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
The restriction dated 05/05/2025 is improper and has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: After “current” in line 24, add “AC”. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12012978 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim language from claim 2 is indistinguishable from the claim language found within claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12012978 B2.
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, 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grawunde (USPN 5520217).
PNG
media_image1.png
867
1237
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 - Grawunde Annotated Fig. 4
Regarding Claim 1, Grawunde discloses a hydraulic cartridge valve comprising: a valve body (Grawunde Annotated Fig. 4) defining an internal valve cavity (Grawunde Annotated Fig. 4); a movable member (32’) axially movable over a range of travel with respect to the valve body (Grawunde Annotated Fig. 4), the movable member (32’) at least partially disposed within the internal valve cavity (Grawunde Annotated Fig. 4) over the range of travel; a position monitoring mechanism (350) arranged with the movable member (32’) and configured to detect a position of the movable member (32’) over the range of travel and to transmit a position signal indicative of the position of the movable member detected by the position monitoring mechanism (Col. 11, Lines 16–41).
Regarding Claim 8, Grawunde discloses the position monitoring mechanism comprises a linear variable differential transformer (LVDT). Col. 11, Lines 16–17.
Regarding Claim 13, Grawunde discloses a hydraulic control system comprising: a controller (Col. 2, Line 30 and Col. 11, Lines 16–41, where it is inherent that an electrical valve capable of completing the tasks set within the referenced columns is done through the use of a controller); a hydraulic cartridge valve (Fig. 4) in operable arrangement with the controller, the hydraulic cartridge valve including: a valve body defining an internal valve cavity (Grawunde Annotated Fig. 4), a movable member (32’) axially movable over a range of travel with respect to the valve body (Grawunde Annotated Fig. 4), the movable member (32’) at least partially disposed within the internal valve cavity over the range of travel (Grawunde Annotated Fig. 4), an actuator (318) arranged with the movable member and configured to selectively move the movable member (Grawunde Annotated Fig. 4) over the range of travel (Col. 11, Lines 1–15), and a position monitoring mechanism (Col. 11, Lines 16–17) arranged with the movable member (32’) and configured to detect a position of the movable member over the range of travel and to transmit to the controller a position signal indicative of the position of the movable member detected by the position monitoring mechanism (Col. 11, Lines 16–41); and wherein the controller (Col. 2, Line 30 and Col. 11, Lines 16–41, where it is inherent that an electrical valve capable of completing the tasks set within the referenced columns is done through the use of a controller) is configured to control the actuator (318) to adjust the position of the movable member (31’) in response to the position signal received from the position monitoring mechanism (Col. 11, Lines 16–17), as discussed in Col. 11, Lines 15–41.
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grawunde (USPN 5520217) in view of Hirai et al. (US PGPub 20170371478 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Grawunde discloses the position monitoring mechanism (Col. 11, Lines 16–17) but does not disclose the position monitoring mechanism configured to convert the position of the movable member relative to a reference position into a proportional electrical signal containing phase and amplitude information.
Hirai teaches the position monitoring mechanism (20) configured to convert the position of the movable member relative to a reference position into a proportional electrical signal containing phase and amplitude information in order to detect the location as well as have the capacity to calibrate, increasing the efficiency of the valve (Paras. 9 and 101).
It would have been obvious before the time of filing to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the valve of Grawunde with a capability to convert the position of the movable member relative to a reference position into a proportional electrical signal containing phase and amplitude information as taught by Hirai in order to detect the location as well as have the capacity to calibrate, increasing the efficiency of the valve.
Claim(s) 9–12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grawunde (USPN 5520217) in view of Code (USPN 9395511 B1).
Regarding Claim 9, Grawunde discloses the valve body includes a pressure vessel (Grawunde Annotated Fig. 4), and wherein the LVDT includes the pressure vessel (Grawunde Annotated Fig. 4), an LVDT coil (350), and a magnetic target (320), the LVDT coil (350) being mounted to an external surface of the pressure vessel (Grawunde Annotated Fig. 4), and the magnetic target (320) being disposed within the pressure vessel (Grawunde Annotated Fig. 4) and being coupled to the movable member (32’) such that movement of the movable member (32’) correspondingly moves the magnetic target (320). Col. 11, Lines 16–25. Grawunde does not disclose the pressure vessel as being nonmagnetic.
Code teaches a nonmagnetic pressure vessel (22) in order to prevent interference with the LVDT.
It would have been obvious before the time of filing to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the pressure vessel of Grawunde with a nonmagnetic material as taught by Code in order to prevent signal interference of the LVDT which would result in inaccurate position information.
Regarding Claim 10, the Grawunde–Code combination teaches the LVDT coil (Grawunde 350) includes a primary excitation coil (Grawunde 352), a first secondary sense coil (Grawunde 354), and a second secondary sense coil (Grawunde 356), the primary excitation coil (Grawunde 352) being axially centered between the first (Grawunde 354) and second secondary sense coils (Grawunde 356), as seen in Grawunde Fig. 4, the LVDT coil (Grawunde 350) being configured to indicate a direction of movement of the magnetic target via a flux differential between the first (Grawunde 354) and second secondary (Grawunde 356) sense coils and the induced voltage therein caused by the movement of the magnetic target relative to the LVDT coil (Grawunde 350), as discloses in Grawunde Col. 11, Lines 16–41.
Regarding Claim 11, the Grawunde–Code combination teaches the position monitoring mechanism (Grawunde Col. 11, Lines 16–17) is configured to convert the position of the movable member relative to a reference position into a proportional electrical signal containing phase and amplitude information (Grawunde Col. 11, Lines 16–41).
Regarding Claim 12, the Grawunde–Code combination teaches the LVDT (Grawunde 350) is mounted to the nonmagnetic pressure vessel (Grawunde Annotated Fig. 4 and Code Col. 2, Lines 12–14 where the material of the tube/pressure vessel is a nonmagnetic material) such that the primary excitation coil (Grawunde 352) is axially aligned with an axial center of the magnetic target (Grawunde 320) when the spool (Grawunde 32’) is in a normal position with the actuator de-energized.
Claim(s) 14–15 and 19–21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grawunde (USPN 5520217) in view of Hammett (USPN 4628499).
Regarding Claim 14, Grawunde does not explicitly disclose a position signal processor.
Hammett explicitly teaches a position signal processor (40) in order to monitor and control the valve (Col. 2, Lines 54–57).
It would have been obvious before the time of filing to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the control system of Grawunde with a position signal processor as taught by Hammett in order to control the valve based upon the signals generated by the LVDT.
Per the Grawunde–Hammett combination, the control method as described in Grawunde column 11, lines 16–41 are achieved through the use of Hammett’s position signal processor.
The Grawunde–Hammett combination teaches the position signal processor (Hammett 40) in operable arrangement with the position monitoring mechanism (Grawunde Col. 11, Lines 16–17) of the hydraulic cartridge valve (Grawunde Annotated Fig. 4) and the controller, the position signal processor (Hammett 40) being configured to interact with the position monitoring mechanism (Grawunde Col. 11, Lines 16–17) to power the position monitoring mechanism to produce the position signal (Grawunde Col. 11, Lines 16–41), and the position signal processor (Hammett 40) being configured to relay the position signal from the position monitoring mechanism (Grawunde Col. 11, Lines 16–17) to the controller.
Regarding Claim 15, the Grawunde–Hammett combination teaches the position monitoring mechanism is configured to transmit a first position signal (Grawunde Col. 11, Lines 16–17), the first position signal being a first type (Grawunde Col. 11, Lines 21–41, where the first signal is generated when there is an electrical interaction between coil 352 and 354), and wherein the position signal processor (Hammett 40) is configured to convert the first position signal received from the position monitoring mechanism (Grawunde Col. 11, Lines 16–17) to a second position signal, the second position signal being a second type (Grawunde Col. 11, Lines 21–41, where the second signal is generated when there is an electrical interaction between coil 352 and 356), the second type of position signal being different from the first type of position signal (Grawunde Col. 11, Lines 16–41, where the first and second signals are different because they each represent a different position), and wherein the controller is configured to selectively operate the actuator (Grawunde 318) of the hydraulic cartridge valve (Grawunde Annotated Fig. 4) in response to the second position signal received from the position signal processor to move the movable member axially to the desired set point (where the desired set point is any location within the hydraulic cartridge valve’s range of movement).
Regarding Claim 19, the structural limitation of the apparatus described in the method is recited in Claim(s) 13–15. Accordingly, the method steps recited in claim 19 are necessarily those performed when making and/or using the device of the Grawunde–Hammett–Code combination.
Regarding Claim 20, the structural limitation of the apparatus described in the method is recited in Claim(s) 9. Accordingly, the method steps recited in claim 20 are necessarily those performed when making and/or using the device of the Grawunde–Hammett–Code combination.
Regarding Claim 21, the structural limitation of the apparatus described in the method is recited in Claim(s) 10. Accordingly, the method steps recited in claim 21 are necessarily those performed when making and/or using the device of the Grawunde–Hammett–Code combination.
Claim(s) 16–18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grawunde (USPN 5520217 ) in view of Hammett (USPN 4628499), in further view of Code (USPN 9395511 B1).
Regarding Claim 16, the Grawunde–Hammett combination teaches the valve body (Grawunde Annotated Fig. 4) includes a pressure vessel (Grawunde Annotated Fig. 4) but does not teach the pressure vessel as being nonmagnetic.
Code teaches a nonmagnetic pressure vessel (22) in order to prevent interference with the LVDT.
It would have been obvious before the time of filing to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the pressure vessel of Grawunde with a nonmagnetic material as taught by Code in order to prevent signal interference of the LVDT which would result in inaccurate position information.
The Grawunde–Hammett–Code combination teaches the position monitoring mechanism comprises a linear variable differential transformer (LVDT) Grawunde, Col. 11, Lines 16–17, and wherein the LVDT includes the nonmagnetic pressure vessel (Grawunde Annotated Fig. 4), an LVDT coil (Grawunde 350), and a magnetic target (Grawunde 320), the LVDT coil (Grawunde 350) being mounted to an external surface of the nonmagnetic pressure vessel (Grawunde Annotated Fig. 4), and the magnetic target (Grawunde 320) being disposed within the nonmagnetic pressure vessel (Grawunde Annotated Fig. 4) and being coupled to the movable member (Grawunde 32’) such that movement of the movable member (Grawunde 32’) correspondingly moves the magnetic target (Grawunde 320), Grawunde Col. 11, Lines 16–25 and wherein the position signal processor (Hammett 40) is in operable arrangement with the LVDT coil (Grawunde 350) to apply an electrical current to the LVDT coil (Grawunde 350).
Regarding Claim 17, the Grawunde–Hammett–Code combination teaches the LVDT coil includes a primary excitation coil (Grawunde 352), a first secondary sense coil (Grawunde 354), and a second secondary sense coil (Grawunde 356), the primary excitation coil (Grawunde 352) being axially centered between the first (Grawunde 354) and second secondary (Grawunde 356) sense coils (Grawunde Fig. 4), the LVDT coil (Grawunde 350) being configured to indicate a direction of movement of the magnetic target via a flux differential between the first (Grawunde 354) and second secondary (Grawunde 356) sense coils and the induced voltage therein caused by the movement of the magnetic target relative to the LVDT coil (Grawunde 350), as discloses in Grawunde Col. 11, Lines 16–41, wherein the position signal processor (Hammett 40) is configured to energize the primary excitation coil (Grawunde 352) via an alternating current (Hammett Col. 5, Lines 35–36), and wherein the position signal that the LVDT is configured to provide comprises a differential AC voltage between the first (Grawunde 354) and second (Grawunde 356) secondary sense coils (Grawunde Col. 11, Lines 16–41, where the voltage discussed is AC voltage), the differential AC voltage varying with the axial position of the magnetic target (Grawunde 320) with respect to the LVDT coil (Grawunde 350).
Regarding Claim 18, the Grawunde–Hammett–Code combination teaches the position signal processor (Hammett 40) includes an oscillator (Hammett 20) and a demodulator (Hammett 22), the oscillator (Hammett 20) being configured to provide the alternating current (Hammett Fig. 3 ) for energizing the primary excitation coil (Grawunde 352) of the LVDT coil (Grawunde 350), and the demodulator (Hammett 22) being configured to convert the position signal from the LVDT coil (Grawunde 350) to a DC voltage proportional to displacement of the magnetic target (Grawunde 320), Hammett Fig. 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3–6 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP 2017133989 A discloses an LDVT sensor.
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