331Notice 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 action is in response to initial filing dated 9/25/2024. Claims 1-8 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 9/25/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
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, 4, 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fletcher (US 2833511).
Regarding claim 1, the Fletcher reference discloses an actuator for a rotary valve (1), comprising:
a lever arm (13) coupled to a shaft (5) of the valve at a first location (see “first location” in the annotated figure 1 below), the shaft being rotatable between a valve closed position and a valve opened position, the lever arm extending from the first location to a second location (see “second location” in the annotated figure 1 below) spaced apart and radially outward, relative to the shaft, from the first location; and
a linear actuator (15) pivotably coupled to the lever arm at the second location and configured to impart force on the lever arm to cause rotation of the shaft in response to extension, retraction, or both extension and retraction of the linear actuator, the linear actuator extending, in a direction generally perpendicular to the shaft (see figure 2), from the second location to a third location (see “third location” in the annotated figure 1 below) and the linear actuator pivotably anchored to a base or housing (see “base” in the annotated figure 1 below) at the third location, the base or housing being immobile with respect to the rotary valve.
PNG
media_image1.png
1053
807
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 4, the Fletcher reference discloses wherein the linear actuator (15) is operable to travel within a limited range between a fully retracted position and a fully extended position, such that the valve is in the opened position when said linear actuator is at a first position between the fully retracted position and the fully extended position (it is considered that the valve 1 opens as the linear actuator begins to extend from the fully retracted position to permit a fluid flow are the valve member of the valve).
In regards to claim 5, the Fletcher reference discloses wherein a length, shape, or both length and shape of the lever arm is configured to provide a predetermined performance for the actuator, the performance including one or more of: actuator size, torque performance, speed performance, and positioning precision performance.
It is considered that the lever arm provides a desired length for connection of the shaft to the linear actuator to provide a desired operation for the actuator of the rotary valve.
In regards to claim 7, the Fletcher reference discloses a pivoting actuator bracket (it is considered that the pin and bracket supporting the linear actuator 15 at the “third location” constitutes a pivoting actuator bracket) holding the linear actuator and being pivotably anchored to the base or housing, the linear actuator being pivotably anchored to the base or housing via the pivoting actuator bracket (the linear actuator 15 is able to pivot relative to the base as depicted in figure 1 and figure 5).
Claim(s) 1 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Breth (US 5542643).
Regarding claim 1, the Breth reference discloses an actuator for a rotary valve (see figure 1), comprising:
a lever arm (considered the combination of elements 6 and 8) coupled to a shaft (considered the stem of the valve 7) of the valve at a first location (see “first location” in the annotated figure 1 below), the shaft being rotatable between a valve closed position and a valve opened position, the lever arm extending from the first location to a second location (see “second location” in the annotated figure 1 below) spaced apart and radially outward, relative to the shaft, from the first location; and
a linear actuator (1) pivotably coupled to the lever arm at the second location and configured to impart force on the lever arm to cause rotation of the shaft in response to extension, retraction, or both extension and retraction of the linear actuator, the linear actuator extending, in a direction generally perpendicular to the shaft (see figure 3), from the second location to a third location (see “third location” in the annotated figure 1 below) and the linear actuator pivotably anchored to a base or housing (it is considered that the combination of element 12 and element 10 constitutes a housing or base) at the third location, the base or housing being immobile with respect to the rotary valve.
PNG
media_image2.png
494
1166
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 4, the Breth reference discloses wherein the linear actuator (1) is operable to travel within a limited range between a fully retracted position and a fully extended position, such that the valve is in the opened position when said linear actuator is at a first position between the fully retracted position and the fully extended position (it is considered that the valve 7 opens as the linear actuator begins to extend from the fully retracted position to permit a fluid flow are the valve member of the valve; see also col. 3, lines 38-47).
In regards to claim 5, the Breth reference discloses wherein a length, shape, or both length and shape of the lever arm is configured to provide a predetermined performance for the actuator, the performance including one or more of: actuator size, torque performance, speed performance, and positioning precision performance.
It is considered that the lever arm provides a desired length for connection of the shaft to the linear actuator to provide a desired operation for the actuator of the rotary valve.
In regards to claim 6, the Breth reference discloses wherein the lever arm is adjustable in length, shape or both length and shape or replaceable with another lever arm of different length, shape, or both length and shape, in order to adjust performance for the actuator.
It is considered that the lever arm (considered the combination of elements 6 and 8) is adjustable at the slot (24) to adjust the connection between the linear actuator (1) and the lever arm in order to effectively fine tune the assembly so that the maximum thrust of the piston does not push the handle (8) fully to the ball (see col. 3, lines 38-51).
In regards to claim 7, the Breth reference discloses a pivoting actuator bracket (see “pivoting bracket” in the annotated figure 1 above) holding the linear actuator and being pivotably anchored to the base or housing, the linear actuator being pivotably anchored to the base or housing via the pivoting actuator bracket (the linear actuator 1 is able to pivot relative to the base at the pin 16 as depicted in figure 1 and figure 2).
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.
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 non-obviousness.
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breth (US 5542643) in view of Abram et al. (US 2007/0006829).
In regards to claim 8, the Breth reference does not expressly disclose a lever arm stop which is stationary relative to the base or housing, and which is configured to engage and halt the lever arm when the lever arm reaches a predetermined position effecting the valve closed position or the valve opened position.
However, the Abram et al. reference teaches a valve assembly having a lever arm (26) that is secured to a shaft (18) of a valve (14) wherein a linear actuator (28) is connected to the lever arm (26) and wherein a base includes a lever arm stop (36) in order to provide a travel stop for the rotation of the lever arm (see at least paragraphs [0019]-[0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the base of the Breth reference with a lever arm stop as taught by the Abram et al. reference in order to limit the range of motion of the lever arm and limit the rotation of the shaft to provide limitations on the opening / closing of the valve.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 3 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to claim 2, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest “wherein the one or more linear actuators include a first linear actuator coupled to a first portion of a lever arm actuator shaft, the portion extending upward from the lever arm and a second linear actuator coupled to a second portion of the lever arm actuator shaft, the second portion extending downward from the lever arm” and in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Claim 3 depends from claim 2, and, therefore, claim 3 is allowable for containing the indicated allowable subject matter of claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schifrin et al. (US 11946566), Pye et al. (US 5579801), Kalavitis (US 5241989), Carpentier (US 4945949), Henninger (US 4671310), Muchow (US 4180238), Armstrong (US 3813015), Willis (US 3317179) and Hughes (US 2015/0076381) disclose various actuators for valve assemblies including a lever arm coupled to a shaft and a linear actuator coupled to the lever arm.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew J. Rost whose telephone number is (571) 272-2711. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00 am to 5:30 pm EST.
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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/ANDREW J ROST/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753