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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 12/05/2023, 10/25/2024, 07/08/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claims 7 and 8 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Here,
The bodies of claims 1 and 7 recite identical subject matter. Although the preambles are slightly different, the bodies of the claims make no distinction between a “control apparatus of an electrically driven valve” and an “electrically driven valve.” That is, they are identical in scope.
With respect to claim 8, the body of claim 8 recites components corresponding to an “electrically driven control valve.” Again, although the preamble is slightly different, there does not appear to be any distinction in the scope of claims 1 and 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “A control apparatus of an electrically driven valve comprising: a valve element configured to move to a direction approaching a valve seat or to a direction separating therefrom, a stepping motor configured to be operated by entering a drive pulse, a driving mechanism configured to drive the valve element by a driving force output from the stepping motor, a nonvolatile storage unit, and a control unit configured to drive the stepping motor according to an operation instruction information entered from an exterior, wherein the storage unit is configured to store an amount of hysteresis, and wherein, based on the operation instruction information entered from the exterior, when moving the valve element to a direction that differs from a direction of movement immediately prior thereto, the control unit enters to the stepping motor a drive pulse of an effective number of pulses having added a number of pulses corresponding to the amount of hysteresis stored in the storage unit to a target number of pulses corresponding to a target movement amount of the valve element.” Claim 1 is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. It appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites “wherein the control unit causes the stepping motor to rest after moving the valve element in one direction, acquires a flow rate of fluid passing through the valve element and the valve seat at that time as an initial flow rate, and thereafter, acquires the flow rate of fluid each time a number of pulses of the drive pulse entered to the stepping motor to move the valve element to another direction is increased, and stores a number of pulses at a point of time when a flow rate that has been varied from the initial flow rate has become equal to a predetermined amount or more for the first time -1 as the amount of hysteresis in the storage unit.” Claim 2 is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. It appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Although a good-faith effort was made, the Examiner was unable to determine the precise scope of claim 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites “wherein, based on an operation instruction information entered from the exterior, the control unit enters a drive pulse of the target number of pulses to the stepping motor when moving the valve element to a direction that is the same as the direction of movement immediately prior thereto.” Claim 3 is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. It appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites “wherein the amount of hysteresis is varied according to an integrated value of the number of pulses of the drive pulse being entered to the electrically driven valve.” Claim 4 is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. It appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Although a good-faith effort was made, the Examiner was unable to determine the precise scope of claim 4. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites “wherein, if a value having added the effective number of pulses to a current value exceeds a specified value, or if a value having subtracted the effective number of pulses from a current value falls below a specific value, the drive pulse of the specified value is entered to the stepping motor.” Claim 5 is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. It appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Although a good-faith effort was made, the Examiner was unable to determine the precise scope of claim 5. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites “wherein, if a value having subtracted the effective number of pulses from a current value falls below a specified value, a drive pulse that exceeds the specified value and that is equal to or smaller than a value having added a number of pulses corresponding to a pressing amount for closing the valve to the specified value is entered to the stepping motor.” Claim 6 is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. It appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Although a good-faith effort was made, the Examiner was unable to determine the precise scope of claim 6. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites “An electrically driven valve comprising: a valve element configured to move to a direction approaching a valve seat or to a direction separating therefrom, a stepping motor configured to be operated by entering a drive pulse, a driving mechanism configured to drive the valve element by a driving force output from the stepping motor, a nonvolatile storage unit, and a control unit configured to drive the stepping motor according to an operation instruction information entered from an exterior, wherein the storage unit is configured to store an amount of hysteresis, and wherein, based on the operation instruction information entered from the exterior, when moving the valve element to a direction that differs from a direction of movement immediately prior thereto, the control unit enters to the stepping motor a drive pulse of an effective number of pulses having added a number of pulses corresponding to the amount of hysteresis stored in the storage unit to a target number of pulses corresponding to a target movement amount of the valve element.” Claim 7 is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. It appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is rejected based on its dependency on claim 1. However, the Examiner suggests that the Applicant further review claim 8 for clarity and precision of language.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent Application Publication No. JP2021185325 to Ishizuka et al. (“Ishizuka”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0020540 to Wakisaka et al. (“Wakisaka”). Note: the cited sections in Ishizuka correspond to a machine translation of Ishizuka provided by Applicant in the IDS of 12/05/2023.
Regarding claim 1, Ishizuka in view of Wakisaka renders obvious:
A control apparatus of an electrically driven valve comprising (Ishizuka discloses motorized valve control device 11 (“control apparatus”) and an electric valve 9 (“electrically driven valve”). See, e.g., Ishizuka at par. [0019] and Fig. 1.):
a valve element configured to move to a direction approaching a valve seat or to a direction separating therefrom (Ishizuka discloses an expansion valve 5 with a valve body (“valve element”) of electric valve 9 “for controlling the flow rate of the fluid (refrigerator)….”),
a stepping motor configured to be operated by entering a drive pulse (Ishizuka discloses a stepping motor 8 (“stepping motor”) that is controlled by pulses (“configured to be operated by entering a drive pulse”) for driving the valve body of the expansion valve 5. See, e.g., Ishizuka at pars. [0019] and [0021].),
a driving mechanism configured to drive the valve element by a driving force output from the stepping motor (Ishizuka disclose that stepping motor driver 11d (“driving mechanism”) controls the rotation of the stepping motor 8, which controls the expansion valve 5 (“configured to drive the valve element by a driving force output from the stepping motor”). See, e.g., Ishizuka at par. [0023].),
a nonvolatile storage unit (Ishizuka discloses an EEPROM 11e (“nonvolatile storage unit”). See, e.g., Ishizuka at par. [0023] and Fig. 1.), and
a control unit configured to drive the stepping motor according to an operation instruction information entered from an exterior (Ishizuka discloses a microcomputer 11b that drives the stepper motor 8 (“control unit configured to drive the stepping motor”). See, e.g., Ishizuka at par. [0023]. Ishizuka also discloses that the electric valve control device 11 operates as a slave node based on a communication signal from an air conditioner ECU 16 of a master node (“according to an operation instruction information entered from an exterior”). See, e.g., Ishizuka at pars. [0021]-[0023] and Fig. 1.),
wherein the storage unit is configured to store an amount of hysteresis (Ishizuka discloses that the hysteresis is a predetermined value that is “the number of pulses corresponding to the rotation angle of the motor for hysteresis” (“amount of hysteresis”), and that the EEPROM 11e stores (“storage unit is configured to store”) “the valve opening degree information” that includes “the rotation position of the stepping motor 8, the number of pulses, the valve body position of the expansion valve 5 (electric valve 9), and the like.” See, e.g., Ishizuka at pars. [0027]-[0028] and [0047]. Thus, by storing the rotation position of the stepping motor 8 and the number of pulses, the EEPROM 11e also stores the “amount of hysteresis.”), and
wherein, based on the operation instruction information entered from the exterior, when moving the valve element to a direction that differs from a direction of movement immediately prior thereto, the control unit enters to the stepping motor a drive pulse of an effective number of pulses having added a number of pulses corresponding to the amount of hysteresis stored in the storage unit to a target number of pulses corresponding to a target movement amount of the valve element (Ishizuka discloses that, in a change of direction, a predetermined number of pulses are added to the valve opening degree based on the rotation angle of the motor to take into consideration the “hysteresis component.” See, e.g., Ishizuka at par. [0047]. Thus, Ishizuka discloses the claimed feature.).
With respect to “a valve element configured to move to a direction approaching a valve seat or to a direction separating therefrom” (Ishizuka does not disclose the details of the valve body of expansion valve 5 and does not explicitly disclose that the valve body of Ishizuka is “configured to move to a direction approaching a valve seat or to a direction separating therefrom.” However, in the same field of endeavor, control of refrigerant fluid, Wakisaka discloses “an electronic expansion valve that is selectively opened and closed by moving a valve member using a stepper motor and to an air conditioner having the electronic expansion valve.” See, e.g., Wakisaka at par. [0001]. Wakisaka discloses an expansion valve 30 in which “[w]hen the rotor 52 of the stepper motor 50 rotates in a forward direction… the valve portion 43 of the valve member 40 moves toward the valve seat 35.” and “[w]hen the rotor 52 of the stepper motor 50 rotates in a reverse direction… the distance between the valve portion 43 of the valve member 40 and the valve seat 35 increases.” (“a valve element configured to move to a direction approaching a valve seat or to a direction separating therefrom”). See, e.g., Wakisaka at pars. [0041] and [0043].
Because Ishizuka does not disclose the details of its expansion valve 5, it would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to look for an expansion valve that performed the same function (i.e., control refringent fluid). See, e.g., Wakisaka at par. [0025]. Using the expansion valve of Wakisaka in the system of Ishizuka would have yielded predictable results because the Wakisaka uses its expansion valve in a similar system to that of Ishizuka to perform the same function. See MPEP § 2143.I.A. It also would have been obvious to modify the system of Ishizuka with the electronic expansion valve of Wakisaka in order to “perform control according to the opening point of the electronic expansion valve” See Wakisaka at Abstract. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because the system disclose in Wakisaka is similar to that of Ishizuka. See MPEP § 2143.I.G.).
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 1, Ishizuka in view of Wakisaka renders obvious:
based on an operation instruction information entered from the exterior, the control unit enters a drive pulse of the target number of pulses to the stepping motor when moving the valve element to a direction that is the same as the direction of movement immediately prior thereto (Ishizuka discloses that, if the rotation direction is the same as the previous drive direction, the predetermined number of pulses is ignored. That is, the valve is operated without adding the hysteresis pulses. See, e.g., Ishizuka at par. [0047]. Thus, Ishizuka discloses the claimed feature.)
Regarding claim 7, Ishizuka in view of Wakisaka renders obvious:
An electrically driven valve comprising (Ishizuka discloses motorized valve control device 11 and an electric valve 9 ( collectively, “electrically driven valve”). See, e.g., Ishizuka at par. [0019] and Fig. 1.):
a valve element configured to move to a direction approaching a valve seat or to a direction separating therefrom, a stepping motor configured to be operated by entering a drive pulse, a driving mechanism configured to drive the valve element by a driving force output from the stepping motor, a nonvolatile storage unit, and a control unit configured to drive the stepping motor according to an operation instruction information entered from an exterior, wherein the storage unit is configured to store an amount of hysteresis, and wherein, based on the operation instruction information entered from the exterior, when moving the valve element to a direction that differs from a direction of movement immediately prior thereto, the control unit enters to the stepping motor a drive pulse of an effective number of pulses having added a number of pulses corresponding to the amount of hysteresis stored in the storage unit to a target number of pulses corresponding to a target movement amount of the valve element (The elements recited in the body of claim 7 are identical to those recited int eh body of claim 1. Therefore, claim 7 is obvious over Ishizuka in view of Wakisaka for the reasons given above with respect to claim 1.)
Regarding claim 8, Ishizuka in view of Wakisaka renders obvious:
An electrically driven valve unit (“motorized valve device 12”) comprising the control apparatus according to claim 1 (“motorized valve control device 11”), and an electrically driven valve (“electric valve 9”). See, e.g., Ishizuka at par. [0019] and Fig. 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent No. 4,593,881 to Hozo Yoshino discloses a method of avoiding hysteresis and storing a table corresponding to number of pulses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BHASKAR KAKARLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8221. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Kenneth M. Lo can be reached at 571-272-9774. 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.
/BHASKAR KAKARLA/Examiner, Art Unit 2116
/KENNETH M LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116