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 .
Status of the claims
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5 is/are amended, claim(s) 3,4 is/are cancelled and claim(s) 6, 7 is/are added. Currently claims 1, 2, 5-7 are pending in this application.
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.
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, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura et al (20230367338) in view of Kucera et al (20130154841), further in view of Taipale et al (20130181630).
Regarding claim(s) 1, Tamura discloses fluid control valve comprising: a housing (outer body of 1) including a fluid inlet (at 10) and a fluid outlet (at 11) configured to be connectable in series to a fluid pipe; a fluid control valve 4 coupled to a motor circuit 3,7,, the fluid control valve mechanically opening and closing in response to the motor circuit 3,7; d. a differential flow sensor 2 (Para 58, which would necessarily include an orifice causing pressure drop for flow measurement by measuring pressure drop) coupled to the fluid control valve; a processor executing control software processor 3,7 (Para 51, computing processing part) executing control software (PID control Para 53 in CPU/processor would inherently include software); a voltage switch circuit (motor drive circuit), the voltage switch circuit (motor drive circuit) controlling the application of voltage to valve motor in response to control signal information (command input signal from 50, Para 50); h. a digital data modem 23 coupled to an external power/data interface (interface on 7 for power and data connection between 7 and 50, Para 50) digital information interface 24,25 and coupled to a processor 3,7, the digital data modem 23 operating on digital information in response to the processor or external digital information interface (transmission of commands/data from/to external control 50); wherein the processor 3,7 is configured to apply control signal information to the voltage control switch circuit (motor drive circuit); ; l. wherein the control software is configured to calculate a fluid flow rate based on pressure information (when using differential pressure sensor, Para 58) and determine a performance condition (flow rate comparison as PID control, Para 53) ; wherein the control software (PID control) is configured to control the application of a control signal to the voltage switch circuit (motor drive circuit); and wherein the control software is configured to communicate digital information with an the external power/data interface.
Tamura et al disclose motor based valve control but fails to disclose valve controller as solenoid. Kucera, Para 33, teaches valve actuation using solenoid or a motor as substitutes.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Tamura with a solenoid valve actuator as taught by Kucera as an art-recognized functionally equivalent substitute valve driver yielding predictable results of automatic valve control.
Tamura fails to disclose pressure sensors at system inlet and outlet providing signals to electronic control circuitry. Kucera, Fig 11, teaches a valve/sensor combination having pressure sensors 42,43 at system inlet and outlet with circuitry providing signals to electronic control circuitry 36,70 and coupled to system inlet and outlet and valve and flow sensor (Para 37, teaches 28 having a flow sensor).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Tamura with pressure sensors 42,43 at system inlet and outlet with circuitry providing signals to electronic control circuitry 36,70 and coupled to system inlet and outlet and valve and flow sensor as taught by Kucera in order to improve system monitoring.
Tamura discloses external power and data interface (interface on 7 for power and data connection between 7 and 50, Para 50) but fails to disclose two-wire connection supporting both digital data transmission and AC power. Taipale (Para 115) teaches two-wire connection supporting both digital data transmission and AC power.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Tamura with AC power based electric consumption and two-wire connection supporting both digital data transmission and AC power as taught by Taipale as substitute electrical power type yielding predictable results of electrical energy source and in order to provide simplified power/data transfer mechanism.
Regarding claims 5, Tamura as modified discloses a device, as applied to claim 1, which inherently performs the claimed method. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. See MPEP 2112.02.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Tamura et al (20230367338) in view of Kucera et al (20130154841), and Taipale et al (20130181630), further in view of Ding et al (CN 115654160 A).
Tamura as modified fails to flowrate customization using replaceable orifice. Ding Fig 5, teaches a flowrate customization using replaceable seat orifice 15 (translation page 6, second last Para).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Tamura with flowrate customization using replaceable orifice as taught by Ding in order to improve system flowrate flexibility.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Tamura et al (20230367338) in view of Kucera et al (20130154841), and Taipale et al (20130181630), further in view of Ding et al (CN 115654160 A) and Hanada et al (CN 118856072 A).
Tamura as modified fails to teach flowrate customization using replaceable orifice. Ding Fig 5, teaches a flowrate customization using replaceable seat orifice 15 (translation page 6, second last Para).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Tamura with flowrate customization using replaceable orifice as taught by Ding in order to improve system flowrate flexibility.
Tamura as modified fails to disclose valve covered by a housing with an access door to service/reach valve/components. Hanada, Fig 12, teaches a valve with covered by a housing 31 with an access door 34 to service/reach valve/components.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Tamura with valve covered by a housing with an access door to service/reach valve/components as taught by Hanada in order to provide valve protection.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable McGivern et al (5748466) in view of Volk et al (20120267126) further in view of Taipale et al (20130181630).
McGivern discloses an irrigation system comprising: a control module 22 including a user display 68 and controls (Fig 3) configured to execute control software; a control cabled interface (connection to cable 24) coupled to the control module, the interface communicating digital information (valve operating signals) in response to the control software; a remote valve group configured as multiple individual valve components (31-46, col 3 line 25-35) coupled to the interface, the remote valve group turning on/off individual valve components; wherein the control software is configured to interact with an operator to configure/interact with the system via the user controls (Fig 3); wherein the control software is configured to monitor individual valve component performance parameters (E8, col 12 line 60-67) and perform fault analysis (TRIAC load changes) to aid in problem diagnosis; and wherein the control software is configured to display performance parameters on the user display 68.
McGivern fails to disclose the control interface as a daisy chain connection with data interface digital information communication. Volk teaches a control module 14 for valves 8.1,8.2 with control interface with cable network 12 formed as a daisy chain (Para 20) providing connection of valves with data interface (connection of control module 12 to 12) of control module and transmitting valve fault signals to the control module for display (Para 25).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by McGivern with communication network formed as a daisy chain wiring transmitting valve fault data to control module for display as taught by Volk as an art recognized substitute wiring configuration for data/control signal transfer yielding predictable results of controlling and monitoring system valves/components.
McGivern as modified teaches daisy chain configured network wiring but fails to wiring as a two-wire cable transmitting both AC power and data. Taipale (Para 115) teaches two-wire connection supporting both digital data transmission and AC power.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by McGivern as modified with AC power based electric consumption and two-wire connection supporting both digital data transmission and AC power as taught by Taipale as substitute electrical power type yielding predictable results of electrical energy source and in order to provide simplified power/data transfer mechanism.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the rejection of record. However, a new ground of rejection is applied to the amended claims. Taipale (Para 115) two-wire connection supporting both digital data transmission and AC power is cited to show prior art teaching/incorporation of two-wire connection supporting both digital data transmission and AC power. Ding et al is cited to show incorporation of replaceable orifice for flow rate modification.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding zzz that “Tamura fails to disclose a digital data modem … … only discloses I/O connector 24 and communication connector 25 are provided on connector substrate 23 … offers no description of the type or properties of various electrical signals received/transmitted” are not persuasive since details of data modem are note claimed.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., modem details) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 Atif Chaudry at phone number 571-270-3768. 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, or 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 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.
/ATIF H CHAUDRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753