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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-4 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 6/9/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of the election of species requirement in the reply filed on 6/9/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that species 1 and 4 as defined in the office action dated 4/9/2026 are not mutually exclusive and should be combined into a single species. Applicant argument is found persuasive and the requirement has been withdrawn. Applicant has elected species 1 as defined by Fig 1A-2B and 5-7B.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Detry et al., US PGPub0205745.
PNG
media_image1.png
286
258
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
280
366
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Detry et al. discloses a valve (9) for an aircraft (1) fluid system, comprising: a valve housing (outer hatched surface in fig 2A) defining a flow inlet (IN), a first flow outlet (M) fluidly connected to the flow inlet (IN), and a second flow outlet (BP) fluidly connected to the flow inlet (IN) a body (14) within the valve housing (as described above) moveable (see fig 2A vs 2B) within the housing (as described above) between: a first state (fig 2A) in which the body fluidly connects the flow inlet (IN) to the first flow outlet (M) while fluidly disconnecting the flow inlet (IN) from the second flow outlet (BP); and a second state (fig 2B) in which the body fluidly connects the flow inlet (IN) to the second flow outlet (BP) while fluidly disconnecting the flow inlet (IN) from the first flow outlet (M); and a biasing member (16) operatively connected to the body (see fig 2a) and biasing the body (14) to the first state (as described above); wherein a construction of the body (14) and a biasing strength (determined by properties of 16) of the biasing member (16) are selected such that when a fluid of the aircraft fluid system acts at a predefined pressure (feed pressure) on the body (14) through the flow inlet (IN), a force produced by the fluid on the body (14) overcomes the biasing strength (as described above) and thereby moves the body (14) toward the second position (fig 2B).
Regarding claim 6, Detry et al. discloses the valve of claim 5, further comprising a reference port (17) fluidly open to the body (14) at a location relative to the body (14) that is selected such that fluid pressure applied to the reference port (17) opposes fluid pressure applied to the flow inlet (IN).
Regarding claim 7, Detry et al. discloses the system of claim 6, wherein the housing (as described above) is cylindrical (see fig 2a-2b) and the body (14) is a piston translatable within the cylindrical housing (as described above).
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(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detry et al..
Regarding claim 8, Detry et al. discloses the valve of claim 7, wherein: the piston (14) is translatable axially (see fig 2a vs 2b) in the housing (as described above) and has opposed axial sides (left and right in fig 2a), the flow inlet (IN) is disposed on one of the opposed axial sides (left side). Detry et al. does not specify that the reference port (18) is fluidly open to the other one of the opposed axial sides. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to position the reference port in the specified location in the specified manner since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to position the reference port in the specified manner in order to allow for a spring with greater compression and reduce the axial size of the valve structure.
Regarding claim 9, Detry et al. discloses the valve of claim 5, wherein the flow inlet (IN) and the first flow outlet (M) are different sizes (as can be seen in fig 2A), but does not specify the flow inlet (IN) and the second flow outlet (BP) are the same size. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to size the channels as specified since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA). One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to size the channels as specified in order to increase the flow rate through the second outlet for rapid release during overpressure situations.
Claim(s) 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detry et al. in view of Molesini et al., US PGPub 2021/0010392.
Regarding claim 10, Detry et al. discloses an aircraft engine, comprising: the valve of claim 5 but does not specify a turbine engine.
PNG
media_image3.png
422
624
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Molesini et al. teaches a similar aircraft bypass circuit (see fig 1-2) a compressor section (22) fluidly connected to air to a cavity (110) of the aircraft engine (10), a pumped oil circulation circuit (see fig 2) including an oil tank (102) and the cavity (110); and a bypass conduit (112) fluidly connecting the first flow outlet (see fig 2) of the valve (115) to a location in the oil circulation circuit (as described above) that is downstream (see fig 2) of the cavity (110); and wherein the flow inlet (from 104) and the second flow outlet (connected to 112) of the valve (115) are part of the oil circulation circuit (as described above) at a location fluidly upstream (see fig 2) of the cavity (110). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the bypass valve disclosed by Detry et al. to the system described by Molesini et al. in order to optimize lubrication distribution in a gas turbine engine.
Regarding claim 11, Detry et al. in view of Molesini et al. disclose the aircraft engine of claim 10, wherein: the valve (9) further comprises a reference port (18) fluidly open to the body (14) at a location relative to the body (14) that is selected such that fluid pressure applied to the reference port (18) opposes fluid pressure applied to the flow inlet (IN), and the reference port (18) is connected to the oil tank (6) to receive fluid pressure from the oil tank (6).
Regarding claim 12, Detry et al. in view of Molesini et al. disclose the aircraft engine of claim 11, wherein the reference port (18) is connected to the oil tank (6) at a location in the oil tank (6) that is above a maximum oil level (note 6 is open at its top and lubricant drains into it from above – see fig 1) of the oil tank (6).
Regarding claim 13, Detry et al. in view of Molesini et al. disclose the aircraft engine of claim 12, further comprising an oil pump (13) in the oil circulation circuit (see fig 1) at a location downstream of the location in the oil circulation circuit (as described above) that is downstream of the cavity (110 – Molesini et al.) to which the bypass conduit (112 – Molesini et al.) fluidly connects the first flow outlet (124) of the valve (115 – Molesini et al.), and wherein the oil pump (13) is operable to pump oil toward the oil tank (6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A RIEGELMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7956. The examiner can normally be reached 8-6 EST Monday - Friday.
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, Robert Hodge can be reached at (571) 272-2097. 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 A. RIEGELMAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3654
/MICHAEL A RIEGELMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights