DETAILED ACTION
Non Final
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/28/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-10, 12-15, 17, 18, 20 and 21 are pending. Claims 1, 10, 13 and 17 are currently amended. Claims 2, 6, 7, 11, 16, 19 are canceled. Claim 12 depends from canceled claim 2 and will be taken as depending upon amended claim 1 (appropriate correction is required.)
The amendments to the claims have overcome the drawing objections. The amendments to the claims have made moot the rejections to the claims under 35 USC 112 first paragraph. The amendments and/or remarks have overcome the rejections to the claims under 35 USC 112 second paragraph. The amendments have required further search so as to address the narrowly tailored remarks regarding the claim limitations.
It is believed that Applicant is remarking that there is an on/off period of current control that amounts to dithering during the main off phase of the pulse step. If this is the case, then the office has applied Kitahata the primary reference, as an alternative rejection to address the amendments in that regard.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
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) 1, 3-5, 8-10, 12-15, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tolley (US 4673160);
Claims (in the alternative) 1, 3-5, 8-10, 12-15, 17, 18 and Claim 20 and 21, are rejected under 35 USC 103 over Tolley in view of Naganuma (US 9528624) and/or Kitahata(US 8708089.)
Tolley discloses in claim 1: A valve actuator (9 figure 4), comprising: a motor (stepper motor at 31) configured to move the actuator to an activated position (Col 4 ln 55 to Col 5 ln 9), where a deactivated position is a default position; and a controller (system controller of figure 7) in communication with the motor (via the pulse generator 51 to the coil of the motor) and configured to: receive instructions (via operator) regarding the actuation state of the actuator and to operate the motor according to those instructions (programmable control signals, Col 5 ln 10-29); and operate the motor using a pulse width modulated current to allow the motor to maintain the actuator in the activated position during both ON and OFF periods of the pulse width modulated current, where a duration of each OFF period is equal to or less than a time required to overcome a static friction (necessarily) of the valve actuator (Tolley shows both on and off periods during the pulse width modulated (pmw) control, where the phrase is taken to mean that the stepper motor merely is able to maintain the momentary position and not reverse direction during both the on/off pwm periods of control; this is part of the movement of the stepper motor on/off pulses as it drives the proportional valve as seen in figure 7, where it is noted that in response to a step command the motor must overcome the mechanical load placed on the rotor, which includes the static friction, and depending on the frequency of the pulses, may include an off time that is equal to the time it takes to overcome static friction),;
if it could be persuasively argued that Tolley does not disclose: factoring the coefficient of dynamic friction for determining the stepping of the motor, Naganuma teaches: determining the torque requirements of the motor to include the factor of the coefficient of dynamic friction (Col 11 ln 8-42, for the purpose of applying adequate electromotive pwm force for accurate stepwise control of the motor and actuation of the valve.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide as taught in Naganuma for that of Tolley, to determine the torque requirements of the motor and include the factor of the coefficient of dynamic friction as taught by Naganuma, all for the purpose of applying adequate electromotive pwm force for accurate stepwise control of the motor and actuation of the valve;
In the alternative, if it could be persuasively argued that Tolley does not disclose: a duration of each OFF period is equal to or less than a time required to overcome a static friction of the valve actuator so as to provide a dithering of the current and maintain velocity; Kitahata teaches: a current duration of each OFF period is equal to or less than a time required to overcome a static friction of the valve actuator so as to provide a dithering of the current and maintain velocity (Col 33 ln 1-17);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Tolley as taught in Kitahata with a current duration of each OFF period that is equal to or less than a time required to overcome a static friction of the valve actuator so as to provide a dithering of the current and maintain velocity, thus reducing the effects of for example Coulomb friction in the rotary stepper motor.
Tolley discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 3: The valve actuator as defined in claim 1, further comprising a transmission system (the motor engages the valve plate at a geared transmission of 21 and also mechanically is…) connecting the motor to the return means (figure 5 at 35/43.)
Tolley discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 4: The valve actuator as defined in claim 3, wherein the transmission system includes a geartrain (as shown at plate 21.)
Tolley discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 5: The valve actuator as defined in claim 1, wherein the motor is any of (the following considered an alternative grouping under MPEP 2131): a DC motor; a servo motor; a stepper motor (31 is a stepper motor); an AC motor with variable frequency drives; or a brushless DC electric motor.
Tolley discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 8: A valve (as discussed above) comprising the valve actuator as defined in claim 1.
Tolley discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 9: The valve as defined in claim 8, wherein the valve actuator is either integrally formed with the valve (i.e. the actuator is assembled onto the valve as an integrally assembled unit) or pre-attached to the valve.
Tolley discloses in claim 10: A method of reducing current consumption of a valve actuator (via pulse width modulation control), the valve actuator comprising: applying, via a controller (49) in communication with a motor (31) configured to move a valve actuator to an activated position (open), a current (current pulses from pulse generator 51 to stepper motor) to the motor to cause the motor to move the actuator from a deactivated position (biased closed via 43) to an activated position (operated via pwm control as discussed Col 4 ln 56 to Col 5 ln 29); and in response to the actuator achieving the activated position, applying, via the controller, a pulsed current to allow the motor to overcome a return means (43 as discussed for opening), to thereby maintain the actuator in the activated position during both ON and OFF periods of the pulse width modulated current, wherein the return means biases the actuator to a default deactivated position (as discussed above in claim 1, and via machine intelligent registering of the steps just prior to deactivation and return to the null position, so that during reactivation, the stepper motor can apply the predetermined number of degree of rotation for advance and return to the actuated position, thus maintaining the desired position without feedback control, Col 4 ln 4-17, and it is noted that the pulse width modulation turns the motor on/off and the bias from the spring is still being applied in the direction of closure or deactivation, but the angular velocity and momentum of the mass of the motor actuator and transmission continues to move the valve forward or is stationary in as much as the next pulse occurs to continue the electro-motive force in the stepping direction), where a duration of each OFF period is equal to or less than a time required to overcome a static friction (necessarily) of the valve actuator (Tolley shows both on and off periods during the pulse width modulated (pmw) control, where the phrase is taken to mean that the stepper motor merely is able to maintain the momentary position and not reverse direction during both the on/off pwm periods of control; this is part of the movement of the stepper motor on/off pulses as it drives the proportional valve as seen in figure 7, where it is noted that in response to a step command the motor must overcome the mechanical load placed on the rotor, which includes the static friction, and depending on the frequency of the pulses, may include an off time that is equal to the time it takes to overcome static friction);
if it could be persuasively argued that Tolley does not disclose: factoring the coefficient of dynamic friction for determining the stepping of the motor, Naganuma teaches: determining the torque requirements of the motor to include the factor of the coefficient of dynamic friction (Col 11 ln 8-42, for the purpose of applying adequate electromotive pwm force for accurate stepwise control of the motor and actuation of the valve.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide as taught in Naganuma for that of Tolley, to determine the torque requirements of the motor and include the factor of the coefficient of dynamic friction as taught by Naganuma, all for the purpose of applying adequate electromotive pwm force for accurate stepwise control of the motor and actuation of the valve;
In the alternative, if it could be persuasively argued that Tolley does not disclose: a duration of each OFF period is equal to or less than a time required to overcome a static friction of the valve actuator so as to provide a dithering of the current and maintain velocity; Kitahata teaches: a current duration of each OFF period is equal to or less than a time required to overcome a static friction of the valve actuator so as to provide a dithering of the current and maintain velocity (Col 33 ln 1-17);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Tolley as taught in Kitahata with a current duration of each OFF period that is equal to or less than a time required to overcome a static friction of the valve actuator so as to provide a dithering of the current and maintain velocity, thus reducing the effects of for example Coulomb friction in the rotary stepper motor.
Tolley discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 12: The valve actuator as defined in claim [[2]][1], wherein the duration of at least one of the OFF periods is less than 1ms (i.e. 500,000 steps/second is equal to about 2 micro.seconds (00.000,002 sec) as opposed to 1 mili.second (i.e. 00.001 sec) equal to about 1000 steps per second, and which falls within the range thereof per MPEP 2131.).
Tolley discloses in claim 13: A valve system (see figures 3-7) comprising: a valve body (11/21) including a movable valve element (21); a valve actuator (31/27) mounted to the valve body and operable to move the valve element between open and closed states (via transmission of the rototary motor torque to the rotary plate valve element 21); a motor (31) in the actuator arranged to drive motion of the valve element (rotationally); and a controller (figure 7) configured to: receive a valve state command (45 signal) reflecting a commanded position; apply a PWM control signal (from 51) to the motor in response to the valve state command, wherein the PWM control signal comprises ON periods and OFF periods (pulses stepper motor); and during OFF periods, supply a holding current through the motor (via movement in the desired direction as discussed in claim 1), thereby maintaining the actuator in the commanded position through both the ON periods and the OFF periods, , where a duration of each OFF period is equal to or less than a time required to overcome a static friction (necessarily) of the valve actuator (Tolley shows both on and off periods during the pulse width modulated (pmw) control, where the phrase is taken to mean that the stepper motor merely is able to maintain the momentary position and not reverse direction during both the on/off pwm periods of control; this is part of the movement of the stepper motor on/off pulses as it drives the proportional valve as seen in figure 7, where it is noted that in response to a step command the motor must overcome the mechanical load placed on the rotor, which includes the static friction, and depending on the frequency of the pulses, may include an off time that is equal to the time it takes to overcome static friction)
if it could be persuasively argued that Tolley does not disclose: factoring the coefficient of dynamic friction for determining the stepping of the motor, Naganuma teaches: determining the torque requirements of the motor to include the factor of the coefficient of dynamic friction (Col 11 ln 8-42, for the purpose of applying adequate electromotive pwm force for accurate stepwise control of the motor and actuation of the valve.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide as taught in Naganuma for that of Tolley, to determine the torque requirements of the motor and include the factor of the coefficient of dynamic friction as taught by Naganuma, all for the purpose of applying adequate electromotive pwm force for accurate stepwise control of the motor and actuation of the valve;
In the alternative, if it could be persuasively argued that Tolley does not disclose: a duration of each OFF period is equal to or less than a time required to overcome a static friction of the valve actuator so as to provide a dithering of the current and maintain velocity; Kitahata teaches: a current duration of each OFF period is equal to or less than a time required to overcome a static friction of the valve actuator so as to provide a dithering of the current and maintain velocity (Col 33 ln 1-17);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Tolley as taught in Kitahata with a current duration of each OFF period that is equal to or less than a time required to overcome a static friction of the valve actuator so as to provide a dithering of the current and maintain velocity, thus reducing the effects of for example Coulomb friction in the rotary stepper motor.
Tolley discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 14: The valve system of claim 13, wherein the controller is configured to adaptively adjust a duty cycle of the PWM control signal based on one or more of a sensed load, motor temperature, or actuator feedback (Col 5 ln 20-29) to minimize power consumption while ensuring retention of the commanded position (only what is needed in the control is utilized during predetermined acceleration, velocity and duration, then the valve is returned to null postion.)
Tolley discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 15: The valve actuator of claim 13, wherein the controller is further configured to ramp the motor current at transitions between ON and OFF periods (this is merely the pwm as discussed in Tolley) to reduce mechanical shock or overshoot of the actuator.
Tolley discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 17: The valve actuator of claim 13, wherein, in response to a deactivation instruction, the controller ceases the PWM control signal to drive the actuator back toward the default state (id.)
Tolley discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 18: The valve actuator of claim 13, wherein the holding current is less than half of a full operating current of the motor (the holding current must be during the off period, at minimum the clock current that must be less than half the amplitude of the full operating current amplitude, or as modified in Tolley/Kitahata, the holding current dither period is less than half the full operating current period, as is the case for overcoming the static friction and maintaining the velocity during the holding period.)
Tolley discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 20: The valve system of claim 13, wherein a duration of the OFF periods is determined based on a time required by the return member to overcome a static friction of the valve actuator, wherein a minimum operational current flows during the OFF periods (as discussed in Tolley/Naganuma where the pwm force is determined to at least overcome the coefficient of dynamic friction, as modified all for the purposes discussed above, or as modified by Tolley/Kitahata where the duration of the off time is equal to or less than the time it takes to overcome the static friction and maintain dithering and velocity.)
Tolley discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 21: The valve system of claim 20, wherein the duration of at least one of the OFF periods is less than 1ms (i.e. 500,000 steps/second is equal to about 2 micro.seconds (00.000,002 sec) as opposed to 1 mili.second (i.e. 00.001 sec) equal to about 1000 steps per second, and which falls within the range thereof per MPEP 2131.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W JELLETT, whose telephone number is 571-270-7497. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Ken Rinehart can be reached at (571)-272-4881, or Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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.
/Matthew W Jellett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753