Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/907,586

AUTOMATIZATION OF DRAINAGE AND DEAERATORS

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Sep 28, 2022
Examiner
HICKS, ANGELISA
Art Unit
3753
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
E On Sverige AB
OA Round
5 (Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
6-7
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
370 granted / 584 resolved
-6.6% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+22.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
619
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
56.1%
+16.1% vs TC avg
§102
18.4%
-21.6% vs TC avg
§112
24.1%
-15.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 584 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 7, filed 08/01/2025, with respect to claims 1, 10 and 14 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Fetkullov’s PH10 sensor does not meet the limitations “a sensor configured to monitor the mouth piece to obtain sensor data pertaining to a type of fluid leaving the mouth piece upon the valve is set in the open state, wherein the type of fluid is heat transfer fluid of the hydraulic system or air.” However, Fetkullov does teach this limitation. Fetkullov’s discloses a sensor (PH10 sensor) configured to monitor the mouth piece to obtain sensor data (percentage of CO2) pertaining to a type of fluid leaving the mouth piece (either a high concentration of CO2 or a low concentration of CO2). . . wherein the type of fluid is heat transfer fluid of the hydraulic system (superheated fluid). Therefore, Fetkullov does read on the limitation. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fetkullov et al. (RU 2220293 C1) in view of Cho et al. (KR 101465775 B1). Regarding Claim 1, Fetkullov discloses a valve assembly for drainage or deaeration of a hydraulic system, the valve assembly comprising: a valve (11) comprising a first side and a second side (Fig.), the first side is configured to be connected to the hydraulic system (4) and the second side is connected to a mouth piece (2), wherein the valve is configured to be set in an open state or in a closed state (this is inherent), wherein, upon the valve is set in the open state, fluid in the hydraulic system is free to pass the valve from the first side to the second side (this is inherent); a valve assembly controller configured to receive a control signal indicating a start of drainage or deaeration of the hydraulic system and a valve assembly control circuit configured to execute (Para. 7): a valve control function configured to set the valve in the open state or closed state (Paras. 7 and 10); and a drainage or deaeration function configured to, based on the control signal, instruct the valve control function to set the valve in the open state (Paras. 7 and 10); and a sensor (10) configured to monitor the mouthpiece to obtain sensor data pertaining to a type of fluid leaving the mouthpiece upon the valve is set in the open state, wherein the type of fluid is heat transfer fluid of the hydraulic system or air (Paras. 7 and 10). Fetkullov does not disclose a valve assembly controller comprising a transceiver. Cho teaches the details of a valve assembly controller (100) comprising a transceiver (101) configured to receive a control signal indicating a start of drainage or deaeration of the hydraulic system and a valve assembly control circuit (140) in order to control the valve. Pg. 18, Para. 5, under “Technical Field.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Fetkullov with additional controller capabilities as taught by Cho in order to control the valve. Regarding Claim 5, the Fetkullov–Cho combination teaches the sensor is configured to be set in a sleeping mode or in a monitoring mode (Cho Pg. 11, Para. 5). Claim(s) 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fetkullov et al. (RU 2220293 C1) in view of Cho et al. (KR 101465775 B1), in further view of Gerbus et al. (US PGPub 20170287309 A1). Regarding Claims 2 and 4, the Fetkullov–Cho combination does not teach the sensors being a camera or a microphone. Gerbus teaches utilizing a camera and a microphone as one of many means in which to sense a parameter. Para. 34. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to use a camera or a microphone in the Fetkullov–Cho system since it was known in the art that cameras and microphones to sense fluid conditions. Here, Gerbus lists many types of sensors that can be used to sense fluid conditions, including quality sensors. Fetkullov also discloses the use of a quality sensor to sense fluidic conditions. As a result, it is obvious that a person having ordinary skill in the art would be aware that the above sensors could be used interchangeably to determine fluidic conditions. Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fetkullov et al. (RU 2220293 C1) in view of Cho et al. (KR 101465775 B1), in further view of Zhang et al. (CN 107050685 A). Regarding Claim 3, the Fetkullov–Cho combination does not teach the sensor further comprises an illuminator configured to illuminate the mouthpiece. Zhang teaches the sensor further comprises an illuminator configured to illuminate the mouthpiece in order to indicate the status of the system (Zhang Para. 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mouthpiece of the Fetkullov–Cho combination with an illuminator as taught by Zhang in order to indicate the status of the system. Claim(s) 6–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fetkullov et al. (RU 2220293 C1) in view of Cho et al. (KR 101465775 B1), in further view of Kim et al. (KR 20110038862). Regarding Claim 6, the Fetkullov–Cho combination does not teach the valve assembly control circuit is further configured to execute: a sensor control function configured to set the sensor in the sleeping mode or the monitoring mode, wherein the drainage or deaeration function is further configured to, based on the control signal, instruct the sensor control function to set the sensor in the monitoring mode. Kim teaches the valve assembly control circuit is further configured to execute: a sensor control function configured to set the sensor in the sleeping mode or the monitoring mode, wherein the drainage or deaeration function is further configured to, based on the control signal, instruct the sensor control function to set the sensor in the monitoring mode (Lines 50–84). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of the Fetkullov–Cho combination with additional controller capabilities as taught by Kim in order to monitor the valve. Regarding Claim 7, the Fetkullov–Cho–Kim combination teaches the transceiver is configured to transmit the sensor data (Kim Lines 85–115). Regarding Claim 8, the Fetkullov–Cho–Kim combination teaches the valve assembly control circuit is further configured to execute: an analyze function configured to analyze the sensor data in order to determine whether the drainage or deaeration of the hydraulic system is completed, wherein the analysis is performed by running the sensor data through a neural network trained to determine whether the drainage or deaeration is completed (Kim Lines 58–71). Regarding Claim 9, the Fetkullov–Cho–Kim combination teaches the analyze function (Kim 216) is further configured to, upon the analyze function has concluded that the drainage or deaeration of the hydraulic system is completed, generate a completion signal, wherein the valve control function is configured to set the valve in the closed state based on the completion signal, wherein the transceiver is configured to transmit the completion signal (Kim Lines 58–71 and 85–115). Claim(s) 10–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fetkullov et al. (RU 2220293 C1) in view of Kim et al. (KR 20110038862). Regarding Claim 10, Fetkullov discloses a drainage or deaeration system for drainage or deaeration of a hydraulic system, the drainage or deaeration system comprising: a control signal indicating a start of drainage or deaeration of the hydraulic system (Para. 11); a valve assembly comprising: a valve (11) comprising a first side and a second side (Fig.), the first side is configured to be connected to the hydraulic system (4) and the second side is connected to a mouthpiece (2), wherein the valve is configured to be set in an open state or in a closed state (this is inherent), wherein, upon the valve is set in the open state, fluid in the hydraulic system is free to pass the valve from the first side to the second side (this is inherent); valve assembly controller configured to receive the control signal and a valve assembly control circuit configured to execute (Para. 7): a valve control function configured to set the valve in the open state or closed state; and a drainage or deaeration function configured to, based on the control signal, instruct the valve control function to set the valve in the open state (Paras. 7 and 10); and a sensor (10) configured to monitor the mouthpiece to obtain sensor data pertaining to a type of fluid leaving the mouthpiece upon the valve is set in the open state, wherein the type of fluid is heat transfer fluid of the hydraulic system or air (Paras. 7 and 10). Fetkullov does not disclose a server configured to transmit. Kim teaches the valve assembly controller (130) used in conjunction with a server in order to control the valve based upon the conditions of the fluid sensed (Para. 39). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Fetkullov with a server as taught by Kim in order to control ensure the valve can be controlled based on the sensed conditions. Per the Fetkullov–Kim combination, Fetkullov’s sensor (10) senses the PH quality of the fluid contents. Kim’s controller (130) and server (Para. 39) are used to operate Fetkullov’s valve based on the conditions sensed by Fetkullov’s sensor (10). Regarding Claim 11, the Fetkullov–Kim combination discloses a valve assembly controller (Kim 130) is further configured to transmit the sensor data to the server (Kim Para. 39), and wherein the server comprises a server control circuit (Kim Para. 39, analysis server) configured to execute: a second analyze function configured to analyze the sensor data in order to determine whether a drainage or deaeration of the hydraulic system is completed (Kim Paras. 39–46), wherein the analysis is performed by running the sensor data through a neural network (Kim Para. 58, computer) trained to determine whether the drainage or deaeration is completed. Regarding Claim 12, the Fetkullov–Kim combination teaches the second analyze function is further configured to, upon the second analyze function has concluded that the drainage or deaeration of the hydraulic system is completed, generate a completion signal, wherein the server is configured to transmit the completion signal to the valve assembly controller, wherein the valve assembly controller is configured to receive the completion signal, wherein the valve control function is configured to set the valve in the closed state based on the completion signal (Kim Paras. 29–35). Regarding Claim 13, the Fetkullov–Kim combination teaches the valve assembly control circuit is further configured to execute: a sensor control function configured to set the sensor a monitoring mode, wherein the drainage or deaeration function is further configured to, based on the control signal, instruct the sensor control function to set the sensor in the monitoring mode, and wherein the sensor control function is configured to set the sensor in the sleeping mode based on the completion signal (Kim Paras. 29–35, where the water quality is measured periodically and therefore, Fetkullov’s PH sensor will be monitored). Regarding Claim 14, the structural limitation of the apparatus described in the method is recited in Claim(s) 10. Accordingly, the method steps recited in claim 14 are necessarily those performed when making and/or using the device of the Fetkullov–Kim combination. Regarding Claim 15, the structural limitation of the apparatus described in the method is recited in Claim(s) 11. Accordingly, the method steps recited in claim 15 are necessarily those performed when making and/or using the device of the Fetkullov–Kim combination. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Angelisa L. Hicks whose telephone number is 571-272-9552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:30AM-5:00PM EST). 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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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. /Angelisa L. Hicks/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 3753
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 28, 2022
Application Filed
Dec 01, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 27, 2024
Response Filed
May 23, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Aug 28, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 29, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 29, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 03, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 01, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 20, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12584566
Valve Actuator
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12573820
METHOD FOR LAYING CABLE IN PRESSURE PIPELINE WITHOUT STOPPING TRANSMISSION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12573510
DEPRESSURISATION VALVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12553538
MONITORING CONDITION OF A VALVE PLUG IN A VALVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12552658
WATER PORT CLOSURE ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

6-7
Expected OA Rounds
63%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+22.0%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 584 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month