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 filed 09/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Here, Galarza discloses the use of a single angular position sensor to determine the valve position. Soldo discloses the use of two angular position sensors to determine the valve position. Both Galarza’s and Soldo’s angular position sensors must be attached and located on a valve. Soldo discloses, specifically, that the angular position sensor be located on the valve. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have the knowledge to locate the angular position sensor, as taught by Soldo, to the valve of Galarza.
Applicant argues that the purpose of Galarza’s angular position sensors is to determine the torque, which is unrelated to Applicant’s invention, determining the end–of–travel position. However, Galarza’s invention continues to meet the claim 1 limitations. Galarza teaches two sensing devices that are capable of determining the end–of–travel positions. The fact that Galarza also has the capability to determine when the maintenance is required does not preclude using Galarza as prior art.
Applicant argues that Galarza’s angular positions do not teach end–of–travel position. However, Galarza teaches the use of two angular position sensors which identify two valve positions. As a result, Galarza is capable of being position such that it can measure end–of–travel positions. Therefore, locating the angular position sensors are a design choice and a person having ordinary would have the knowledge to locate the angular position sensors according to design needs.
Please see the rejection below for further detail.
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 Galarza et al. (EP 3267274 A1) in view of Soldo et al. (USPN 8763637 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Galarza discloses a valve control system comprising: a rotatable valve (1) operably coupled to a motor (3); a valve position indicator (9) configured to rotate with the rotatable valve (Fig. 4); a sensing device (8) configured to detect the valve position indicator (Paras. 32 and 38, where there are multiple magnets), but does not disclose a home position sensing device on a non-rotating portion of the rotating valve at a home position of the valve position indicator and an end- of-travel position sensing device on the non-rotating portion of the rotating valve located at an end of travel position of the valve position indicator.
Soldo teaches the at least two sensing devices comprising a home position sensing device (20’) on a non-rotating portion of the rotating valve (Col. 4, Lines 46–50) at a home position (fully open/fully closed) of the valve position indicator (18’) and an end–of–travel position sensing device (24’) on the non-rotating portion of the rotating valve (Col. 4, Lines 46–50) located at an end of travel position (fully open/fully closed) of the valve position indicator (18’) in order to ensure that the valve position indicator is secured to the rotating valve (Col. 4, Lines 46–50) and also ensure the proper alignment (Col. 8, Lines 5–25) such that the position sensing devices can determine that angular position of the rotating valve (Col. 5, Lines 4–22).
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 position sensor of Galarza with a position sensor as taught by Soldo in order to ensure that the valve position indicator is properly aligned with the position sensing devices. Thus, decreasing error when assembling and sensing.
Per the Galarza–Soldo combination, Soldo’s element 18’ replaces Galarza’s element 9. Furthermore, Soldo’s element 18’ is located in Galarza’s element 5. Additionally, Soldo’s elements 20’ and 24’ replace Galarza’s element 8. Soldo’s elements 20’ and 24’ are located on Galarza in the configuration as seen in Soldo’s Fig. 17.
Regarding Claim 5, the Galarza–Soldo combination teaches the controller further comprises: motor control logic configured to convert a command into one or more motor commands to drive the motor (Galarza Para 43, where the motor commands are the maneuvers); and valve control logic (Galarza Para. 42, Lines 10–32, where the valve control logic is the information provided by the sensors) configured to communicate with the motor control logic and the valve state determination logic (Galarza Para. 43), wherein the valve control logic is further configured to provide feedback to the motor control logic based on the current state of the rotatable valve (Galarza Para. 43).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galarza et al. (EP 3267274 A1) in view of Soldo et al. (USPN 8763637 B2), in further view of Kudo (JP H07319518 A).
Regarding Claim 8, the Galarza–Soldo combination teaches detecting the home indicator or the end-of-travel indicator after the valve rotation stop is commanded but does not explicitly disclose and over-travel condition.
Kudo teaches an over-travel condition that is detected based on the detecting the home indicator or the end-of-travel indicator after the valve rotation stop is commanded (Para. 11) in order to alert the operator to the over-travel position and to command the device (valve) to a particular position (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 commands of Galarza–Soldo combination with an over-travel detection means as taught by Kudo in order to alert and reposition the valve as needed.
The Galarza–Soldo–Kudo combination teaches not currently detecting the home indicator or the end-of-travel indicator, and not detecting the home indicator or the end-of-travel indicator before the valve rotation stop is commanded (Kudo Paras. 11 and 18–19).
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