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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 22th 2023 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claims Status:
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claims 1-15 are amended.
Claims 1-15 are examined as follow:
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “A/D converter” in the specification involve abbreviation, such term should spell out the full term the first time it appears, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 8, the term “its” in line 3, should change to “at least one processing tool” to avoid possible 112b issue.
In claim 10, the term “A/D converter” involve abbreviation, such term should spell out the full term the first time it appears, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim limitation “evaluation unit” in claims 1 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit" coupled with functional language “evaluation” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. A review of the specification shows that, although it is not clear, the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: The limitation “Evaluation unit" has been described in Page 3, 1st paragraph cited: “…sensor unit such that the at least one evaluation unit and the at least two sensor units are arranged in series. The inventive sensor arrangement may thereby be equipped with two or more sensors connected to a common evaluation unit, whereby the installation space and complexity of the sensor arrangement may be reduced…” and 4th Paragraph cited: “…This configuration allows to use a pre-fabricated or pre- assembled sensor device including a predefined number of sensor units connected to a common evaluation unit, and to easily adapt the number of sensor units, to the number of processing tools to be monitored by adding additional sensor units to the pre-assembled entity consisting of the predefined number of sensor units and the evaluation unit…” as some kind of controller and processor that can be wired, communicate and attached on a circuit board.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“connector means” in claim 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 2-9 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 2, the term “preferably” is indefinite and it is unclear the cited limitation after the term “preferably” is considered cited or not, thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Clarification if required.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 3, the term “like” is indefinite and it is unclear the cited limitation after the term “like” is considered cited or not, thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 4, the term “may” is indefinite and it is unclear the cited limitation after the term “may” is considered cited or not, thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Clarification if required.
Regarding claim 5, the term “may” is indefinite and it is unclear the cited limitation after the term “may” is considered cited or not, thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Clarification if required.
Regarding claim 6, the term “may” is indefinite and it is unclear the cited limitation after the term “may” is considered cited or not, thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Clarification if required.
Regarding claim 7, the term “preferably” is indefinite and it is unclear the cited limitation after the term “preferably” is considered cited or not, thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Clarification if required.
Regarding claim 8, the term “preferably” is indefinite and it is unclear the cited limitation after the term “preferably” is considered cited or not, thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Clarification if required.
Regarding claim 9, the term “preferably” is indefinite and it is unclear the cited limitation after the term “preferably” is considered cited or not, thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Clarification if required.
For examination purposes, Examiner assumed that all such limitation after “preferably”, “like” and/or “may” is considered as optional. It is suggested that to further amend the claim to avoid using such terms.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE202006012959U1 herein set forth as DE12959U1.
Regarding claim 1, DE12959U1 discloses a sensor arrangement (refer to fig.2) for a food processing machine (refer to the “for E.g. Food industry” in the title) having at least one processing tool (refer as “valve” in the abstract) reversibly performing a working movement (refer to the movement of the “valve” cited in the abstract) , the sensor arrangement (refer to fig.2) being provided for monitoring the at least one processing tool (refer the moving of the “valve” in the abstract), the sensor arrangement (refer to fig.2) includes: at least one evaluation unit (#59, fig.2) and at least one sensor unit (#66-70, fig.2); wherein the sensor arrangement (refer to fig.2) is adapted to be connected to at least one further sensor unit (#66-70, fig.2) such that the at least one evaluation unit (#59, fig.2) and the at least two sensor units (#66-70, fig.2) are arranged in series (refer to NPL-Machine translation Page 4 2nd Paragraph cited: “…The different possible Valve positions "Valve closed "," valve open "," first closing body clocked "," second Locking bodies clocked "can open be monitored in different ways. So it is possible associate each valve position with its own sensor that responds, when the respective valve position has been taken. That I during operation of the valve one or the other rod only in the axial direction move, it is advantageous to the sensors in the control unit in one row behind the other…”).
PNG
media_image1.png
760
454
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, DE12959U1 discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, DE12959U1 further discloses wherein the at least one evaluation unit (#59, fig.2) and the at least two sensor units (#66-70, fig.2) are interconnected.
Regarding claim 3, DE12959U1 discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, DE12959U1 further discloses wherein the at least one evaluation unit (#59, fig.2) and the at least two sensor units (#66-70, fig.2) are coupled to each other by connector means (refer to NPL-machine translation Page 8 line 9 to line 12 cited: “…characterized in that the control unit ( 59 ) has a memory or is connected to a memory in which the output signals of several or all sensors ( 65 - 70 ) are stored for predetermined valve positions, and that a comparator is provided which the current signals of the sensors ( 65 - 70 ) compares with the output signals stored for the given valve positions and reports matches…”).
Regarding claim 4, DE12959U1 discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, DE12959U1 further discloses wherein the at least two sensor units (#66-70, fig.2) may be arranged on the same side of the at least one evaluation unit (#59, fig.2).
Regarding claim 6, DE12959U1 discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, DE12959U1 further discloses wherein each sensor unit (#66-70, fig.2) may include at least one of an optical, inductive or capacitive sensor (refer to NPL-machine translation Page 2 6th paragraph cited: “…Under a sensor object is understood here to be an object to which the chosen ones Selectively address position sensors. When using reflection light barriers These are objects with a sufficiently reflective surface capacitive proximity sensors is it z. As to metallic objects and inductive Proximity sensors they can be magnets. Particularly preferred are for purposes The invention Hall sensors, which on permanent magnets as sensor objects speak to…”).
Regarding claim 8, DE12959U1 discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, DE12959U1 further discloses wherein each sensor unit (#66-70, fig.2) comprises a recess (refer to “recess” annotated in the zoomed in fig.2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
650
713
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE202006012959U1 herein set forth as DE12959U1.
Regarding claim 5, DE12959U1 discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, DE12959U1 does not specifically disclose wherein the at least two sensor units may be arranged on opposite sides of the at least one evaluation unit.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the location of the at least one evaluation unit to be the opposite of the at least two sensor, for that is well known within one of ordinary skill in the art as the matter of design choice or desired application, refer to MPEP 716.02(f), in order to adjust the shape of the invention, such that it would fit in narrower or required space.
Claims 7, 9, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE202006012959U1 herein set forth as DE12959U1, in view of Herrmann et al (US2019/0316938A1) herein set forth as Herrmann.
Regarding claim 7, DE12959U1 discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 6, DE12959U1 does not explicitly disclose wherein each sensor unit include an inductive sensor with at least one induction coil.
In the field of proximity sensor, Herrmann discloses the teaching of using inductive sensor unit that with at least one induction coil (refer to Paragraph 0009 cited: “…the linear displacement sensor comprises an induction element…” and 0024 cited: “…the method can be implemented by a controller which can be arranged on the measuring sensor element and/or the correction sensor element, for example on the associated printed circuit boards in addition to the measuring coil and the at least one correction coil.…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DE12959U1’s sensor with wherein each sensor unit may include an inductive sensor with at least one induction coil, as taught by Herrmann, in order to take advantage of the capability of an inductive sensor, and also provide better adaptability for DE12959U1’s sensor arrangement for different operational environmental, such that a more reliable sensor suitable for a specific operational environment.
Regarding claim 9, DE12959U1 discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 8, DE12959U1 already disclosed each sensor unit comprises a recess in claim 8.
DE12959U1 does not explicitly discloses wherein each sensor unit includes an inductive sensor with at least one induction coil, and wherein the induction coil is arranged around the recess (refer to Paragraph 0009 cited: “…the linear displacement sensor comprises an induction element…” and 0024 cited: “…the method can be implemented by a controller which can be arranged on the measuring sensor element and/or the correction sensor element, for example on the associated printed circuit boards in addition to the measuring coil and the at least one correction coil.…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DE12959U1’s sensor with wherein each sensor unit includes an inductive sensor with at least one induction coil, and wherein the induction coil is arranged around the recess, as taught by Herrmann, in order to take advantage of the capability of an inductive sensor, and also provide better adaptability for DE12959U1’s sensor arrangement for different operational environmental, such that a more reliable sensor suitable for a specific operational environment.
Regarding claim 11, DE12959U1 discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, DE12959U1 further discloses each sensor unit (#66-70, fig.2) are arranged on a carrier unit (#64, fig.2).
DE12959U1 does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one evaluation unit is arranged on a carrier unit.
In the field of proximity sensor, Herrmann discloses wherein the at least one evaluation unit is arranged on a carrier unit (refer to Paragraph 0024 cited: “…the method can be implemented by a controller which can be arranged on the measuring sensor element and/or the correction sensor element, for example on the associated printed circuit boards in addition to the measuring coil and the at least one correction coil.…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DE12959U1’s location of the at least one evaluation unit to be arranged on a carrier unit, as taught by Herrmann, In order to keep the evaluation unit close and together with the sensors, such that would reduce wiring or connector length between the evaluation unit and the sensors, saving manufacturing cost and material.
Regarding claim 12, the modification of DE12959U1 and Herrmann discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 11, DE12959U1 does not explicitly disclose the carrier unit is formed by a printed circuit board.
In the field of proximity sensor, Herrmann further discloses wherein the carrier unit is formed by a printed circuit board (refer to Paragraph 0016 cited: “…the invention the measuring sensor element comprises a printed circuit board on which the measuring coil is configured as a planar coil, and/or the correction sensor element comprises a printed circuit board on which the at least one correction coil is configured as a planar coil…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DE12959U1 with wherein the carrier unit is formed by a printed circuit board, as taught by Herrmann, in order to allow easier manufacturing the sensor unit and adopting a commonly used electronic manufacturing method.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE202006012959U1 herein set forth as DE12959U1, in view of Moon (US2021/0145303A1) herein set forth as Moon.
Regarding claim 10, DE12959U1 discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, DE12959U1 does not explicitly disclose wherein each sensor unit includes an A/D converter.
In a related field of sensing indication, Moon discloses wherein each sensor unit includes an A/D converter (refer to Paragraph 0155 cited: “…whilst the sensor 314 typically includes one or more amplifiers for amplifying sensed response signals and analogue to digital converters (ADCs) to digitize the analogue response signals and providing digitized response signals to the processing device…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DE12959U1’s sensor units with wherein each sensor unit includes an A/D converter, as taught by Moon, in order to provide a more compacted sensor that can provide signal converting, such that would reduce the requirement of a converter and the extra wiring or connector to and from the converter, and has a direct connection to the digital signal processor.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE202006012959U1 herein set forth as DE12959U1, in view of Herrmann et al (US2019/0316938A1) herein set forth as Herrmann, and further in view of Bytheway et al (US2021/0223887A1) herein set forth as Bytheway.
Regarding claim 13, the modification of DE12959U1 and Herrmann discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 11, DE12959U1 does not explicitly disclose wherein the carrier unit is formed at least partially by a ribbon cable.
In the field of proximity sensor, Bytheway discloses the use of ribbon cable (refer to Paragraph 0078 cited: “…The three-dimensional input device 512 may be connected to the computing device through a Universal Serial Port connection, a wireless connection, a coaxial cable connection, a ribbon cable connection, another type of connection, or combinations thereof. …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DE12959U1’s control with wherein the carrier unit is formed at least partially by a ribbon cable, as taught by Bytheway, in order to utilize a commonly used connection method, such that would simplify the connection and provide a more secure connection.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE202006012959U1 herein set forth as DE12959U1, in view of Byezkowski (US2018/0106641A1) herein set forth as Byezkowski.
Regarding claim 14, DE12959U1 discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, DE12959U1 does not explicitly disclose A food processing machine comprising at least one processing tool reversibly performing a working movement, a hold-down device for holding down a food product to be processed, and at least one sensor arrangement according to claim 1, which is associated with the hold-down device.
In the field of utilizing sensors to control food product processing, Byezkowski discloses a food processing machine (#10, fig.12) comprising at least one processing tool (#44, fig.12) reversibly performing a working movement, a hold-down device (#14, fig.12) for holding down a food product (refer as food items throughout the specification) to be processed, and at least one sensor arrangement (referring “hall effect sensor” in the abstract).
PNG
media_image3.png
700
535
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have use DE12959U1’s sensor arrangement in Byezkowski, in order to increase the utility of the sensor arrangement and also increase the market value and demand of such invention, such that by increase the possible usage on other food processing machine would increase the marketability of the invention.
Regarding claim 15, DE12959U1 discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, DE12959U1 does not explicitly disclose A hold-down device for holding down a food product to be processed in a food processing machine, including at least one sensor arrangement according to claim 1 which is associated with the hold-down device.
In the field of utilizing sensor, Byezkowski discloses a hold-down device (#14, fig.12) for holding down a food product (refer as food items throughout the specification) to be processed in a food processing machine (#10, fig.12), including at least one sensor arrangement (referring “hall effect sensor” in the abstract).
PNG
media_image3.png
700
535
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have use DE12959U1’s sensor arrangement in Byezkowski, in order to increase the utility of the sensor arrangement and also increase the market value and demand of such invention, such that would increase the marketability of the invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hansen, III et al (US6460567B1) discloses a sealed motor valve that also utilizing sensor to monitor the working position of the valve, that may read on most of the limitation cited in the claim 1.
Smith et al (US5469737A) discloses another operating valve that also use sensor to monitor the position of the valve that also read on a lot of the limitation cited in claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEONG JUEN THONG whose telephone number is (571)272-6930. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at 5712705095. 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.
/YEONG JUEN THONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 July 28th 2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights