DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This action is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 5/26/2026
Claims 1-7 are pending
Examiner decided to maintain 102 and 103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 5/26/2026, with respect to the 102 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments on page 1, Applicant argues that Prather does not disclose instructions that “cause the computing device to change a position of a valve using a driver” because valve control 22 is separate from diagnostic processor 46. Examiner respectfully disagrees because Claim 1 recites “one or more processors” and does not require the same processor to perform every operation or directly supply power to the driver. Prather states “The valves which are monitored in a system according to the present invention are controlled by some remote means, indicated in Fig. 1 as valve control 22” (Col. 4, lines 62-64). Prather further discloses motor-current sensor 24 “for detecting current drawn by the motor 26 which actuates the valve 20” (Col. 5, lines 9-14). Figures 1 and 2 further show valve control 22 controls motor 26, which is mechanically connected to valve 20. Thus, Prather discloses changing the valve position using motor 26, and claim 1 does not require diagnostic processor 46 itself to directly energize motor 26 or require every recited operation to be performed by the same processor. Prather also explains “functional differences that are illustrated as separate blocks in Fig. 1, but may be performed on a single physical processor. Also … a single function may be distributed over more than one physical processor” (Col. 6, lines 39-43).
Applicant's arguments on page 1, Applicant further argues that Prather does not disclose “a current sensor electrically connected to the driver”. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim does not require a direct, galvanic, or series connection. Prather discloses that quick-disconnect connectors “allow the specially designed couplings to be installed in-line to measure the two parameters” (Col. 12, lines 58-60). Prather further states “the coupling is also mounted in-line on the power side for measuring three phase power to the valve operator AC motor” (Col. 13, lines 17-19). Prather explains that power coupling 110 “is wired straight through with the A and C phase wires running through two hall effect current probes 126, 126b” (Col. 13, lines 21-23). Thus, Prather’s current-sensing assembly is electrically integrated with the driver-power circuit and detects current associated with the driver.
Applicant presents no separate arguments for claims 2-4 and 6. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-4 and 6 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments on page 2, Applicant further argues that Mohler does not disclose the claimed profile. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the argument improperly considers Mohler individually. Prather supplies the profile. Figure 6 shows a signal signature containing both drive-motor-current information and valve-position information for the same valve-operating cycle. Mohler supplies the additional use of that information, teaching that the actual position is compared with a desired position and, if different, “the coil current is increased or decreased by the actuator controller as necessary to move back the actuator to the desired position” (Col. 2, lines 57-60). Thus, the combined system uses the valve-position information contained in Prather’s profile to alter the state of the driver.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 2, Applicant further argues that Mohler is nonanalogous art. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claimed subject matter concerns an electrically driven valve, position sensing, driver-current control, and alteration of the driver based on sensed information. Mohler concerns those same actuator-control functions and expressly discusses external loads applied to the actuator output shaft “by a valve or other structure being controlled by the actuator” (Col. 2, lines 33-34). Mohler is therefore in the same field of electrically actuated position control or, at minimum, reasonably pertinent to accurately controlling Prather’s motor-operated valve.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 2-3, Applicant further argues that improved positional accuracy is merely a bare assertion. Examiner respectfully disagrees because Mohler expressly states that it is desirable “to command the actuator to a specific predetermined position and have the actuator move to that exact position.” (Col. 2, lines 35-38) One of ordinary skill would therefore have been motivated to use Prather’s detected valve-position information as feedback to valve control 22 and adjust motor energization according to Mohler’s technique, thereby improving the accuracy with which the valve reaches and maintains its commanded position. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 5 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 3, Applicant further argues that the combination does not teach profile-based alteration of the driver. Examiner respectfully disagrees because Prather supplies the profile and Mohler teaches using the position information contained therein to alter driver current. Mohler further teaches that, when the coil is partially energized, “the actuator moves part way between the deenergized position and the fully energized position,” (Col. 1, lines 25-27), and that the desired position may be anywhere between those limits. Thus, applying Mohler’s actuator-positioning technique is applied to Prather’s motor-operated valve system, altering the driver causes the mechanically connected valve to open or move to an intermediate position between he open and closed positions. The rejection of claim 7 is therefore maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Prather et al. US 5,433,245 A (hereinafter Prather).
Regarding claim 1, Prather teaches one or more hardware-based non-transitory memory devices storing computer readable instructions (Fig. 1, Col. 6, “units include a diagnostic processor 46, mass storage unit 48, rule based expert system 50, and operator station 52) which, when executed by the one or more processors disposed in a computing device, cause the computing device to:
change a position of a valve using a driver having a mechanical connection to the valve (Fig. 2, Col. 5, “motor operated valve”; Col. 4, lines 62-66, “The valves which are monitored in a system according to the present invention are controlled by some remote means, indicated in FIG. 1 as valve control 22”; Col. 5, lines 12-14, “motor current sensor 24 for detecting current drawn by the motor 26 which actuates the valve 20”);
detect a magnitude of a current associated with the driver using a current sensor electrically connected to the driver (Fig. 2, Col. 5, “The power sensing means for an MOV may be a motor current sensor 24 for detecting current drawn by the motor 26 which actuates the valve 20”; Figure 6 also shows magnitude of a current associated with the driver being tracked; Col. 12, lines 58-60, “allow the specially designed couplings to be installed in-line to measure the two parameters”; Col. 13, lines 17-19, “the coupling is also mounted in-line on the power side for measuring three phase power to the valve operator AC motor”; Col. 13, lines 21-23, “is wired straight through with the A and C phase wires running through two hall effect current probes 126, 126b”);
detect a state of the valve using a position switch associated with the valve (Fig. 6 towards the bottom shows the valve in different states over time; Col. 7 line 61- Col. 8 line 44); and
perform at least one action with an analysis module that uses at least the magnitude of the current and the state of the valve (Fig. 1, Col. 6, “in addition to the I/O processor 44, the remaining units of the online valve diagnostic system are located at the remote location. These units include a diagnostic processor 46, mass storage unit 48, rule based expert system 50, and operator station 52.” - rule based expert system 50 is interpreted as an analysis module; Appendix rule 66 - “if the valve motion is closing, and the motor drive current at start of motion is high, then there is suggestive evidence (60%) that one of the possible causes is packing swelling”).
Regarding claim 2, Prather teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Prather further teaches wherein the at least one action includes storing data in a memory with the analysis module (Fig. 1, Col. 7, “data is then stored in the mass storage unit 48” – Figure 1 shows diagnostic processor directly connected to the rule based expert system and mass storage).
Regarding claim 3, Prather teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Prather further teaches wherein the at least one action includes generating a profile associated with the valve (Fig. 6, Col. 4, “FIG. 6 is an example of signal traces that may be obtained for a motor operated globe valve in a closing cycle from sensors used in a valve diagnostic system according to the present invention”; Col. 8 “The characteristic features which are output as processed signals from the diagnostic processor 46 or data extraction step 74 preferably include motor current during movement, indicated by the straight line I4 between points I3 and I5 in Fig. 6, and stem strain during this period of time indicated by the straight horizontal line labeled S7.” – These characteristic features can be used as a profile of the valve).
Regarding claim 4, Prather teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Prather further teaches wherein the profile (Col. 8 “The characteristic features which are output as processed signals from the diagnostic processor 46 or data extraction step 74 preferably include motor current during movement, indicated by the straight line I4 between points I3 and I5 in Fig. 6, and stem strain during this period of time indicated by the straight horizontal line labeled S7.” – These characteristic features can be used as a profile of the valve) includes at least a first data field associated with the magnitude of the current (see Fig. 6 towards the top – magnitude of current over time is shown) and a second data field associated with the state of the valve (see Fig. 6 towards the bottom – state of valve over time is shown).
Regarding claim 6, Prather teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Prather further teaches wherein altering the state of the driver includes moving the driver such that the valve closes or moves to an intermediate state between an open position and a closed position (see Fig. 6 towards the bottom – driver is able to bring the valve to an intermediate state in P5 and a closed state in P2).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prather et al. US 5,433,245 A (hereinafter Prather) in view of Mohler et al. US 5,161,083 A (hereinafter Mohler).
Regarding claim 5, Prather teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Prather teaches a profile, but does not explicitly teach using the profile to potentially alter a state of the driver.
However, Mohler teaches using position information of the type contained in Prather’s profile to potentially alter a state of the driver (Col. 2, “The actual position, as sensed by the position sensor, is supplied to an actuator controller and compared with a desired position. If there is a difference, the coil current is increased or decreased by the actuator controller as necessary to move back the actuator to the desired position” – In the proposed combination, the valve-position information contained in Prather’s profile would be used to alter the state of the driver).
Prather and Mohler are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain functional similarities. They both relate to electrically actuated valve-position control systems that use sensed position information in connection with operation of an actuator.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above valve monitoring and control system, as taught by Prather, and incorporate using the valve-positioning information contained in Prather’s profile as feedback to valve control 22 and adjusting the energization of motor 26 based on a difference between an actual position and a desired position, as taught by Mohler.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve the positional accuracy of the motor-operated valve, as suggested by Mohler (Col. 2, lines 35-40).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Prather and Mohler teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Mohler further teaches wherein altering the state of the driver includes moving the driver such that the valve opens or moves to an intermediate state between an open position and a closed position (Col. 1, “when the coil is only partially energized, the actuator moves part way between the deenergized position and the fully energized position. By controlling the energizing coil current, the position of the actuator can be changed”; Col. 2, “the "desired" position could be anywhere between the deenergized and energized limits.”).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sykora et al. (US 10,746,448 B2) teaches a system that includes a power supply configured to drive an electric motor, a controller configured to control the power supply to drive the electric motor and analyze at least one system condition; wherein the controller is configured to identify a condition associated with risk of undesired or un-commanded compressor rotation based upon the at least one system condition and control the power supply to oppose rotation of the compressor based upon the identification of the condition.
Perotti et al. [US 6,917,203 B1] teaches determining the state of a solenoid valve based on electrical currents.
Grecco et al. [US 6,820,647 B1] teaches a valve position monitor that provides simultaneous visual and electrical signals of valve position
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 PETER XU whose telephone number is (571)272-0792. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (571) 272-4105. 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.
/PETER XU/ Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights