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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention/Species of Group I in the reply filed on 10/30/2025 is acknowledged. Claim(s) 3 and 10 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/30/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental steps of observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion without significantly more.
The claims are examined with respect to the MPEP and the 2019 Subject Matter Guidance.
Step 1: Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition
Claims 1, 2, 4-7 are drawn to a method, so a process.
Claims 8, 9, 11-14 are drawn to a system comprising: a processor; a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, so a machine.
Step 2A Prong I: Identification of an Abstract Idea
The claims are reproduced below with the abstract idea identified in italics and the pre/post solution activity in bold. (Explanation follows)
1. A method comprising: monitoring a force in a valve or a pump via an onboard motion controller; determining, based on the monitored force, a change in a current draw associated with a motor moving a rotor in the valve or a shaft in the pump; determining if the change in current draw is within an acceptable range; in a case that the change in current draw is within the acceptable range, continue monitoring the force; and in a case that the change in current draw is outside of the acceptable range, transmit an indication to a user.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the force is a vertical force between the rotor and a stator.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the indication transmitted to the user comprises an indication of a potential leak in the valve or performance degradation associated with the pump.
5. The method of claim 2, wherein determining the change in current draw is further based on a temperature of the rotor and stator and backlash associated with the rotor changing directions.
6. The method of claim 5, wherein determining the change in current draw based on a temperature of the rotor and stator and backlash comprises: running a first verification process; increasing friction temperature in the valve by rotating the valve; resting the valve to cool down the valve; running a second verification process; and comparing shear torque values associated with the valve from the first verification process and from the second verification process.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the indication to the user is further based on measuring port alignment accuracy comprising instructing the valve to go to each port and tracking the actual location of the valve associated with going to each port.
8. A system comprising: a processor; a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to: monitor, via the processor, a force in a valve or a pump via an onboard motion controller comprising the processor; determine, based on the monitored force, a change in a current draw associated with a motor moving a rotor in the valve or a shaft in the pump; determine if the change in current draw is within an acceptable range; in a case that the change in current draw is within the acceptable range, continue monitoring the force; and in a case that the change in current draw is outside of the acceptable range, transmit an indication to a user.
9. The system of claim 8, wherein the force is a vertical force between the rotor and a stator.
11. The system of claim 8, wherein the indication transmitted to the user comprises an indication of a potential leak in the valve or performance degradation associated with the pump.
12. The system of claim 9, wherein determining the change in current draw is further based on a temperature of the rotor and stator and backlash associated with the rotor changing directions.
13. The system of claim 12, wherein determining the change in current draw based on a temperature of the rotor and stator and backlash comprises: running a first verification process; increasing friction temperature in the valve by rotating the valve; resting the valve to cool down the valve; running a second verification process; and comparing shear torque values associated with the valve from the first verification process and from the second verification process.
14. The system of claim 8, wherein the indication to the user is further based on measuring port alignment accuracy comprising instructing the valve to go to each port and tracking the actual location of the valve associated with going to each port.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4-7, the steps of (1) monitoring a force …; (2) determining… change in a current .; (3) determining if the change … within an acceptable range; … (4) continue monitoring the force… (5) transmit an indication to a user … (6) running a verification process …. (7) tracking… may be performed with a technological aid (onboard motion controller, which can also be a human brain) but still are mental steps which a user can perform in mind.
Regarding claims 8, 9, 11-14, event through the claims recite a processor (computer) MPEP2106.04 states: Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. Accordingly, for claims 8-14, the steps of (1) monitoring a force …; (2) determining… change in a current .; (3) determining if the change … within an acceptable range; … (4) continue monitoring the force… (5) transmit an indication to a user … (6) running a verification process …. (7) tracking… may be performed with a technological aid (onboard motion controller, which can also be a human brain) but still are mental steps which a user can perform in mind.
Step 2A Prong II: integrated into a practical application
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5 fails to disclose method steps integrated into a practical application as they are not controlling the actual valve. Regarding claims 6 and 7, the additional recitations “increasing friction temperature in the valve by rotating the valve; resting the valve to cool down the valve” and “ instructing the valve to go to each port” are not integrated with the abstract idea (i.e., the abstract idea observations/conclusions/determinations have no bearing on controlling the valve operation). Furthermore, these limitations amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception.
Regarding claims 8, 9, 11, 12, with respect to the MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and (d)(2) the claims fail to show an improvement in functioning of a computer or in the technology in the field. Regarding claims 13 and 14, the additional recitations “increasing friction temperature in the valve by rotating the valve; resting the valve to cool down the valve” and “ instructing the valve to go to each port” are not integrated with the abstract idea (i.e., the abstract idea observations/conclusions/determinations have no bearing on controlling the valve operation). Furthermore, these limitations amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception.
Therefore, the claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-14 fail Step 2A Prong II.
Step 2B: additional elements significantly more than the judicial exception
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, the additional elements, i.e., recitations in claims 6, 7, 13, 14, increasing friction temperature in the valve by rotating the valve; resting the valve to cool down the valve” and “ instructing the valve to go to each port” are seen as very generic known valve functions and amount to insignificant extra solution activity and to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisenbeis et al (20150149100) in view of Mueller et al (WO 9103349 A1).
Regarding claim 1, in making and/or using the device of Eisenbeis, one would perform the steps of monitoring a current in a valve (in actuation portion of valve, motor 110) via an onboard motion controller 106; determining, based on the monitored current, a change in a current draw (current sensor senses current changes by measuring current to motor during valve operation, Figs 3-5) associated with a motor 110 moving a rotor (valve/motor shaft, Para 17) in the valve; determining if the change in current draw is within an acceptable range (Para 29); in a case that the change in current draw is within the acceptable range, continue monitoring the force; and in a case that the change in current draw is outside of the acceptable range, transmit an indication to a user (Para 29 states: when such a difference in current is detected an alert or alarm is tripped to inform an operator or other personnel to take appropriate action).
Eisenbeis fails to disclose motor current determining by monitoring a force in the valve. Mueller (translation page 3, last Para) teaches motor current determining by monitoring a torque force by a torque sensor 15.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Eisenbeis with a motor current determining by monitoring a torque force of the valve motor as taught by Mueller as an art-recognized functionally equivalent substitute motor current sensing mechanism yielding predictable results motor current monitoring.
As to claim 4, Eisenbeis teaches (Para 29 states: when such a difference in current is detected an alert or alarm is tripped to inform an operator or other personnel to take appropriate action) indication transmitted to the user comprises a function indication and un Para 14 (packing failure resulting in leakage), teaches malfunction as a potential leak in the valve .
Regarding claim 8, Eisenbeis discloses system comprising: a processor 106; a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Para 43 storage disk) storing instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to: monitor, via the processor, a current in a valve (in actuation portion of valve, motor 110) via an onboard motion controller comprising the processor 110; change in a current draw (current sensor senses current changes by measuring current to motor during valve operation, Figs 3-5) associated with a motor 110 moving a rotor (valve/motor shaft, Para 17) in the valve; determining if the change in current draw is within an acceptable range (Para 29); in a case that the change in current draw is within the acceptable range, continue monitoring the force; and in a case that the change in current draw is outside of the acceptable range, transmit an indication to a user (Para 29 states: when such a difference in current is detected an alert or alarm is tripped to inform an operator or other personnel to take appropriate action).
Eisenbeis fails to disclose motor current determining by monitoring a force in the valve. Mueller (translation page 3, last Para) teaches motor current determining by monitoring a torque force by a torque sensor 15.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Eisenbeis with a motor current determining by monitoring a torque force of the valve motor as taught by Mueller as an art-recognized functionally equivalent substitute motor current sensing mechanism yielding predictable results motor current monitoring.
As to claim 11, Eisenbeis teaches (Para 29 states: when such a difference in current is detected an alert or alarm is tripped to inform an operator or other personnel to take appropriate action) indication transmitted to the user comprises a function indication and un Para 14 (packing failure resulting in leakage), teaches malfunction as a potential leak in the valve .
Claim(s) 7, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisenbeis et al (20150149100) in view of Mueller et al (WO 9103349 A1), further in view of Blieske et al (8967199).
Eisenbeis as modified discloses valve indication further based on valve position sensor 116 but fails to disclose measuring port alignment accuracy comprising instructing the valve to go to each port and tracking the actual location of the valve associated with going to each port.
Blieske teaches a motorized valve with motor 13 moving between two ports B,C.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the system disclosed by Eisenbeis as modified in the valve device as taught by Blieske for the purpose of applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results of providing a motorized selector valve with features of valve position sensing. Such selector valve having position sensing would necessarily involve measuring port alignment accuracy comprising instructing the valve to go to each port and tracking the actual location of the valve associated with going to each port.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Atif Chaudry at phone number 571-270-3768. 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. Kenneth 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.
/ATIF H CHAUDRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753