DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-19 are pending.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 601 (Fig. 6).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, last line, “or combination” should be changed to --or a combination--.
In claim 10, line 4, “a first member” should be changed to --the first member-- to refer to the structure of the same name in claim 1 as an antecedent basis.
In claim 10, line 5, “a second member” should be changed to --the second member-- to refer to the structure of the same name in claim 1 as an antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-6, 11-14, and 18 are rejected (wherein claims 14 and 18 inherit their rejections due to their dependencies) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claims 3 and 11, it is unclear how the screw 202/602 comprises the ferromagnetic portion 203, which is a separate from the screw 202/602, and it is unclear how the ferromagnetic portion 203 is connected to the connecting member 204. As understood, the recitation of the screw comprising the ferromagnetic portion refers to the screw 202/602 having the ferromagnetic portion 203 on it, and the connection to the connecting member 204 refers to the first member/screw 202/602 being connected/abutting the connecting member/pin 204.
In claim 4, it is unclear what constitutes a screw being cylindrical in view of the applicant’s disclosure, wherein the only disclosure of a cylindrical structure is the head/ferromagnetic portion 203 on pg. 5 of the specification. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the recitation is interpreted as referring to the general cylindrical shape of a screw/threaded bolt or the cylindrical head/ferromagnetic portion 203 in most of the embodiments shown in the drawings.
In claim 5, it is unclear what constitutes a screw being at least partly tapered in view of the applicant’s disclosure, wherein the only disclosure of a tapered structure is the head/ferromagnetic portion 203 on pg. 5 of the specification. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the recitation is interpreted as referring to the partly tapered shape of a screw/threaded bolt or the partly tapered head/ferromagnetic portion 203 of the embodiment shown in Fig. 3b.
The term “about 120%” in claims 6 and 12-13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about 120%” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, it is unclear what range of angles is incorporated by the term “about 120%.”
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.
Claims 1 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hansen, III et al. (US 6,460,567).
Regarding claim 1, Hansen discloses Fig. 8, a system for measuring a position of a throttle 630, comprising:
a throttle 630 arranged to adjust a flow of a gas (because the recitation of the handled fluid being “gas” isn’t seen as defining over the structure of the prior art, and see MPEP 2115);
a stepper motor (comprising rotor 641, wherein the disclosure of the motor providing “individual increments of motion” of the valve, such as in col. 10, lines 41-44, is seen as reading on a step function, so the motor is seen as a stepper motor) connected to the throttle 630 by a connecting member 643, the stepper motor being arranged to move the connecting member 643 and the throttle 630;
a first member 622 arranged to be movable together with connecting member 643; and
a second member 649 arranged such that movement of the first member 622 relative to the second member 649 changes an electrical parameter representative of the position of the throttle 630, movement of the throttle 630, or combination thereof.
Regarding claim 2, Hansen discloses in Fig. 8 that the connecting member 643 is a shaft 643 connecting the stepper motor to the throttle 630.
Regarding claim 7, Hansen discloses in Fig. 8 that the second member 649 comprises at least one coil (inherently because the second member 649 is a LVDT sensor).
Regarding claim 8, Hansen discloses in Fig. 8 that the second member 649 comprises two coils (inherently because the second member 649 is a LVDT sensor).
Regarding claim 9, Hansen discloses in Fig. 8 that the first member 622 is arranged to move within the second member 649 such that a voltage induced by the movement of the first member 622 relative to the second member 649 (inherently because the second member is a LVDT sensor) is representative of the movement of the throttle 630.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-17, and 19 (alternatively: 1 and 7-9; as understood: 3-4, 6, and 11-14) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honeywell (EP 3032173) in view of Hansen.
Regarding claim 1, Honeywell discloses Figs. 1-12, a system for measuring a position of a throttle 27, comprising:
a throttle 27 arranged to adjust a flow of a gas (abstract);
a stepper motor 34 connected to the throttle 27 by a connecting member 28, the stepper motor 34 being arranged to move the connecting member 28 and the throttle 27;
a first member 30 arranged to be movable together with connecting member 28; and.
Honeywell lacks a second member arranged such that movement of the first member relative to the second member changes an electrical parameter representative of the position of the throttle, movement of the throttle, or combination thereof
Hansen teaches in Fig. 8 a second member 649 arranged such that movement of the first member 643, 622, 621 relative to the second member 649 changes an electrical parameter representative of the position of the throttle 630, movement of the throttle 630, or combination thereof.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Honeywell to include a magnet on the first member and to include a second member on the housing that senses the position of the first member to produce a representative electrical parameter, which is used for feedback control of the motor, as Hansen teaches (col. 14, lines 28-30), and which can also be used to provide information to the user regarding the valve’s position/status.
Regarding claim 2, Honeywell discloses in Figs. 1-12 that the connecting member 28 is a shaft 28 connecting the stepper motor 34 to the throttle 27.
Regarding claim 3, Honeywell discloses in Figs. 1-12 that the first member 30 is a screw 30 and Hansen teaches in Fig. 8 that the first member 643, 622, 621 is a screw 643, 622, 621 comprising a ferromagnetic portion 621 (like the applicant’s first member comprises a screw 202/602 separate from a ferromagnetic portion 203 on the screw 202/602). In modifying Honeywell in view of Hansen to include the ferromagnetic portion on the screw 30 disclosed by Honeywell, the ferromagnetic portion 621 taught by Hansen would be connected to the connecting member 28 disclosed by Honeywell, in the same manner that the applicant’s ferromagnetic portion 203 is connected to the connecting member 204 even though they aren’t directly connected/abutting.
Regarding claim 4, Honeywell discloses in Figs. 1-12 that the screw 34 is cylindrical (at least as much as the applicant’s screw 202/602, which comprises threads and portions with different diameters). Hansen also teaches in Fig. 8 that the screw 643 is cylindrical (as much as the applicant’s screw 202/602).
Regarding claim 6, Hansen discloses in Fig. 8 that the length of the ferromagnetic portion 621 is about 120% of a length of stroke of the throttle 630 (because ethe ferromagnetic portion 121 is shown to be longer than the stroke of the throttle 630, as defined by the limiting pin and housing shoulder analogous to the limiting pin 36 and housing shoulder 26a in Fig. 1, and because “about 120%” is broad and subjective).
Regarding claim 7, Hansen teaches in Fig. 8 that the second member 649 comprises at least one coil (inherently because the second member 649 is a LVDT sensor).
Regarding claim 8, Hansen teaches in Fig. 8 that the second member 649 comprises two coils (inherently because the second member 649 is a LVDT sensor).
Regarding claim 9, Hansen teaches in Fig. 8 that the first member 643, 622, 621 is arranged to move within the second member 649 such that a voltage induced by the movement of the first member 643, 622, 621 relative to the second member 649 (inherently because the second member is a LVDT sensor) is representative of the movement of the throttle 630.
Regarding claim 10, Honeywell in view of Hansen, as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, teach a method of measuring a position of a throttle in a gas appliance, the gas appliance comprising the system of claim 1, the method comprising:
moving, by the stepper motor (34 in Honeywell), the throttle (27 in Honeywell),
wherein, in response to moving the throttle, a first member (comprising the screw 30 in Honeywell modified in view of the structures 643, 622, 621 in Hansen) moves relative to a second member (649 in Hansen);
registering, by a controller (as Hansen discloses in col. 14, line 62 – col. 15, line 17), a change in an electrical parameter caused by the relative movement of the first member and the second member; and
determining, based on the change in the electrical parameter, the change in position of the throttle.
Regarding claim 11, Honeywell discloses in Figs. 1-12 that the first member 30 is a screw 30 and Hansen teaches in Fig. 8 that the first member 643, 622, 621 is a screw 643, 622, 621 comprising a ferromagnetic portion 621 (like the applicant’s first member comprises a screw 202/602 separate from a ferromagnetic portion 203 on the screw 202/602). In modifying Honeywell in view of Hansen to include the ferromagnetic portion on the screw 30 disclosed by Honeywell, the ferromagnetic portion 621 taught by Hansen would be connected to the connecting member 28 disclosed by Honeywell, in the same manner that the applicant’s ferromagnetic portion 203 is connected to the connecting member 204 even though they aren’t directly connected/abutting.
Regarding claims 12-13, Hansen discloses in Fig. 8 that the length of the ferromagnetic portion 621 is about 120% of a length of stroke of the throttle 630 (because ethe ferromagnetic portion 121 is shown to be longer than the stroke of the throttle 630, as defined by the limiting pin and housing shoulder analogous to the limiting pin 36 and housing shoulder 26a in Fig. 1, and because “about 120%” is broad and subjective).
Regarding claim 14, Hansen teaches in Fig. 8 that the second member 649 comprises at least one coil (inherently because the second member 649 is a LVDT sensor).
Regarding claim 15, Hansen teaches in Fig. 8 that the second member 649 comprises two coils (inherently because the second member 649 is a LVDT sensor).
Regarding claims 16-17 and 19, Hansen teaches in Fig. 8 that the first member 643, 622, 621 is arranged to move within the second member 649 such that a voltage induced by the movement of the first member 643, 622, 621 relative to the second member 649 is representative of the movement of the throttle 630.
Claims 5 and 18 (as understood: both) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honeywell and Hansen as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Douberville et al. (US 2010/0012192).
Regarding claim 5, Honeywell discloses the screw, as previously discussed, but Honeywell and Hansen lack teaching that the screw is at least partly tapered.
Douberville teaches in Figs. 1-2 that the screw 36 is at least partly tapered (on the threaded end that threads onto platen 46, as shown in the drawings).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system in the combination of Honeywell and Hansen to include a tapered end of the screw that threads onto a platen to transmit force from the screw to the connecting member/pin 28 because the platen provides a suitable and separate structure for handling compressive loads in transmitting forces, and can be used as a limit stop, as Douberville teaches (paragraph 39).
Regarding claim 18, Hansen teaches in Fig. 8 that the first member 643, 622, 621 is arranged to move within the second member 649 such that a voltage induced by the movement of the first member 643, 622, 621 relative to the second member 649 is representative of the movement of the throttle 630.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Jonathan Waddy, whose telephone number is 571-270-3146. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (10:00AM-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 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.
/J. W./
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights