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 .
DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/24/2026 has been entered. Applicant amended claims 1 and 20, added claims 21 – 22; claims 1, 4 – 22 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 15 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 11/20/2025 is acknowledged by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 22, applicant’s initial disclosure Figs. 1, 2, 3 shows the position sensor outside of the magnetic actuators 10, 12, 10 respectively. Figure 4 shows the proximate sensor is located away from the magnetic actuators and the disclosure describes the sensor to be close to the arm or the yoke. Similarly figure 5 and 6 shows the proximate sensor outside of the magnetic actuators. The initial disclosure does not disclose “the position sensor is mounted on a tube of a bi-directional solenoid core of one of the magnet actuators” as such, claim 22 is rejected for lack of written description support
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.
Claims 1, 9 , 14 and 19 - 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent to Levitan et al. (6,460,557) in view of German Patent document to Rueb (DE 196 46 446).
Regarding claim 1, Levitan et al. disclose an apparatus for selectively actuating a valve moveable in a first direction and a second direction relative to a valve body (105, Fig. 1), the apparatus comprising: a first magnet actuator (1501, Fig. 1) coupled to the valve; a second magnet actuator (1502, Fig. 1) coupled to the valve; and, a controller – inherently to control the position of the valve member - connected to the first magnet actuator and the second magnet actuator, the controller configured to concurrently actuate: the first magnet actuator to urge the valve in one of the first direction and the second direction; and, the second magnet actuator to urge the valve in the one of the first direction and the second direction.
Regarding claim 20, Levitan et al. disclose a valve body (105, Fig. 1); a spool (128, Fig. 1) moveable relative to the valve body in a first direction and a second direction, the spool including at least one land (132, Fig. 1) and one groove – between lands 130 and 132; a first magnet actuator (1501, Fig. 1) connected to the spool; a second magnet actuator (1502, Fig. 1) connected to the spool; a controller – inherently - connected to the first magnet actuator and the second magnet actuator, the controller configured to concurrently actuate: the first magnet actuator to urge the spool in one of the first direction and the second direction; and, the second magnet actuator to urge the spool in the one of the first direction and second direction.
Levitan et al. do not disclose a position sensor connected to one of the first magnet actuator and the second magnet actuator wherein the position sensor is operatively arranged to detect a position of an armature of the one of the first magnet actuator and the second magnet actuator, and wherein the position sensor is operable to communicate the detected position of the armature to the controller.
Rueb teaching an actuator for valve that is capable of being used with an electrical actuator teach a controller [para. 33] that is connected to two actuators that are capable of moving the output in either direction. Further Rueb teaches a position sensor is operatively arranged to detect a position of an armature of the one of the first magnet actuator and the second magnet actuator, and to communicate the detected position of the armature to the controller (claim 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date of the application to have modified valve disclosed by Levitan et al. with the controller taught by Rueb as a means of accurately controlling the position of the output of the actuator.
Regarding claim 9, Levitan et al. disclose a spool including a first end (130, Fig. 1) and a second end (134, Fig. 1); the first magnet actuator (1501, Fig. 1) is connected to the first end(130, Fig. 1); and, the second magnet actuator (1052, Fig. 1) is connected to the second end (134, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, the electromagnetic actuator disclosed by Levitan et al. and adapted to the transmission element taught by Rueb controlled by a controller will meet the limitation “electronic controller”.
Regarding claim 19, Rueb teach a position sensor operatively coupled to the magnetic actuator to detect the position of the actuator (Claim 8).
Regarding claim 21, in the combination Rueb teaches the state of the valves based on the position sensor [para. 11].
Claims 4 – 8, 13, 15 - 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Patent to Levitan et al. (6,460,557) in view of German Patent document to Rueb (DE 196 46 446) and further view of US Patent Application Publication to Gent et al. (2013/0200285).
Regarding claims 4 – 8, 13, 15 – 18 Levitan et al. do not disclose the claimed rack and pinion drive for the actuator.
However, Gent et al. also teaching an actuator for a valve that is capable of being used with an electrical actuator [para. 4] teach the claimed rack and pinion gear arrangement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date of the application to have adapted the electromagnetic actuators disclosed by Levitan et al. to the rack and pinion transmission elements taught by Gent et al. as a simple combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
In the combination of the prior art elements, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected the elements – electromagnetic actuators adapted to the rack and pinion transmission elements - to maintain their respective properties or functions.
Claims 10 - 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Patent to Levitan et al. (6,460,557) in view of German Patent document to Rueb (DE 196 46 446) and further view of US Patent Application Publication to Gent et al. (2013/0200285) and US Patent to Holtgraver (8,087,316).
Regarding claims 10 – 12 Levitan et al. do not disclose a scotch yoke transmission.
However, Holtgraver teaching a valve comprising two actuators that are capable of moving in the opposite direction are connected non-rotatably to the valve stem (304, Fig. 3) by means of a scotch yoke (300, Fig. 3) with ends connected to both actuators, a protrusion (308, Fig. 3) and a slot (302, Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date of the application to have adapted the electromagnetic actuators disclosed by Levitan et al. to the scotch yoke transmission element taught by Holtgraver as a simple combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
In the combination of the prior art elements, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected the elements – electromagnetic actuators adapted to the scotch yoke transmission elements - to maintain their respective properties or functions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UMASHANKAR VENKATESAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisors Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607 or Ken Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881. The fax phone number for the organization where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/UMASHANKAR VENKATESAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753