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 .
This office action is a response to an amendment filed 06/18/2026.
Claims 1-22 are pending.
Claims 1-14 and 16-20 are amended.
Claims 21 and 22 are added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/18/2026 have been fully considered but the newly amended limitations have changed the scope of the claims. Applicant's amendment necessitated new citations to the amended limitations and a re-interpretation of the cited prior art based on the new scope, but a short response to Applicants arguments will be provided here to supplement the newly cited limitations that follow.
Applicant’s arguments are primarily focused on that the applied prior art does not teach “wherein the actuator is configured to operate to regulate the valve according to a constant basic characteristic curve and a flow rate measured by a flow measuring device with reference to a modified characteristic curve, the constant basic characteristic curve containing information correlating a valve opening with a flow through the valve, wherein, the modified characteristic curve is based on the constant basic characteristic curve and the measured flow rate by the flow measuring device compared to a design flow rate.”
In support of said argument, Applicant states on page 9 of the arguments that:
PNG
media_image1.png
490
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant is giving more weight to the claim language than it merits. The claim language does not specify in what manner the operation is performed “with reference” to the “modified characteristic curve.” In other words, this aspect can be taken under broadest reasonable interpretation. Furthermore, Applicant’s argument that Schick does not teach “to operate according to the previous iso-curve and adjusting the valve opening with reference to the new iso-curve” is not entirely clear. This is to say, neither the claims nor the arguments specify how the instant invention manages to operate according to a previous curve “with reference” to a new/modified curve.
However, as noted in the prior art rejection below, Schick, first uses the original/initial iso-curve (characteristic curve), to operate the valve to open to a specified opening position according to the initial iso-curve’s position-flow relationship in an attempt to provide a desired commanded set-point indicative of a desired flow (i.e. a target/”designed” ) (see p6-7, P28). Thereafter, the flow actually provided at the position characterized by the original iso-curve to give the desired flow rate is obtained by use of a flow measuring device and compared to the desired flow. If the difference between these two is larger than a threshold, meaning the original iso-curve is inaccurate by more than a desired tolerance, then a new iso-curve that is selected to operate the valve to a position provide desired commanded flow. As such, in this cycle of events, a commanded flow within a desired tolerance is ultimately provided by first using the original iso-curve, comparing its flow as obtained by a flow measuring device, and then ultimately achieving commanded flow by use of a new selected iso-curve (i.e. “with reference to”), when the original iso-curve’s opening vs flow characteristic provides a flow significantly different from the commanded as determined by a threshold amount (see P6-7, p22, 30-31, 34, 20, fig. 4, 28, Fig. 8, 9, ). Thus, the claim language is met.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication No. 2015/0057816 to Schick et al., (hereinafter Schick), in view of US Patent Publication No. 2019/0018432 to Petry (hereinafter Petry)
Regarding claim 1, Schick teaches an actuator for regulating a valve (Actuated valve, see p3, p24, Schick) in a fluid system (Fluid control, see p6, p2-3, Schick), wherein the actuator is configured to operate to regulate the valve according to a constant basic characteristic curve and a flow rate measured by a flow measuring device (Operation of an actuated valve uses an (originally) installed iso-curve that characterizes flow in relation to valve position, and thus is interpreted as a basic constant characteristic curve of flow and valve position, and where the system also uses a sensed flow that is compared to the desired commanded (designed flow) to determine if the characterized flow vs position of the basic curve produces a flow within a threshold amount of desired/designed, see P6-7, p22, 30-31, Fig. 4, Abs., Schick)with reference to a modified characteristic curve (Operation of actuated valve can ultimately be regulated by use a calculated (modified) selected iso-curve/characteristic curve (i.e. “with reference to), when the basic characteristic curve’s resulting flow produced by its projected opening, results in a difference greater than a threshold amount with regards to the desired/designed commanded flow setpoint, see P6-7, p22, 30-31, Fig. 8, 9, Schick), the constant basic characteristic curve containing information correlating a valve opening with a flow through the valve (As noted previously, an installed iso-curve characterizes flow in relation to valve position, thus an originally installed iso-curve does so as well (i.e. a constant basic characteristic curve) see P6-7, p22, 30-31, Schick), wherein, the modified characteristic curve is based on the constant basic characteristic curve and the measured flow rate by the flow measuring device compared to a design flow rate (A selected calculated/calibrated characteristic iso-curve is based on the measured flow being greater than a threshold amount from the desired/designed commanded flow rate setpoint, and the calculated iso-curve can be based on the same family of curves as the originally installed iso-curve, for example, and/or by prompting the re-calibration to develop a modification to the currently installed iso-curve, thus a modified from the originally installed/basic curve, see p30, p34, P6-7, p22, 30-31, Fig. 8, 9, Schick).
While Schick implies an actuator in an actuating valve,
However, Petry, from the same or similar field of valve assemblies in fluid systems, more explicitly teaches an actuator (An actuator coupled to valve, see Abs., P7, Petry).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve and control as described by Schick and incorporating an actuator, as taught by Petry.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better programmatically actuate a position change for a valve without direct manual positioning (see P7, Petry).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Schick and Petry all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Schick further teaches where a modified characteristic curve is calculated by a function of a constant basic characteristic curve (Curve re-calibration based on a (family) function of an originally installed iso-curve with modified constants, see p30-31, P6-7, p22, Fig. 9,Schick).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Schick and Petry all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Schick further teaches where a function is a linear (Curves can be linear or non-linear, see Fig. 8, Fig. 9, p40-41, Schick).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Schick and Petry all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Schick further teaches where a modified characteristic curve is equal to a constant basic characteristic curve when a difference between the measured flow rate and the design flow rate is within a predetermined first threshold difference and the modified characteristic curve is calculated by the function of the constant basic characteristic curve when outside the first threshold difference. (Calibration is performed that includes a determination of whether a measured flow is within a difference threshold, and if outside, then a re-calibrated new curve is used, with the implication that the calibrated uses the current basic curve when the flow is within the threshold difference, thus equal, see P6-7, p30-31, p22, Schick).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Schick and Petry all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Schick further teaches measured flow rate is compared to a design flow rate according to a first threshold difference at regular time intervals (Calibration that includes flow threshold comparison can be performed at regular intervals, see p31, P6-7, p30-31, p22, Schick).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Schick and Petry all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Schick further teaches where a modified characteristic curve is updated at regular time intervals (Calibration that can modify a curve can be performed at regular intervals, see p31, P6-7, p30-31, p22, Schick).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Schick and Petry all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Schick further teaches where a constant basic characteristic curve is stored in a data storage of a controller and the calculation of a modified characteristic curve is done by a processor of a controller, and where the controller forms part of an actuator (Curves that are processed by algorithm processed by an actuating standalone controller, are stored in controller, see p7, Fig. 11, p44, p22, 33, 37Schick).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Schick and Petry all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Petry further teaches where a constant basic characteristic curve is stored in a data storage of a controller and a calculation of a modified characteristic curve is done by a processor of the controller, and where the controller is external to the actuator, the actuator having means to communicate with the controller (Curves that are processed by controller that can be a remote cloud controller, and stored in controller, see p24-25, p19, 35, Petry).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve and control as described by the combination that includes Schick and incorporating a remote controller, as taught by Petry.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide a known control structure variation that can provide a more centralized control location and which can provide scalability in the form of remote cloud control, (see p24-25, p19, 35, Petry).
• Regarding claim 10 Schick teaches a method for operating a valve (Actuated valve, see p3, p24, Schick) within a fluid system (Fluid control, see p6, p2-3, Schick), the method comprising: providing a constant basic characteristic curve and a flow rate measured by a flow measuring device, the constant basic characteristic curve containing information correlating a valve opening with a flow through the valve (Operation of an actuated valve uses an (originally) installed iso-curve that characterizes flow in relation to valve position, and thus is interpreted as a basic constant characteristic curve of flow and valve position, and where the system also uses a sensed flow that is compared to the desired commanded (designed flow) to determine if the characterized flow vs position of the basic curve produces a flow within a threshold amount of desired/designed. Therefore, an original iso-curve and a measured flow rate are provided, see P6-7, p22, 30-31, Fig. 4, Abs., Schick),
operating an actuator to regulate the valve according to the constant basic characteristic curve and the flow rate measured by the flow measuring device (Operation of an actuated valve using an (originally) installed iso-curve, interpreted as a basic constant characteristic curve of flow and valve position, and where the system also uses a sensed flow that is compared to the desired commanded (designed flow) to determine if the characterized flow vs position of the basic curve produces a flow within a threshold amount of desired/designed. Therefore, an original iso-curve and a measured flow rate are provided, see P6-7, p22, 30-31, Fig. 4, Abs., Schick) with reference to a modified characteristic curve (Operation of actuated valve can ultimately be regulated by use of a calculated (modified) selected iso-curve/characteristic curve (i.e. “with reference to), when the basic characteristic curve’s resulting flow produced by its projected opening, results in a difference greater than a threshold amount with regards to the desired/designed commanded flow setpoint, see P6-7, p22, 30-31, Fig. 8, 9, Schick),
calculating the modified characteristic curve when the difference between the measured flow rate and a design flow rate is larger than a first threshold difference (A calculated (modified) iso-curve/characteristic curve when the basic characteristic curve’s resulting flow produced by its projected opening results in a difference greater than a threshold amount with regards to the desired/designed commanded flow setpoint, see P6-7, p22, 30-31, Fig. 8, 9, Schick)s
and
wherein the modified characteristic curve is calculated as a function of the constant basic characteristic curve and the measured flow rate by the flow measuring device compared to the design flow rate (A selected calculated/calibrated characteristic iso-curve is based on the measured flow being greater than a threshold amount from the desired/designed commanded flow rate setpoint, and the calculated iso-curve can be based on the same family of curves as the originally installed iso-curve, for example, and/or by prompting the re-calibration to develop a modification to the currently installed iso-curve, thus a modified from the originally installed/basic curve, see p30, p34, P6-7, p22, 30-31, Fig. 8, 9, Schick).
While Schick implies an actuator in an actuating valve,
However, Petry, from the same or similar field of valve assemblies in fluid systems, more explicitly teaches an actuator (An actuator coupled to valve, see Abs., P7, Petry).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve and control as described by Schick and incorporating an actuator, as taught by Petry.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better programmatically actuate a position change for a valve without direct manual positioning (see P7, Petry).
• Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
• Claim 12 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.
• Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 7.
Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 8.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Schick and Petry all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Schick further teaches wherein a method relates to controlling a pressure independent valve (Pressure-independent control of valve, see p19, p22, p3, Schick).
• Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
• Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 6.
• Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 6.
• Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 6.
• Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 6.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schick, in view of Petry, and in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2018/0230680 to Pieczynski, II et al., (hereinafter Pieczynski)
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Schick and Petry all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Schick further teaches where flow rate measured by a flow measuring device corresponding to a given volume of fluid flow (Measuring volume flow rate device, see p22, Schick).
Schick does not explicitly teach fluid flow based on pulses, where one pulse corresponds to a flow and the flow rate depends on a frequency of the pulses.
However, Pieczynski from the same or similar field of actuated valves, teaches fluid flow based on pulses, where one pulse corresponds to a flow and the flow rate depends on a frequency of the pulses (A flow sensor measures flow by pulse counting corresponding pulse rotation (frequency) of translated volumetric flow, see p53, p46, p8, p27, Pieczynski).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve and control as described by the combination that includes Schick and incorporating counting pulses, as taught by Pieczynski.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to conveniently use a generated signal that correlates to a desired characteristic of a flow (see p8, p27, 53, p46, Pieczynski).
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schick, in view of Petry, and in further view of US Patent No. 7,769,493 to Elshafei et al., (hereinafter Elshafei)
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Schick and Petry all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
While a person of ordinary skill in the art understands that that Schick also teaches valves using at least the known term of the art equal percentage characteristic curve which has an exponential/logarithmic characteristic, Schick does not explicitly mention this known aspect of the function.
However, Elshafei, from the same or similar field of actuated valves, teaches where a function is a non-linear function and is logarithmic or exponential, in the n'th power or of the n'th root, where 'n' is a natural number (A valve function can be, for example, an equal percentage function whose function equation is an exponential equation with logarithmic relationship (non-linear), see C5 L45-60, C1 L27-46, Fig. 2, Elshafei).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve and control as described by the combination that includes Schick and incorporating a non-linear exponential/logarithmic function, as taught by Elshafei.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide a desired flow adjustment based on valve opening degree that can be different at different degree of opening, for example, so as to start with a lower flow at low opening degrees and increases more rapidly, which can be beneficial to limit initial inrush flow in desired application for example (see C1 L27-46, Fig. 2, Elshafei).
• Claim 22 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 21.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mudd et al, US. Patent Publication No. 2018/0164135 teaches a flow rate characteristic function identification method that includes a flow rate sensor, and a program that can set a flow rate characteristic function reflecting a type and shape of a fluid resistance.
Huwiler et al., US. Patent Publication No. 2022/0003335 teaches a valve construction with a selectable characteristic curve, and includes determining or specifying nonlinear characteristic curve function which indicates a required valve opening position and flow through the valve. A correction characteristic curve is also stored.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILIO J SAAVEDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-5:30pm (EST).
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, Robert E Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/EMILIO J SAAVEDRA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
