocal linear motion of the piston; wherein the drive shaft is provided with an attachment fitting configured to attach to a rotary power tool, in use, to drive rotation of the drive shaft.
O’Connor teaches that it was known to provide a RAT re-stow pump assembly (shown in Figure 1) (the pump assembly shown in Figure 1 can be used to re-stow a ram air turbine) comprising:
a pump assembly housing (the portion of 10 shown circled and labeled “pump assembly housing” in Figure 1x above) configured to accommodate a pump piston (13 in Figures 1-4) reciprocally linearly moveable within a cylinder (apparent when Figure 1x is viewed in relation to Figure 2, Col. 5 lines 3-5); and
a drive system (all the parts shown circled and labeled “drive system” in Figure 1x above, collectively) comprising:
a rotary drive shaft (32 in Figures 1-6); and
a linear link member (22 in Figures 1-6) having a first end (right end of 22 in Figure 1) connected (via 37 and 41 in Figure 1) to the rotary drive shaft (32) (Col. 3 lines 29-40) and a second end (24 in Figure 1) connected to the pump piston (13) (Col. 3 lines 17-20), the link member (22) configured such that rotation of the drive shaft (32) is translated to reciprocal linear motion of the piston (13) (Col. 3 lines 41-48, Col. 4 line 60 – Col. 5 line 7);
wherein the drive shaft (32) is provided with an attachment fitting (50 in Figure 6) configured to attach to a rotary power tool (the “power tool” described in Col. 4 lines 21-23), in use, to drive rotation of the drive shaft (32) (Col. 4 lines 21-23, Col. 4 line 66 – Col. 5 line 1);
in order to allow the RAT re-stow pump assembly (shown in Figure 1) to be operated by readily available rotary power tools even at remote locations where suitable ground equipment is not available (Col. 1 lines 27-42).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified substituted the RAT re-stow pump assembly (107) of Sasscer with a RAT re-stow pump assembly comprising: a pump assembly housing configured to accommodate a pump piston reciprocally linearly moveable within a cylinder; and a drive system comprising: a rotary drive shaft; and a linear link member having a first end connected to the rotary drive shaft and a second end connected to the pump piston, the link member configured such that rotation of the drive shaft is translated to reciprocal linear motion of the piston; wherein the drive shaft is provided with an attachment fitting configured to attach to a rotary power tool, in use, to drive rotation of the drive shaft; as taught by O’Connor, because doing so would allow the RAT re-stow pump assembly to be operated by readily available rotary power tools even at remote locations where suitable ground equipment is not available.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 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.
Claims 17, 18, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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 claims 6 and 17, the closest prior art reference, O’Connor (US 4,400,143), taken alone or in combination with the prior art as a whole, fails to teach or render obvious the following limitation: the second end of the drive system housing comprises a flange for attachment to the pump assembly housing.
Regarding claims 7 and 18, the closest prior art reference, O’Connor (US 4,400,143), taken alone or in combination with the prior art as a whole, fails to teach or render obvious the following limitation: the first end of the link member is attached to the drive shaft by a pin about which the link member pivots as the drive shaft rotates.
Regarding claim 20, the closest prior art reference, O’Connor (US 4,400,143), taken alone or in combination with the prior art as a whole, fails to teach or render obvious the following limitations: the second end of the drive system housing comprises a flange for attachment to the pump assembly housing; and the first end of the link member is attached to the drive shaft by a pin about which the link member pivots as the drive shaft rotates.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The patent documents listed on the PTO-892 form teach limitations of the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANZIM IMAM whose telephone number is (571)272-2216. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelley Self can be reached on 571-272-4524. 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.
/TANZIM IMAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731