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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is responsive to the claims filed 8/13/2025. Claims 1 – 20 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 8/13/2025 and 10/10/2025 are acknowledged by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 1, 6, 7, 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,976,742.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application requires “at least one valve blocking mechanism, wherein, in an open position, the at least one valve blocking mechanism substantially allows fluid flow, and wherein, in a closed position, the at least one valve blocking mechanism substantially prohibits fluid flow; at least one valve stem mechanically coupled with the at least one valve blocking mechanism, such that movement of the at least one valve stem causes the at least one valve blocking mechanism to change between the open position, the closed position, and one or more semi-open positions between the open position and the closed position; a valve housing sealingly enclosing the at least one valve blocking mechanism, and the at least one valve stem, wherein the valve housing includes at least one magnetic containment chamber surrounding the at least one valve stem; at least one electromagnet connected to an external surface of the at least one magnetic containment chamber; and a controller electrically connected to the at least one electromagnet; wherein the valve housing and the at least one magnetic containment chamber define a pressure vessel of the valve system; wherein activation of the at least one electromagnet by the controller causes the at least one valve stem to move, thereby causing the at least one valve blocking mechanism to change between the open position, the closed position, and the one or more semi- open positions; wherein the at least one electromagnet does not substantially rotate relative to the at least one magnetic containment chamber during activation of the at least one electromagnet; and wherein the controller is operable to receive commands through a wireless network”, the reference patent discloses “at least one valve blocking mechanism positioned within an oil or natural gas pipeline, wherein, in an open position, the at least one valve blocking mechanism substantially allows fluid flow through the oil or natural gas pipeline, and wherein, in a closed position, the at least one valve blocking mechanism substantially prohibits fluid through the oil or natural gas pipeline; at least one rotary shaft mechanically coupled with the at least one valve blocking mechanism, such that rotation of the at least one rotary shaft causes the at least one valve blocking mechanism to change between the open position, the closed position, and one or more semi-open positions between the open position and the closed position; a plurality of permanent magnets attached to at least one end of the at least one rotary shaft; wherein the plurality of permanent magnets includes at least one radially symmetric array; a valve housing sealingly enclosing the at least one valve blocking mechanism, the at least one rotary shaft, and the plurality of permanent magnets, wherein the valve housing includes at least one magnetic containment chamber surrounding the plurality of permanent magnets; wherein the plurality of permanent magnets are embedded in cavities formed between teeth of at least one gear within the at least one magnetic containment chamber, wherein the at least one gear surrounds and is in contact with the at least one rotary shaft; at least one electromagnet connected to an external surface of the at least one magnetic containment chamber; and a controller electrically connected to the at least one electromagnet; wherein the valve housing and the at least one magnetic containment chamber define a pressure vessel of the valve system; wherein the at least one electromagnet does not substantially rotate relative to the at least one magnetic containment chamber during actuation of the electromagnetically actuated valve system; wherein the controller alternates the at least one valve blocking mechanism between the open position, the closed position, and the one or more semi-open positions by activating the at least one electromagnet; and wherein the controller is operable to receive commands through a wireless network”.
Similarly claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 1, 6, 7, 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,976,742.
Similarly claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 6, 6, 7, 1, 14, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,392,419.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3, 12, and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claims 3, 12, and 19 are nonenabling because one having ordinary skill in the art could not make or use the invention from the disclosure coupled with information known in the art without undue experimentation. An analysis of the Wands factors reveals that the following factors weigh against enablement:
The amount of direction provided by inventor.
The existence of working examples.
The quantity of experimentation.
In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988); MPEP § 2164.01 (a). It is noted that the determination of undue experimentation is reached by weighing all the factors and that no single factor is dispositive (MPEP 2164.01 (a)).
Rising stem as understood by person having ordinary skill in the art would be a Gate valve. Applicant’s disclosure (Fig. 1 - 4, 6 -11) do not provide a person having ordinary skill in the art enough direction regarding the rising stem to make and use the claimed subject matter. For example, it is not clear from figures 1 – 4 and 6 – 11 how the override mechanism operates. The figures describe a ball valve or a quarter turn valve. Applicant does not provide sufficient direction as to how the rising stem valve with electromagnetic actuation operates nor are working examples provided. The amount of experimentation required by a person having ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed subject matter would be significant. Further, Applicant does not disclose “rising stem valve” with sufficient detail to enable a person having ordinary skill in the art to make or use the invention.
Upon the weight of all of these factors, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been enabled by the originally filed disclosure to make and/or use the claimed invention without undue experimentation and therefore claims 3, 12 and 19 are not enabled.
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.
Claims 1 – 2, 4, 6, 8, and 17 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication to Burgess et al. (2013/0140476) in view of US Patent to Idogaki et al. (4,561,629) and in further view of US Patent to Smith et al. (9,139,986) and WIPO Publication to Dehrmann et al. (2021/122547).
Regarding claim 1 and 17, Burgess et al. disclose a magnetically actuated valve system, comprising at least one valve (Fig. 22) blocking mechanism positioned within a pipe, wherein, in an open position, the at least one valve blocking mechanism substantially allows fluid flow through the pipe, and wherein, in a closed position, the at least one valve blocking mechanism substantially prohibits fluid through the pipe; at least one rotary shaft (6, shown in Fig. 12) mechanically coupled with the at least one valve blocking mechanism (53), such that rotation of the at least one rotary shaft causes the at least one valve blocking mechanism to change between the open position, the closed position, and one or more semi-open positions between the open position and the closed position (butterfly valves inherently have positions between open and closed); a plurality of permanent magnets (16) attached to at least one end of the at least one rotary shaft (coupled by planetary gears assemblies); wherein the plurality of permanent magnets (15) includes at least one radially symmetric array; a valve housing (1) sealingly enclosing the at least one valve blocking mechanism, the at least one rotary shaft, and the plurality of permanent magnets, wherein the valve housing includes at least one magnetic containment chamber (10) surrounding the plurality of permanent magnets.
Burgess et al. disclose outer magnets (14) to actuate the inner permanent magnets on the shaft. However, it is well known in the art to use electromagnets interchangeably with the permanent magnets as was evidenced by US Patent to Davis (10,151,403). Examiner notes the Davis reference is used as evidence for well-known method of using permanent magnets and electromagnets interchangeably.
Burgess does not disclose at least one electromagnet connected to an external surface of the at least one magnetic containment chamber; and a controller electrically connected to the at least one electromagnet; wherein the at least one electromagnet does not substantially rotate relative to the at least one magnetic containment chamber during actuation of the electromagnetically actuated valve system; wherein the controller alternates the at least one valve blocking mechanism between the open position, the closed position, and the one or more semi-open positions by activating the at least one electromagnet; and wherein the controller is operable to receive commands through a wireless network. Burgess et al. do not disclose the magnetic containment chamber is formed from at least one substantially non-ferromagnetic material or is formed from stainless steel, titanium, and/or a thermoplastic material.
Regarding an electromagnet to actuate the permanent magnets on the shaft, Idogaki et al. teach a solenoid actuator (2) to that does not substantially rotate used to actuate a magnetically coupled valve to position the vale various positions by alternating the signal. Further Idogaki et al. teach a controller (9) for controlling the electromagnets wherein the controller alternates the at least one valve blocking mechanism between the open position and the closed position by sequentially activating one or more of the plurality of electromagnets (Fig. 3 – 6).
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would adapt the non-rotating electromagnet as a replacement for the permanent magnets as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The valve disclosed by Burgess and modified by the electromagnet teaching of Idogaki et al. will function in the same manner as the primary reference.
Regarding the wireless actuation, it is well known in the art to actuate valves remotely. Smith et al. teach an electrically controlled valve that can be actuated remotely by a wireless signal. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would adapt the wireless signal receiver taught by Smith et al. to the valve disclosed by Burgess et al. to enable a user to control the valve remotely.
Regarding the magnetic containment chamber, Davis teaching a magnetically coupled valve teaches a housing to enclose the inner magnets using stainless steel with a low magnetic permeability to avoid shunting the magnetic flux thereby weakening the magnetic actuation mechanism.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would adapt the stainless steel enclosure taught by Davis to the valve disclosed by Burgess et al. to prevent shunting the magnetic flux and reducing the magnetic actuation force.
Regarding the electromagnets on the containment chamber, the WIPO document teaches electromagnets (210) mounted on the containment chamber (150) to actuate internal magnets (314).
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would the electromagnets on the external surface of the containment chamber teaching of the WIPO document to the valve disclosed by Burgess et al. as a means of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The valve disclosed by Burgess et al. and modified by the WIPO teaching will function as intended by the primary reference.
Regarding claims 2 and 18, Burgess et al. disclose a first end (end with permanent magnets) of the at least one rotary shaft is attached to a first gear (sun gear), wherein the first gear is enmeshed with a second gear (planet gear and carrier) attached to at least one secondary rotary shaft (6), and wherein the at least one secondary rotary shaft is attached to the at least one valve blocking mechanism (53).
Regarding claim 4, in the combination, Idogaki et al. teach the at least one electromagnet includes a plurality of electromagnets (Fig. 2), and wherein the controller alternates the at least one valve blocking mechanism between the open position and the closed position by sequentially activating one or more of the plurality of electromagnets (Fig. 3 – 6).
Regarding claim 6, Burgess et al. disclose the valve is used in an oil flow [para. 12].
Regarding claim 8, in the combination Idogaki et al. teach an outer magnetic housing (7) surrounds the at least one electromagnet.
Regarding claim 9, Burgess et al. disclose plurality of permanent magnets includes at least one magnetic array circumferentially surrounding a portion of the at least one rotary shaft.
Claims 5, 7, 10 – 11, 13 - 16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication to Burgess et al. (2013/0140476) in view of US Patent to Idogaki et al. (4,561,629) and in further view of US Patent Smith et al. (9,139,986), WIPO Publication to Dehrmann et al. (2021/122547) and US Patent to Davis (10,151,403).
Regarding claims 5, 7, and 20, Burgess et al. do not disclose the magnetic containment chamber is formed from at least one substantially non-ferromagnetic material or is formed from stainless steel, titanium, and/or a thermoplastic material.
However, Davis teaching a magnetically coupled valve teaches a housing to enclose the inner magnets using made of stainless steel with a low magnetic permeability to avoid shunting the magnetic flux thereby weakening the magnetic actuation mechanism.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would adapt the stainless-steel enclosure taught by Davis to the valve disclosed by Burgess et al. to prevent shunting the magnetic flux and reducing the magnetic actuation force.
Regarding claim 10, Burgess et al. disclose a magnetically actuated valve system, comprising at least one valve (Fig. 22) blocking mechanism positioned within a pipe, wherein, in an open position, the at least one valve blocking mechanism substantially allows fluid flow through the pipe, and wherein, in a closed position, the at least one valve blocking mechanism substantially prohibits fluid through the pipe; at least one rotary shaft (6, shown in Fig. 12) mechanically coupled with the at least one valve blocking mechanism (53), such that rotation of the at least one rotary shaft causes the at least one valve blocking mechanism to change between the open position, the closed position, and one or more semi-open positions between the open position and the closed position (butterfly valves inherently have positions between open and closed); a plurality of permanent magnets (16) attached to at least one end of the at least one rotary shaft (coupled by planetary gears assemblies); wherein the plurality of permanent magnets (15) includes at least one radially symmetric array; a valve housing (1) sealingly enclosing the at least one valve blocking mechanism, the at least one rotary shaft, and the plurality of permanent magnets, wherein the valve housing includes at least one magnetic containment chamber (10) surrounding the plurality of permanent magnets.
Burgess et al. disclose outer magnets (14) to actuate the inner permanent magnets on the shaft. However, it is well known in the art to use electromagnets interchangeably with the permanent magnets as was evidenced by US Patent to Davis (10,151,403). Examiner notes the Davis reference is used as evidence for well-known method of using permanent magnets and electromagnets interchangeably.
Burgess does not disclose at least one electromagnet connected to an external surface of the at least one magnetic containment chamber; and a controller electrically connected to the at least one electromagnet; wherein the at least one electromagnet does not substantially rotate relative to the at least one magnetic containment chamber during actuation of the electromagnetically actuated valve system; wherein the controller alternates the at least one valve blocking mechanism between the open position, the closed position, and the one or more semi-open positions by activating the at least one electromagnet; and wherein the controller is operable to receive commands through a wireless network. Burgess et al. do not disclose the magnetic containment chamber is formed from at least one substantially non-ferromagnetic material or is formed from stainless steel, titanium, and/or a thermoplastic material.
Regarding an electromagnet to actuate the permanent magnets on the shaft, Idogaki et al. teach a solenoid actuator (2) to that does not substantially rotate used to actuate a magnetically coupled valve to position the vale various positions by alternating the signal. Further Idogaki et al. teach a controller (9) for controlling the electromagnets wherein the controller alternates the at least one valve blocking mechanism between the open position and the closed position by sequentially activating one or more of the plurality of electromagnets (Fig. 3 – 6).
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would adopt the non-rotating electromagnet as a replacement for the permanent magnets as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The valve disclosed by Burgess and modified by the electromagnet teaching of Idogaki et al. will function in the same manner as the primary reference.
Regarding the wireless actuation, it is well known in the art to actuate valves remotely. Smith et al. teach an electrically controlled valve that can be actuated remotely by a wireless signal. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would adapt the wireless signal receiver taught by Smith et al. to the valve disclosed by Burgess et al. to enable a user to control the valve remotely.
Regarding the magnetic containment chamber, Davis teaching a magnetically coupled valve teaches a housing to enclose the inner magnets using stainless steel with a low magnetic permeability to avoid shunting the magnetic flux thereby weakening the magnetic actuation mechanism.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would adapt the stainless-steel enclosure taught by Davis to the valve disclosed by Burgess et al. to prevent shunting the magnetic flux and reducing the magnetic actuation force.
Regarding the electromagnets on the containment chamber, the WIPO document teaches electromagnets (210) mounted on the containment chamber (150) to actuate internal magnets (314).
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would the electromagnets on the external surface of the containment chamber teaching of the WIPO document to the valve disclosed by Burgess et al. as a means of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The valve disclosed by Burgess et al. and modified by the WIPO teaching will function as intended by the primary reference.
Regarding claim 11, Burgess et al. disclose a first end (end with permanent magnets) of the at least one rotary shaft is attached to a first gear (sun gear), wherein the first gear is enmeshed with a second gear (planet gear and carrier) attached to at least one secondary rotary shaft (6), and wherein the at least one secondary rotary shaft is attached to the at least one valve blocking mechanism (53).
Regarding claim 13, in the combination, Idogaki et al. teach the at least one electromagnet includes a plurality of electromagnets (Fig. 2),
Regarding claim 14, Burgess et al. disclose the valve is used in an oil flow [para. 208].
Regarding claim 15, Burgess et al. do not disclose the magnetic containment chamber is formed from at least one substantially non-ferromagnetic material or is formed from stainless steel, titanium, and/or a thermoplastic material.
However, Davis teaching a magnetically coupled valve teaches a housing to enclose the inner magnets using made of stainless steel with a low magnetic permeability to avoid shunting the magnetic flux thereby weakening the magnetic actuation mechanism.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would adapt the stainless steel enclosure taught by Davis to the valve disclosed by Burgess et al. to prevent shunting the magnetic flux and reducing the magnetic actuation force.
Regarding claim 16, in the combination Idogaki et al. teach an outer magnetic housing (7) surrounds the at least one electromagnet.
Claims 1, 3, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication to Burgess et al. (2016/0138721) in view of US Patent to Idogaki et al. (4,561,629) and in further view of US Patent to Smith et al. (9,139,986) and WIPO Publication to Dehrmann et al. (2021/122547).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Burgess et al. disclose a magnetically actuated valve system, comprising at least one valve (Fig. 23) blocking mechanism positioned within a pipe, wherein, in an open position, the at least one valve blocking mechanism substantially allows fluid flow through the pipe, and wherein, in a closed position, the at least one valve blocking mechanism substantially prohibits fluid through the pipe; at least one valve stem (25, Fig. 4) mechanically coupled with the at least one valve blocking mechanism (28, Fig. 4), such the movement of the shaft causes the at least one valve blocking mechanism to change between the open position, the closed position, and one or more semi-open positions between the open position and the closed position (butterfly valves inherently have positions between open and closed); a valve housing (11, 60, Fig. 1) sealingly enclosing the at least one valve blocking mechanism, the at least one rotary shaft, and the plurality of permanent magnets (61, Fig. 6), wherein the valve housing includes at least one magnetic containment chamber (60, Fig. 7) surrounding the plurality of permanent magnets.
Burgess et al. disclose outer magnets (69, Fig. 13) to actuate the inner permanent magnets on the shaft. However, it is well known in the art to use electromagnets interchangeably with the permanent magnets as was evidenced by US Patent to Davis (10,151,403). Examiner notes the Davis reference is used as evidence for well-known method of using permanent magnets and electromagnets interchangeably.
Burgess et al. do not disclose at least one electromagnet connected to an external surface of the at least one magnetic containment chamber; and a controller electrically connected to the at least one electromagnet; wherein the at least one electromagnet does not substantially rotate relative to the at least one magnetic containment chamber during actuation of the electromagnetically actuated valve system; wherein the controller alternates the at least one valve blocking mechanism between the open position, the closed position, and the one or more semi-open positions by activating the at least one electromagnet; and wherein the controller is operable to receive commands through a wireless network.
Regarding an electromagnet to actuate the permanent magnets on the shaft, Idogaki et al. teach a solenoid actuator (2) to that does not substantially rotate used to actuate a magnetically coupled valve to position the vale various positions by alternating the signal. Further Idogaki et al. teach a controller (9) for controlling the electromagnets.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would adapt the non-rotating electromagnet as a replacement for the permanent magnets as a Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The valve disclosed by Burgess and modified by the electromagnet teaching of Idogaki et al. will function in the same manner as the primary reference.
Regarding the wireless actuation, it is well known in the art to actuate valves remotely. Smith et al. teach an electrically controlled valve that can be actuated remotely by a wireless signal. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would adapt the wireless signal receiver taught by Smith et al. to the valve disclosed by Burgess et al. to enable a user to control the valve remotely.
Regarding the electromagnets on the containment chamber, the WIPO document teaches electromagnets (210) mounted on the containment chamber (150) to actuate internal magnets (314).
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would assemble the electromagnets on the external surface of the containment chamber teaching of the WIPO document to the valve disclosed by Burgess et al. as a means of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The valve disclosed by Burgess et al. and modified by the WIPO teaching will function as intended by the primary reference.
Regarding claims 3 and 19, Burgess et al. disclose a rising stem valve.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication to Burgess et al. (2016/0138721) in view of US Patent to Idogaki et al. (4,561,629) and in further view of US Patent Smith et al. (9,139,986), WIPO Publication to Dehrmann et al. (2021/122547) and US Patent to Davis (10,151,403).
Regarding claim 10, Burgess et al. disclose a magnetically actuated valve system, comprising at least one valve (Fig. 23) blocking mechanism positioned within a pipe, wherein, in an open position, the at least one valve blocking mechanism substantially allows fluid flow through the pipe, and wherein, in a closed position, the at least one valve blocking mechanism substantially prohibits fluid through the pipe; at least one valve stem (25, Fig. 4) mechanically coupled with the at least one valve blocking mechanism (28, Fig. 4), such the movement of the shaft causes the at least one valve blocking mechanism to change between the open position, the closed position, and one or more semi-open positions between the open position and the closed position (butterfly valves inherently have positions between open and closed); a valve housing (11, 60, Fig. 1) sealingly enclosing the at least one valve blocking mechanism, the at least one rotary shaft, and the plurality of permanent magnets (61, Fig. 6), wherein the valve housing includes at least one magnetic containment chamber (60, Fig. 7) surrounding the plurality of permanent magnets.
Burgess et al. disclose outer magnets (69, Fig. 13) to actuate the inner permanent magnets on the shaft. However, it is well known in the art to use electromagnets interchangeably with the permanent magnets as was evidenced by US Patent to Davis (10,151,403). Examiner notes the Davis reference is used as evidence for well-known method of using permanent magnets and electromagnets interchangeably.
Burgess does not disclose at least one electromagnet connected to an external surface of the at least one magnetic containment chamber; and a controller electrically connected to the at least one electromagnet; wherein the at least one electromagnet does not substantially rotate relative to the at least one magnetic containment chamber during actuation of the electromagnetically actuated valve system; wherein the controller alternates the at least one valve blocking mechanism between the open position, the closed position, and the one or more semi-open positions by activating the at least one electromagnet; and wherein the controller is operable to receive commands through a wireless network. Burgess et al. do not disclose the magnetic containment chamber is formed from at least one substantially non-ferromagnetic material or is formed from stainless steel, titanium, and/or a thermoplastic material.
Regarding an electromagnet to actuate the permanent magnets on the shaft, Idogaki et al. teach a solenoid actuator (2) to that does not substantially rotate used to actuate a magnetically coupled valve to position the vale various positions by alternating the signal. Further Idogaki et al. teach a controller (9) for controlling the electromagnets wherein the controller alternates the at least one valve blocking mechanism between the open position and the closed position by sequentially activating one or more of the plurality of electromagnets (Fig. 3 – 6).
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would adopt the non-rotating electromagnet as a replacement for the permanent magnets as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The valve disclosed by Burgess and modified by the electromagnet teaching of Idogaki et al. will function in the same manner as the primary reference.
Regarding the wireless actuation, it is well known in the art to actuate valves remotely. Smith et al. teach an electrically controlled valve that can be actuated remotely by a wireless signal. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would adapt the wireless signal receiver taught by Smith et al. to the valve disclosed by Burgess et al. to enable a user to control the valve remotely.
Regarding the magnetic containment chamber, Davis teaching a magnetically coupled valve teaches a housing to enclose the inner magnets using made of stainless steel with a low magnetic permeability to avoid shunting the magnetic flux thereby weakening the magnetic actuation mechanism.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would adapt the stainless steel enclosure taught by Davis to the valve disclosed by Burgess et al. to prevent shunting the magnetic flux and reducing the magnetic actuation force.
Regarding the electromagnets on the containment chamber, the WIPO document teaches electromagnets (210) mounted on the containment chamber (150) to actuate internal magnets (314).
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would the electromagnets on the external surface of the containment chamber teaching of the WIPO document to the valve disclosed by Burgess et al. as a means of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The valve disclosed by Burgess et al. and modified by the WIPO teaching will function as intended by the primary reference.
Regarding claim 12, Burgess et al. disclose a rising stem valve.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UMASHANKAR VENKATESAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisors Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607 or Ken 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.
/UMASHANKAR VENKATESAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights