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
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3 of claim 12, please amend “when the valve at the actuation unit is reset” to instead recite --when the valve and the actuation unit is reset--.
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.
Claims 5, 9, 14, and 27 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 5, the use of the term “preferably” in line 4 renders the claim indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(h) II. It is not clear if the limitation that is “preferred” is required or not. Please amend the claim accordingly.
Regarding claim 9, the use of the term “optionally” in line 2 renders the claim indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(h) II. It is not clear if the limitation that is “optional” is required or not. Please amend the claim accordingly.
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reason as applied to claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 27, the limitation of “elevated pressure (e.g. explosion)” is indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(d). The use of “for example” renders the claim indefinite. Please amend the claim accordingly.
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) 1-9, 11-15, 27, and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meyer et al. (US 2018/0361182, hereafter “Meyer”).
Regarding claim 1, Meyer discloses an actuation system (Figs. 1-10) for a valve assembly, the actuation system comprising: an actuation unit (70) arranged to engage with an operating member of a valve to drive rotation of the operating member; and a remote actuation device (90) arranged at a distance from the actuation unit and coupled to the actuation unit by an actuation cable (132), the actuation cable being operable to engage the actuation unit to drive rotation of the operating member; wherein the actuation system further includes an environmentally sensitive actuator (110) arranged to operate the actuation cable; and wherein the remote actuation device includes a manual input element (100) designed to receive a specific manual input, the manual input element arranged to operate the actuation cable in response to the specific manual input (100 may be moved by a tool in order to operate 132).
Regarding claim 2, Meyer further discloses the actuation system of claim 1, wherein the actuation cable can be operated by the manual input element to release the operating member independently of activation of the environmentally sensitive actuator. (as noted above, a tool can be used to separate 100 from 150 to allow actuation)
Regarding claim 3, Meyer further discloses the actuation system of claim 1, wherein the actuation cable can be operated multiple times by the manual input element with the remote actuation device being reset after each operation. (100 can be removed from and reset back to the position shown in Fig. 6 multiple times)
Regarding claim 4, Meyer further discloses the actuation system of claim 1, wherein the remote actuation device comprises a remote trigger member (150) coupled to an end of the actuation cable and arranged to be operated by the environmentally sensitive actuator and/or by the manual input element. (Fig. 6; para. [0035] – [0036])
Regarding claim 5, Meyer further discloses the actuation system of claim 4, wherein the remote actuation device comprises a spring (80; Fig. 7) arranged to bias the remote trigger member to operate the actuation cable and wherein the environmentally sensitive actuator is arranged to hold the remote trigger member against the bias (para. [0029] – [0037]); and preferably, wherein when the environmentally sensitive actuator is activated, the spring is free to bias the remote trigger member and thereby operate the actuation cable. (as best understood)
Regarding claim 6, Meyer further discloses the actuation system of claim 4, wherein the manual input element is arranged to act independently on the remote trigger member. (as noted above, a tool can be used to separate 100 from 150 to allow actuation)
Regarding claim 7, Meyer further discloses the actuation system of claim 6, wherein the manual input element is coupled to the remote trigger member such that operation of the remote trigger member by the environmentally sensitive actuator also moves the manual input element. (para. [0032])
Regarding claim 8, Meyer further discloses the actuation system of claim 7, wherein the manual input element is locked in the OFF state (the state in which 100 is separated from 150) until the valve is opened and the environmentally sensitive actuator is reset or replaced. (the system of Meyer is capable of performing this function when operating)
Regarding claim 9, Meyer further discloses the actuation system of claim 1, wherein the actuation cable is a force transmission cable, optionally wherein the actuation cable is a two-way force transmission cable. (132 is able to transmit force)
Regarding claim 11, Meyer further discloses the actuation system of claim 1, wherein the remote actuation device comprises a remote indicator (99) coupled to the actuation cable such that operation of the actuation cable changes the valve status at the remote indicator. (the vent holes 98 through 99 will show whether 100 and 150 are connected or separated from one another)
Regarding claim 12, Meyer further discloses the actuation system of claim 1, wherein the actuation cable is arranged to transmit a reset force to the remote actuation device to reset the manual input element when the valve at the actuation unit is reset. (132 is capable of transmitting a tensile force to reset 100)
Regarding claim 13, Meyer further discloses the actuation system of claim 4, wherein the remote actuation device comprises a remote indicator (99) coupled to the remote trigger member. (the vent holes 98 through 99 will show whether 100 and 150 are connected or separated from one another)
Regarding claim 14, Meyer further discloses the actuation system of claim 13, wherein the remote actuation device comprises a visual indicator (the bottom surface of 150 will necessarily show whether 100 is still connected to 150 or not) coupled to the remote trigger member to remotely indicate when the valve is in the open position and when the valve is in the closed position; and optionally, wherein a first visual marker indicates the open position and a second visual marker indicates the closed position.
Regarding claim 15, Meyer further discloses the actuation system of claim 1, wherein the remote actuation device includes a locking mechanism (the groove and 132 is fit through inside of 150) arranged to disable the manual input element when the environmentally sensitive actuator is activated to operate the actuation cable. (see how 100 separates from 150 when 110 is broken by heat)
Regarding claim 27, Meyer further discloses the actuation system of any preceding claim 1, wherein the valve is a gas supply valve and the environmentally sensitive actuator is arranged to operate the actuation cable or linkage in response to one or more of: elevated heat, elevated pressure, fire, or smoke; or wherein the valve is a water supply valve and the environmentally sensitive actuator is arranged to operate the actuation cable or linkage in response to flood or freezing conditions; or wherein the valve is a water control valve and the environmentally sensitive actuator is arranged to operate the actuation cable or linkage in response to one or more of: elevated heat, elevated pressure (e.g. explosion), fire, or smoke. (regarding the type of fluid flowing through the valve, see MPEP 2115 which states: "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). Also, 110 is arranged to operate in response to elevated heat)
Regarding claim 45, Meyer further discloses an actuation system (Figs. 1-10) for a valve assembly, the actuation system comprising: an actuation unit (70) arranged to engage with an operating member of a valve to drive rotation of the operating member; and a remote actuation device (90) arranged at a distance from the actuation unit and coupled to the actuation unit by an actuation cable (132), the actuation cable being operable to engage the actuation unit to drive rotation of the operating member; wherein the actuation system further includes an environmentally sensitive actuator (110) arranged to operate the actuation cable; wherein the remote actuation device includes a manual input element (100) arranged to operate the actuation cable; wherein the remote actuation device comprises at least one remote trigger member (150) coupled to an end of the actuation cable; and wherein the at least one remote trigger member is arranged to be operated by the environmentally sensitive actuator and arranged to be operated by the manual input element. (Fig. 6; para. [0035] – [0036])
Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ringer et al. (US 2017/0028238, hereafter “Ringer”).
Regarding claim 44, Ringer discloses an actuation system (Figs. 14-16) for a valve assembly, the actuation system comprising: an actuation unit (132) arranged to engage with an operating member of a valve to drive rotation of the operating member (Fig. 16); and a remote actuation device (1190) arranged at a distance from the actuation unit and coupled to the actuation unit by an actuation cable or linkage (1174), the actuation cable being operable to engage the actuation unit to drive rotation of the operating member (para. [0060] – [0061]); wherein the remote actuation device includes a manual input element (1154a) and a remote trigger mechanism (1192) arranged to operate the actuation cable or linkage; wherein the manual input element is a push button (1154a can act as a push button if the user pushes the top end of it downwards with reference to Figs. 14-16) and the remote trigger mechanism is arranged to convert an axial movement of the push button into a rotational movement that operates the actuation cable or linkage (as shown in Figs. 15-16).
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.
Claim(s) 17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Heise (US 8,910,651).
Regarding claim 17, Meyer further discloses the actuation system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the remote actuation device comprises a sensor module for detecting movement of the actuation cable or linkage between a first state corresponding to the actuation cable being unoperated and a second state corresponding to the actuation cable being operated.
Heise teaches a sensor module (15) for detecting the condition of the bulb (140) between a first state in which the bulb is not cracked or broken and a second state in which the bulb is cracked or broken. (Col. 4, lines 32-65)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the actuation system of Meyer to also include a sensor module as taught by Heise in order to provide a means to allow the user to detect the condition of the thermally responsive element.
The combination of Meyer and Heise necessarily teaches the sensor module will detect movement of the actuation cable or linkage between a first state corresponding to the actuation cable being unoperated and a second state corresponding to the actuation cable being operated. (note that monitoring the condition of the thermally responsive element 110 of Meyer will also detect whether the actuation cable has moved or not)
Regarding claim 19, Meyer further discloses the actuation system of claim 17, wherein the remote actuation device comprises a communications module for transmitting status information relating to the detected state. (Col. 4, lines 32-65)
Regarding claim 20, Meyer further discloses the actuation system claim 17, wherein the remote actuation device comprises a remote indicator for displaying status information relating to the detected state. (Col. 4, lines 53-65)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL J GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-0544. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, 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, Kenneth 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 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.
/PAUL J GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753