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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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) 1-7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Applicant’s cited Rhoads (US 20140230919).
Regarding claim 1, Rhoads (Figs 1-6) discloses “A bi-directional gas flow control valve comprising:
a housing (60) defining an internal cavity (interior), a gas inlet (152), a first gas outlet (160) associated with a first flow path (168), and a second gas outlet (164) associated with a second flow path (172);
a damper blade (176) pivotably supported in the internal cavity of the housing by a blade shaft (80);
the damper blade pivotably movable (FIG 3, 5-6) between a first operating position (FIG 5a) to direct a process gas stream from the gas inlet to the first gas outlet, and a second operating position (counterclockwise from FIG 5) to direct the process gas stream from the gas inlet to the second gas outlet;
a plurality of seat plates (88, 92, 96, 100, 76’s) coupled to the housing in the internal cavity (FIG 5), the seat plates arranged to form a seal around a periphery of the damper blade when in both the first and second operating positions (see FIGs 5a-6); and
an actuator (208, FIG 2) operably coupled to the damper blade in the internal cavity by an operating rod (212), the actuator operable to move the damper blade between the first and second operating positions (para 29).”
Regarding claim 2, Rhoads (Figs 1-6) discloses “wherein the operating rod has a proximate (left) end coupled to the actuator and a distal (right) end coupled to the damper blade (via 220).”
Regarding claim 3, Rhoads (Figs 1-6) discloses “wherein the operating rod is coupled to the damper blade at a position off-center from the blade shaft which supports the damper blade (via 220).”
Regarding claim 4, Rhoads (Figs 1-6) discloses “wherein the operating rod is coupled to the damper blade by a coupling link (220) defining two pivot points (at left and right ends).”
Regarding claim 5, Rhoads (Figs 1-6) discloses “wherein a first (left) one of the pivot points is formed between a distal end of the operating rod and the coupling link, and a second (right) one of the pivot points is formed between the coupling link and the damper blade.”
Regarding claim 6, Rhoads (Figs 1-6) discloses “wherein the coupling link (220) is coupled to one of a plurality of elongated blade bracing members (support vanes on 176a/b, located above and below the reference numbers in FIG 2 [also visible in FIG 5 view]; seen to be “elongated blade bracing members”; coupled with 220 via 176 in FIG 2) attached to the damper blade (attached integrally to).”
Regarding claim 7, Rhoads (Figs 1-6) discloses “wherein operating rod (212) is linearly movable when actuated by the actuator to alter the damper blade between the first and second operating positions (seen FIG 3; while range of motion is two-dimensional one of the directions is linear relative to the length of 212, are therefore the rod is “linearly movable”).”
Regarding claim 9, Rhoads (Figs 1-6) discloses “wherein the blade shaft is oriented transversely (vertically in FIG 2, relative to horizontal flow direction) to a direction of flow of gas through the valve.”
Regarding claim 10, Rhoads (Figs 1-6) discloses “wherein the damper blade (176) has a rectilinear configuration (see FIG 2) comprising a first major surface (left surface in FIG 5), a second major surface (right surface), a first end (top end in FIG 5), a second end (bottom end ), and a pair of lateral sides (176 a and b) extending between the first and second ends.”
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) 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhoads in view of applicant’s cited Balon Jr. et al (US 20110081277).
Regarding claim 23, Rhoads further discloses “wherein the first and second gas outlets are fluidly coupled to an internal space of a regenerative thermal oxidizer unit (FIG 1, paragraph 16)…”
Rhoads is silent regarding “comprising a lower ceramic media bed and an upper ceramic media bed operable to absorb and retain heat from the process gas stream when flowing therethrough.” Rhoads does not go into detail regarding the heat exchangers 18, 22.
However, Balon (FIG 3) teaches a thermal oxidizer with a switching valve (analogous to Rhoads), with heat exchangers in the form of upper and lower ceramic media beds 308, 316 configured to pass heat therethrough (paragraph 80).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to modify the heat exchanger array of the thermal oxidizer of Rhoads such that it includes “a lower ceramic media bed and an upper ceramic media bed operable to absorb and retain heat from the process gas stream when flowing therethrough”, as taught by Balon, as Rhoads clearly necessitates a type of heat exchanger layer and providing a known means to do so would be within routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 24 Balon (FIG 3) as applied to claim 23 further teaches “wherein the process gas stream flows through the lower and upper ceramic media beds in a first direct (clockwise, 316 to 308) when the damper blade (348) is in the first operating position (FIG 3 position), and the process gas stream flows through the lower and upper ceramic media beds in an opposite second direction (counterclockwise, 308 to 316) when the damper blade is in the second operating position (rotated 90 degrees from FIG 3, such that 350 opens to 344).”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 11-22 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:
Regarding claim 8, Rhoads is silent regarding “further comprising a pair of linear bearings coupled to the housing which movably support the operating rod.”
While these types of bearings are known in the art of push/pull actuators, it would not be obvious to modify Rhoads in this manner. Rhoads actuator moves in two dimensions (see FIG 3) so multiple linear bearings could render it inoperable.
Regarding claim 11, Rhoads is silent regarding “further comprising:
a first electromagnet disposed inside the internal cavity of the housing, the first electromagnet being operable to magnetically attract and retain the damper blade in the first position; and
a second lower electromagnet disposed inside the internal cavity of the housing proximate to the gas inlet, the second electromagnet being operable to attract and retain the damper blade in the second position.”
While electromagnetic stop/actuators are shown in Giles et al (US 20130247604) (FIG 6), these operate as the primary actuator, such that Giles does not anticipate claim 1.
Furthermore, combining Rhoads and Giles to teach this claim would require undue hindsight reasoning as it puts two mutually exclusive actuators, as disclosed in the prior art, together.
Claim 12-20 are allowable by virtue of its dependency on claim 11.
Regarding claim 21, Rhoads is silent regarding “further comprising a gas inlet duct coupled to the gas inlet of the housing which receives gas from a fan, the operating rod extending through the inlet duct into the internal cavity of the housing to the damper blade.”
It would not be obvious to modify Rhoads in this manner as it would require dramatic structural alteration.
Claim 22 is allowable by virtue of its dependency on claim 21.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Devices similar to the application are disclosed by Cash (US 20210172599), Scholt et al (US 20140053549), Weingarten (US 20040168726), and Schiel (US 4807665).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK C WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)431-0767. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 PM.
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, 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.
/PATRICK C WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights