US 7591245

I'll search for litigation and docket information on this patent, then compile the summary.

Let me run additional targeted searches for any litigation or PTAB/Court of Appeals activity.

Let me try a couple more targeted searches for court records.

US Patent 7,591,245 — Analyst Summary

Bibliographic Data

Ownership chain (per Google Patents legal events): inventors → Holley Performance Products (2019‑01‑11 recordation, effective 2006‑11‑10) → Navistar, Inc. (2010‑02‑22) → International Engine Intellectual Property Company (2016‑02‑16) → Pure Power Technologies, Inc./LLC (2016‑02‑16 onward, with corrective assignment recorded 2018‑12‑21). Multiple security interests and releases are recorded (Wells Fargo Foothill, JPMorgan Chase, PrivateBank, Bank of America, Cerberus, UBS).

Family: US 11/559,067 (abandoned, pub. US 2008/0110435 A1); US 11/681,551 (US 7,658,177 B2, now expired‑fee related, same priority date); CN 101568711 B.

Abstract (as issued)

An air valve and its method of use including an air valve housing; a throttle plate disposed on a throttle shaft; a driven gear attached on the throttle shaft; a brushless direct current motor assembly in connection via a pinion with the driven gear; an integrated electronic valve controller including digital signal processing on a circuit board; and a throttle position sensor on the circuit board, wherein the throttle position sensor includes at least one non-contact type sensor. In a preferred embodiment, the air valve includes an inlet port and an outlet port connected to an engine via an air intake manifold, such that re‑circulated exhaust gas is introduced into the air intake manifold.

Independent Claims — Plain Language

Claim 1 (air valve): An air valve is built from a housing containing a throttle plate on a throttle shaft. A driven gear sits on the shaft and carries a shaft‑position magnet. A brushless DC (BLDC) motor sits in its own motor housing and drives the driven gear through a pinion. Inside that motor housing is a circuit board directly connected to the motor, and on that board are (a) a non‑contact throttle‑position sensor that detects shaft rotation by sensing the change in orientation of the magnetic field from the magnet, and (b) an integrated electronic valve controller that performs digital signal processing (DSP).

Claim 13 (method of use): Three steps — (a) determine the desired throttle‑plate position (the plate rides on a throttle shaft driven by a gear); (b) sense the plate's actual position with a non‑contact sensor on the circuit board, detecting shaft rotation via the magnet's changing field orientation; (c) command a BLDC motor to move the plate from actual to desired position through the driven gear.

Claim 29 (air valve, narrower variant): Same architecture as claim 1, but the driven gear is specifically a helical gear and the controller is recited as "including a controller that performs digital signal processing."

Claim 30 (actuator, broader platform claim): The same motor/gear/magnet/sensor/controller architecture, but claimed generically as an "actuator" with an "output shaft" rather than a throttle valve. (Note a drafting quirk: the body of claim 30 still says "throttle position sensor" and "throttle shaft," even though the claim is directed to a generic actuator.)

Representative dependent claims: torsion spring (2, 14‑15); single‑stage gear reduction (3, 31); >125 psi absolute fluid management (4); helical gear (5, 32); PWM/CAN communication with the ECU (6, 11, 23); <125 ms response time (7); <1° position resolution (8); inlet/outlet ports plus an EGR source connected to the intake manifold (9, 16); position set by onboard controller from an ECU command (10, 17); butterfly‑style valve (12); spur/bevel/spiral gear (24); magnet and sensor aligned with shaft centerline (25); magnet position changes voltage, current, or step count (26); steel gear (27); pinion‑geared output (28); and single‑plane, one‑or‑more‑layer circuit board (33, 34).

Litigation / CAFC 2026 Docket Check

I searched for district‑court complaints, PTAB petitions, and Federal Circuit dockets referencing patent number 7,591,245 specifically.

• No 2026 CAFC docket, PTAB proceeding, or district‑court case asserting US 7,591,245 was found in the searches performed. I cannot confirm with high confidence that none exists — absence of search results is not proof of absence, and PACER/PTAB full‑text coverage of every filing is not guaranteed in open web search.
• Important disambiguation: one search hit concerns IPR2025‑01022, but that petition is directed to U.S. Patent No. 7,651,245 B2 (Astera Manufacturing / Chauvet & Sons v. ElectraLED) — a different patent number in an unrelated lighting‑technology dispute. It should not be conflated with 7,591,245. I have not auto‑corrected either number.
• Because I could not locate any asserted‑patent or invalidity challenge involving 7,591,245, I am also unable to report any claim‑construction or validity rulings. This is a stated uncertainty, not a negative finding.

Notes and Caveats

• The Google Patents assignee field lists multiple current entities and expressly disclaims having performed any legal analysis of ownership; treat the "current assignee" as unverified.
• The priority date (Nov. 13, 2006) is flagged by Google as an assumption. The application on its face recites "Cross Reference to Related Applications: Not applicable," yet Google shows it as a continuation of 11/559,067 — the family data, not the patent's own text, supplies the continuation relationship.
• Expiration is listed as Nov. 13, 2026, which is 20 years from the Nov. 13, 2006 priority date; that presumes no terminal disclaimer/PTA adjustments beyond what Google lists.

Primary sources: Google Patents, US7591245B2 – Air valve and method of use, https://patents.google.com/patent/US7591245/en (fetched 2026‑09‑24); Justia Patents, https://patents.justia.com/patent/7591245.

I'll research litigation involving US 7,591,245. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me refine with more targeted searches.

Bottom line

I found no litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 7,591,245 ("Air valve and method of use"). Based on the searches I was able to complete, there is no known district court action, ITC investigation, CAFC appeal, or PTAB proceeding that asserts or challenges this specific patent.

I want to be explicit that this is a negative finding based on limited search coverage — not a certified "no litigation exists" statement. See the caveats at the end.

What I searched

I ran targeted queries against general web/search indexes designed to surface patent litigation records (including results drawn from Unified Patents' litigation resources, RPX Insight, Docket Alarm/CourtListener, Justia, and patent-specific databases):

• "7591245" patent litigation
• "7,591,245" patent lawsuit
• "7,591,245" patent infringement lawsuit Pure Power Technologies
• "7591245" OR "7591245B2" litigation case
• Holley Performance Products patent "air valve" lawsuit 7591245
• "Pure Power Technologies" patent litigation air valve infringement
• portal.unifiedpatents.com litigation 7591245 (not completed — tool limit reached)
• "7,591,245" OR "7591245" district court complaint infringement (not completed)
• Navistar "air valve" patent lawsuit EGR valve 7658177 7591245 (not completed)

No result in the completed searches identified a case asserting or challenging U.S. 7,591,245.

Near-misses — DO NOT CONFUSE THESE WITH 7,591,245

Per your strict rule, I am not auto-correcting any numbers. The following search hits involved different identifiers and must not be attributed to 7,591,245:

Related, non-litigation activity on 7,591,245 (for context)

• Litigation-adjacent, not litigation: The patent has an extensive USPTO assignment / security-interest history (Holley Performance Products → Wells Fargo Foothill → Navistar → International Engine Intellectual Property Co. → Pure Power Technologies, with security interests held at various times by JPMorgan Chase, The PrivateBank, Bank of America, UBS, and Cerberus). These are recorded assignments and liens, not lawsuits.
• Family members (potential litigation vehicles, but no cases found): U.S. 7,658,177 B2 (Expired – Fee Related) and CN 101568711 B, all sharing the 2006-11-13 priority date. US 11/559,067 was abandoned.
• PTAB: No IPR/PGR/CBM identified against 7,591,245. (The PTAB hits returned were for other patents.)
• Term: Anticipated expiration listed as 2026-11-13 — i.e., roughly one month from your stated current date of April 26, 2026 (the Google Patents page uses a 2026-11-13 anticipated-expiration entry). This narrow remaining term may partly explain the absence of assertion activity.

Caveats on this negative finding

1. Coverage gaps. I could not complete all planned searches (the Unified Patents portal query, RPX, PACER, and Docket Navigator were not reached before the tool limit). Unified Patents' portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist and RPX Insight are the best sources to confirm, and I was unable to query them directly.
2. Search engines are imperfect for patent numbers. Numeric-only strings like "7591245" often produce low recall in general web indexes; litigation databases index by patent number more reliably than general search.
3. Declaratory-judgment actions and counterclaims can assert this patent without naming it prominently in publicly indexed text.

Recommended next steps for confirmation

• Unified Patents litigation portal: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist — search "7591245" and also the assignees (Navistar, Pure Power Technologies, Holley).
• RPX Insight and Docket Navigator (patent-number search filtered to 7,591,245).
• PACER / CourtListener and USPTO PTAB (Patent Trial & Appeal Board) for IPR/PGR filings.
• CAFC docket search for any appeal citing 7,591,245.

If you can provide access to any of those databases, or confirm whether the N.D. Ill. 1:24-cv-01549 "'245 Patent" is 7,591,245, I can refine this answer.

Summary: On the evidence available, no litigation involving U.S. 7,591,245 is known. I am explicitly flagging this as "not found" rather than "confirmed none," given the search limitations noted above.

I'll verify the canonical "no proceedings" signal against public sources before drafting.

Let me run targeted checks on the assignee/patent-owner trail and the family members, since those are where any challenge would surface.

One more round of targeted checks — litigation history and any NPE/defensive-aggregator activity that would typically trigger an IPR.

PTAB Proceedings — US 7,591,245 ("Air valve and method of use")

Proceedings overview

There are zero AIA trial proceedings on file for US 7,591,245 — 0 active, 0 claims invalidated, 0 claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denials — because no petition has ever been filed. The canonical USPTO ODP block in this prompt returns no AIA trial proceedings, and my independent web checks (PTAB decision/petition text, IPR/PGR/CBM docket aggregators, and assignee-name sweeps for Holley / Navistar / Pure Power Technologies / International Engine IP) surfaced none either. The bottom line for a defendant is unusual and cuts both ways: there is no IPR shield for you to hide behind — all 34 claims are PTAB-untested — but there is also no IPR estoppel binding you, and the patent's anticipated expiration date is 2026‑11‑13, roughly six weeks after today's date (2026‑09‑30). A patent in its final weeks is a poor candidate for an IPR and a poor candidate for injunctive relief; the real fight, if any, is a past-damages fight under § 286.

Verification caveat (stated plainly): I hit a tool-call ceiling before completing every planned sweep, so I cannot represent that I exhausted the whole web. I found no proceeding, and the structured ODP data — which is authoritative for indexed AIA trials — confirms none. Treat "no PTAB activity" as correct, with the residual risk that a very recently filed, not-yet-indexed petition exists. The one apparent hit in my search results — a PGR against a different "’749 patent" involving expandable containers/inflators (Cooper, Saggio, Lee, Air Force 4 Inflator art) — is a false positive, not US 7,591,245. I did not separately verify ex parte reexamination, reissue, or pre-AIA inter partes reexamination activity, which fall outside the structured AIA-trial data.

No proceedings to report

The template below is intentionally not populated, because populating it would require inventing proceeding numbers, panels, and claim-level dispositions. Per your instruction not to fabricate: there is no proceeding number, no petitioner, no panel, no institution decision, and no Final Written Decision to report for US 7,591,245.

Near-miss / rejected candidates I checked and ruled out:

Strategic summary

Claim status: everything is UNTESTED. No claim of US 7,591,245 has been canceled, narrowed, or confirmed by the PTAB. The patent issued 2009‑09‑22 with 34 claims and four independents: claim 1 (air valve: housing, throttle plate on throttle shaft, driven gear, shaft position magnet on the driven gear, BLDC motor assembly in a motor housing driving the gear via a pinion, and a circuit board inside the motor housing carrying a non‑contact throttle position sensor plus an integrated electronic valve controller performing DSP); claim 13 (method: determine desired position → sense actual position via the non‑contact sensor detecting change in the magnet's field orientation → command the BLDC to move the plate); claim 29 (air valve variant with a helical driven gear); and claim 30 (a notably broad "actuator" claim — housing, driven gear on an output shaft, magnet on the gear, BLDC in a motor housing via pinion, circuit board in the motor housing with a non‑contact position sensor and a DSP controller). For assertion risk, claim 30 is the broadest vector (it is not limited to an air valve or throttle), with claim 1 as the workhorse. Dependent claims 2–12 and 14–28 add the commercially meaningful hooks: torsion spring (§ 2/14), single‑stage gear reduction (3, 31), >125 psia capability (4), PWM + CAN communication (6, 23), <125 ms response (7), <1° resolution (8), and EGR routing into the intake manifold (9, 16).

Estoppel landscape: no § 315(e)(2) estoppel exists against anyone. Because no IPR/PGR was ever instituted, no petitioner and no privy is barred from raising any ground — in the PTAB or in district court. Conversely, you are not estopped either, and you face no § 325(d) risk of "already-considered art" discretion at the Board, because nothing has been considered. All prior-art invalidity theories remain fully available as § 282 defenses: the references cited on the face of the patent are the natural starting kit, including BorgWarner US 6,435,169 ("Integrated motor and controller for turbochargers, EGR valves and the like"), Delphi US 6,522,038 ("Integrated air control valve using contactless technology"), BorgWarner/Keefover US 6,854,443 and US 2003/0178004 ("Assembly for electronic throttle control with non-contacting position sensor"), Denso US 6,756,780 (rotation angle detector with integrated magnetic sensing element), Siemens US 6,593,732 (sensor module), Aisan US 7,210,451 (throttle control devices), and the cited non-patent literature, the Honeywell HMC1501/HMC1512 linear/angular/rotary displacement sensor datasheet (Aug. 2000) — which is directly on point for the "non-contact type throttle position sensor" and magnet-field-orientation limitations of claims 1, 13, 29, and 30.

Pattern signals. There is no petitioner pattern, no patent-owner PTAB-appeal pattern, and no NPE or defensive-aggregator footprint. The provenance explains it: this is a commercial operating-company patent, not an assertion vehicle. Holley Performance Products filed the original application (US 11/559,067, 2006‑11‑13), filed this continuation (US 12/342,764, 2008‑12‑23), and then sold the EGR valve IP to Navistar in January 2010, landing first in Navistar, then International Engine Intellectual Property Company, and now Pure Power Technologies LLC / International Engine Intellectual Property Co LLC — i.e., the patent sits inside a vertically integrated diesel-engine manufacturer that practices the technology on its own MaxxForce EGR engines. Operating companies that practice their patents are less likely to assert them broadly and correspondingly attract fewer IPRs. Note also that the sibling patent in the same family, US 7,658,177 (from US 11/681,551), is recorded as Expired – Fee Related, and the Chinese family member CN 101568711 B likewise lapsed for fees — evidence that this family was not aggressively curated. The ’245 patent itself is still in force: maintenance fees were paid at 4 years (2013‑02‑25), 8 years (2017‑09‑12, with a 7.5‑year late surcharge), and 12 years (2021‑03‑22).

Recommended next steps

• Do not build a defense around a nonexistent IPR. There is no FWD to cite, no canceled claim to point at, and no institution decision to lean on. If a demand letter or complaint asserts claims 1, 13, 29, or 30, your invalidity case must be built from scratch.
• Lead with the expiration clock. Anticipated expiration is 2026‑11‑13 (20 years from the 2006‑11‑13 priority date). As of today (2026‑09‑30) that is roughly six weeks out. Practical consequences: (i) injunctive relief is effectively off the table — no court will enjoin on a patent with weeks to run; (ii) a filed IPR would almost certainly be a discretionary-denial candidate on settled-expectations/expired-patent grounds, and the Board's statutory 1-year trial deadline from institution (35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11)) could not be met before expiry in any realistic scenario; and (iii) your exposure, if any, is a backward-looking damages claim limited by the § 286 six-year lookback, not a going-forward royalty.
• Watch the § 315(b) one-year bar if you are newly served. If you were served with a complaint alleging infringement more than one year ago, you are already time-barred from petitioning; if you are served now, the window is theoretical given expiry. Either way, the PTAB is not the useful forum here.
• Mine the face-of-the-patent art and the family. Best invalidity candidates are the non-contact-position-sensor and integrated-motor-controller art cited by the examiner (BorgWarner ’169 / Keefover, Delphi ’038, Denso ’780, Siemens ’732) combined against claim 1's "circuit board disposed within the motor housing… directly connected to the BLDC motor" packaging limitation — and the Honeywell HMC1501/HMC1512 datasheet against the magnet-field-orientation sensing language. Note that the same art appears across US 7,658,177 and CN 101568711 B, so family-wide prosecution history may yield § 112 written-description or enablement arguments worth developing.
• If you want to confirm the negative, do it cheaply. Run the patent number through PTAB E2E / the PTAB decisions search and CourtListener before relying on this memo:
  • Patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7591245/en
  • PTAB E2E / PTAB Center: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptabweb/
  • PTAB decisions and notices: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/decisions
  • CourtListener (appeal/docket sweep): https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=%227%2C591%2C245%22
  • Federal Circuit opinions: https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders

Bottom line: The absence of PTAB activity is itself the signal. A patent with this many claims, this much commercial backing, and 18 years of life never attracted a single AIA petition — which suggests it was never a high-value assertion target. Combined with an expiration date six weeks away, the correct posture is that this is a narrow residual past-damages risk, not a live litigation threat.

I'll research the assignment records and correspondent information for this patent before compiling the analysis.

Let me dig into the Pure Power Technologies ownership events and try to surface correspondent/attorney-of-record details.

Ownership & NPE Analysis — US 7,591,245 ("Air valve and method of use")

Scope note on sources: Google Patents legal events and the news/SEC record were fully retrievable. The USPTO Assignment Center / Assignment Search record itself was not directly queryable in this session (the tool reached its step limit before the patent-number query could be run), so the correspondent-of-record fields are not reported below. I have not fabricated them. Every reel/frame, date, assignor and assignee listed is drawn from the Google Patents "Legal Events" table, which mirrors the USPTO assignment record; the correspondent column is marked not retrieved throughout. Verify at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html or https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/.

Inventors

Eight named inventors, all with US addresses clustering on south-central Kentucky (Holley's headquarters city):

Unusual patterns: None of the classic "inventor flight" tells are visible. The inventors' assignment to Holley is dated 2006-11-10 (one day before the priority date), i.e., a simultaneous filing-time assignment — normal for an operating-company R&D team, not a retention-flight signature. Residence clustering on Bowling Green, KY is consistent with a single in-house engineering group. I found no evidence of inventors departing within 12 months of filing, and no inventor appears again as an assignee or NPE principal anywhere in the chain. Caveat: post-2006 employment histories of individual inventors are not determinable from assignment records alone; "no evidence" ≠ "did not occur."

Original assignee

Holley Performance Products, Inc. — Bowling Green, Kentucky (the patent's face and the 2009-01-11/2019-recorded assignment both name it).

• Line of business: Aftermarket and OEM automotive performance parts — carburetors, electronic fuel injection, intake/exhaust, ignition (the same corporate family later includes MSD, Flowmaster, ACCEL, APR, Powerteq, Racepak, per the UBS lien at reel 047429/0343).
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? Yes, at least in development/early production. Holley developed the BLDC-driven EGR air valve described in the specification, and Navistar's January 19, 2010 press release ("Navistar's Pure Power Technologies Acquires Holley EGR Valve Technology") confirms Navistar bought "certain assets including intellectual property rights to some of Holley's valve technology for diesel engine exhaust-gas recirculation systems," with Pure Power Technologies LLC manufacturing the advanced EGR valve at its Blythewood, S.C. plant. So the claimed air valve was reduced to a manufactured article — by the acquirer, immediately post-transfer.
• Current status: Operating, independent. Holley Performance Products remains an active Kentucky corporation (it re-appears as an assignor in the 2018 UBS security-interest filing and is the original assignee on a large, still-growing throttle-body portfolio visible in the "Cited By" list). It is not dissolved and not in bankruptcy. Note it no longer owns this patent — it sold the valve IP in 2010.

Assignment timeline

Source: Google Patents Legal Events (mirror of USPTO assignment record). Execution date first where the record supplies one; otherwise recording date. Correspondent = not retrieved for every entry (Assignment Center not queryable in this session).

• 2006-11-10 (executed) / recorded 2019-01-11 — Reel 047969/0627

  • Conveyance: Assignment of interest
  • Assignor: Oswald Baasch; Roy E. Tedder; Siamak Attarseyedi; Jared A. Brandt; Neal R. Gerber; Nigel C. Janes; Jasper C. Lindsey; Jon A. Bigley
  • Assignee: Holley Performance Products, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Original inventor-to-company assignment, recorded ~12 years late — a chain-of-title cleanup, not a live transaction. (See anomaly note below.)

• 2009-07-01 (executed) / recorded 2009-07-01 — Reel 022902/0601

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement
  • Assignor: Holley Performance Products, Inc.
  • Assignee: Wells Fargo Foothill, Inc., as Agent
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Securitization — Holley's credit facility collateralized by its IP.

• 2010-01-13 (executed) / recorded 2010-01-13 — Reel 023774/0918

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: Wells Fargo Foothill, Inc.
  • Assignee: Holley Performance Products Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Release/mechanic's discharge of the above lien.

• 2010-01-13 (effective) / recorded 2010-02-05 — Reel 023905/0128

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: Wells Fargo Foothill, Inc.
  • Assignee: Holley Performance Products Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Second/duplicate release of the same Wells Fargo lien.

• 2010-01-12 (executed) / recorded 2010-02-22 — Reel 023963/0404

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Interest
  • Assignor: Holley Performance Products, Inc.
  • Assignee: Navistar, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Acquisition — the sale of Holley's EGR-valve IP to Navistar (announced 2010-01-19), executed one week before announcement.

• 2012-08-17 (executed) / recorded 2012-09-12 — Reel 028944/0730

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement
  • Assignor: International Engine Intellectual Property Company, LLC; International Truck Intellectual Property Company, LLC; Navistar International Corporation (and others)
  • Assignee: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Collateral Agent
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Securitization — Navistar enterprise-level collateral pool (see plainsite assignment id=7330506, listing a large Navistar engine/IP portfolio in the same filing).

• 2015-08-07 (executed) / recorded 2015-09-15 — Reel 036616/0243

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement
  • Assignor: Navistar International Corporation; International Truck Intellectual Property Company, LLC; International Engine Intellectual Property Company, LLC
  • Assignee: JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., as Collateral Agent
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Securitization — refinancing/replacement of the 2012 Navistar collateral facility.

• 2016-01-29 (executed) / recorded 2016-02-16 — Reel 037738/0892

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Interest
  • Assignor: Navistar, Inc.
  • Assignee: International Engine Intellectual Property Company (receiving-party name later corrected — see 2018-12-21)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Internal reorg — Navistar moves the patent into its IP-holding subsidiary as a pre-sale structuring step.

• 2016-01-29 (executed) / recorded 2016-02-16 — Reel 037738/0981

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Interest
  • Assignor: International Engine Intellectual Property Company, LLC
  • Assignee: Pure Power Technologies, Inc. (South Carolina)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Carve-out sale — the Kensington Capital Partners / Smithfield Group buyout of Pure Power Technologies from Navistar (announced 2016-02-02). Two-step Navistar → Navistar-IP-holdco → Pure Power, all recorded the same day.

• 2016-02-01 (executed) / recorded 2016-02-03 — Reel 037651/0685

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: Pure Power Technologies, Inc.
  • Assignee: The PrivateBank and Trust Company, as Administrative Agent
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Securitization — acquisition debt financing for the carve-out.

• 2016-02-02 (executed) / recorded 2016-02-16 — Reel 037739/0071

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
  • Assignee: Pure Power Technologies, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Release — discharge of the Navistar-era JPMorgan liens as part of the carve-out.

• 2017-08-02 (executed) / recorded 2017-08-08 — Reel 043482/0368

  • Conveyance: Termination and Release of Security Interest in Patents
  • Assignor: The PrivateBank and Trust Company, as Administrative Agent
  • Assignee: Pure Power Technologies, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Release — PrivateBank lien discharged on refinancing.

• 2017-08-02 (executed) / recorded 2017-08-29 — Reel 043709/0847

  • Conveyance: Notice of Grant of Security Interest in Patents
  • Assignor: Pure Power Technologies, Inc.
  • Assignee: Bank of America, N.A., as Administrative Agent
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Securitization — replacement cash-flow credit facility.

• 2017-11-06 (effective) / recorded 2017-11-10 — Reel 044416/0867

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Collateral Agent
  • Assignee: Navistar International Corporation; Navistar, Inc.; International Truck Intellectual Property Company, LLC; International Engine Intellectual Property Company, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Release — Navistar enterprise collateral released.

• 2017-11-06 (effective) / recorded 2017-11-10 — Reel 044780/0456

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Collateral Agent
  • Assignee: International Engine Intellectual Property Company; International Truck Intellectual Property Company; Navistar International Corporation
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Release — companion/duplicate discharge of the same facility.

• 2018-10-26 (executed) / recorded 2018-11-06 — Reel 047429/0343

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: Holley Performance Products Inc.; Holley Performance Systems, Inc.; MSD LLC; Powerteq LLC; Racepak LLC; ACCEL Performance Group LLC; APR, LLC; Flowmaster, Inc.
  • Assignee: UBS AG, Stamford Branch, as Collateral Agent
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Securitization — a Holley-group facility (the original assignee re-appears as collateral grantor of its own remaining portfolio; note this filing does not name this patent's current owner, Pure Power).

• 2016-02-16 (effective) / recorded 2018-12-21 — Reel 047975/0597

  • Conveyance: Corrective Assignment (to correct the receiving-party name previously recorded at Reel 037738 / Frame 0892)
  • Assignor: Navistar, Inc.
  • Assignee: International Engine Intellectual Property Company, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Correction/change of name only — cleans up the "INTELLECUTAL" typo in the 2016 reorg recording.

• 2019-04-08 (executed) / recorded 2019-04-08 — Reel 048826/0493

  • Conveyance: Termination and Release of Security Interest in Patents
  • Assignor: Bank of America, N.A.
  • Assignee: Pure Power Technologies, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Release — Bank of America lien discharged one day before Stanadyne LLC announced its acquisition of Pure Power Technologies (2019-04-09).

• 2023-01-17 (executed) / recorded 2023-02-01 — Reel 062560/0049

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: Pure Power Technologies, Inc.
  • Assignee: Cerberus Business Finance, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Securitization — pre-transaction Cerberus financing.

• 2023-07-31 (executed) / recorded 2023-08-02 — Reel 064472/0505

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: Stanadyne Operating Company LLC; Pure Power Technologies LLC
  • Assignee: Cerberus Business Finance Agency, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Securitization — post-reorganization Cerberus credit facility covering the Stanadyne/Pure Power group.

• 2023-07-31 (effective) / recorded 2023-08-02 — Reel 064474/0910

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: Cerberus Business Finance, LLC
  • Assignee: Pure Power Technologies, Inc.; Stanadyne LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Release — discharge of the 2023-02-01 Cerberus lien.

• 2023-07-31 (executed) / recorded 2023-08-02 — Reel 064474/0922

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Interest
  • Assignor: Pure Power Technologies, Inc.
  • Assignee: Pure Power Technologies LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Internal reorg / entity conversion — Inc. → LLC of the same operating business; the current record owner.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7591245
    2006 : Inventors assign to Holley Performance
    2008 : Continuation filed by Holley
    2009 : Patent issued
         : Wells Fargo Foothill security interest
    2010 : Holley sells EGR valve IP to Navistar
    2012 : JPMorgan Chase security interest
    2015 : JPMorgan Chase security interest again
    2016 : Navistar reorg to IP holding company
         : Carve-out to Pure Power Technologies
         : PrivateBank acquisition financing
    2017 : Bank of America security interest
    2018 : UBS security interest on Holley group
         : Corrective assignment recorded
    2019 : Inventor assignment to Holley recorded
         : Pure Power sold to Stanadyne
    2023 : Pure Power Inc converts to LLC
         : Cerberus security interest

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. Every assignee in the chain is an operating enterprise with a real manufacturing footprint: Holley (aftermarket parts maker, Bowling Green KY), Navistar (truck/engine OEM), Pure Power Technologies Inc./LLC (Blythewood SC plant + Columbia SC technical center, ~230 employees, per the 2016 transaction coverage), Stanadyne (Windsor CT fuel systems). The closest thing to a holding entity is International Engine Intellectual Property Company, LLC, created at Reel 037738/0892 (2016) — but it is a Navistar inside-the-family IP-holding subsidiary through which the patent passed for one recording before continuing to Pure Power at Reel 037738/0981 the same day. No Delaware/Texas single-purpose LLC, no registered-agent address, no "IP Ventures/Licensing" naming, no licensing-only entity anywhere in 17 years of record.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. None of the enumerated plaintiffs (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, DGC, Spangenberg entities) appears as assignor or assignee in any of the reel/frame entries above. Note one near-miss that must not be conflated: the 2012 Idaho case Navistar, Inc. et al v. Pure Power, LLC, No. 4:12-cv-00013 — the defendant "Pure Power, LLC" (diesel exhaust fluid seller) is an unrelated company, and the suit was a Lanham Act trademark/unfair-competition action brought by the Navistar/Pure Power Technologies side, not a patent assertion. It is not NPE activity and not patent litigation.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR / NOT VERIFIED. The correspondent-of-record field lives in the Assignment Center record, which I could not query in this session. I therefore make no finding either way. This is the single most informative check left open, and it should be run manually: pull each reel/frame above in Assignment Center and compare the recording correspondent. For calibration: at least three different law firms plausibly touch this file across 17 years (prosecution counsel of record has been reported as Hunton & Williams LLP, and Hughes Hubbard & Reed publicly advised Pure Power on the 2019 Stanadyne sale), so any single-firm recurrence would need to be established from the recorded correspondent fields, not inferred.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT as an NPE pattern (one clustered event noted). The dense clusters are 2016-02-16 (three recordings: 037738/0892, 037738/0981, 037739/0071) and 2023-08-02 (064472/0505, 064474/0910, 064474/0922). But these are a leveraged carve-out and an entity conversion/refinancing, respectively — the intermediate hops are inside the same corporate family (Navistar→Navistar-IP-holdco→Pure Power; Pure Power Inc.→Pure Power LLC), not a chain of nominally independent LLCs. No shared registered-agent address or common-principal NPE pattern is evidenced.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. No infringement suit asserting US 7,591,245 was found (consistent with the prior litigation section of this analysis), so there is no transfer to measure against a filing date. Notably, the last conveyance affecting the patent (Inc.→LLC, Reel 064474/0922, 2023) is an internal conversion, not a transfer to an assertion vehicle.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. Navistar divested Pure Power as a non-core-business carve-out (Kensington Capital Partners' Justin Mirro, quoted in the 2019 release: "Pure Power was viewed as a non-core business at Navistar"). Navistar did not file Chapter 11; Holley did not file Chapter 11. The 2010 Holley→Navistar transfer was an asset/IP sale, not a distressed liquidation.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. No operating company is transferring the patent to an NPE to assert on its behalf. The direction of travel is the reverse: an OEM (Navistar) acquired IP from a supplier for its own MaxxForce engine program and had its own subsidiary manufacture the valve.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT. No RPX / AST / LOT Network / Unified Patents / OIN entity appears anywhere in the chain.

Verdict

Defensive / non-asserting (selected on the "non-asserting" prong; see caveat).

The complete 17-year record — Reel 047969/0627 (inventors→Holley), 023963/0404 (Holley→Navistar, 2010), 037738/0892 and 037738/0981 (Navistar reorg→Pure Power, 2016), and 064474/0922 (Inc.→LLC, 2023) — traces a continuous operating-company ownership line from an aftermarket parts manufacturer, through a truck OEM that manufactured the EGR valve embodying the claims, into a private-equity carve-out and finally a strategic diesel-components buyer (Stanadyne/Pure Power Technologies LLC). There is no NPE anywhere — no licensing-only LLC, no listed asserter, no defensive aggregator, no assertion activity. Caveat on the label: the enumerated verdict "Defensive / non-asserting" is definitionally tied to a defensive aggregator, which this chain lacks; I am selecting it because no NPE and no assertion is present, and the alternative labels ("NPE") affirmatively do not fit.

Verification link: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (search patent 7591245) — and https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/. Running that search is required to fill the one genuine gap in this analysis: the correspondent-of-record on each reel/frame above.

I'll verify the key references against live sources before building the prior-art analysis.

Let me verify the remaining key references.

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 7,591,245 B2 ("Air Valve and Method of Use")

Prepared 2026-04-26. This section builds on the previously generated Patent Summary and Litigation Summary; it does not repeat their content. Where the current date differs from the environment date, I have used the task's stated date of April 26, 2026.

0. Scope, Method, and a Strict-Identity Note

• Target patent (literal): US 7,591,245 B2 — Air valve and method of use. No other number has been substituted. I did not return results for visually similar numbers (e.g., 7,651,245; 7,463,245; 7,658,177 — the last of which is a same-family sibling, US 11/681,551, and therefore shares the 2006-11-13 priority date and is not § 102 prior art against 7,591,245).
• Source basis: The authoritative document is the full patent text supplied in the prompt (Google Patents, fetched 2026-09-24). The prior art below is the set of references the patent itself lists under "Patent Citations (41)" and "Non-Patent Citations (2)." I verified the four most material references against live sources (URLs cited inline). Three planned verification searches (US 6,753,629; US 2006/0070604 A1; the Honeywell HMC1501/HMC1512 datasheet) could not be completed before the tool-step limit — those entries are flagged unverified and described only from the patent's own citation table.
• Governing law: Effective filing date is 2006-11-13 (priority) with the application filed 2008-12-23 as a continuation. That is before March 16, 2013, so pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 governs — i.e., § 102(a) (known/patented/published before invention), § 102(b) (more than one year before filing), § 102(e) (prior U.S. patent/application by another, as of its filing date), and § 102(g). I frame § 102 potential below; I flag where the better statutory theory is § 103.

Anticipation caution (applies throughout): A single reference anticipates a claim under § 102 only if it discloses every limitation, arranged as claimed. Most references below do not cleanly anticipate independent claim 1 or claim 30 — they are stronger § 103 obviousness candidates or are relevant to specific dependent claims. I mark each accordingly and identify the missing element(s).

Element chart for independent claim 1 (used as the reference frame):

• E1 air valve housing
• E2 throttle plate on a throttle shaft
• E3 driven gear attached on the throttle shaft
• E4 shaft position magnet positioned on the driven gear
• E5 BLDC motor assembly disposed within a motor housing, connected via a pinion to the driven gear
• E6 circuit board disposed within the motor housing and directly connected to the BLDC motor, carrying (a) a non-contact throttle-position sensor that detects shaft rotation via change in orientation of the magnetic field from the magnet, and (b) an integrated electronic valve controller that performs digital signal processing (DSP).

Claim 30 recites the same architecture generically ("actuator / output shaft"); claim 29 narrows to a helical driven gear; claim 13 is the method counterpart.

1. Tier 1 — Most Material References (closest to independent claims 1 / 29 / 30)

1.1 US 6,522,038 B2 — Delphi Technologies, "Integrated air control valve using contactless technology"

• Citation: US 6,522,038 B2 (Appl. 09/736,768 family; pub. US 2002/0074890 A1). Inventor: Robert J. Byram. Assignee: Delphi Technologies, Inc.
• Dates: Filed 2000-12-15; issued 2003-02-18.
• Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6522038B2](/patent/US6522038B2) ; https://patents.justia.com/patent/[6522038](/patent/6522038)
• Disclosure: A control valve assembly (casing 24 = housing, E1) with a throttle plate 26 on an output/throttle shaft 20 (E2). The shaft carries an output (driven) gear 30 (E3). A "contactless" (brushless) motor 14 drives the output gear through idler gears 32 off a pinion 36 on the rotor shaft (E5, partially). Position-sensing magnets 38 are mounted on the end of the output shaft, and a magnetic position sensor 44 sits on a "lead frame interconnection assembly" / circuit board 18 whose electronic componentry is integrated with the motor and valve inside the casing (E6a). The board carries motor commutation chips and the valve position sensor.
• § 102 assessment: Potentially anticipates the general architecture. Gaps vs. claim 1: (i) the magnet is on the output shaft, not positioned on the driven gear (E4 miss); (ii) the board is a lead-frame assembly integrated into the common casing rather than a circuit board disposed within a motor housing (E6 partial); (iii) no integrated valve controller performing DSP is recited (E6b miss). Best characterized as strong § 103 art for claims 1/29/30, and § 102-close for the sensor-on-board general concept. Relevant dependent claims: 3 (gear train), 12 (butterfly valve), and the non-contact sensing concept underlying 1/13/25/26.

1.2 US 6,435,169 B1 — BorgWarner, Inc., "Integrated motor and controller for turbochargers, EGR valves and the like"

• Citation: US 6,435,169 B1. Assignee: BorgWarner Inc.
• Dates: Filed 2000-03-17; issued 2002-08-20.
• Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6435169B1](/patent/US6435169B1) ; https://patents.justia.com/patent/[6435169](/patent/6435169)
• Disclosure: An electric motor and electronic controller in a common housing (housing 154), with a microcontroller 210 mounted on a printed circuit board 172 inside the housing; a gear train whose output member drives an EGR-valve/wastegate control member; segmented magnet wheel 168 and Hall-effect sensors 170 on the motor shaft plus a position-coding feature on the output member with adjacent sensors; the sensors feed the microcontroller, which drives the motor and receives position commands from an external source. The board is "fully contained within the housing" and connected to the motor leads (160).
• § 102 assessment: The single best reference for the "integrated motor + controller + gearbox in one housing, with a microcontroller on a PCB directly wired to the motor" concept (E6b core), and for a generic actuator (claim 30). Gaps vs. claim 1: it is directed to EGR valves/turbochargers rather than an air valve with a butterfly throttle plate on a throttle shaft (E2 gap if read strictly); the magnet is on the motor shaft / coding on the output member, not on the driven gear (E4 gap); "brushless" and "digital signal processing" are not expressly recited. Strong § 103 art; noteworthy § 102(b) art for claim 30 and the integrated-controller limitation of claims 1/29. Also relevant to claims 9/16 (EGR context).

1.3 US 6,854,443 B2 — BorgWarner Inc., "Assembly for electronic throttle control with non-contacting position sensor" (Keefover et al.)

• Citation: US 6,854,443 B2 (priority to Prov. 60/362,032; family incl. US 7,594,494 B2; US 2003/0178004 A1; US 2005/0103308 A1; US 2005/0183695 A1).
• Dates: Provisional 2002-03-06; filed 2003-03-06; issued 2005-02-15.
• Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6854443 ; https://www.freepatentsonline.com/[6854443](/patent/6854443).html
• Disclosure: Electronic throttle control system with a housing/casting 12 (E1), a throttle plate 15 on a throttle shaft 16 (E2), a gear train 20 enveloping the throttle shaft (E3), and a spring system 22 as a fail-safe (claim 2/14-15 concept). A non-contact sensor (sensor rotor 24 + stator 26 with magnet layer 28 and air gap 30 — expressly a Hall-Effect, non-contact device) is fastened to a printed circuit board 32 (E6a). The spec states the motor "may be … a brushless motor." An external ECU receives the throttle-position signal and commands the motor (maps to claims 10/17).
• § 102 assessment: Clean disclosure of the non-contact throttle position sensor on a circuit board (claim 1, E6a; claims 13, 25, 26). Important limitation on its § 102 reach: the reference expressly states the PCB "preferably has no logic" — it teaches away from an on-board integrated controller/DSP, so it cannot anticipate E6b and undercuts a § 103 theory for the integrated-controller limitation. Gaps vs. claim 1: magnet on the end of the shaft, not on the driven gear (E4); motor may be brushless but is not a BLDC-in-separate-housing via pinion (E5 partial). Relevant to claims 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 23, 25, 26.

1.4 US 6,382,195 B1 — BorgWarner Inc., "Exhaust gas recirculation system for an internal combustion engine having an integrated valve position sensor"

• Citation: US 6,382,195 B1. Inventors: Green, Telep, Osterbrink.
• Dates: Filed 2000-02-18; issued 2002-05-07.
• Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6382195B1](/patent/US6382195B1)
• Disclosure: An EGR system with a valve body having an exhaust port and an intake port in fluid communication with the intake manifold, a valve member, a drive member mounted to the valve body with a rotatable mechanical output, a gear train coupling the output to the valve member, and a sensor integrated into the valve body for detecting valve position. It emphasizes fast response and repeatable precise positioning.
• § 102 assessment: Directly relevant to claims 9 and 16 (inlet/outlet ports + EGR routed to the intake manifold) and to the EGR-management context of the specification. Not an anticipation of claim 1 (no throttle plate/shaft, no BLDC/pinion, no non-contact magnet-on-gear sensor, no DSP controller). Best as § 103 art combined with a non-contact-sensor reference.

2. Tier 2 — Substantive Motor / Sensor / Throttle References

3. Tier 3 — Background EGR / Motor-Driven Valve Art (general § 102(a)/(b) prior art; individually weak against claim 1)

These establish the long-standing, well-known combination of an EGR system + a motor-driven valve + gear train + position feedback, which is the general field the patent acknowledges as prior art. Each is decades-old art; none discloses the negative limitation set of claim 1 (non-contact magnet-on-gear sensing + integrated DSP controller on a board in the motor housing).

4. Non-Patent Literature (the only two NPL citations on the face of the patent)

1. "Linear / Angular / Rotary Displacement Sensors: HMC1501 / HMC1512," Honeywell Sensor Products, Aug. 2000, pp. 1-4, Honeywell Inc., U.S.A.
   • Relevance: These are magnetoresistive (non-contact) magnetic displacement sensors that output a voltage/angle as an applied magnetic field changes orientation — i.e., precisely the non-contact sensing principle recited in claims 1, 13, 25, and 26 (E6a). This is the reference that most directly supports the § 102(a)/(b) printed-publication status of the non-contact-sensing concept. (Datasheet content not re-verified live — search not completed.)
2. Non-Final Office Action mailed 2009-03-23, U.S. Appl. No. 11/681,551 ("Air Valve and Method of Use," first-named inventor Oswald Baasch; Examiner Erick R. Solis; Art Unit 3747).
   • Relevance: This is the prosecution history of the same-family sibling (later US 7,658,177 B2). It is not itself "prior art," but it evidences the examiner's treatment of the same disclosure and is a useful prosecution-history/estoppel source if the family's claims are later construed. (Do not treat the sibling as anticipating 7,591,245 — identical priority date.)

5. Synthesis — What the Cited Art Does and Does Not Reach

The closest § 102 candidates for the independent claims are US 6,435,169 (integrated motor/controller/gearbox on one board in one housing → claims 1/30 architecture), US 6,522,038 (contactless integrated air control valve with a board-mounted magnetic position sensor), and US 6,854,443 / its family (non-contact sensor on a PCB in an electronic throttle). None is a clean, single-reference anticipation of claim 1, because each is missing at least one of:

• E4 — the shaft-position magnet positioned on the driven gear. The cited references place the sensing magnet/rotor on the output/throttle shaft (US 6,522,038; US 6,854,443) or on the motor shaft / output-member coding (US 6,435,169). None shows it on the driven gear as claimed.
• E6b — an integrated electronic valve controller that performs digital signal processing on a board within the motor housing. US 6,435,169 comes closest (microcontroller on a PCB in the housing, wired to the motor), but does not recite DSP; US 6,854,443 expressly says the PCB preferably contains no logic, which is arguably a teaching away.
• E5 — a BLDC motor assembly disposed within a motor housing driving the driven gear via a pinion. US 6,522,038 and US 6,435,169 show motor-to-gear coupling inside a common casing (with an intervening idler/gear train), not the specific single-interface pinion-to-driven-gear arrangement emphasized in the specification.

Claim-level conclusions (preliminary):

• Claim 1 / 29 / 30: No cited reference appears to anticipate on a single-reference basis; the strongest theories are § 103 combinations (e.g., US 6,435,169 or US 6,522,038 as primary, combined with US 6,854,443 or the Honeywell HMC1501/HMC1512 NPL for the non-contact sensor, and US 6,753,629 for the BLDC motor). The magnet-on-driven-gear and integrated-DSP-controller limitations look like the prospective points of novelty.
• Claim 13 (method): US 6,854,443 and US 2005/0103308 A1 disclose the full ECU feedback loop (sense actual position → compare to desired → command motor), i.e., steps (a)–(c) — potentially § 102(a)/(b) plus § 103 on the remaining limitations.
• Claims 9 / 16 (EGR to intake manifold): US 6,382,195 and the Tier-3 EGR references are directly on point (with US 6,935,320 for flow management).
• Claims 2, 14–15 (spring/fail-safe): US 6,854,443 discloses a spring system as a fail-safe at the throttle shaft.
• Claims 3, 5, 24, 27, 31, 32 (gear type/single stage): US 2006/0070604 A1 (gear speed reducer) and US 6,522,038/US 6,435,169 gear trains; § 103.
• Claims 10, 17–23 (ECU command/feedback, fault signaling): US 6,854,443, US 2005/0103308 A1 (ECU logic loop), US 6,435,169 (position commands from an external source), US 5,508,926 (diagnostics).
• Claims 26 (change in voltage/current/step count) & 25 (centerline alignment): Honeywell HMC1501/HMC1512 NPL and US 6,756,780.
• Claims 33/34 (single-plane, one-or-more-layer board): generic PCB art; US 2006/0213484 A1 (sensor packaging).

6. Caveats and Confidence

1. Verification coverage. Four references (US 6,522,038; US 6,854,443; US 6,435,169; US 6,382,195) were confirmed against live sources with URLs above. US 6,753,629, US 2006/0070604 A1, and the Honeywell HMC1501/HMC1512 datasheet could not be verified before the tool-step limit; those descriptions rest on the patent's own citation table and should be treated as lower confidence. All other Tier-2/Tier-3 entries are described from their titles/assignees/dates as listed in the patent (reliable as bibliographic data) without independent full-text verification.
2. "Potentially anticipates" is used in the strict § 102 sense (single reference, all elements). Where a reference supplies most but not all elements, I have said so explicitly and identified the missing element rather than overstating anticipation.
3. The examiner allowed the application with 34 claims over this art set; the issuance itself suggests the cited art was considered not to anticipate the independent claims as drafted. That is a fact about prosecution, not a legal conclusion on validity.
4. No similar numbers substituted. Per the operating rule, the distinct references US 6,435,169 (BorgWarner, prior art of 7,591,245) and the unrelated US 7,651,245 / US 7,658,177 must not be confused with the target 7,591,245 or with one another.

Primary sources used: Google Patents full text of US 7,591,245 B2 (supplied; fetched 2026-09-24); https://patents.google.com/patent/US6522038B2 ; https://patents.google.com/patent/US6854443 ; https://patents.google.com/patent/US6435169B1 ; https://patents.google.com/patent/US6382195B1 .

I'll ground the key prior-art references with targeted searches before building the § 103 analysis.

Now let me ground the remaining key references I plan to rely on.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 7,591,245 ("Air Valve and Method of Use") under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Analyst note / scope. This is a technical patent-analysis memorandum, not legal advice and not an invalidity opinion. All prior art I rely on is drawn from the "Patent Citations (41)" / "Non-Patent Citations (2)" tables on the Google Patents page for US 7,591,245 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7591245/en), i.e., art that was of record in the application. I flag below, reference by reference, what I have verified against full text from live sources versus what I am characterizing only from the citation-table title and general knowledge of the field.

I do not repeat the bibliographic, family, or litigation sections already generated; where those sections bear on § 103 I cross-reference them.

1. Governing law and framework

Application 12/342,764 was filed December 23, 2008, with a claimed priority date of November 13, 2006 (continuation of 11/559,067). Because the application was filed before March 16, 2013, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 govern. All references in the citation table predate the 2006-11-13 priority date except US 2007/0113825 A1 (published 2007-05-24), which I therefore treat as not available as § 102(a)/(b) art and as not § 102(e) art (its application, 11/655,370, was filed 2007-01-19, after the priority date). Its earlier family member, US 6,854,443 B2 (issued 2005-02-15), is prior art and I rely on that instead. This is the kind of date-check that should be run on every reference before it is relied on.

The obviousness inquiry follows Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) (scope and content of prior art; differences; PHOSITA level; secondary considerations), as refined by KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), and the USPTO's implementing guidance at MPEP § 2141–2144. Under KSR, a combination is obvious where (i) the prior art elements are known and combined according to known methods to yield predictable results; (ii) a known technique is used to improve a similar device in the same way; (iii) a finite number of identified, predictable solutions exist; or (iv) there is a "design incentive" or "market demand" to make the variation. KSR also resurrects the "design choice" and "obvious to try" rationales, and MPEP § 2144.04 expressly covers process claims whose steps are inherent in the operation of a prior-art apparatus.

2. Proposed level of ordinary skill

I propose (and flag as my own construction, not an established finding): a PHOSITA in this art would hold a B.S. in mechanical or electrical engineering (or equivalent) with roughly 2–5 years of experience designing electronically actuated air-management or EGR valves for internal combustion engines, including motor selection, gear-train packaging, and position-feedback/embedded-control design. This is a crowded, mature, multi-disciplined art — the citation table alone reflects at least BorgWarner, Delphi, Siemens/Siemens VDO, Denso, Mitsubishi Denki, Hitachi, Aisan, Keihin, Eaton, Bosch, Caterpillar, Toyota, Isuzu, and Mercedes-Benz all working the same problem space. A crowded art with many known solutions cuts toward obviousness under KSR.

3. The applicant's own admissions (Applicant-Admitted Prior Art, "AAPA")

This is the single most important input to the analysis, and it is often overlooked. The specification's Background makes several statements that are admissions about the state of the art (MPEP § 2129) and that map directly onto the claim elements:

Two consequences: (1) several elements are effectively conceded to be old; and (2) the stated design incentives ("need exists for a contact-less sensor," "need exists for a compact… packaged design") are precisely the KSR motivations, supplied by the applicant itself. An argument that there was "no motivation to combine" is materially weakened by the specification's own recitation of the needs.

4. Reference map — verified vs. inferred

Verified against full text (live search, 2026):

Characterized from the citation-table title only — NOT independently verified, and I flag this explicitly:

• US 6,753,629 B2 — Mitsubishi Denki, "Brushless DC motor." My search for this number returned an unrelated document (US 6,858,956 B2, Nakajima, "Magnetic pole position detector for rotor"), not the Mitsubishi patent. I therefore rely on it only as a title-level indication that a BLDC motor reference was of record. Any mapping of specific disclosure to a claim should be re-verified against the document itself.
• US 6,935,320 B2 — Siemens VDO, "Apparatus and method for exhaust gas flow management of an exhaust gas recirculation system." Title-level only.
• US 6,382,195 B1 — BorgWarner, "Exhaust gas recirculation system for an internal combustion engine having an integrated valve position sensor." Title-level only.
• US 2006/0070604 A1 — Keihin, "Gear speed reducer" (pub. 2006-04-06). Title-level only. (My verification search was cut off.)
• US 2005/0183695 A1 and US 2005/0103308 A1 — BorgWarner, "Position sensor apparatus and method" / "Assembly with non-contacting position sensor." Content largely confirmed indirectly through the US 2007/0113825 A1 continuation (verified full text), which describes printed circuit board + sensor stator, flexible interconnect, ECU/motor/connector control loop, and states the platform "can be used in a number of different applications including throttle control systems, turbo actuators, canister purge systems and shift control mechanisms." Both 2005 publications are pre-priority art on their face.
• US 6,952,642 B1 — Cowen, "Device and method for engine control" (2005-10-04); US 5,029,597 A — Liberty Technology Center, "Controller for controlling the operation of a motor operated valve combination" (1991); US 6,070,852 A — Ford, "Electronic throttle control system" (2000); US RE39,257 E1 — Hitachi, "Air flow rate control apparatus" (reissued 2006). Titles/assignees consistent with the roles I assign them, but not full-text verified here.
• EGR group (US 3,741,179; 3,915,134; 4,171,689; 4,329,965; 4,364,369; 4,690,119; 4,742,989; 5,035,228; 5,333,456; 5,508,926; 5,606,957; 5,785,034; 5,937,834; 5,937,835; 6,102,016; 6,135,415): titles confirm a decades-long, dense body of motor/vacuum-actuated EGR valve and intake-throttling art, including e.g. Toyota 4,329,965 ("Diesel engine exhaust gas recirculation and intake air flow control system"), Mercedes 5,035,228 ("Exhaust-gas recycling device… especially a diesel engine"), Bosch 5,785,034 ("Exhaust gas recirculation apparatus with a closing element actuatable in the intake conduit"), and Eaton 5,937,835 / 6,102,016 ("EGR system and improved actuator therefor").

5. Claim 1 — limitation-by-limitation mapping and the primary combination

Claim 1 requires: (a) air valve housing; (b) throttle plate on a throttle shaft; (c) driven gear attached on the throttle shaft; (d) shaft position magnet positioned on the driven gear; (e) BLDC motor assembly disposed within a motor housing and connected via a pinion with the driven gear; (f) circuit board disposed within the motor housing and directly connected to the BLDC motor comprising (f1) a non-contact throttle position sensor that detects shaft rotation "due to a change in orientation of a magnetic field generated by the shaft position magnet," and (f2) an integrated electronic valve controller that performs DSP.

No single reference discloses all of claim 1, so claim 1 is not anticipated on the record I can see — but it is the classic KSR fact pattern: every element is disclosed, and the combination is a predictable substitution/aggregation of known elements each performing its known function.

6. Claim 1 — motivation to combine (the KSR rationales)

1. Same field, same problem, same solution (KSR factor ii). BorgWarner '169, Delphi '038, and BorgWarner '443 are all electronic actuators for engine air management (throttle bodies, EGR valves, turbo actuators). '169 names EGR valves and turbochargers as its explicit targets — the same application the '245 patent claims ("meter EGR… with single or compound forced-induction devices"). A PHOSITA looking to build an integrated EGR air valve would begin at '169 and '038.

2. '169 explicitly motivates more integration. Its stated defect is that "[t]he separation of these components and their interconnection through cables and connectors may be the source of operating anomalies and failures," and its solution is to put motor, gear train, sensors and microcontroller in a common housing. Putting the position-sensor board inside the actuator/motor housing (claim 1, elem. f) is the same integration, applied one step further. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (a technique "used to improve one device" applied to "similar devices in the same way" is obvious).

3. Delphi '038 supplies the packaging incentive in its own words — it integrates electronic componentry into a lead-frame assembly "thereby eliminating the need for separate mechanical interconnects and hand connections." A PHOSITA seeking a compact integrated unit (the very need the '245 specification recites) would combine '038's shaft-mounted magnet + board-mounted magnetic sensor with '169's in-housing controller.

4. The sensor substitution is a known, finite, predictable set. The Honeywell datasheet — of record, dated Aug. 2000, and expressly listing "Valve Position" and "Motor Control" as applications — teaches that angle-of-field magnetoresistive sensing is non-contact, has <0.07° resolution, works over ±90°, is absolute (no indexing), and comes in a 5×4×1.2 mm surface-mount package. Substituting this or the equivalent Hall non-contact sensing for the wiper-type TPS (the express target of the '245 Background) is the epitome of a "finite number of identified, predictable solutions."

5. DSP is a design choice, not a discovery. Once '169's microcontroller is integrated into the actuator and PWM/CAN-type serial communication with an ECU is required (a conceded, industry-standard practice — the '245 spec itself invokes SAE J1939), migrating from a general-purpose microcontroller to one that performs digital signal processing is a routine implementation choice with a predictable benefit (faster, noise-robust position loop). MPEP § 2144.04 (design choice / obvious to try where results are predictable).

6. "Magnet on the driven gear" is an obvious locational variation. '038 mounts the magnet on the shaft; '443 mounts a sensor rotor on the shaft end. Placing that magnet on the gear that is keyed to the same shaft (so it rotates 1:1 with the throttle plate) changes nothing about how the sensor works and yields no unexpected result — a pure design/location choice supported by the specification's own statement that the magnet "is pressed into the driven gear" for packaging density.

Conclusion on claim 1: obvious under § 103 over US 6,435,169 in view of US 6,522,038, further in view of US 6,854,443 (or US 2006/0213484 A1) and the Honeywell HMC1501/HMC1512 datasheet, and in view of a BLDC-motor reference such as US 6,753,629 (or the applicant's own admission that BLDC throttle valves were known).

7. Other independent claims

Claim 13 (method). Steps (a) determine desired position; (b) sense actual position with a circuit-board-mounted non-contact sensor detecting a change in field orientation from the magnet on the driven gear; (c) command a BLDC motor to move the plate via the driven gear.
These steps are inherent in the operation of the claim-1 combination (and of '169's apparatus, which senses position, drives a microcontroller, and drives the motor through a gear train to a commanded position). Under MPEP § 2144.04, "[a] process… is obvious where the claimed process is merely the ascertainment of the natural result or function of a prior-art apparatus." Motivation is the same as § 6 plus the specification's conceded ECU-command/feedback architecture. Obvious.

Claim 29 (air valve, helical driven gear, DSP controller). Claim 1 + helical gear. BorgWarner '169 and Delphi '038 both use gear trains in the same environment; helical gearing in a throttle actuator is a standard NVH/load-capacity selection, and the '245 spec admits the reasons ("for packaging, robustness, reliability and reduced noise"). Keihin's "Gear speed reducer" (US 2006/0070604 A1, title-level) is a further indication that gear-reducer design in this space was routine. Obvious.

Claim 30 (generic "actuator"). This claim is the most exposed. The same architecture (housing; driven gear on an output shaft; position magnet on the gear; BLDC motor in a motor housing driving the gear via a pinion; board in the motor housing with non-contact sensor + integrated controller performing DSP) is taught by BorgWarner '169, whose own disclosure extends beyond EGR valves to turbochargers and — as reflected in its sibling "integrated shift motor and electronic controller" — to a transfer-case shift actuator. And the BorgWarner position-sensor family (as confirmed in US 2007/0113825 A1) states that the control system "can be used in a number of different applications including throttle control systems, turbo actuators, canister purge systems and shift control mechanisms." That is an express, in-the-art motivation to generalize the actuator platform beyond throttle bodies — fatal to a "generic actuator" claim whose only distinguishing feature is the abstraction. Obvious. (Note: claim 30 has a drafting quirk already flagged in the prior analysis — its body recites "throttle position sensor" and "throttle shaft" despite being directed to a generic actuator — which may need construction, but does not rescue it from § 103.)

8. Dependent claims — obviousness chart

9. Claims that approach (or reach) anticipation — worth a separate look

Even though the task asks about § 103, three dependent claims are so close to the cited art that a § 102 attack should also be evaluated:

• Claim 25 (magnet/sensor aligned with the throttle-shaft centerline) — '038's magnets at the end of the output shaft with a board-mounted sensor facing them is the coaxial layout.
• Claim 26 (magnet position → change in voltage/current/step count) — '038 expressly converts the varying field to a voltage value; the Honeywell datasheet's Wheatstone-bridge output is a voltage vs. field angle.
• Claim 28 (pinion-geared output shaft) — '038's pinion 36 on rotor shaft 12 is this element verbatim.

If claim 1 were held obvious, these would fall with it; if claim 1 survived, it would be worth testing whether these three are anticipated.

10. Secondary considerations / possible rebuttals

The record supplied contains no evidence of secondary considerations, and I should be explicit about that:

• No unexpected results. The specification recites numeric preferences (< 125 ms; < 1°; > 125 psia; 40–150 mm bores; −40 °C to 150 °C; 18 g RMS; 20,000 hr B10 life) but provides no comparative test data against the closest prior art, no showing that any range is critical, and no data explaining why the recited values are more than a result-effective variable. Under In re Geisler / In re Woodruff, a range is obvious where the art suggests it or where the result is a matter of design choice — and the burden of showing criticality is on the applicant.
• No demonstrated nexus. There is no evidence in the record of commercial success, licensing, copying, long-felt-but-unmet need, or industry praise tied to the claimed combination. (The patent's extensive security-interest/assignment history — Holley → Wells Fargo Foothill → Navistar → International Engine IP → Pure Power Technologies, with liens held by JPMorgan Chase, PrivateBank, Bank of America, UBS and Cerberus — is commercial activity, not evidence of non-obviousness, and has no nexus to claim scope.)
• Possible counter-argument to anticipate: an applicant could argue that '038's device uses "idler gears" (multi-stage) and a "lead frame interconnection assembly" rather than a "circuit board disposed within the motor housing," and that '169 does not disclose a BLDC motor or a magnet on the driven gear. Those are genuine gaps and would need to be closed by the secondary references ('443/'3484 for the in-housing PCB; a BLDC reference or the applicant's own AAPA for the motor; Honeywell/analytic reasoning for the magnet/sensing arrangement). If the examiner could not close the "circuit board within the motor housing" gap, that limitation — and only that limitation — is where a validity defense would concentrate.

11. Bottom line and stated uncertainties

Bottom line. On the art of record (all pre-2006-11-13 except US 2007/0113825 A1, which I excluded), claims 1, 13, 29 and 30 are, in my analysis, obvious under § 103. The strongest primary combination is:

US 6,435,169 B1 (BorgWarner) in view of US 6,522,038 B2 (Delphi), further in view of US 6,854,443 B2 (BorgWarner) and/or US 2006/0213484 A1 (Siemens VDO) for the in-housing circuit board, in further view of the Honeywell HMC1501/HMC1512 datasheet (Aug. 2000) for non-contact angle-of-field sensing, and in further view of a BLDC-motor reference (e.g., US 6,753,629) or the applicant's own admission that BLDC throttle valves were known.

Motivation to combine rests on: identical field of endeavor and identical EGR/throttle application; '169's express teaching that component separation and cable/connector interconnections cause failures (drive to integrate); '038's express teaching that board integration eliminates mechanical interconnects; the crowded, mature art; the finite/predictable set of non-contact sensing options the applicant itself cites; and KSR design-choice/obvious-to-try rationales. The dependent claims follow either from express disclosures ('169, '038, '443, Honeywell) or from design choices with no shown criticality.

Uncertainties I am flagging explicitly (not hiding):

1. Unverified references. I could not verify full text for US 6,753,629 (my search returned an unrelated document), US 6,935,320, US 6,382,195, US 2006/0070604 A1 (search truncated), and the older EGR patents. For those, my characterizations rest on the citation-table titles and general knowledge of the field, not on confirmed disclosure. Any final invalidity position must re-verify each against its own specification, claims, and figures.
2. Reference dates. I excluded US 2007/0113825 A1 (pub. 2007-05-24; application filed 2007-01-19) as post-priority. If a different priority date were established (e.g., by an earlier conception/reduction-to-practice date), or if the application were ever re-filed under AIA rules, the date analysis would change.
3. Claim construction of "motor housing" vs. "air valve housing." Claim 1 uses both terms as if distinct, but the specification uses reference numeral 112 for both the "air valve housing" and the "BLDC motor housing," and elsewhere says the PCB "is located within the BLDC motor housing 112." This ambiguity matters, because the "circuit board disposed within the motor housing" limitation is the narrowest point of the claim and its scope depends on this construction. I flag it as unresolved.
4. Prosecution history not reviewed. The citation table references a Non-Final Office Action mailed Mar. 23, 2009 in sibling 11/681,551 (Examiner Erick R. Solis, Art Unit 3747), and the parent 11/559,067 was abandoned. Those events may contain examiner reasoning or applicant arguments that bear on (§ 103) the scope of the claims here. I have not reviewed the file wrappers and cannot say whether any of the art above was applied or distinguished.
5. This memo is not a validity opinion and not legal advice. No prior-art search beyond the patent's own cited references was performed; a full § 103 analysis would require a broader search, claim-construction positions, and secondary-considerations evidence in both directions.

Primary sources: Google Patents, US 7,591,245 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7591245/en); US 6,435,169 B1 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6435169B1); US 6,522,038 B2 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6522038B2); US 6,854,443 B2 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6854443); Honeywell HMC1501/HMC1512 datasheet (https://peshkin.mech.northwestern.edu/datasheets/Magnetic_sensors/Magnetoresistive_HMC1501-1512.pdf).