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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4–8, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the claimed, “e” in line 8 should be deleted. The claimed, “to the pilot of the flow amplifier valve (21)” in line 14 lacks antecedent basis in the claim. The claimed, “to the signal pressure” and “the pilot” in line 17 lacks antecedent basis in the claim. The claimed, “{21’)” should be amended to change the “{“ to “(“.
Regarding claim 2, the claimed, “the chamber (23)” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding claim 4, the claimed, “the value” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding claim 5, the claimed, “consequently” in combination with the remaining language of the claim is unclear.
Regarding claim 6, the claimed, “the line downstream” in lines 2 and 3, and “the pilot” in line 4, lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding claim 7, the claimed, “the latter” is unclear, as it is unclear what it is referencing. The claimed, “the residual fluid” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. The claimed, “the line communicating” is unclear and lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding claim 8, the claimed, “along the line” is unclear, as it is unclear which line is being referenced (fluid supply, discharge, signal fluid)?
Regarding claim 11, the claimed, “the residual fluid” and “the residual working fluid” in lines 4 and 6 lack antecedent basis in the claim. The claimed, “resulting in this way de-energized” is unclear (see 112 rejection below).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 and its related dependent claims 2–11 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, the claimed, “a supply line of a working fluid directly connects the pressure reducer (16), to the control valve (25) and to the flow amplifier valve (21)” (limitation 1) in combination with the claimed, “a signal fluid line, directly connected: to the piloting element (24) and to a manual pilot control element (27), or to the pilot element (24) and to the pressure reducer (16) and to a non-return valve {21')” (limitation 2) is indefinite. Limitation 1 is directed to the embodiment of figure 3, and limitation 2 is directed to the embodiment of figure 4. As claimed, the embodiments are not overlapping and contradictory (different connections claimed).
Further regarding claim 1, the claimed, “the system is configured to perform a partial stroke operation of the process valve which takes place in times similar to those required by an effective partial stroke operation of the process valve and which involves all the components used in the case of the real partial stroke maneuver” is indefinite. It is unclear what is meant by “partial stroke operation”, “effective partial stroke operation”, “real partial stroke maneuver”, and beyond mentioning these verbatim in the specification, no clarity is provided to determine what distinguishes these operations/maneuvers.
Even further regarding claim 1, the claimed, “de-energizing both the control valve (25) and the pilot element (24), the system is configured to carry out an emergency operation to close the process valve” is indefinite. From the description, it appears as though “de-energized valve” means that no pilot pressure is supplied to the valve, and the pilot element is in its spring biased position. It further appears that when the pilot element 24 is in its de-energized state, the control valve 25 is in its energized state because pilot fluid is provided to the control valve through pilot element 24. And where the pilot element 24 is in its energized state, the control valve 25 is in its de-energized state because pilot fluid is not provided to the control valve 25. In other words, pilot element 24 and the control valve 25 cannot be in the de-energized state at the same time. It appears as though (see specification pg. 26, ln. 16 – pg. 27, ln. 5) the emergency operation is performed by “discharge[ing] the signal line, for example through a solenoid valve (or similar accessories) placed on the line, upstream of the referenced system.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1–11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tondolo et al. (WO 2020016697 A1), hereinafter referred to as Tondolo.
Regarding claim 1, as best the examiner can ascertain from the language of the claims, Tondolo teaches, “A control and safety system (200, 300) [see Fig. 3] suitable for conveying circuits of pressurized fluids equipped with at least one process valve, said system comprising: - a pressure reducer (16) [see ref. # 16], - a pilot element (24) [see ref. # 24], - a control valve (25) [see ref. # 25], - a selector valve (20) [see ref. # 20], - a flow amplifier valve (21) [see ref. # 21], e - a single-acting actuator (22) [see ref. # 22], wherein the system (200, 300) comprises a single circuit in which: - a supply line of a working fluid directly connects the pressure reducer (16) [see ref. # 16], to the control valve (25) [see ref. # 25] and to the flow amplifier valve (21) [see ref. # 21], - the control valve (25) [see ref. # 25] is connected to the selector valve (20) [see ref. # 20], which manages the delivery of working fluid to the pilot of the flow amplifier valve (21) [see ref. # 21], - the flow amplifier valve (21) [see ref. # 21] connects the single-acting actuator (22) to the working fluid supply line or to a discharge line and is configured to load or unload the actuator (22) according to the signal pressure that reaches the pilot of the flow amplifier valve (21); - a signal fluid line, directly connected: to the piloting element (24) and to a manual pilot control element (27), or to the pilot element (24) and to the pressure reducer (16) and to a non-return valve {21'); the system (200, 300) being characterized by the fact that: - by operating the manual pilot control element (27), the system is configured to perform a partial stroke operation of the process valve which takes place in times similar to those required by an effective partial stroke operation of the process valve and which involves all the components used in the case of the real partial stroke maneuver, and by the fact that,- by de-energizing both the control valve (25) and the pilot element (24), the system is configured to carry out an emergency operation to close the process valve.” Note, that the italicized language in claim 1 above has been rejected under 112 (as set forth above) and cannot be used to distinguish claim 1 from the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, as best the examiner can ascertain from the language of the claims, Tondolo teaches, “configured so that by energizing the control valve (25), the working fluid drives the flow amplifier valve (21), passing through the selector valve (20), and amplifies the power supply to the chamber (23) of the single-acting actuator (22) [see control valve 25 and description at page 12–13; see also claim 2].”
Regarding claim 3, as best the examiner can ascertain from the language of the claims, Tondolo teaches, “a secondary control valve (26), downstream of the pressure reducer (16) and upstream and in direct connection with the selector valve (20), which is de-energized to carry out the emergency maneuver [see secondary control valve 26 and description at page 10–13].”
Regarding claim 4, as best the examiner can ascertain from the language of the claims, Tondolo teaches, “configured so that by energizing the secondary control valve (26) the working fluid reaches the selector valve (20) with a pressure equal to the value set by the pressure reducer (16) [see secondary control valve 26 and description at page 10, 12–13; see also claim 3].”
Regarding claim 5, as best the examiner can ascertain from the language of the claims, Tondolo teaches, “configured in such a way that for different setting values of the pressure reducer (16) different pressures are defined in a chamber (23) of the single- acting actuator (22), consequently, a different position of the same actuator (22) and a different degree of opening of the process valve on which the same actuator is mounted [see description of 16, 23, 22 and description at page 10–13; see also claim 4].”
Regarding claim 6, as best the examiner can ascertain from the language of the claims, Tondolo teaches, “configured so that the pressurization of the line downstream of the secondary control valve (26) and the discharge of the line downstream of the control valve (25) causes a reduction in the pressure of the pilot of the flow amplifier valve (21) and then an amplified discharge of the chamber (23) of the single-acting actuator (22) [see secondary control valve 26 and description at page 10, 12–13; see also claim 5].”
Regarding claim 7, as best the examiner can ascertain from the language of the claims, Tondolo teaches, “configured so that by de energizing the secondary control valve (26), the latter closes the supply to the selector valve (20) and discharges the residual fluid in the line communicating with the selector valve (20) [see secondary control valve 26 and description at page 10, 12–13; see also claims 7 and 11–12].”
Regarding claim 8, as best the examiner can ascertain from the language of the claims, Tondolo teaches, “configured in such a way that the pressure drop along the line causes the change of state of the control valve (25) [see description of ref. # 25 and page 10, 12–13; see also claim 8].”
Regarding claim 9, as best the examiner can ascertain from the language of the claims, Tondolo teaches, “wherein the manual pilot control element is a manually piloted three-way secondary valve (27), the control valve is a three-way control valve (25) and the pilot element is a three-way pilot valve (24), downstream of which the three-way control valve (25) and the selector valve (20) are connected [see description of ref. # 26 at page 10, 12–13; see also claim 11].”
Regarding claim 10, as best the examiner can ascertain from the language of the claims, Tondolo teaches, “wherein the secondary control valve is a three-way secondary control valve (26) [see secondary control valve 26 and description at page 10, 12–13; see also claim 11].”
Regarding claim 11, as best the examiner can ascertain from the language of the claims, Tondolo teaches, “ configured so that by deactivating the manually piloted three-way secondary valve (27) the working fluid pilots the three-way pilot valve (24), which discharges the residual fluid to the pilot of the three-way control valve (25), and said three- way control valve (25), resulting in this way de-energized, discharges the residual working fluid between the three-way control valve (25) and the selector valve pilot (20) [see secondary control valve 26 and description at page 10, 12–13; see also claims 11–12].”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO–892 form. The references cited herewith teach control and safety control for multiple stage valve systems with configurations similar to the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:30pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/RYAN D WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852