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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/8/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed April 8, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 5, 8-13 and 17, 18 remain pending in the application. Claims 14-15 are withdrawn.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8-12, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalippke et al. (US 5,275,373) in view of Gundlach et al. (US 2018/0135772).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 17, Kalippke discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1-4, a throttle unit of a blow moulding device (i.e., intended use) (ABSTRACT), comprising a throttle,
wherein the throttle has an actuator (item 6, Fig. 1 or 3 or 4 (col. 5, lines 17-18); it is noticed that the device 6 having another end (or the second end) being closed is provided with flow channels (related to claim 3)) and a drive unit comprising an electric motor (items 4, 5, Fig. 1 (col. 2, lines 16-17)) for changing a position of the actuator (i.e., via rotation (col. 2, lines 64-68)) (related to claims 5, 8),
wherein a throughflow cross section in a throughflow channel of a fluid is changeable by changing the position of the actuator (as shown in Figs. 2, 3 (e.g., determined by the size of the opening gap 27 (col. 2, lines 47-55))),
wherein the drive unit is arranged at a first end of the actuator (as shown in Fig. 1).
However, Kalippke does not explicitly disclose a position sensor being disposed near the second end of the actuator. In the same field of endeavor, actuator, Gundlach discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 3, 4, a Hall effect sensor 36 is disposed to the second end 34 of the actuator 24 to sense the position of the rotary output device 34 by detecting the magnetic field of two magnets 37 mounted on the rotary output device 34 ([0035], lines 1-5) (related to claim 17).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kalippke to incorporate the teachings of Gundlach to provide the Hall effect position sensor being disposed near the second end of the actuator. Doing so would be possible to provide a contactless position sensing, as recognized by Gundlach (ABSTRACT).
It is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235.
Intended use has been continuously held not to be germane to determining the patentability of the apparatus, In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530.
Note: In re Pearson 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush 177 USPQ 705, 706 In re Otto et al 136 USPQ 458.
The preamble is not a limitation on the claims if it merely states the purpose or intended use, and the remainder of the claim completely defines invention independent of preamble. On the other hand, if claims cannot be read independently of preamble, and preamble must be read to give meaning to claim or is essential to point out the invention, it constitutes a claim limitation. Stewart-Warner Corp v. City of Pontiac, Mich. 219 USPQ 1162; Marston v. J.C. Penny Co., Inc. 148 USPQ 25; and Kropa v. Robie and Mahlman, 88 USPQ 478.
Regarding claims 9-12, Kalippke discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 2, 3, 4, the rotary valve 6 (i.e., the major component of the actuator 1) consists of a sleeve 23 (with a cylindrical shape) which is connected to the shaft 7 and on which a closing element 25 is fixed via two arms 24. The closing element is designed as a parallelogram shaped cutout of a cylindrical surface. The closing element has a front control edge 26, which sweeps the throttle aperture 12 to a greater or lesser extent and thereby determines the size of the opening gap 27 of the throttle aperture 12 (col. 2, lines 47-55).
Here, the cutout through the cylindrical surface of the closing element 25 is considered to create the winding indentation which is configured to be open to an exterior and the flow channel. Two arms 24 are considered as two legs to support the closing element 25 which has a web structure due to the cutout. The two arms 24 are in parallel to each other and extend perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis of the actuator 6 (related to claims 10, 11, 12).
Regarding claim 18, Kalippke discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 2, 3, 4, the throttle has an actuator (item 6, Fig. 1 or 3 or 4 (col. 5, lines 17-18)). It is noticed that the device 6 having another end (or the second end) being closed is provided with flow channels. It is also noticed that, the input connection piece 13 and the output connection piece 18 (e.g., as shown in Fig. 3) are constructed for the major portion of the throughflow channel where the actuator 6 is arranged.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kalippke et al. (US 5,275,373) and Gundlach et al. (US 2018/0135772) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Usry (US 3,916,941).
Regarding claim 13, the combination does not disclose a dynamic sealing for sealing the throttle relative to the housing of the actuator. In the same field of endeavor, throttle valve, Usry discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, 4, the labyrinth seals 42 and 44 (i.e., one type of dynamic sealing) are applied to the throttle valve 10 (col. 2, lines 56-68).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Usry to provide a dynamic sealing for sealing the throttle relative to the housing of the actuator. Doing so would be possible to provide a reliable sealing for reducing maintenance and improving safety, as recognized by Usry (ABSTRACT).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/8/2026 have been fully considered. They are not persuasive.
Regarding arguments (as amended) in claim 1 that the reference Gundlach does not disclose that the sensor 36 is arranged at an end face of the output device 34 instead of between the first end and the second end of the output device 34, it is not persuasive.
As illustrated in Fig. 4 in the teachings of Gundlach (also see attached annotated Figure I below), at least the magnets 37 corresponding with the Hall cell 36 are disposed in the one end region of the rotary output device 34.
It is noticed that, as illustrated in Figs. 7 and 8 of Applicant, the end face of the output device 34 is provided with varied shapes/geometries, for example, a curved shape of the end face shown in Fig. 7 and a protrusion piece being involved in the end face shown in Fig. 8. Thus, in the teachings of Gundlach, the Hall cell 36 is disposed to face these shapes/geometries of the end face of the actuator.
PNG
media_image1.png
409
717
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure I (based in Fig. 4 in the teachings of Gundlach)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIBIN LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached on 571 270 7001. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights