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 .
DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/15/2025 has been entered. Applicant amended claims 1, 23 and 24; claims 1 -24 are pending in this application, claims 1, 21 -24 are considered in this action.
Response to Arguments
An Applicant Initiated Interview was conducted on August 25, 2025. As was noted in the interview summary, examiner indicated the proposed amendment to claim 1 though overcame the cited references, appeared to be broad. Examiner disagreed with Applicant regarding claim 23 overcoming cited prior art.
Amended claims 1 and 24 require “an adjustable flow control assembly operable to regulate a flow rate of the fluid flow through the valve independently of the movement of the actuator” and “modular control unit is connectable to one or more additional modular control unit to concurrently control the fluid flow from the inlet to the outlet”. Examiner maintains the claim requires the modular flow control unit to be “capable” of being connected to another modular flow control unit. Examiner is interpreting the limitation “connectable” to mean “capable of being connected”.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Magnetically Operated Modular Irrigation Valve System”.
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.
Claims 1, 21 – 22, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korean Patent Document KR 20120003789 in view of US Patent to Chen (10,544,876).
Regarding claim 1, the Korean Patent document discloses an apparatus, comprising: an inlet (11, Fig. 1); an outlet (12, Fig. 1); a valve (60, Fig. 1); a magnetic flow control component comprising: an actuator (solenoid); an armature (64, Fig. 1) disposed on the actuator; and a second magnet (electromagnetic coil) disposed opposite the actuator, wherein the actuator is actuatable, via the first and second magnets, to open and close the valve to allow or prevent fluid flow through the apparatus from the inlet to the outlet; and an adjustable flow control assembly (70, Fig. 1) for setting a variable flow rate of the fluid flow through the valve operable to regulate a flow rate of the fluid flow through the valve independently of movement of the actuator.
The Korean Patent Document does not explicitly disclose the armature comprises a magnet. However, having a magnet as an armature is well known in the art as taught by Chen. Chen teaches an electromagnetic valve with a magnetic armature (41, Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date of the application to have modified the valve disclosed by the Koran Patent document with an armature comprising a magnet as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
In the combination of the prior art elements, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected the elements to maintain their respective properties or functions.
Regarding claim 21, the Korean Patent document discloses the valve assembly is used in a home heating application and each of the assemblies disclosed control fluid through various fluid conduits. Examiner maintains these modular control units are to various conduits from a main header. The operation of one of these units affects the flow of the fluid through the other conduits, thereby meeting the limitation – modular control units concurrently control fluid flow from the inlet to the outlet. Examiner is interpreting the main header as the inlet and outlet (12, Fig. 1) disclosed by the Korean Patent document as the outlet, the operation of control valves in other conduits (connectable to one or more additional modular controls) affects (controls) the flow.
Regarding claim 22, the Korean Patent document discloses threaded coupling for assembly. Flanged connections are well known in the art as a substitute for threaded connections.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date of the application to have modified the threaded coupling disclosed by the Korean Patent Document with flanged connections as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
In the combination of the prior art elements, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected the substitution to serve the intended purpose.
Regarding claim 24, the Korean Patent document discloses a method, comprising: providing an inlet (11, Fig. 1) ; providing an outlet (12, Fig. 1); providing at least modular control unit comprising a valve (60, Fig. 1); a magnetic flow control component comprising: an actuator (solenoid); an armature (64, Fig. 1) disposed on the actuator; and a second magnet (electromagnetic coil) disposed opposite the actuator, wherein the actuator is actuatable, via the first and second magnets, to open and close the valve to allow or prevent fluid flow through the apparatus from the inlet to the outlet; and an adjustable flow control assembly (70, Fig. 1) for setting a variable flow rate of the fluid flow through the valve operable to regulate a flow rate of the fluid flow through the valve independently of movement of the actuator.
The Korean Patent Document does not explicitly disclose the armature comprises a magnet. However, having a magnet as an armature is well known in the art as taught by Chen. Chen teaches an electromagnetic valve with a magnetic armature (41, Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date of the application to have modified the valve disclosed by the Koran Patent document with an armature comprising a magnet as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication to Crossdale et al. (2005/0139610) in view of US Patent to Cole (12,066,116).
As was discussed in the interview on August 25, 2025, examiner maintains Crossdale discloses a plurality of modular control units (2, Fig. 1A). Crossdale discloses one inlet (11, Fig. 1B) and one outlet (13, Fig. 13). The modular unit operate independently. The “fluid flow” (at the inlet) is controlled by each modular unit as the flow through one of the units affects the inlet flow of the downstream modular units. Each modular unit operating independently, concurrently control the flow of fluid from the inlet to the outlet, thereby reading on all the limitations of the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 23, Crossdale discloses an inlet (11, Fig. 1B); an outlet )13, Fig. 1B); and a plurality of control units directly connected in series such that each of the plurality of modular control units independently regulates fluid flow prior to the fluid flow entering a downstream modular control unit to concurrently control the fluid flow from the inlet (11, Fig. 1B) to the outlet (13, Fig. 1B), each of the plurality of control units comprising: a valve; and a magnetic flow control component comprising: an actuator; a first magnet (5, Fig. 1B) disposed on the actuator; and a second magnet (15, Fig. 1A) disposed opposite the actuator, wherein the actuator is actuatable, via the first and second magnets, to open and close the valve to allow or prevent fluid flow through the apparatus from the inlet to the outlet.
Crossdale discloses one second magnet (15, Fig. 1A), if it is argued that modular control unit requires separate second magnets for each first magnet (5, Fig. 1B), Cole teaching an apparatus for controlling the flow through a conduit teaches an inlet 156 and an outlet 132, controlled by two valve members (120, 122, Fig. 2) actuated by two separate actuators (114, 112, Fig. 2) to be able to control the fluid flow precisely.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date of the application to have modified valve disclosed by Crossdale with the separate actuators taught by Cole as a means of controlling the flow between the inlet and outlet precisely and be able to make adjustments in a timely manner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UMASHANKAR VENKATESAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisors Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607 or Ken Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/UMASHANKAR VENKATESAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753