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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 and 9 are amended. Claims 3-8 and 11-15 are as previously presented. Claims 2 and 10 are cancelled. Therefore, claims 1, 3-9, and 11-15 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on August 11, 2025 has been entered. Applicant’s amendment overcomes the previously set-forth rejection of claim 1 regarding the 112a and 112b issues with the control unit, as applicant has pointed out, the control unit is construed to require circuitry that allows for a valve to be actuated between an open and closed position.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 5-7, filed on 08/11/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-15 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of applicant’s amendment regarding the powering of a sensor and valve separately and newly found prior art.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP21182201.0, filed on 06/28/2021.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a control unit” in Claim 1
The generic placeholder is “control unit” and the functional language attributed the “control unit” includes: “configured to actuate the valve between the open and closed states”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Reference is made to the Specification filed on 06/01/2022.
Regarding the control unit, Para. 0037, “That is, the command signal transmitted by the control unit 10 to the valve 9 is independent of (e.g. is not based on and/or does not depend on) measurements by the sensor 11. In some embodiments, the control unit 10 and/or the valve 9 may be electrically isolated from the sensor 11. This is beneficial since the circuitry for controlling the valve actuation is then not a possible common cause of failure of the valve 9 and the sensor 11.”, where the control unit is construed to include circuitry that allows for the valve to actuated between an open and closed position
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 3, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (WO 2011056763 A1) in view of Brunner (DE 102008012681 A1) and Barth et al. (EP 3772596 A1, hereinafter Barth).
Regarding claim 1, Miller discloses a steam oven for an aircraft galley (Abstract, “steam oven drain valve systems (22) and methods for draining steam ovens and associated water lines (18) on aircraft”), comprising:
a pipeline for supplying fluid comprising water or steam to a food preparation chamber of the steam oven (Para. 0012, “The system is designed to deliver water from a separately located water source, such as an on-board water tank 16, to a steam oven 10…water supply lines 18”, where the water supply lines 18 carry water into the oven cavity 12), the pipeline being configured to receive water or steam from a source external to the steam oven (Para. 0012, “Water from the tank 16 flows through one or more water supply lines 18 that make up the on-board plumbing system.”);
a valve (Para. 0013, “Valve system 22 includes two water delivery valves 24, 26”) configured to regulate the flow of said fluid through the pipeline, the valve having an open state in which the valve permits the flow of said fluid through the pipeline (Para. 0016, “Once the steam cooking mode on the oven is selected or the user otherwise indicates to the system that the oven is to be activated, both water delivery valves 24, 26 open. This allows water to be delivered to the oven for the creation of steam.”) and a closed state in which the valve prevents the flow of said fluid through the pipeline (Para. 0019, “Once water reaches sensor 34 and sufficient water is present for activation of the steam oven, the low water signal is inhibited. One or both of valves 24 and 26 may be closed.”); and
a control unit configured to actuate the valve between the open and closed states (Para. 0020, “if water level sensor 36 detects that the water level in the reservoir is approaching a level that is too high (for example, if one of the valves has failed in an open position or if the water sensor 34 fails), circuitry 32 can be set to immediately close one or both of the water delivery valves 24, 26 in order to stop the delivery of water to the reservoir and prevent flooding of the system.”, where the circuitry is construed as the “control unit” that is able to control the valves between open and closed states).
Miller does not disclose:
wherein the valve comprises a sensor configured to detect an actual state of the valve, the sensor being independent of the control unit;
wherein the valve and the sensor are configured to receive power from separate and independent power supplies.
However, Brunner discloses, in the similar field of cooking ovens (Page 1, last Para., “a cooking chamber with a blower over the an exchange of air between the atmosphere and the oven is possible.”), where a valve can include a sensor for detecting the state of the valve (Page 4, Para. 5 from end, “A position sensor 26 preferably continuously senses the position of the valve member 21 and outputs positional position information i to the position control and / or regulating device 25 further. The position control and / or regulation device 25 is via a communication line 27 with a control panel 29 connected, from the front 6 can be operated by an operator (not shown) to control signals s to the position control and / or regulation device 25 to send.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the valve in Miller to include the position sensor as taught by Brunner; where from Miller the position control over the valve is determined through the water level sensor. This means that in the combined invention, the position sensor would operate independently of the control unit as the control unit is connected to a water level sensor.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to allow a user to verify that the control unit operating under the water sensor parameters has actually activated the valve properly, as the position sensor verifies the position of the valve and tells a user, as stated by Brunner, Page 4, Para. 5 from end, “The position control and / or regulation device 25 is via a communication line 27 with a control panel 29 connected, from the front 6 can be operated by an operator (not shown) to control signals s to the position control and / or regulation device 25 to send.”.
Further, Barth discloses, in the similar field of valves with position sensors (Page 1, Para. 2, “actuator opening / Closed valve moves into one of the open / closed positions when pressurized with compressed air and into the other of the open / closed positions when venting, and the function monitoring device is designed to include at least one parameter indicative of the movement of the open / closed valve capture”), where the valve and sensor are configured to receive power from separate and independent power supplies (Page 4, Para. 1, “The function monitoring device can thus comprise a vibration sensor which, in addition or as an alternative to the pneumatic control pressure, detects vibrations of the field device as the parameter indicating the movement of the open / closed valve. In this case, the function monitoring device is independent of the field device to be monitored, so that it can be designed as a separate self-powered device that can be detachably mounted on the on / off valve or the pneumatic actuator. Self-supply can be provided by a battery or a solar cell.”, where solenoid valve would need a power supply to function and where that supply is independent of the function monitoring power supply). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the valve and position sensor in modified Miller to be powered separately and independently of each other as taught by Barth.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to detachably mount the function monitoring device or valve position sensor to different valves, where this detachability feature is accomplished through having the position sensor be self-powered independent of the valve that it is monitoring, as stated by Barth, Page 4, Para. 1, “In this case, the function monitoring device is independent of the field device to be monitored, so that it can be designed as a separate self-powered device that can be detachably mounted on the on / off valve”.
Regarding claim 3, modified Miller teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses wherein the actuation of the valve by the control unit is not based on the valve state detection by the sensor (Miller, Para. 0020, “Conversely, if water level sensor 36 detects that the water level in the reservoir is approaching a level that is too high (for example, if one of the valves has failed in an open position or if the water sensor 34 fails), circuitry 32 can be set to immediately close one or both of the water delivery valves 24, 26 in order to stop the delivery of water to the reservoir and prevent flooding of the system.”, where the valve movement depends upon the water level sensor and not a valve position sensor).
Regarding claim 9, Miller discloses, a method of operating a steam oven in an aircraft galley (Abstract, “methods for draining steam ovens and associated water lines (18) on aircraft and other passenger transport vehicles”), comprising:
flowing fluid comprising water or steam through a pipeline towards a food preparation chamber of the steam oven (Para. 0012, “The system is designed to deliver water from a separately located water source, such as an on-board water tank 16, to a steam oven 10…water supply lines 18”, where the water supply lines 18 carry water into the oven cavity 12);
using a control unit (Para. 0020, “if water level sensor 36 detects that the water level in the reservoir is approaching a level that is too high (for example, if one of the valves has failed in an open position or if the water sensor 34 fails), circuitry 32 can be set to immediately close one or both of the water delivery valves 24, 26 in order to stop the delivery of water to the reservoir and prevent flooding of the system.”, where the circuitry is construed as the “control unit” that is able to control the valves between open and closed states), actuating a valve (Para. 0013, “Valve system 22 includes two water delivery valves 24, 26”) to regulate the flow of said fluid through the pipeline, the valve having an open state in which the valve permits the flow of fluid through the pipeline (Para. 0016, “Once the steam cooking mode on the oven is selected or the user otherwise indicates to the system that the oven is to be activated, both water delivery valves 24, 26 open. This allows water to be delivered to the oven for the creation of steam.”) and a closed state in which the valve prevents the flow of fluid through the pipeline (Para. 0019, “Once water reaches sensor 34 and sufficient water is present for activation of the steam oven, the low water signal is inhibited. One or both of valves 24 and 26 may be closed.”).
Miller does not disclose:
detecting an actual state of the valve using a sensor on the valve, the sensor being independent of the control unit; and
powering the valve and sensor using separate and independent power supplies.
However, Brunner discloses, in the similar field of cooking ovens (Page 1, last Para., “a cooking chamber with a blower over the an exchange of air between the atmosphere and the oven is possible.”), where a valve can include a sensor for detecting the state of the valve (Page 4, Para. 5 from end, “A position sensor 26 preferably continuously senses the position of the valve member 21 and outputs positional position information i to the position control and / or regulating device 25 further. The position control and / or regulation device 25 is via a communication line 27 with a control panel 29 connected, from the front 6 can be operated by an operator (not shown) to control signals s to the position control and / or regulation device 25 to send.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the valve in Miller to include the position sensor as taught by Brunner; where from Miller the position control over the valve is determined through the water level sensor. This means that in the combined invention, the position sensor would operate independently of the control unit as the control unit is connected to a water level sensor.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to allow a user to verify that the control unit operating under the water sensor parameters has actually activated the valve properly, as the position sensor verifies the position of the valve and tells a user, as stated by Brunner, Page 4, Para. 5 from end, “The position control and / or regulation device 25 is via a communication line 27 with a control panel 29 connected, from the front 6 can be operated by an operator (not shown) to control signals s to the position control and / or regulation device 25 to send.”.
Further, Barth discloses, in the similar field of valves with position sensors (Page 1, Para. 2, “actuator opening / Closed valve moves into one of the open / closed positions when pressurized with compressed air and into the other of the open / closed positions when venting, and the function monitoring device is designed to include at least one parameter indicative of the movement of the open / closed valve capture”), where the valve and sensor are configured to receive power from separate and independent power supplies (Page 4, Para. 1, “The function monitoring device can thus comprise a vibration sensor which, in addition or as an alternative to the pneumatic control pressure, detects vibrations of the field device as the parameter indicating the movement of the open / closed valve. In this case, the function monitoring device is independent of the field device to be monitored, so that it can be designed as a separate self-powered device that can be detachably mounted on the on / off valve or the pneumatic actuator. Self-supply can be provided by a battery or a solar cell.”, where solenoid valve would need a power supply to function and where that supply is independent of the function monitoring power supply). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the valve and position sensor in modified Miller to be powered separately and independently of each other as taught by Barth.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to detachably mount the function monitoring device or valve position sensor to different valves, where this detachability feature is accomplished through having the position sensor be self-powered independent of the valve that it is monitoring, as stated by Barth, Page 4, Para. 1, “In this case, the function monitoring device is independent of the field device to be monitored, so that it can be designed as a separate self-powered device that can be detachably mounted on the on / off valve”.
Regarding claim 11, modified Miller teaches the method according to claim 9, as set forth above, discloses wherein the actuation of the valve by the control unit is not based on the valve state detection by the sensor (Miller, Para. 0020, “Conversely, if water level sensor 36 detects that the water level in the reservoir is approaching a level that is too high (for example, if one of the valves has failed in an open position or if the water sensor 34 fails), circuitry 32 can be set to immediately close one or both of the water delivery valves 24, 26 in order to stop the delivery of water to the reservoir and prevent flooding of the system.”, where the valve movement depends upon the water level sensor and not a valve position sensor).
Claims 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (WO 2011056763 A1) in view of Brunner (DE 102008012681 A1) and Barth et al. (EP 3772596 A1, hereinafter Barth) in further view of Kastner et al. (DE 102019118393 A1, hereinafter Kastner).
Regarding claim 4, modified Miller teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses where a position sensor signal is output regarding the actual valve state (Teaching from Brunner, Page 4, Para. 5 from end, “A position sensor 26 preferably continuously senses the position of the valve member 21 and outputs positional position information i to the position control and / or regulating device 25 further. The position control and / or regulation device 25 is via a communication line 27 with a control panel 29 connected, from the front 6 can be operated by an operator (not shown) to control signals s to the position control and / or regulation device 25 to send.”).
Modified Miller does not disclose:
wherein (A) the valve comprises a circuit board including the sensor, the circuit board being arranged to receive and process sensor data from the sensor and output a signal indicative of the actual valve state based on the sensor data, or wherein (B) the sensor is configured to transmit sensor data to a remote electronics unit for processing.
However, Kastner discloses, in the similar field of position sensors for valves (Abstract, “A position sensor device (26) for a valve drive (14)”), where the valve includes a circuit board that has the position sensor (Page 7, Para. 8, “The position sensor device also includes 26th a control and / or evaluation unit 40 that are on a circuit board 42 is arranged, which is also in the sensor receiving space 28 is recorded.”), where the circuit board receives and processes the sensor data to output a signal regarding the valve state (Page 7, Para. 9 from end, “The coil assembly 36 is with the control and / or evaluation unit 40 coupled so that the control and / or evaluation unit 40 the coil assembly 36 control accordingly or evaluate their signals.”, where the circuit board includes an evaluation unit that is able to process the data signal for output). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the position sensor in modified Miller to specifically have a circuit board as taught by Kastner.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of a structure that holds all the circuitry in place for ease of repairability or for allowing additional units to be incorporated into the position sensor, as stated by Kastner, Page 7, Para. 8, “The position sensor device also includes 26th a control and / or evaluation unit 40 that are on a circuit board 42 is arranged, which is also in the sensor receiving space 28 is recorded.”. A circuit board is further implied through the teaching from Brunner in being able to use a communication line through a control unit, where these communications would require circuitry in order to function.
Regarding claim 12, modified Miller teaches the method according to claim 9, as set forth above, discloses where a position sensor signal is output regarding the actual valve state (Teaching from Brunner, Page 4, Para. 5 from end, “A position sensor 26 preferably continuously senses the position of the valve member 21 and outputs positional position information i to the position control and / or regulating device 25 further. The position control and / or regulation device 25 is via a communication line 27 with a control panel 29 connected, from the front 6 can be operated by an operator (not shown) to control signals s to the position control and / or regulation device 25 to send.”).
Modified Miller does not disclose:
wherein (A) the valve comprises a circuit board including the sensor, and wherein the method comprises using the circuit board to receive and process sensor data from the sensor and generate a signal indicative of the actual valve state based on the sensor data, or (B) comprising transmitting sensor data from the sensor to a remote electronics unit for sensor data processing.
However, Kastner discloses, in the similar field of position sensors for valves (Abstract, “A position sensor device (26) for a valve drive (14)”), where the valve includes a circuit board that has the position sensor (Page 7, Para. 8, “The position sensor device also includes 26th a control and / or evaluation unit 40 that are on a circuit board 42 is arranged, which is also in the sensor receiving space 28 is recorded.”), where the circuit board receives and processes the sensor data to output a signal regarding the valve state (Page 7, Para. 9 from end, “The coil assembly 36 is with the control and / or evaluation unit 40 coupled so that the control and / or evaluation unit 40 the coil assembly 36 control accordingly or evaluate their signals.”, where the circuit board includes an evaluation unit that is able to process the data signal for output). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the position sensor in modified Miller to specifically have a circuit board as taught by Kastner.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of a structure that holds all the circuitry in place for ease of repairability or for allowing additional units to be incorporated into the position sensor, as stated by Kastner, Page 7, Para. 8, “The position sensor device also includes 26th a control and / or evaluation unit 40 that are on a circuit board 42 is arranged, which is also in the sensor receiving space 28 is recorded.”. A circuit board is further implied through the teaching from Brunner in being able to use a communication line through a control unit, where these communications would require circuitry in order to function.
Claims 5-7 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (WO 2011056763 A1) in view of Brunner (DE 102008012681 A1) and Barth et al. (EP 3772596 A1, hereinafter Barth) in further view of Arceo et al. (WO 2020264453 A1, hereinafter Arceo).
Regarding claim 5, modified Miller teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses where a solenoid valve could be used (Miller, Para. 0015, “a flapper valve, a one-way valve, a solenoid valve, a by-pass valve, or any other appropriate valve”, where different types of valves could be used, where solenoid valves would require power).
Modified Miller does not disclose:
wherein the valve is a normally- closed solenoid valve.
However, Arceo discloses, in the similar field of valves (Para. 0010, “The present disclosure relates generally to valves and more specifically relates to solenoid valves”), where the valve can be a normally-closed solenoid valve (Para. 0038, “Actuator assembly 116 can include one or more springs 130 for biasing plunger 128 in one or more directions or toward one or more positions, such as a default open or closed position in the absence of actuation force from coil 124 sufficient to overcome a biasing force of spring(s) 130.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the valve in modified Miller to be a solenoid valve with the features as taught by Arceo.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of the valve being able to have a default state during power outages, where having the valve be open or closed as a default is a user choice that can be made, where a user could select the valve having a default state of being closed to prevent leakages during power outages, as stated by Arceo, Para. 0012, “Many solenoid valves have default positions, such as normally open or normally closed, to which the valve defaults until actuated. In the event of a loss of power, a solenoid valve may have a default or failure mode, such as fully open or fully closed.”.
Regarding claim 6, modified Miller teaches the apparatus according to claim 5, as set forth above, discloses wherein the solenoid valve comprises a solenoid and a plunger (Teaching from Arceo, Para. 0038, “Actuator assembly 116 can include one or more springs 130 for biasing plunger 128 in one or more directions or toward one or more positions”),
wherein the solenoid, when powered, moves the plunger from an extended position in which the plunger extends into the pipeline to block the passage of fluid therethrough, to a retracted position in which the plunger is retracted from the pipeline to permit the passage of fluid therethrough (Teaching from Arceo, Para. 0038, “Actuator assembly 116 can include one or more springs 130 for biasing plunger 128 in one or more directions or toward one or more positions, such as a default open or closed position in the absence of actuation force from coil 124 sufficient to overcome a biasing force of spring(s) 130.”, where the actuation force of the coil would provide the power to overcome the bias force of the spring to open the valve and move the plunger to a retracted position), and
optionally wherein the sensor is arranged to detect whether the plunger is in the extended position or the retracted position (Teaching from Brunner, Page 4, Para. 5 from end, “A position sensor 26 preferably continuously senses the position of the valve member 21 and outputs positional position information i to the position control and / or regulating device 25 further. The position control and / or regulation device 25 is via a communication line 27 with a control panel 29 connected, from the front 6 can be operated by an operator (not shown) to control signals s to the position control and / or regulation device 25 to send.”, where the being able to detect the valve position for a solenoid valve would mean that the plunger position is able to be detected).
Regarding claim 7, modified Miller teaches the apparatus according to claim 6, as set forth above, discloses wherein the solenoid valve comprises a spring arranged to bias the plunger to the extended position when the solenoid is not powered (Teaching from Arceo, Para. 0038, “Actuator assembly 116 can include one or more springs 130 for biasing plunger 128 in one or more directions or toward one or more positions, such as a default open or closed position in the absence of actuation force from coil 124 sufficient to overcome a biasing force of spring(s) 130.”).
Regarding claim 13, modified Miller teaches the method according to claim 9, as set forth above, discloses where a solenoid valve could be used (Miller, Para. 0015, “a flapper valve, a one-way valve, a solenoid valve, a by-pass valve, or any other appropriate valve”, where different types of valves could be used, where solenoid valves would require power).
Modified Miller does not disclose:
wherein the valve is a normally- closed solenoid valve.
However, Arceo discloses, in the similar field of valves (Para. 0010, “The present disclosure relates generally to valves and more specifically relates to solenoid valves”), where the valve can be a normally-closed solenoid valve (Para. 0038, “Actuator assembly 116 can include one or more springs 130 for biasing plunger 128 in one or more directions or toward one or more positions, such as a default open or closed position in the absence of actuation force from coil 124 sufficient to overcome a biasing force of spring(s) 130.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the valve in modified Miller to be a solenoid valve with the features as taught by Arceo.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of the valve being able to have a default state during power outages, where having the valve be open or closed as a default is a user choice that can be made, where a user could select the valve having a default state of being closed to prevent leakages during power outages, as stated by Arceo, Para. 0012, “Many solenoid valves have default positions, such as normally open or normally closed, to which the valve defaults until actuated. In the event of a loss of power, a solenoid valve may have a default or failure mode, such as fully open or fully closed.”.
Regarding claim 14, modified Miller teaches the method according to claim 13, as set forth above, discloses comprising powering a solenoid of the solenoid valve and thereby causing a plunger of the solenoid valve to move from an extended position in which the plunger extends into the pipeline to block the passage of fluid therethrough, to a retracted position in which the plunger is retracted from the pipeline to permit the passage of fluid therethrough (Teaching from Arceo, Para. 0038, “Actuator assembly 116 can include one or more springs 130 for biasing plunger 128 in one or more directions or toward one or more positions, such as a default open or closed position in the absence of actuation force from coil 124 sufficient to overcome a biasing force of spring(s) 130.”, where the actuation force of the coil would provide the power to overcome the bias force of the spring to open the valve and move the plunger to a retracted position), and optionally wherein the sensor detects whether the plunger is in the extended position or the retracted position (Teaching from Brunner, Page 4, Para. 5 from end, “A position sensor 26 preferably continuously senses the position of the valve member 21 and outputs positional position information i to the position control and / or regulating device 25 further. The position control and / or regulation device 25 is via a communication line 27 with a control panel 29 connected, from the front 6 can be operated by an operator (not shown) to control signals s to the position control and / or regulation device 25 to send.”, where the being able to detect the valve position for a solenoid valve would mean that the plunger position is able to be detected).
Regarding claim 15, modified Miller teaches the method according to claim 14, as set forth above, discloses comprising biasing the plunger to the extended position using a spring when the solenoid is not powered (Teaching from Arceo, Para. 0038, “Actuator assembly 116 can include one or more springs 130 for biasing plunger 128 in one or more directions or toward one or more positions, such as a default open or closed position in the absence of actuation force from coil 124 sufficient to overcome a biasing force of spring(s) 130.”).
Claims 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (WO 2011056763 A1) in view of Brunner (DE 102008012681 A1) and Barth et al. (EP 3772596 A1, hereinafter Barth) in further view of Brandon, II (US 20090291332 A1, hereinafter Brandon) and Grodl et al. (US 20180348801 A1, hereinafter Grodl).
Regarding claim 8, modified Miller teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Modified Miller does not disclose:
comprising a verification circuit configured to verify that an expected valve state corresponds to the actual state of the valve detected by the sensor, the expected valve state being the expected state of the valve after receiving an actuation command from the control unit.
However, Brandon discloses, in the similar field of valves (Abstract, “a valve and an actuator for opening and closing the valve.”), where the position sensors can be used to verify that the expected valve state is actually what the current valve state is in from the actuation command received from the control unit (Para. 0142, “The position sensors 600 may be used to verify that the valve is actuated properly.”, where the control unit sends actuation signals, Para. 0148, “The ASIC 546 may serve as control circuitry for controlling the activation of the actuator to actuate the valve.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system in modified Miller to include verification through the position sensors of the valve’s position as taught by Brandon.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of allowing the valve to auto correct it’s position if determined to be in an incorrect position, which can help resolve the cloggage issues or alert the user to problems, as stated by Brandon, Para. 0142, “If the valve fails to open properly, for example, the battery cell voltage may continue to drop below a first upper open voltage set point. Upon reaching a second lower open voltage set point, the valve may be sent a second actuated pulse via the actuator assuming that the valve failed to open the first time… Other more drastic measures could be employed such as sending a series of open and close signals to try to get the valve to move. Assuming that the valve is stuck, the open and close signals could rock the valve back and forth to free it from the obstruction. Alternatively, this information could be communicated back to the device and user if a communication capability exists.”.
For the purposes of substantive examination, Examiner presents Grodl for further support over a verification circuit. Grodl discloses, in the similar field of valves (Abstract, “A proportional valve is provided having a pilot control valve that can be controlled by means of a control signal and having a booster valve that can be actuated by means of the pilot control valve.”), where a predetermined position signal is used to verify that the valve state is correct by comparing with an actual position signal (Para. 0052, “Control unit 36, which controls pilot valve 2 (and therefore proportional valve 1 together), is set up to calculate the control voltage for pilot valve 2, needed to achieve a desired switched state of booster valve 3… In the process, therefore, firstly the instantaneous valve state is determined from the measured value representative of the position of first valve element 8 (by comparison with verification or calibration data saved appropriately in control unit 36) and then the control voltage for pilot valve 2 is regulated such that first valve element 8-depending on desired valve state-holds its axial position or changes it to change the valve state.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system in modified Miller to include the features as taught by Grodl.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to calibrate the proper voltage needed to operate a valve when in use, where this verification of the proper voltage allows for real time changes if needed and can provide greater flexibility to a user, as stated by Grodl, Para. 0052, “by comparison with verification or calibration data saved appropriately in control unit 36) and then the control voltage for pilot valve 2 is regulated such that first valve element 8-depending on desired valve state-holds its axial position or changes it to change the valve state.”.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN GUANHUA WEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9940. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571-270-5569. 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.
/KEVIN GUANHUA WEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
10/20/2025
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights