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
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 22-23, “the respective spool” should read --each respective spool--.
In claim 12, lines 28-29, “the respective spool” should read --each respective spool--.
In claim 19, line 3, “a pump unit” should read –the pump unit--.
In claim 20, line 3, “a RAT actuator” should read --the RAT actuator--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schafer et al. (U. S. Patent No. 3,089,430) in view of Stoerk (German Patent Publication DE 4320826)1.
As to claim 1, Schafer et al., discloses a check valve assembly (FIG.’s 2 & 20, col. 3, ll. 65-75, inter alia) comprising:
a valve body 13 (FIG. 20, col. 3, ln. 69) having a first end and a second end (right and left sides), the valve body extending along an axis from the first end to the second end (as shown);
a check valve outlet 51 (col. 3, ln. 70) located between the first and second ends (shown);
an actuator port 48 (col. 3, ln. 68) provided in the valve body 13 at a location axially between the check valve outlet 51 and the second end (as show), wherein the valve body 13 comprises a fluid inlet 53 (col. 3, ln. 75) provided in the valve body towards the second end axially between the actuator port 48 and the second end (as shown); and
check valve components located in the valve body 13 and configured to control a flow of fluid entering the valve body 13 via the fluid inlet 53 and leaving the valve body 13 via the check valve outlet 51, the check valve components comprising:
a first [ball] 49 (col. 3, ln. 70) located in the valve body 13 adjacent the first end (shown);
a second [ball] 50 Id., located in the valve body adjacent the second end (shown);
a first check valve spring (FIG. 2, shown abutting ball 49) but not labeled) provided in spring force engagement with the first [ball] 49; and
a second check valve spring (shown abutting ball 50) provided in spring force engagement with the second [ball] 50;
wherein the first check valve spring is sized and positioned to bias the first [ball] 49 into seating engagement with a valve seat located between the first [ball] 49 and the second [ball] 50 (refer to an Annotated copy of Schafer FIG. 2 attached below, as shown and indicated);
wherein the second check valve spring is sized and positioned to bias the second [ball] 50towards the second end 50 (as shown); and
wherein each of the first and second valve 49, 50 [balls] are configured to move out of seating engagement in response to a predetermined differential pressure across the respective valve [ball] (according to normal check valve operation, refer to operational description at col. 5, ll. 25-45 and ll. 55-75, inter alia).
Schafer is silent as to providing first and second spools, instead disclosing balls. However, balls and spools are well known valve blocking elements. To this point, Stoerk teaches a check valve arrangement having first and second spools 9 arranged and biased in the claimed manner with respect to valve seats (FIG. 1, Mach. Trans. Abstract, inter alia). With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to replace the balls of Schafer with spools__a known valve component providing predictable fluid blocking performance with expected results as shown by Stoerk. The use of the spools of Stoerk in the combination of Schafer is considered a simple substitution of one known valve blocking element for that of another. Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). MPEP 2143(I)B. 2
PNG
media_image1.png
604
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Schafer FIG. 2
As to claim 2, Schager further discloses the actuator port 48 is configured for fluid connection, in use, to a pump actuator 18 (col. 3, ln. 1, inter alia); and the valve body 13 is configured to be connected via the fluid inlet 53, in use, to a fluid tank (inlet 53 is capable of being connected to various input sources such as a tank accordingly).
As to claim 3, upon modification, Schafer further discloses the check valve components are configured to control the flow according to first and second stages of operation; a pressure differential between the actuator port 48 and the fluid inlet 53 is configured to create a fluid flow path from the fluid inlet 53 to the actuator port 48 by
causing the second spool 50 (upon modification) to press against the bias of the second check valve spring to create a flow passage between the second spool and the second end (col. 5, ll. 55-65, describing upstroke of piston 18 drawing fluid into valve in the manner claimed) and (ii) causing the first spool 49 to seat against the valve seat, under the bias of the first check valve spring, to block the flow of fluid to the check valve outlet 51; and removal of the pressure differential causes (i) the second check valve spring to return the second spool 50 to its biased position to close the fluid flow path from the fluid inlet 53 to the actuator port 48 (col. 5, ll. 30-40, essentially describing downstroke of the pump piston reversing operation) and (ii) the first spool 49 to move against the bias of the first check valve spring to open a fluid passage between the actuator port 48 and the check valve outlet 51 Id.
As to claim 4, Schafer further discloses a cap at the first end of the valve body 13 (Annotated Schafer FIG. 2, as shown).
As to claim 5, the applied art is silent as to a locking pin removably mountable through the valve body and the cap to secure the cap in place relative to the valve body. A locking pin is commonly used to secure various hardware components. With this in mind, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide a locking pin configured to secure the cap fixedly with respect to the valve body.
As to claim 6, Schafer further discloses a retainer at the second end of the valve body 13 (Annotated Schafer FIG. 2, as shown).
As to claim 7, the applied art is silent as to aa safety wire configured to removably secure the retainer at the first end. The Examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to secure the retainer with a safety wire to prevent the retainer from being dislodged and lost as a matter of common mechanical design knowledge.
As to claim 11, Schafer further discloses the valve body 13 is provided with a mounting flange (Annotated Schafer FIG. 2, as shown and indicated).
Claim 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schafer et al. (U. S. Patent No. 3,089,430) in view of Stoerk (German Patent Publication DE 4320826) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Nordell (U. S. Patent No. 3,824,043).
As to claim 8, the applied art is discussed above but is silent as to a screen filter in a flow path between a fluid tank and the check valve assembly. To this point, Nordell teaches a hydraulic pump and valve unit having with a filter 23 between the valve and a reservoir (col. 2, ll. 55-60). With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide a filter arranged in the flow path between the tank and valve in order to prevent dirt and debris from entering the valve and damaging it as is commonly understood in the art.
As to claim 9, once modified, it would have been obvious to arrange the filter so that it is located is located in a retainer at the second end of the valve body to be proximate and inline with the inlet of the valve.
As to claim 10, once modified, Nordell further teaches or suggests providing a lock 26 (col. 3, ln. 3, adaptor sleeve is interpreted to form recited lock under broadest reasonable interpretation) configured to secure the screen filter 23 in the retainer.
Claims 12-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bannon et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/03412225) in view Schafer et al. (U. S. Patent No. 3,089,430) and Stoerk (German Patent Publication DE 4320826)3.
As to claim 12, Bannon discloses a pump unit 30 (FIG.’s 2A/B, para. 0015) comprising:
a pump housing (FIG. 2A, shown by boxed region 30) containing a tank of pressurized fluid 58 (Id., reservoir 15) and having an outlet port (shown by fluid lines) via which fluid from the tank exits 58 the pump unit 30; and a valve assembly 54 (Id., “[t]he hydraulic pump assembly 30 can include a valve 54, such as a spool valve, to control the direction of hydraulic fluid flow for deployment and stowage of the RAT ), between the tank 58 and the outlet port and configured to regulate a fluid flow of the fluid from the tank to the outlet port (Id, as described).
Bannon is silent as to the check valve assembly comprising the features and limitations recited in the claim. To this point, Schafer teaches a check valve assembly (FIG.’s 2 & 20, col. 3, ll. 65-75, inter alia) comprising:
a valve body 13 (FIG. 20, col. 3, ln. 69) having a first end and a second end (right and left sides), the valve body extending along an axis from the first end to the second end (as shown);
a check valve outlet 51 (col. 3, ln. 70) located between the first and second ends (shown);
an actuator port 48 (col. 3, ln. 68) provided in the valve body 13 at a location axially between the check valve outlet 51 and the second end (as show), wherein the valve body 13 comprises a fluid inlet 53 (col. 3, ln. 75) provided in the valve body towards the second end axially between the actuator port 48 and the second end (as shown); and
check valve components located in the valve body 13 and configured to control a flow of fluid entering the valve body 13 via the fluid inlet 53 and leaving the valve body 13 via the check valve outlet 51, the check valve components comprising:
a first [ball] 49 (col. 3, ln. 70) located in the valve body 13 adjacent the first end (shown);
a second [ball] 50 Id., located in the valve body adjacent the second end (shown);
a first check valve spring (FIG. 2, shown abutting ball 49) but not labeled) provided in spring force engagement with the first [ball] 49; and
a second check valve spring (shown abutting ball 50) provided in spring force engagement with the second [ball] 50;
wherein the first check valve spring is sized and positioned to bias the first [ball] 49 into seating engagement with a valve seat located between the first [ball] 49 and the second [ball] 50 (refer to an Annotated copy of Schafer FIG. 2 attached below, as shown and indicated);
wherein the second check valve spring is sized and positioned to bias the second [ball] 50 towards the second end 50 (as shown); and
wherein each of the first and second valve 49, 50 [balls] are configured to move out of seating engagement in response to a predetermined differential pressure across the respective valve [ball] (according to normal check valve operation, refer to operational description at col. 5, ll. 25-45 and ll. 55-75, inter alia).
With regard to the valve assembly, the applied art is silent as to providing first and second spools. Schafer uses balls instead of spools. However, balls and spools are well known blocking elements used in check valves. To this point, Stoerk teaches a check valve arrangement having first and second spools 9 arranged and biased in the claimed manner with respect to valve seats (FIG. 1, Mach. Trans. Abstract, inter alia). With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to replace the balls of Schafer with spools__a known check valve component providing predictable fluid blocking performance with expected results as shown by Stoerk. The use of the spools of Stoerk in the combination of Schafer is considered a simple substitution of one known valve blocking element for that of another. Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). MPEP 2143(I)B.4
In light of these modifications, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to replace the valve assembly of Bannon with the check valve assembly taught by Schafer and Stoerk__a spool valve assembly known to provide predictable two-stage valve performance having expected results driving a hydraulic actuator with fluid from a tank with a user operated pump as demonstrated by Schafer and Stoerk.
As to claim 13, once modified, Schafer teaches a pump actuator (col. 3, ll. 1-5, pump has an inner piston 18) configured to cooperate with the check valve assembly (Schafer and Stoerk, supra) to regulate the fluid flow.
As to claim 14, once modified, Schafer further teaches the pump actuator comprises a piston 18 and a piston cylinder 19 Id., within which the piston moves between a retracted position and an extended position relative to the piston cylinder 19 (normal operation); in a first stage of pump operation, the piston is retracted to draw the fluid from the tank (Bannon – 58, supra) into the piston cylinder 19 via the check valve assembly (Schafer and Stoerk, supra); and in a second stage of operation after the first stage of operation, the piston 18 is extended relative to the piston cylinder 19 to eject the fluid from the piston cylinder 19 to the outlet port (Schafer – col. 5, ll. 20-45, describing operation of hand pump piston upstroke and downstroke accordingly) via the check valve assembly (Schafer and Stoerk, supra).
As to claim 15, once modified, Schafer further teaches a pump lever 24 (col. 3, ln. 6) having a first end extending out of the pump housing (shown) for actuation by a user and a second end connected to the piston 18 such that movement of the lever moves the piston 18 between the retracted and extended positions (col. 3, ll. 60-75, describing general operation).
As to claim 16, upon modification, Schafer further discloses the check valve components are configured to control the flow according to first and second stages of operation; a pressure differential between the actuator port 48 and the fluid inlet 53 is configured to create a fluid flow path from the fluid inlet 53 to the actuator port 48 by
causing the second spool 50 (upon modification) to press against the bias of the second check valve spring to create a flow passage between the second spool and the second end (col. 5, ll. 55-65, describing upstroke of piston 18 drawing fluid into valve in the manner claimed) and (ii) causing the first spool 49 to seat against the valve seat, under the bias of the first check valve spring, to block the flow of fluid to the check valve outlet 51; and removal of the pressure differential causes (i) the second check valve spring to return the second spool 50 to its biased position to close the fluid flow path from the fluid inlet 53 to the actuator port 48 (col. 5, ll. 30-40, describing downstroke of the pump piston reversing operation) and (ii) the first spool 49 to move against the bias of the first check valve spring to open a fluid passage between the actuator port 48 and the check valve outlet 51 Id.
As to claim 17, once modified, Schafer further teaches the check valve assembly further comprises: a cap at the first end of the valve body 13 (Annotated Schafer FIG. 2, as shown and indicated). However, the applied art is silent as to a locking pin removably mountable through the valve body and the cap to secure the cap in place relative to the valve body. Locking pins are commonly used in hardware securing arrangements such as valve components. With this in mind, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide a locking pin configured to secure the cap fixedly with respect to the valve body with a removable pin.
As to claim 19, Bannon discloses a ram air turbine (RAT) actuator assembly (FIG.’s 1-3, Abstract) comprising:
a RAT actuator 14 (FIG.’s 2A/B, para. 0013); and a pump unit as claimed in Claim 12 (as set forth in the statement of the rejection of claim 12 above, including the teachings of Schafer and Stoerk, supra), the RAT actuator 14 connected to the outlet port (FIG. 2A).
As to claim 20, Bannon discloses a ram air turbine (RAT) assembly (FIG. 1, Abstract) comprising:
a RAT 10 (para. 0013); and
a RAT actuator assembly as claimed in Claim 19 (as set forth in the statement of the rejection of claim 19 above, including the teachings of Schafer and Stoerk, supra), the RAT actuator assembly 14 configured to stow the RAT (Id., “deploying and restowing the RAT”).
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bannon et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/03412225) in view Schafer et al. (U. S. Patent No. 3,089,430) and Stoerk (German Patent Publication DE 4320826) as applied to claim 12 above, further in view of Nordell (U. S. Patent No. 3,824,043)5.
As to claim 18, once modified, Schafer further teaches a retainer at the second end of the valve body 13 (Annotated Schafer FIG. 2, as shown). The applied art is silent as to a screen filter in a flow path between the tank and the check valve assembly; and a lock configured to secure the screen filter in the retainer. To this point, Nordell teaches a hydraulic pump and valve unit having with a filter 23 between the valve and a reservoir (col. 2, ll. 55-60) and a lock 26 (col. 3, ln. 3, adaptor sleeve is interpreted to form recited lock under broadest reasonable interpretation) configured to secure the screen filter 23 in the retainer. With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide a filter and lock arranged in the manner claimed in the flow path between the tank and a valve in order to prevent dirt and debris from entering the valve and damaging it as is commonly understood in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schafer (U. S. Patent No. 3,089,430),6 similar to the Schafer ‘430 applied to the claims above, discloses a check valve arrangement also applicable to the instant claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM (MT).
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/KENNETH J HANSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
1 Both references cited in the IDS of 31 March 2025. The references evidently applied to the claims of the priority application in the cited European Search Report.
2 Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Accordingly, since the applicant[s] have submitted no persuasive evidence that the combination of the above elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) because it is no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions resulting in the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
3 Both references cited on the IDS of 31 March 2025. The references applied to the claims of the priority application as set forth in the cited NPL European Search Report document.
4 See Footnote 2, supra.
5 Cited in the IDS of 31 March 2025.
6 Ibid.