Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1, 2, 10, 13-16, and 19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama et al. (U.S. Patent 8,887,761), hereinafter “Yokoyama “in view of Holley et al. (U.S. Publication 2012/0291901), hereinafter “Holley”.
In regards to claim 1, Yokoyama discloses a valve device comprising: a pilot valve apparatus (3 or 4) an actuator device (1, 7, 8) having a first transmission/coupling device (7), a second transmission/coupling device (8), and a servo drive (1), a first closure body (3) and a second closure body (4), wherein at least one of the first closure body (3) or the second closure body (4) is a component of the pilot valve apparatus; wherein the first closure body (3) is connected to the servo drive (1) via the first transmission/ coupling device (7), and the second closure body (4) is connected to the servo drive (1) via the second transmission/coupling device (8), and wherein the first transmission/coupling device (7) and the second transmission/coupling device (8) are configured such that, upon rotation of the servo drive (1) in a first direction, the first closure body (3) is rotated by the servo drive (1), while the second closure body (8) is not rotated by the servo drive (1). See for example, col. 3, line 58 – col. 4, line 6.
Yokoyama does not specifically disclose that the first and second closure members are ball devices. However, Holley teaches correlated valves wherein the valves, “could be implemented as…ball vales, butterfly valves…or the like.” See para. [0031].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have designed the first and second closure bodies of Yokoyama as ball valves as a functional equivalent recognized in the prior art. Further, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have designed the first and second closure bodies of Yokoyama as ball valves to function under high pressure.
When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “for controlling the flow of fluids, in particular in at least two temperature control circuits” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
In regards to claim 2, a first output shaft (5, 17) is connected to and can be activated by the servo drive (1) of the actuator device via the first transmission/coupling device (7), and a second output shaft (6, 18) is connected to and can be activated by the servo drive (1) of the actuator device via the second transmission/coupling device (8), wherein the first transmission/coupling device (7) or the second transmission/coupling device (8) engage and disengage with the first output shaft (5, 17) or the second output shaft (6, 18) such that the first closure body (3) or the second closure body (4) can be set in a rotational motion.
In regards to claim 10, a housing device (9) having a first receiving space (29), a second receiving space (29), and an actuator receiving space (14), wherein a first valve is provided comprising the first receiving space (29) and the first closure body (3) rotatably supported therein with at least one first passageway (flow path through 29) and at least one fluid connector (inlet/outlet), and wherein a second valve is provided comprising the second receiving space (30) and the second closure body (4) rotatably supported therein with at least one second passageway (flow path through 30) and at least one further fluid connector (inlet/outlet) , wherein the actuator device is arranged in the actuator receiving space (14) of the housing device of the valve apparatus and is thus an integral component of the valve apparatus or a compensating tank apparatus.
In regards to claim 13, Yokoyama discloses valve device, the valve device comprising: a housing device (9) having a first receiving space (FRS), a second receiving space (SRS), and an actuator receiving space (ARS); an actuator device (2, 7, 8) comprising a first transmission/coupling device (7), a second transmission/coupling device (8), and a servo drive (2), wherein the actuator device (2, 7, 8) is arranged in the actuator receiving space (ARS) of the housing device (9) as an integral component; a first closure body (3) of a first valve rotatably supported in the first receiving space (FRS) with at least one first passageway and at least one first fluid connector, wherein the first closure body (3) is connected to the servo drive (2) via the first transmission/coupling device (7); and a second closure body (4) and a second valve rotatably supported in the second receiving space (SRS) with at least one second passageway and at least one second fluid connector, wherein the second closure body (4) is connected to the servo drive (2) via the second transmission/coupling device (8), and wherein the first transmission/coupling device (7) and the second transmission/coupling device (8) are configured such that, upon rotation of the servo drive in a first direction, the first closure body is rotated by the servo drive and the second closure body is not rotated by the servo drive. See for example, col. 3, line 58 – col. 4, line 6.
Yokoyama does not specifically disclose that the first and second closure members are ball devices. However, Holley teaches correlated valves wherein the valves, “could be implemented as…ball vales, butterfly valves…or the like.” See para. [0031].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have designed the first and second closure bodies of Yokoyama as ball valves as a functional equivalent recognized in the prior art. Further, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have designed the first and second closure bodies of Yokoyama as ball valves to function under high pressure.
When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “for controlling fluid flow in at least two temperature control circuits” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
PNG
media_image1.png
654
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 14, a first output shaft (5) is connected to, and activated by, the servo drive (2) of the actuator device via the first transmission/coupling device (7), and a second output shaft (6) is connected to, and activated by, the servo drive (2) of the actuator device via the second transmission/coupling device (8), and wherein the first transmission/coupling device (7) or the second transmission/coupling device (8) is configured to engage and disengage with the first output shaft (5) or the second output shaft (6) such that the first closure body (3) or the second closure body (4) is set in a rotational motion.
In regards to claim 15, an output shaft (5, 6) configured to be activated by the servo drive (2) of the actuator device, wherein the first closure body (3) is connected to the output shaft (5, 6) via the first transmission/coupling device (7), wherein the second closure body (4) is connected to the output shaft (5, 6) via the second transmission/coupling device (8), and wherein the first transmission/coupling device (7) and the second transmission/coupling device (8) are configured such that, depending on the direction of rotation of the servo drive (2), the first transmission/coupling device (7) or the second transmission/coupling device (8) is configured to engage and disengage with the first (3) or the second (4) closure body so that the first or the second closure body is set in a rotational motion.
The office notes that applicant discloses first output shaft 5 and second output shaft 7. Accordingly, it is the office’s position that Yokoyama discloses an output shaft (i.e. 5 and 6) at least to the same extent disclosed by applicant.
In regards to claim 16, depending on the direction of rotation of the servo drive (2), the first transmission/coupling device (7) and the second transmission/coupling device (8) are configured to engage and disengage with the output shaft (5, 6) such that the first closure body is set in a clockwise rotational motion or the second closure body is set in a counterclockwise rotational motion, or the first closure body is set in a counterclockwise rotational motion or the second closure body is set in a clockwise rotational motion.
In regards to claim 19, the closure bodies (3, 4) are activated independently of one another, such that the direction of rotation of the output shaft (5, 6) is changeable clockwise and counterclockwise, such that either only the first closure body (3) or only the second closure body (4) is activated via the first or the second transmission/coupling device (7, 8).
Claim(s) 6, 9, 17, 18, 21 as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama and Holley in view of Morein (U.S. Publication 2015/0027575).
Yokoyama discloses all of the elements as discussed above.
Yokoyama does not specifically disclose that a gear ratio of at least one of the first transmission/coupling device or the second transmission/coupling device is configured as a step up, such that the servo drive has a lower rotational speed than a respective output shaft.
However, Morein teaches a valve module wherein at least two valves are operated via a gear mechanism such that a gear ratio of a first and second valve may be chosen such that an operator of a first or second valve is configured to rotate faster or slower than the rotational speed of the system actuator.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have designed the system of Yokoyama such that a gear ratio of the first or second transmission device was configured as a step up or step down to provide different opening/closing rates of the first and second closure bodies as taught by Morein. See paras. [0017], [0073].
In regards to claims 9 and 21, Yokoyama does not specifically disclose that at least one of the first closure body, the second closure body, a first output shaft, or a second output shaft comprise a position sensor for detecting a valve position of at least one of the first closure body or the second closure body.
Morein teaches that a position sensor is attached to an actuator shaft. See paras. [0058] and [0059].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have designed the system of Yokoyama to include a position sensor so that the position of at least one of the first or second closure bodies could be determined as taught by Morein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection as outlined above.
As discussed above, Holley teaches that ball valves and butterfly valves are known functional equivalents.
Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to combine Yokoyama and Morein because Yokoyama is directed to use with exhaust gas and Morein is directed to use with coolant flow. The office disagrees. To begin, the office notes that the material worked upon (i.e. gas or coolant) by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP § 2115. Still further, both Yokoyama and Morein are concerned with controlling the flow of fluids through a plurality of flow paths. Accordingly, it is the office’s position that Morein is relevant prior art in relation to Yokoyama.
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 R.K. Arundale whose telephone number is 571-270-3453. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881, and Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding 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 (toll-free).
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.
/ROBERT K ARUNDALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753