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 .
Status of the claims
No claims are amended, and claim(s) 16-19 is/are added. Currently claims 1-19 are pending in this application.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Priisholm (WO 2019215042) in view of Welz et al (6279870), further in view of Inoue et al (JP 2514233 Y2).
Regarding claim(s) 1, Priisholm, discloses a valve control device 102 for controlling operation of a valve actuator 11 configured to be connected to a valve member 7, the valve control device 102 being configured to be mounted on the valve actuator 11 and comprising: a position sensor 26 for detecting actuating position of the valve actuator and outputting the detected position as a feedback signal (to controller 21), a memory device 22 for storing position data (nominal position values P1,P2, Fig 6) reflecting the feedback signal from the position sensor at one actuating position (at actuating positions of P1 and P2, Fig 6) of the valve actuator, and an electronic control unit 21.
Priisholm fails to disclose valve control device 102 removably mounted on the valve actuator 11 (even though Fig. 1 shows 102 mounted at top of actuator 11, which can be inferred as removable).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide separable valve control device and actuator, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various removable elements involves only routine skill in the art.
Priisholm discloses controller 21 comparing (Fig 6) actual position data (feedback signal from the position sensor) with nominal data (stored position data from the memory device) for checking if it falls with tolerance levels but fails to disclose electronic control unit 21 for controlling operation of the valve actuator based on the difference between the two sets of data. Welz (col 12, line 55-60) teaches controller 112 controlling valve based on two sets of data (tolerance between two sets of data).
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 Priisholm with electronic control unit 21 for controlling operation of the valve actuator based on the difference between the actual and stored of data as taught by Welz in order to reposition the valve to desired state.
Priisholm as modified disclose the valve control device 102 as measuring part of the overall device and attached to valve actuator but fails to disclose electronic control unit automatically performing a reset of the position data of the memory device as a result of the valve control device becoming separated from the valve actuator. Inoue (translation page 5, Para 1 and 2) teaches automatically performing a reset of the system data of the memory device (cumulative memory) as a result of the measuring part becoming separated from the rest of the system.
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 Priisholm with automatic reset of the system data of the memory device as a result of the measuring part (control device 102 in case of Priisholm) becoming separated from the system taught by Inoue in order to restart data collection at renewed installation.
As to claim 2, Priisholm as modified would have electronic control unit 21 (which controls all operations of the device) configured for automatically detecting (automatic resetting of memory at separation would necessarily include automatic detection of disassembly) separation of the valve control device relative to the valve actuator, and performing a reset of the position data of the memory device in response to such an automatic detection of separation of the valve control device relative to the valve actuator (in view of Inoue).
As to claims 4 and 6, Priisholm as modified fails to disclose electronic control unit having electrical connector connected to an external power supply connector. However, Official Notice is taken (now considered Applicant admitted prior art since Applicant did not traverse the Official Notice in prior office action) that providing external power supply with respective connectors, for the purpose of powering the electronics/control are widely known and notoriously old in the art. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to employ external power supply with respective connectors in the device of Priisholm as modified for the purpose of powering the electronics/control as is widely known and notoriously old in the art.
Priisholm as modified (as taught by Inoue) would automatically performing a reset of the position data of the memory device upon automatic detection of separation of the valve control device which is also seen as result of combined actions of automatic detection of separation of the valve control device and (subsequent) unplugging of power.
As to claim 7, the valve control device 102 is seen as free from a Human Machine Interface.
As to claim 10, valve actuator comprises a linearly moveable actuating stem 8 arranged in a stationary actuator housing 11, and wherein the position sensor 26 is configured for detecting the position of the moveable actuating stem.
As to claim 11, a valve housing 3 includes the valve member, wherein the valve member is connected to the linearly moveable actuating stem 8 of the valve actuator.
As to claim 12, in making and/or using the device of Priisholm, for operating a valve control device 102, which is mounted on a valve actuator 11, one would perform the steps of detecting an actuating position of the valve actuator by a position sensor 26 of the valve control device and outputting the detected position as a feedback signal (to 21), obtaining the feedback signal from the position sensor by an electronic control unit21.
Priisholm fails to disclose valve control device 102 removably mounted on the valve actuator 11 (even though Fig. 1 shows 102 mounted at top of actuator 11, which can be inferred as removable).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide separable valve control device and actuator, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various removable elements involves only routine skill in the art.
Priisholm discloses controller 21 comparing (Fig 6) actual position data (feedback signal from the position sensor) with nominal data (stored position data from the memory device) for checking if it falls with tolerance levels but fails to disclose electronic control unit 21 for controlling operation of the valve actuator based on the difference between the two sets of data. Welz (col 12, line 55-60) teaches controller 112 controlling valve based on two sets of data (tolerance between two sets of data).
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 Priisholm with electronic control unit 21 for controlling operation of the valve actuator based on the difference between the actual and stored of data as taught by Welz in order to reposition the valve to desired state.
Priisholm as modified disclose the valve control device 102 as measuring part of the overall device and attached to valve actuator but fails to disclose electronic control unit automatically performing a reset of the position data of the memory device as a result of the valve control device becoming separated from the valve actuator. Inoue (translation page 5, Para 1 and 2) teaches automatically performing a reset of the system data of the memory device (cumulative memory) as a result of the measuring part becoming separated from the rest of the system.
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 Priisholm with automatic reset of the system data of the memory device as a result of the measuring part (control device 102 in case of Priisholm) becoming separated from the system taught by Inoue in order to restart data collection at renewed installation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-19 are allowed. Claims 3, 5, 8, 9, 13-15 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments that “Office's position appears to be that Inoue's mention of automatically resetting the content of the cumulative memory is a teaching that anytime a device is replaced, memory associated with measurements involving that device should be reset. The disclosure in Inoue does not support such an expansive view of Inoue's automatic reset comment” are not persuasive since Examiner is asserting that Inoue teaches resetting of sensor memory upon detaching from the main system. This teaching when incorporated in Priisholm as modified would reset sensor memory of Priisholm as modified.
Applicant’s arguments that “claimed valve control device at issue here is specifically concerned with resetting position data and is specifically configured to reset position data” are not persuasive since Priisholm as modified teaches removable sensor storing position data and Inoue teaches resetting of sensor memory upon detaching from the main system. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The type of sensor and sensed data of Inoue is irrelevant to the combination.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights