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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1–2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Böhm et al. (US PGPub 20200182375 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Böhm discloses a pendulum valve (1) for regulating a volume or mass flow and/or for closing and opening a valve opening (2), a valve seat which defines the valve opening defining an opening axis (Para. 71 discloses the valve seat) and has a first sealing surface (3) surrounding the valve opening (2) a valve closure (4) for regulating the volume or mass flow and/or for gas-tight closure of the valve opening (2) with a second sealing surface (6) corresponding to the first sealing surface (3), wherein the valve closure (2) is pivotably mounted about a pivot axis (R), and a drive unit (7) coupled to the valve closure (4), which is adapted to provide a pivoting movement of the valve closure (4) about the pivot axis in such a way that the valve closure can be adjusted from an open position (Para. 85), in which the valve closure (4) at least partially clears the valve opening (2), to a closed position (Para. 87), in which the valve closure is positioned above the valve opening and covers the opening cross-section of the valve opening (Para. 87), and back, wherein the pendulum valve (1) has a calibration surface (9’) and a position sensor (10’) for determining a distance between the position sensor (10’) and the calibration surface (9’ and Para. 87 and 99), wherein the position sensor (10’) is arranged with a fixed positional relationship relative to the valve seat (Para. 71 and Fig. 4b), and the calibration surface (9’) is connected to the valve closure (4) and is movably arranged in such a way that a position of the calibration surface (9’) and the distance between the position sensor (10’) and the calibration surface (10’) vary during a pivoting movement of the valve closure (4 and Para. 99 which discloses the valve as being an angular valve where sensing the distance between the position sensor and the calibration surface is an inherent function of an angular sensor).
Regarding Claim 2, Böhm discloses the coupling couples the valve closure to the drive unit (7) and the calibration surface (9’) is provided on the coupling or the valve closure (4, as seen in Fig. 4b).
Regarding Claim 4, Böhm discloses the coupling is provided as a pivot element designed to rotate about a pivot axis (Para. 79).
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) 5–15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Böhm et al. (US PGPub 20200182375 A1) in view of Carter et al. (EP 2700857 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Böhm discloses the pendulum valve (1) having a control and processing unit (7) with a control functionality of the pendulum valve (1) but does not disclose a calibration functionality.
Carter teaches a control and processing unit (185) with a control functionality (610) and a calibration functionality (615) in order to self–calibrate in order to decrease cost, downtime of a system when calibration of the valve is required and potential efficiency issues (Paras. 19–21 disclose deficiencies and solution).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Böhm with a calibration functionality as taught by Carter in order to improve the functionality of Böhm’s valve.
Per the Böhm–Carter combination, Carter’s calibration methods are included in Böhm’s monitoring and control unit (Böhm Para. 35 discusses the presence of this apparatus) and calibrates Böhm’s sensor 10’. Thus, Carter’s calibration functionality is associated with Böhm’s sensed conditions e.g. the distance between the calibration surface and the position sensor.
The Böhm–Carter combination teaches the control functionality (Böhm Para. 35) is adapted to control the pivoting movement of the valve closure (Böhm Para. 4) and the calibration functionality (Carter 615) is configured in such a way that when it is executed, the distance between the calibration surface (Böhm 9’) and the position sensor (Böhm 10’ and Para. 99) is determined as the calibration value (Carter Para. 5, where the calibration value is the current fixed position of the valve), and the calibration value is compared with a reference value (Carter Para. 5, where the reference value are the first and second estimated values) and corresponding calibration information is generated (Carter Para. 5).
Regarding Claim 6, the Böhm–Carter combination teaches the reference value is provided as a reference distance between the calibration surface (Böhm 9’) and the position sensor (Böhm 10’), as noted in the claim 5 rejection.
Regarding Claim 7, the Böhm–Carter combination teaches the reference distance provides a distance between the calibration surface (Böhm 9’) and the position sensor (Böhm 20) in a target closing position (Carter 1310) of the valve closure (Böhm 4), wherein in the target closing position a projection of the first sealing surface (Böhm 3) and a projection of the second sealing surface (Böhm 6) onto a plane parallel to the first sealing surface are at least partially superimposed (Böhm Para. 85).
Regarding Claim 8, the Böhm–Carter combination teaches the first sealing surface (Böhm 3) and the second sealing surface (Böhm 6) are arranged concentrically in the target closing position (where this inherent when a pendulum valve is in the closed position).
Regarding Claim 9, the Böhm–Carter combination teaches the reference value provides an angular position (Böhm Para. 99)about the pivot axis (Böhm R) for the valve closure (Böhm 4).
Regarding Claim 10, the Böhm–Carter combination teaches the calibration value is determined in the closing position (Carter Para. 5, where the second position is the calibration value) of the valve closure (Böhm 1).
Regarding Claim 11, the Böhm–Carter combination teaches the control functionally (Carter 610) is adapted as a function of the calibration information as part of the calibration (Carter 615 and Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 12, the Böhm–Carter combination teaches the calibration information indicates a deviation of the calibration value from the reference value (Carter Para. 29, PPP), and the control functionality (Carter 104) is adapted in such a way that when the valve closure (Böhm 4) is pivoted into the closing position (Böhm G), the closing position thus achieved corresponds to the target closing position (Carter Para. 31).
Regarding Claim 13, the Böhm–Carter combination teaches a current position of the valve closure (Böhm 4) relative to the seat can be determined on basis of the determined distance between the position sensor (Böhm 10’) and the calibration surface (Böhm 9’ and Para. 98).
Regarding Claim 14, the Böhm–Carter combination teaches a method for calibrating a pendulum valve (Böhm 1) according to claim 1,comprising: determining a distance between the calibration surface (Böhm 9’) and the position sensor (Böhm 10’) as a calibration value (Carter 619) comparing the calibration value with a reference value (Böhm Para. 98 discusses the reference point), wherein the reference value (Böhm Para. 98 discusses the reference point) provides a reference distance between the calibration surface (Böhm 9’) and the position sensor (Böhm 10’) providing calibration information indicating a deviation of the calibration value (Carter 619) from the reference value (Böhm Para. 98 discusses the reference point) and adapting a control (Carter 610) of the pivoting movement of the valve closure (Böhm 4) based on the calibration information in such a way that when the valve closure (Böhm 4) is pivoted into closing position, the closing position thus achieved corresponds to a target closing position (Carter 1310).
Regarding Claim 15, the structural limitation of the apparatus described in the method is recited in Claim(s) 5. Accordingly, the method steps recited in claim 15 are necessarily those performed when making and/or using the device of the Böhm–Carter combination with the exception of “a computer program product comprising program code which is stored on a control and processing unit of a pendulum valve according claim 5
The Böhm–Carter combination teaches a computer program product (Carter Para. 53) comprising program code which is stored on a control and processing unit (Carter Para. 185) of a pendulum valve (Böhm 1) according claim 5, for carrying out or controlling a method.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter are the claim limitation: “a stop connected to the coupling or formed with the coupling.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Latzer et al. (USPN 6902145 B2) discloses a pendulum.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Angelisa L. Hicks whose telephone number is 571-272-9552 and email is Angelisa.Hicks@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:30AM-5:00PM 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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 or 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.
/Angelisa L. Hicks/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3753