DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 05 May 2026 (correcting an initially improper / non-compliant amendment filed with the request for continued examination on 23 April 2026). As directed by the amendment: claims 1 & 14 have been amended, claims 21 & 22 have been cancelled, and no claims have been added. Claims 2, 3, 7 & 16 were cancelled by previous amendments. Thus, claims 1, 4-6, 8-15 & 17-20 are presently pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-15 & 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeazel at al. (US 2009/0114302 A1; hereafter Yeazel) in view of Ver Nooy (US 3,025,885), Karg et al. (US 2018/0106698 A1; hereafter Karg), Jensen et al. (US 2013/0223494 A1; hereafter Jensen), and McKinney (US 7,525,420).
Regarding claim 1, Yeazel discloses (figs. 1-8; alternative embodiments in other figures, e.g., figs 11 & 12) a method of sealing a pipeline, comprising:
conveying a pipe isolation device (10; i.e., a double block isolation device) into the inlet section of a pipe (P; see figs. 4-8), the pipe having a pressurized side (i.e., left side in figs. 4-8, upstream of primary sealing head 20) and a downstream side (i.e., right side in figs. 4-8, downstream of secondary sealing head 60; see original product flow direction in fig. 5), the pipe isolation device having a carrier (12), a primary sealing head (20) comprising a primary seal element (22), and a secondary sealing head (60) comprising a secondary seal element (62);
engaging the pipe isolation device to block flow through the pipeline (see figs. 4 & 11) and form a live pipe zone disposed on the pressurized side of the primary sealing head (i.e., the zone upstream of primary sealing head 20; see also para. 63: “The position of the two packer seals … downstream from the access opening to pipe P, enables the pipeline product to be routed through a port in the side of the housing H and provides a means of bypassing product flow around pipe plug 10 and the work that is being done to pipe P”), an isolated zone disposed between the primary sealing head and the secondary sealing head (as shown; i.e., in communication with bleed port fitting 92), and a zero-energy zone disposed on the downstream side of the secondary sealing head (i.e., downstream from secondary sealing head 60; see para. 3: “this arrangement ensures that the pipe is completely sealed, making it safe to work… downstream of the two seals”).
Yeazel does not explicitly disclose the limitations wherein the primary seal element of the primary sealing head is configured such that a lower portion of the primary seal element is axially offset from an upper portion of the primary seal element and wherein the secondary seal element of the secondary sealing head is configured such that a lower portion of the secondary seal element is axially offset from an upper portion of the secondary seal element.
Yeazel also does not explicitly disclose the method being a method for monitoring a pipeline further comprising measuring data values with a plurality of sensors configured to transmit acquired data to at least one data acquisition device, wherein the plurality of sensors comprise a live pipe zone sensor configured to measure conditions of fluid in the live pipe zone, an isolated zone sensor configured to measure conditions of fluid in the isolated zone to detect leakage past the primary sealing head, and a zero-energy zone sensor configured to measure conditions of fluid in the zero-energy zone, wherein the combination of the isolated zone sensor and the zero-energy zone sensor provides verification of the integrity of the pipe isolation device; the method further comprising sending a periodic message from the at least one data acquisition device to at least one edge device, wherein the periodic message comprises a heartbeat signal confirming that the at least one data acquisition device is actively monitoring the live pipe zone sensor, the isolated zone sensor, and the zero-energy zone sensor.
Ver Nooy teaches (figs. 1-5) a pipe isolation device comprising a carrier (21) and a sealing head (26) comprising a seal element (30; incl. 30d) disposed on the sealing head.
As shown in figure 3, in the set position within the pipe, the sealing head (26) is oriented substantially normally to the axial direction of the pipe, (i.e., “a transverse sealing position”, col. 4, lines 31-32) whereby a lower portion of the seal element is axially aligned an upper portion of the seal element (as is the case in Yeazel). However, Ver Nooy also suggests that “it should be understood that the sealing position of the plug member may be other than normal to the pipe line, in which case its shape will be elliptical and its position within the housing would be changed accordingly” (col. 4, lines 34-38).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pipe isolation device of Yeazel (i.e., as used in the above method of sealing a pipeline) such that the primary seal element and second seal element, respectively, have an elliptical shape, whereby the primary seal element and secondary seal element are each configured such that a lower portion of the respective seal element is axially offset from an upper portion of the seal element, in view of the teachings of Ver Nooy, to enable the seal elements / sealing heads to have a sealing position other than normal to the pipe line (e.g., to provide a tilted orientation in the set position; providing, for a pipe of a given inner diameter, a longer sealing contact length between a seal element and the inner surface of the pipe, thereby potentially reducing sealing forces per unit area and/or spreading out the sealing forces on the pipe over some axial length, each of which may be beneficial in certain applications).
Examination Note: to further promote compact prosecution, it is noted that forming pipe isolation devices / plugs with an elliptical shape to enable a sealing orientation which is other than normal / perpendicular to the pipe axis is otherwise known in the art. E.g., see US 6,289,935 to Tash.
Karg teaches (figs. 1-12c; especially figs. 1-3) a method of sealing and monitoring a pipeline (e.g., a pipeline including and/or connected to inlet port 14 and outlet port 16), comprising actuating an isolation device (i.e., a double block valve/isolation device; see paras. 21 & 27) comprising a primary sealing device (i.e., first valve 20 having port 20a) and a secondary sealing device (i.e., second valve 20 having port 20b) to selectively block flow through the pipeline; the isolation device, when blocking flow through the pipeline, forming a live pipe zone disposed on a pressurized side (i.e., inlet side) of the primary sealing device (i.e., generally corresponding to the pipe section between 14 and 20a in fig. 2), an isolated zone disposed between the primary sealing device and the secondary sealing device (i.e., intermediate volume 19 in fig. 2, between 20a & 20b), and a zero-energy zone disposed on the downstream side of the secondary sealing device (i.e., generally corresponding to the pipe section between 20b and 16 in fig. 2);
measuring data values (e.g., temperature, pressure, and/or position) with a plurality of sensors (incl. at least temp sensors 34a-c, pressure sensors 42-44, position sensors 48a-b; see paras 24 & 31) configured to transmit acquired data to at least one data acquisition device (e.g., said sensors transmitting acquired data at least to a local controller 26 via a wired or wireless connection; see paras. 24 & 31-34, in general; see below), wherein the plurality of sensors comprise a live pipe zone sensor configured to measure conditions of fluid in the live pipe zone (i.e., live pipe zone temperature sensor 34a and/or pressure sensor 42 upstream of the primary sealing device), an isolated zone sensor configured to measure conditions of fluid in the isolated zone (i.e., isolated zone temperature sensor 34c and/or pressure sensor 44 between the primary and secondary sealing devices) to detect leakage past the primary sealing device (see para. 63: a valve leakage test may be performed using at least the pressure sensor 44 in the isolate zone; see also para. 64: the live-pipe zone sensor and the isolated zone sensor may be used together to determine the presence and degree of seal leakage, and identify which seal is leaking, etc.; see also, paras. 52 & 55: Karg otherwise teaches that the live zone sensor and the isolated zone sensor may be used together to monitor differential pressure across the primary sealing device, which may be used to determine, e.g., flow rate across the primary sealing device, etc.), and a zero-energy zone sensor configured to measure conditions of fluid in the zero-energy zone (i.e., zero-energy zone temperature sensor 34b and/or pressure sensor 43 downstream of the secondary sealing device), wherein the combination of the isolated zone sensor and the zero-energy zone sensor provides verification of the integrity of the pipe isolation device (see para. 64: “the valve controller 26 may be in communication with one or more of the inlet pressure sensor 42, the outlet pressure sensor 43 or other pressure sensors…the downstream pressure sensor(s) 43 may continuously monitor outlet pressure during leakage tests of the valves and, in some cases, may facilitate determining which valve is leaking if a valve leakage is detected”; see also, paras. 52 & 55: Karg otherwise teaches that the isolated zone sensor and the zero-energy zone sensor may be used together to monitor differential pressure across the secondary sealing device, which may be used to determine, e.g., flow rate across the secondary sealing device, etc.); and
sending a periodic message (i.e. an electronic signal / communication) from the at least one data acquisition device to at least one edge device (see below).
As noted in the cited sections above, Karg teaches that a controller 26 may be installed locally with the isolation device (see para. 34, lines 1-5), include a local display device (76; see para. 60), and configured to receive, process, and store data from the various sensors (e.g., paras. 34 & 35), and to perform actions in response to the received data and/or other control signals, among other described functions.
Karg further teaches that the system and associated monitoring method may comprise a remote device (i.e., a central system-level controller) 50 and/or another remote device 60 (e.g., an appliance controller, a remote diagnostics system, etc.; e.g., see para 48), wherein the locally disposed controller 26 is configured to communicate with the remote devices 50, 60 (via a communications interface 110) for various purposes, such as further monitoring and analysis (e.g., see paras. 42, 48, 51, 62, 71, etc.), and each remote device 50, 60 may communicate with a respective remote display 52, 62, which may include input devices to form a human-machine interface 80, or may otherwise interact with a separate HMI computing device (e.g., see paras. 62 & 71).
Karg further teaches (fig. 3) a human machine interface (HMI) 80 may be used for setting up and monitoring the pipe isolation device, and may include a user interface and/or software (see para. 80), wherein the HMI “may be and/or may include any type or number of computing devices. Illustratively, the HMI 80 may be a laptop, a mobile phone, a tablet computer, a personal computer, etc. that may communicate with the controller 26 via the electronics connection port 45 of the valve assembly 10 or other wired or wireless connection. In some cases, the HMI 80 may be or may include one or more of the local display 76, the system display 52, and the appliance display 62.” (para. 81).
It is noted that common and accepted definitions of “edge device” include “a device that provides an entry point into enterprise or service provider core networks” and “Any server or other networking device that is located closer to the client machines rather than being in the backbone of the network”.
Examination Note: See also 2017/0289184 A1, para. 35-37: an edge device may be any device that connects “downstream” from a central / main gateway; e.g., connected devices and sensors, PCs, workstations, etc.
In the context of Karg, as best understood, device 50 (e.g., a central system level controller) may be considered the core / backbone of the network. In fig. 2, controller 26, remote device 60, remote display 62, and even remote display 62 are shown to be downstream of the central device 50, and connected to the central device 50 and to each other by communication link 100.
As such, in one interpretation of Karg, controller 26 may be reasonably seen as a locally disposed data acquisition device, whereby at least remote device 60, remote display 62 and/or remote display 52 may be considered edge devices in communication with the locally disposed data acquisition device.
Alternatively, in another interpretation, device 60 may be reasonably seen as a remote data acquisition device (i.e., a data acquisition device not disposed on the pipeline), with at least remote display 62 and/or remote display 52 being edge devices in communication with the remotely disposed data acquisition device (e.g., via communication link 100).
Karg teaches that double-block type arrangements are known and “often times required by regulatory agencies” (para. 21, lines 5-11) and that such arrangements, in general, may be fitted with sensors, switches and/or other devices to assist in monitoring and/or analyzing the operation of the double block device and/or connected devices (para. 21, lines 11-18), enabling various types of monitoring and control operations, including overpressure diagnostics, proving and leakage tests, diagnostic communications, etc. (para. 22).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of sealing a pipeline of Yeazel such that the method is a method of sealing and monitoring a pipeline, further comprising measuring data values with a plurality of sensors (e.g., pressure and temperature sensors in each of the upstream/live zone, middle/isolated zone, and downstream/zero energy zone, and position sensors for each of the primary and secondary seals, etc.) configured to transmit acquired data to at least one data acquisition device (e.g., at least a local device controller; or otherwise the local device controller and one or more remote devices), wherein the plurality of sensors comprise a live pipe zone sensor configured to measure conditions of fluid in the live pipe zone, an isolated zone sensor configured to measure conditions of fluid in the isolated zone to detect leakage past the primary sealing head, and a zero-energy zone sensor configured to measure conditions of fluid in the zero-energy zone, wherein the combination of the isolated zone sensor and the zero-energy zone sensor provides verification of the integrity of the pipe isolation device (as explained above), and sending a message (i.e., an electronic signal / communication) from the at least one data acquisition device to at least one edge device (e.g., a connected remote device and/or a remote display, other than the central core of the network), in view of the teachings of Karg, to enable the pipe isolation device to be monitored and controlled (e.g., monitoring seal actuation position and cycle counts; pressures and/or temperatures in each zone for leakage monitoring and/or seal integrity testing, performing other diagnostics, etc.; and, in the event of a leak, enabling a determination of the leak location [i.e., the primary seal vs the secondary seal]) and, moreover, to allow such monitoring and/or control to be effected locally (as with the device controller) and/or remotely (e.g., via a system level controller or other remote device).
Such a modification would have been otherwise obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as a combination of known prior art elements (e.g., a double block pipeline isolation device, as in Yeazel; and a monitoring and control system / network for a double block isolation device, as in Karg) according to known methods (i.e., as generally taught by Karg) to obtain predictable results (e.g., enabling monitoring and control of a double block pipeline plug of the form disclosed by Yeazel and, in the event of a leak, enabling a determination as to whether the leak is at the primary or secondary sealing head, as noted above) or, alternatively as the use of a known technique (i.e., providing such a monitoring and control arrangement to a double block isolation device, as in Karg) to improve a similar device (i.e., the double block isolation device of Yeazel) in the same way (as above, to provide local and/or remote monitoring and control and enable determination of a leak location, etc.).
Regarding the remaining limitation, wherein the method comprises sending a periodic message from the at least one data acquisition device to at least one edge device, wherein the periodic message comprises a heartbeat signal confirming that the at least one data acquisition device is actively monitoring the live pipe zone sensor, the isolated zone sensor, and the zero-energy zone sensor, Karg teaches that the data acquisition devices (i.e., controller 26 or device 60) are configured to send signals or other information (i.e., messages) to at least one edge device (e.g., see para. 48: "The valve controller 26 may include an I/O or communications interface 110 with a communication protocol for transmitting data to and/or otherwise communicating with one or more remote device(s) that may be located remotely from the valve assembly 10…and/or located adjacent the device…. Illustratively, communications interface 110, using the predetermined communication bus protocol or other communication protocol, may be configured to output and/or communicate one or more valve conditions, one or more measures related to valve conditions, one or more conditions related to a fluid flow through fluid channel 18, and/or one or more diagnostic parameters, conditions or events, to a device located adjacent or remote from valve assembly 10.”).
However, Karg does not explicitly disclose that such communications are “periodic messages” which comprise “a heartbeat signal confirming that the at least one data acquisition device is actively monitoring the live pipe zone sensor, the isolated zone sensor, and the zero-energy zone sensor”.
Jensen teaches (figs. 1-5) a process control system which may include various devices including sensors (e.g., pressure sensors, temperature sensors, etc.; see para. 25) and, in particular, may comprise a control systems, such as an “operator interface” (14A) and “distributed controller” (14B) connected between field devices (e.g., 14, 16) and a network bus (32), which provides subsequent connection to a central computer (30), other computers (35, 36), a “plantwide LAN” (37), and a “corporate WAN” (40).
In figures 2-4, Jensen teaches valve systems (200, 300) comprising sensors (e.g., 206, 212) connected to a valve monitoring system (204, 304, 400) having a communications interface (202, 302, 406) which may send, e.g., calculated information, raw measurement data, minimally processed data, to a host system or other connected system (para. 34-38).
Jensen explains that, in many systems, bandwidth or other system constraints may require a lower-than-ideal data transmission rate (para. 39). As such, the valve monitoring system may be configured to collect sensor data at relatively fast rate but may only report the data out at a slower rate (para. 40).
Jensen explains that communications may be sent as “packets” (i.e., formatted messages; e.g., TCP, UDP, or by another protocol; para. 42).
In figure 5, Jensen teaches a “message data unit format” (500) which may include a time stamp field (506) for when the data was captured or when the data was sent (para. 50) and data fields (e.g., 508, 510), among others.
Finally, Jensen explains that, limiting the number of sensor samples and storing such samples until “an upcoming periodic reporting opportunity” conserves energy which, when a wireless, battery-powered device is used, can increase the operating life of such devices, wherein “the interval between periodic reporting opportunities can be based on many factors, such as type and quality of wireless network connection” (para. 56).
McKinney is generally directed to a system for verifying remote operation of a plurality of sensor monitoring / alarm systems, comprising a controller (12; i.e., data acquisition device, or “first communication node”) mounted with corresponding environmental equipment systems to collect data from the system and communicate the data to a receiver (14; i.e., a “second communication node”); wherein the controller may be configured to detect a variety of alarm events using different sensors for producing alarm signals, including pressures, current/voltages, fluid levels, temperatures, etc. (col. 8, lines 16-41; figs. 1 & 3).
McKinney explains that the controller / data acquisition device (control panel / first communication node; i.e., 156 / 162 in fig. 7; 194 in fig. 8) may be configured to communicate with a local receiver (i.e., an edge device; second communication node 164 / 196, etc.) (col. 20, lines 42 – col. 21, line 9), with the local receiver / edge device capable of receiving signals/information and forwarding the signals/information to a remote location / network (col. 22, lines 25-49).
McKinney teaches that it may be desirable to check the operation of the data acquisition device at desired intervals: “For instance, if it is desired to verify or check that each or selected of a plurality of master transmitters 194 is operating properly on a monthly basis, then each (or selected) of the plurality of master transmitters 194 may be programmed to dial in monthly to verify operation of the communication system (and possibly also to provide a sensor status report because the call is being made anyway)…This check, which might be called a heartbeat signal, may be performed at any desired interval such as daily, weekly, monthly, or the like. The heartbeat signal verifies that each communication system at each environmental equipment system is functioning properly or if not, then records this information for future action.” (col. 21, lines 25-45).
McKinney further teaches that, as discussed, a system may send “a regularly scheduled heartbeat signal” to a receiver or remote device that, if not received, would indicate a failure. “For example only, if a heartbeat signal or regular transmission signal were scheduled for once a month, then a failure may be indicated if the heartbeat signal is not received by server 26 or receiver 14 within that time period. If desired, the heartbeat signal could include any readings from alarm sensors and/or may indicate that a self-test shows that all alarm sensors are within the acceptable range of readings.” (col. 32, line 66 – col. 33, line 10).
Additionally, McKinney explains that, when the controller / data acquisition device communicates with an intermediate edge device / transmitter, the controller / data acquisition device may be configured “verify operation, run self-tests or the like” and then transmit a “local heartbeat signal” to the edge device at desired time intervals, wherein “if the local heartbeat signal is received, then it can be assumed that” the system / controller is functioning properly, in which case the edge device can send an external heartbeat signal to the remote server at some desired interval (e.g., a less frequent interval than the local heartbeat signal). Alternatively, the edge device may need not send an external heartbeat signal to the remote server “in light of the local heartbeat signal”. Either way, McKinney explains that the use of a local heartbeat signal enables “virtually continuous” verification of system operation without the need for frequent, high-cost communications (col. 33, line 43 – col. 34, line 6).
Finally, see flowchart in fig. 15 & corresponding col. 35, lines 16-30; “So long as the local heartbeat signal is received… then the operation of alarm 610 is verified”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yeazel (as otherwise modified above) to further comprise sending a periodic message from the at least one data acquisition device to at least one edge device, wherein the periodic message comprises a heartbeat signal confirming that the at least one data acquisition device is actively monitoring the live pipe zone sensor, the isolated zone sensor, and the zero-energy zone sensor, in view of the teachings of Jensen and McKinney, in order to conserve network bandwidth and/or device energy (i.e., as suggested by Jensen, a data acquisition device may collect sensor data and store the sensor data until the next periodic reporting opportunity, which reduces bandwidth usage and, by limiting the number of sensor samples and data transmissions, may conserve energy, especially when operating on battery power, etc.) while providing routine periodic indications to the edge device that the data acquisition device is functioning normally (i.e., monitoring the connected system, including the sensors thereof; whereby the use of a local heartbeat signal scheme may also enable a reduction in frequency of external heartbeat signals sent from the edge device to the remote device / network, thus further reducing external communication bandwidth, as suggested by McKinney).
The above combination would have otherwise been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as the use of a known technique (communicating an operational status of a sensor / alarm system by sending a heartbeat signal from a controller / data acquisition device of the system to an edge device, as in McKinney, and/or batch reporting sensor/system data at periodic reporting intervals, as in Jensen) to improve a similar method (i.e., the method of Yeazel in view of Karg; where, as in Karg, the data acquisition device is configured to send signals or other information regarding sensor operation / status to at least one edge device) in the same way (e.g., reducing bandwidth and/or conserving energy while still providing periodic indications to the edge device that the data acquisition device and its associated sensors are functioning normally, etc.).
As a result, all of the limitations of claim 1 are met, or are otherwise rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 4, the method of Yeazel, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation wherein the at least one data acquisition device is disposed on the pipeline.
As set forth for claim 1 above, Karg teaches that the monitoring system / arrangement may comprise a data acquisition device (i.e., device controller 26) which may be disposed on (i.e., physically secured or coupled to, or secured or coupled relative to) a body / housing of the isolation device through which the pipeline passes (see para. 34, lines 1-5; see also para. 62, lines 1-5), which may reasonably be seen as reading on “disposed on the pipeline” (i.e., as opposed to remotely disposed at some remote monitoring location).
When interpreted in the context of a combination with Yeazel, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably inferred such an arrangement to suggest a data acquisition device “disposed on the pipeline”.
Regarding claim 5, the method of Yeazel, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation wherein the at least one data acquisition device is connected to the sensors by a wired connection. As set forth for claim 1 above, Karg teaches that the controller 26 (i.e., a data acquisition device) may be connected to the sensors via a wired connection (para. 24, ll. 11-18).
Regarding claim 6, the method of Yeazel, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation wherein the at least one data acquisition device is not disposed on the pipeline.
As set forth for claim 1 above, in one interpretation of Karg, device 60 may be reasonably seen as a remote data acquisition device (i.e., a data acquisition device not disposed on the pipeline), with at least remote display 62 and/or remote display 52 being edge devices in communication with the remotely disposed data acquisition device (e.g., via communication link 100).
Karg teaches that the remote device (60) may receive data from the sensors and/or the local controller, via communications interface 110 of the local controller, for various purposes such as further monitoring and analysis (e.g., see paras. 42, 48, 51, 62, 71, etc.), and thus is reasonably seen as being a data acquisition device which is not disposed on the pipeline.
When interpreted in the context of a combination with Yeazel, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably inferred such an arrangement to suggest, i.e., a remote data acquisition device which is correspondingly “not disposed on the pipeline”.
Regarding claim 8, the method of Yeazel, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation wherein the at least one edge device is communicatively coupled to at least one remote application.
As best understood “the at least one edge device is communicatively coupled to at least one remote application” is interpreted as meaning that the at least one edge device is communicatively coupled to at least one additional device, remote from the data acquisition device, configured to host such an application.
As noted for claim 1, the devices (50, 60) of Karg are communicatively coupled to at least one corresponding remote display (52, 62) which may be or otherwise may interact with a Human-Machine Interface 80 (as described in the various cited paragraphs [e.g., paras. 62, 71, 81], HMI 80 may be formed by the remote display 52, 62 or may be another computing device [such as a laptop, mobile phone, etc.] interacting with the remote displays).
Figs. 4-12C of Karg show examples of interfaces (i.e., menus / screens) of an application hosted on such a human-machine interface 80. Such an HMI 80 having a corresponding application / interface, when formed by the remote display 52, remote display 62, or another computing device interacting with such remote displays, is reasonably seen as reading on a remote application communicatively coupled to the at least one edge device (i.e., at least one additional remote device configured to host such an application).
In the first interpretation of Karg, where controller 26 is seen as the data acquisition device, when device 60 is considered to be the edge device, then at least remote display 62, or another computing device interacting with the display (i.e., as an HMI 80), may be considered to be the “at least one remote application”. The remote display 52, may also be seen as a remote application communicatively coupled to the at least one edge device 60, via communication link 100.
In the second interpretation of Karg, where device 60 is seen as the data acquisition device, then remote display 62 may be seen as the edge device, with either remote display 52, or another computing device interacting with the display (i.e., as an HMI 80), may be considered to be the “at least one remote application”.
Thus, the method of Yeazel, as modified to include a monitoring system / arrangement as taught by Karg, is reasonably seen as reading on or otherwise rendering obvious the limitation wherein “the at least one edge device is communicatively coupled to at least one remote application.”
Regarding claim 9, the method of Yeazel, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation wherein the at least one data acquisition device (i.e., controller 26 of Karg) comprises a processing unit to process the acquired data (microprocessor 36 of Karg; see fig. 2), a non-transitory memory to record the acquired data (memory 37 in fig. 2 of Karg; “a non-volatile memory”, para. 38, lines 1-5), and a user interface to display the acquired data (e.g., local display 76 in fig. 2 of Karg; see paras. 60, 62, 71, 74, 77, 81, etc.).
Regarding claim 10, the method of Yeazel, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation wherein the method further comprises processing the acquired data to determine if an operating condition of the pipe isolation device has reached a selected threshold.
In particular, Karg teaches that the monitoring system / arrangement may monitor one or more of the temperature values obtained by the temperature sensors, such as the isolation zone temperature value and, if there is a change in temperature greater than a threshold value, the controller 26 may “automatically decide” to take an action (such as repeating a test, accepting a test result, or providing a notification of a temperature change, etc.; see para. 59).
Karg further teaches that the controller 26 may (continuously or discontinuously) monitor pressure of the isolation zone via the sensors, determine a rate of pressure change, compare the pressure change rate to a stored threshold value, and may output a signal related to the determined rate of pressure change to one or more displays or remote devices; and may convey information including a time stamp related to events when the determined pressure change rate meet and/or exceed the threshold value, and/or may provide a visual and/or audible indication of passage or failure of a related test (see para. 77).
More generally, Karg explicitly states “In some cases, the valve controller 26 may interpret the results of the VL [valve leakage] test in view of a sensed temperature. In one example, if the valve controller 26 detects a change in temperature greater than a threshold and/or a temperature that has crossed a threshold, the valve controller may automatically repeat the VL test, accept the test results at the changed or sensed temperature, provide a notification, and/or automatically take one or more other actions.” (para. 79).
Regarding claim 11, the method of Yeazel, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation wherein the at least one data acquisition device triggers an action when the operating condition has met the selected threshold.
As noted for the grounds of rejection for claim 10 above, Karg teaches that the controller 26 (i.e., the at least one data acquisition device) may trigger an action such as repeating a test, accepting a test, providing notification of a temperature change, providing a time-stamped signal, and/or providing a visual and/or audio indication (e.g., see paras. 59 & 77).
Karg explicitly states (para. 79): “…In one example, if the valve controller 26 detects a change in temperature greater than a threshold and/or a temperature that has crossed a threshold, the valve controller may automatically repeat the VL test, accept the test results at the changed or sensed temperature, provide a notification, and/or automatically take one or more other actions”.
Regarding claim 12, the method of Yeazel, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation wherein the operating condition is a temperature of a fluid in an area of the pipeline.
As set forth in the grounds of rejection for claims 10 & 11 above, Karg teaches that the monitoring system / arrangement may monitor a temperature of fluid, e.g., from a temperature sensor 34 in the isolated zone, and compare a change in such a temperature to a threshold value and take one or more actions if the temperature has crossed a threshold (see para. 59, lines 8-20 & para. 79; see also para. 57).
Regarding claim 13, the method of Yeazel, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation wherein the operating condition is an error in the functioning of the pipe isolation device.
Generally, Karg further teaches (e.g., para. 49) that the monitoring system / arrangement may determine one or more device operating conditions based on one or more diagnostic parameters sensed by one or more sensor(s) (e.g., a pressure sensor, etc.) in communication with the fluid channel 18; said operating conditions may include high pressure conditions, low pressure conditions, device closure conditions, leak conditions, and safety event conditions.
More specifically, Karg suggests that pressure and temperature measurements may be used to perform, e.g., a leakage test (paras. 77-79) and the controller may determine, based on said measurements, if the isolation device as passed or failed such a leakage test. As best understood, the detection of a value (e.g., a temperature) which exceeds a threshold and causes the controller to determine that the leakage test has failed (a scenario suggested by Karg) would reasonably be seen as reading on a limitations of processing acquired data to determine if an operating condition of the isolation device has reached a selected threshold (i.e., whether the isolation device has a leakage which has reached a threshold to cause failure of the leakage test), wherein the operating condition is an error in the functioning of the pipe isolation device (i.e. such leakage of the isolation device may be considered an “error in the functioning of the pipe isolation device”).
Furthermore, see the interface / application screens shown in figs. 4-12C: Fig. 5 shows a setup screen for a leakage detection function; Fig. 6 shows a device status page with a diagnostics display; Figs. 8A & 8B show displays of device leakage detection tests, comparing pressure vs time; Fig. 9 shows a pressure history chart with buttons for displaying active faults and fault history; Fig 12C shows a report displaying a fault history, including various “safety parameter violations”.
Regarding claim 14, Yeazel discloses (figs. 1-8; alternative embodiments in other figures, e.g., figs 11 & 12) a pipe isolation system for a pipeline, comprising:
a carrier (12) with a primary sealing head (20) comprising a primary seal element (22) and a secondary sealing head (60) comprising a secondary seal element (62), the primary sealing head and the secondary sealing head configured to create a live pipe zone (i.e., the zone upstream of primary sealing head 20; see also para. 63: “The position of the two packer seals … downstream from the access opening to pipe P, enables the pipeline product to be routed through a port in the side of the housing H and provides a means of bypassing product flow around pipe plug 10 and the work that is being done to pipe P”), an isolated zone disposed between the primary sealing head and the secondary sealing head (i.e., as shown; the zone between the primary and secondary sealing heads in communication with bleed port fitting 92), and a zero-energy zone (i.e., downstream from secondary sealing head 60; see para. 3: “this arrangement ensures that the pipe is completely sealed, making it safe to work… downstream of the two seals”) within a pipeline;
Yeazel does not explicitly disclose the limitations wherein the primary seal element of the primary sealing head is configured such that a lower portion of the primary seal element is axially offset from an upper portion of the primary seal element and wherein the secondary seal element of the secondary sealing head is configured such that a lower portion of the secondary seal element is axially offset from an upper portion of the secondary seal element.
Yeazel also does not explicitly disclose the pipe isolation system being a pipe isolation and monitoring system, wherein the system further comprises a plurality of sensors configured to send acquired data, wherein the plurality of sensors comprise a live pipe zone sensor configured to measure conditions of fluid in the live pipe zone, an isolated zone sensor configured to measure conditions of fluid in the isolated zone to detect leakage past the primary sealing head, and a zero-energy zone sensor configured to measure conditions of fluid in the zero-energy zone, wherein the combination of the isolated zone sensor and the zero-energy zone sensor provides data indicative of the integrity of the pipe isolation and monitoring system; at least one data acquisition device coupled to the plurality of sensors and configured to receive the acquired data; and at least one edge device communicatively coupled with at least one data acquisition device, wherein the at least one data acquisition device is configured to send a periodic message to the at least one edge device, wherein the periodic message comprises a heartbeat signal confirming that the at least one data acquisition device is actively monitoring the live pipe zone sensor, the isolated zone sensor, and the zero-energy zone sensor.
Ver Nooy teaches (figs. 1-5) a pipe isolation device comprising a carrier (21) and a sealing head (26) comprising a seal element (30; incl. 30d) disposed on the sealing head.
As shown in figure 3, in the set position within the pipe, the sealing head (26) is oriented substantially normally to the axial direction of the pipe, (i.e., “a transverse sealing position”, col. 4, lines 31-32) whereby a lower portion of the seal element is axially aligned an upper portion of the seal element (as is the case in Yeazel). However, Ver Nooy also suggests that “it should be understood that the sealing position of the plug member may be other than normal to the pipe line, in which case its shape will be elliptical and its position within the housing would be changed accordingly” (col. 4, lines 34-38).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pipe isolation system of Yeazel such that the primary seal element and second seal element, respectively, have an elliptical shape, whereby the primary seal element and secondary seal element are each configured such that a lower portion of the respective seal element is axially offset from an upper portion of the seal element, in view of the teachings of Ver Nooy, to enable the seal elements / sealing heads to have a sealing position other than normal to the pipe line (e.g., to provide a tilted orientation in the set position; providing, for a pipe of a given inner diameter, a longer sealing contact length between a seal element and the inner surface of the pipe, thereby potentially reducing sealing forces per unit area and/or spreading out the sealing forces on the pipe over some axial length, each of which may be beneficial in certain applications).
Examination Note: to further promote compact prosecution, it is noted that forming pipe isolation devices / plugs with an elliptical shape to enable a sealing orientation which is other than normal / perpendicular to the pipe axis is otherwise known in the art. E.g., see US 6,289,935 to Tash.
Karg teaches (figs. 1-12c; especially figs. 1-3) a pipe isolation and monitoring system for a pipeline (e.g., a pipeline including and/or connected to inlet port 14 and outlet port 16), comprising a primary sealing device and a secondary sealing device (i.e., a double block valve/isolation device; see paras. 21 & 27; primary sealing device being first valve 20 having port 20a; secondary sealing device being second valve 20 having port 20b), the primary sealing device and the secondary sealing device configured to create a live pipe zone (i.e., upstream of the primary sealing device; generally between inlet 14 and 20a in fig. 2), an isolated zone disposed between the primary sealing device and the secondary sealing device (i.e., intermediate space 19; between 20a & 20b), and a zero-energy zone (i.e., downstream of the secondary sealing device; generally between 20b and outlet 16 in fig. 2) within a pipeline;
a plurality of sensors (incl. at least temp sensors 34a-c, pressure sensors 42-44, position sensors 48a-b; see paras 24 & 31 & fig. 2) configured to send acquired data (e.g., said sensors transmitting acquired data at least to a local controller 26 via a wired or wireless connection; see paras. 24 & 31-34, in general; see below), wherein the plurality of sensors comprise a live pipe zone sensor (i.e., live pipe zone temperature sensor 34a and/or pressure sensor 42 upstream of the primary sealing device) configured to measure conditions of fluid in the live pipe zone, an isolated zone sensor (i.e., isolated zone temperature sensor 34c and/or pressure sensor 44 between the primary and secondary sealing devices) configured to measure conditions of fluid in the isolated zone to detect leakage past the primary sealing device (see para. 63: a valve leakage test may be performed using at least the pressure sensor 44 in the isolate zone; see also para. 64: the live-pipe zone sensor and the isolated zone sensor may be used together to determine the presence and degree of seal leakage, and identify which seal is leaking, etc.; see also, paras. 52 & 55: Karg otherwise teaches that the live zone sensor and the isolated zone sensor may be used together to monitor differential pressure across the primary sealing device, which may be used to determine, e.g., flow rate across the primary sealing device, etc.), and a zero-energy zone sensor (i.e., zero-energy zone temperature sensor 34b and/or pressure sensor 43 downstream of the secondary sealing device) configured to measure conditions of fluid in the zero-energy zone, wherein the combination of the isolated zone sensor and the zero-energy zone sensor provides data indicative of the integrity of the pipe isolation and monitoring system (see para. 64: “the valve controller 26 may be in communication with one or more of the inlet pressure sensor 42, the outlet pressure sensor 43 or other pressure sensors…the downstream pressure sensor(s) 43 may continuously monitor outlet pressure during leakage tests of the valves and, in some cases, may facilitate determining which valve is leaking if a valve leakage is detected”; see also, paras. 52 & 55: Karg otherwise teaches that the isolated zone sensor and the zero-energy zone sensor may be used together to monitor differential pressure across the secondary sealing device, which may be used to determine, e.g., flow rate across the secondary sealing device, etc.);
at least one data acquisition device (e.g., local controller 26 and/or remote device 60; see below) coupled to the plurality of sensors (local controller 26 communicatively coupled via a wired or wireless connection; remote device 60 communicatively coupled to the sensors via a local controller 26; see paras. 24 & 31-34, in general; see below) and configured to receive the acquired data; and
at least one edge device (e.g., remote device 60, if not considered the data acquisition device; otherwise, remote displays 52 or 62; see below) communicatively coupled with at least one data acquisition device (e.g., via communications link 100), wherein the at least one data acquisition device is configured to send messages (e.g., electronic signals / communications) to the at least one edge device.
As noted in the cited sections above, Karg teaches that a controller 26 may be installed locally with the isolation device (see para. 34, lines 1-5), include a local display device (76; see para. 60), and configured to receive, process, and store data from the various sensors (e.g., paras. 34 & 35), and to perform actions in response to the received data and/or other control signals, among other described functions.
Karg further teaches that the system may comprise a remote device (i.e., a central system-level controller) 50 and/or another remote device 60 (e.g., an appliance controller, a remote diagnostics system, etc.; e.g., see para 48), wherein the locally disposed controller 26 is configured to communicate with the remote devices 50, 60 (via a communications interface 110) for various purposes, such as further monitoring and analysis (e.g., see paras. 42, 48, 51, 62, 71, etc.), and each remote device 50, 60 may communicate with a respective remote display 52, 62, which may include input devices to form a human-machine interface 80, or may otherwise interact with a separate HMI computing device (e.g., see paras. 62 & 71).
Karg further teaches (fig. 3) a human machine interface (HMI) 80 may be used for setting up and monitoring the pipe isolation device, and may include a user interface and/or software (see para. 80), wherein the HMI “may be and/or may include any type or number of computing devices. Illustratively, the HMI 80 may be a laptop, a mobile phone, a tablet computer, a personal computer, etc. that may communicate with the controller 26 via the electronics connection port 45 of the valve assembly 10 or other wired or wireless connection. In some cases, the HMI 80 may be or may include one or more of the local display 76, the system display 52, and the appliance display 62.” (para. 81).
It is noted that common and accepted definitions of “edge device” include “a device that provides an entry point into enterprise or service provider core networks” and “Any server or other networking device that is located closer to the client machines rather than being in the backbone of the network”.
Examination Note: See also 2017/0289184 A1, para. 35-37: an edge device may be any device that connects “downstream” from a central / main gateway; e.g., connected devices and sensors, PCs, workstations, etc.
In the context of Karg, as best understood, device 50 (e.g., a central system level controller) may be considered the core / backbone of the network. In fig. 2, controller 26, remote device 60, remote display 62, and even remote display 62 are shown to be downstream of the central device 50, and connected to the central device 50 and to each other by communication link 100.
As such, in one interpretation of Karg, controller 26 may be reasonably seen as a locally disposed data acquisition device, whereby at least remote device 60, remote display 62 and/or remote display 52 may be considered edge devices in communication with the locally disposed data acquisition device.
Alternatively, in another interpretation, device 60 may be reasonably seen as a remote data acquisition device (i.e., a data acquisition device not disposed on the pipeline), with at least remote display 62 and/or remote display 52 being edge devices in communication with the remotely disposed data acquisition device (e.g., via communication link 100).
Karg teaches that double-block type arrangements are known and “often times required by regulatory agencies” (para. 21, lines 5-11) and that such arrangements, in general, may be fitted with sensors, switches and/or other devices to assist in monitoring and/or analyzing the operation of the double block device and/or connected devices (para. 21, lines 11-18), enabling various types of monitoring and control operations, including overpressure diagnostics, proving and leakage tests, diagnostic communications, etc. (para. 22).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pipe isolation system of Yeazel such that the system is a pipe isolation and monitoring system, further comprising a plurality of sensors configured to send acquired data (e.g., pressure and temperature sensors in each of the upstream/live zone, middle/isolated zone, and downstream/zero energy zone, and position sensors for each of the primary and secondary seals, etc.), wherein the plurality of sensors comprise a live pipe zone sensor configured to measure conditions of fluid in the live pipe zone, an isolated zone sensor configured to measure conditions of fluid in the isolated zone to detect leakage past the primary sealing head, and a zero-energy zone sensor configured to measure conditions of fluid in the zero-energy zone, wherein the combination of the isolated zone sensor and the zero-energy zone sensor provides data indicative of the integrity of the pipe isolation and monitoring system (as explained above), at least one data acquisition device (e.g., at least a local device controller; or otherwise the local device controller and one or more remote devices), and at least one edge device (e.g., a connected remote device and/or a remote display, other than the central core of the network) communicatively coupled with the at least one data acquisition device, wherein the at least one data acquisition device is configured to send a message (i.e., an electronic signal / communication) to the at least one edge device, in view of the teachings of Karg, to enable the pipe isolation device to be monitored and controlled (e.g., monitoring seal actuation position and cycle counts; pressures and/or temperatures in each zone for leakage monitoring and/or seal integrity testing, performing other diagnostics, etc.; and, in the event of a leak, enabling a determination of the leak location [i.e., the primary seal vs the secondary seal]) and, moreover, to allow such monitoring and/or control to be effected locally (as with the device controller) and/or remotely (e.g., via a system level controller or other remote device).
Such a modification would have been otherwise obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as a combination of known prior art elements (e.g., a double block pipeline isolation device, as in Yeazel; and a monitoring and control system / network for a double block isolation device, as in Karg) according to known methods (i.e., as generally taught by Karg) to obtain predictable results (e.g., enabling monitoring and control of a double block pipeline plug of the form disclosed by Yeazel, and, in the event of a leak, enabling a determination as to whether the leak is at the primary or secondary sealing head, as noted above) or, alternatively as the use of a known technique (i.e., providing such a monitoring and control arrangement to a double block isolation device, as in Karg) to improve a similar device (i.e., the double block isolation device of Yeazel) in the same way (as above, to provide local and/or remote monitoring and control and enable determination of a leak location, etc.).
Regarding the remaining limitations, wherein the at least one data acquisition device is configured to send a periodic message to the at least one edge device, wherein the periodic message comprises a heartbeat signal confirming that the at least one data acquisition device is actively monitoring the live pipe zone sensor, the isolated zone sensor, and the zero-energy zone sensor, Karg teaches that the data acquisition devices (i.e., controller 26 or device 60) are configured to send signals or other information (i.e., messages) to at least one edge device (e.g., see para. 48: "The valve controller 26 may include an I/O or communications interface 110 with a communication protocol for transmitting data to and/or otherwise communicating with one or more remote device(s) that may be located remotely from the valve assembly 10…and/or located adjacent the device…. Illustratively, communications interface 110, using the predetermined communication bus protocol or other communication protocol, may be configured to output and/or communicate one or more valve conditions, one or more measures related to valve conditions, one or more conditions related to a fluid flow through fluid channel 18, and/or one or more diagnostic parameters, conditions or events, to a device located adjacent or remote from valve assembly 10.”).
However, Karg does not explicitly disclose that such communications are “periodic messages” which comprise “a heartbeat signal confirming that the at least one data acquisition device is actively monitoring the live pipe zone sensor, the isolated zone sensor, and the zero-energy zone sensor”.
Jensen teaches (figs. 1-5) a process control system which may include various devices including sensors (e.g., pressure sensors, temperature sensors, etc.; see para. 25) and, in particular, may comprise a control systems, such as an “operator interface” (14A) and “distributed controller” (14B) connected between field devices (e.g., 14, 16) and a network bus (32), which provides subsequent connection to a central computer (30), other computers (35, 36), a “plantwide LAN” (37), and a “corporate WAN” (40).
In figures 2-4, Jensen teaches valve systems (200, 300) comprising sensors (e.g., 206, 212) connected to a valve monitoring system (204, 304, 400) having a communications interface (202, 302, 406) which may send, e.g., calculated information, raw measurement data, minimally processed data, to a host system or other connected system (para. 34-38).
Jensen explains that, in many systems, bandwidth or other system constraints may require a lower-than-ideal data transmission rate (para. 39). As such, the valve monitoring system may be configured to collect sensor data at relatively fast rate but may only report the data out at a slower rate (para. 40).
Jensen explains that communications may be sent as “packets” (i.e., formatted messages; e.g., TCP, UDP, or by another protocol; para. 42).
In figure 5, Jensen teaches a “message data unit format” (500) which may include a time stamp field (506) for when the data was captured or when the data was sent (para. 50) and data fields (e.g., 508, 510), among others.
Finally, Jensen explains that, limiting the number of sensor samples and storing such samples until “an upcoming periodic reporting opportunity” conserves energy which, when a wireless, battery-powered device is used, can increase the operating life of such devices, wherein “the interval between periodic reporting opportunities can be based on many factors, such as type and quality of wireless network connection” (para. 56).
McKinney is generally directed to a system for verifying remote operation of a plurality of sensor monitoring / alarm systems, comprising a controller (12; i.e., data acquisition device, or “first communication node”) mounted with corresponding environmental equipment systems to collect data from the system and communicate the data to a receiver (14; i.e., a “second communication node”); wherein the controller may be configured to detect a variety of alarm events using different sensors for producing alarm signals, including pressures, current/voltages, fluid levels, temperatures, etc. (col. 8, lines 16-41; figs. 1 & 3).
McKinney explains that the controller / data acquisition device (control panel / first communication node; i.e., 156 / 162 in fig. 7; 194 in fig. 8) may be configured to communicate with a local receiver (i.e., an edge device; second communication node 164 / 196, etc.) (col. 20, lines 42 – col. 21, line 9), with the local receiver / edge device capable of receiving signals/information and forwarding the signals/information to a remote location / network (col. 22, lines 25-49).
McKinney teaches that it may be desirable to check the operation of the data acquisition device at desired intervals: “For instance, if it is desired to verify or check that each or selected of a plurality of master transmitters 194 is operating properly on a monthly basis, then each (or selected) of the plurality of master transmitters 194 may be programmed to dial in monthly to verify operation of the communication system (and possibly also to provide a sensor status report because the call is being made anyway)…This check, which might be called a heartbeat signal, may be performed at any desired interval such as daily, weekly, monthly, or the like. The heartbeat signal verifies that each communication system at each environmental equipment system is functioning properly or if not, then records this information for future action.” (col. 21, lines 25-45).
McKinney further teaches that, as discussed, a system may send “a regularly scheduled heartbeat signal” to a receiver or remote device that, if not received, would indicate a failure. “For example only, if a heartbeat signal or regular transmission signal were scheduled for once a month, then a failure may be indicated if the heartbeat signal is not received by server 26 or receiver 14 within that time period. If desired, the heartbeat signal could include any readings from alarm sensors and/or may indicate that a self-test shows that all alarm sensors are within the acceptable range of readings.” (col. 32, line 66 – col. 33, line 10).
Additionally, McKinney explains that, when the controller / data acquisition device communicates with an intermediate edge device / transmitter, the controller / data acquisition device may be configured “verify operation, run self-tests or the like” and then transmit a “local heartbeat signal” to the edge device at desired time intervals, wherein “if the local heartbeat signal is received, then it can be assumed that” the system / controller is functioning properly, in which case the edge device can send an external heartbeat signal to the remote server at some desired interval (e.g., a less frequent interval than the local heartbeat signal). Alternatively, the edge device may need not send an external heartbeat signal to the remote server “in light of the local heartbeat signal”. Either way, McKinney explains that the use of a local heartbeat signal enables “virtually continuous” verification of system operation without the need for frequent, high-cost communications (col. 33, line 43 – col. 34, line 6).
Finally, see flowchart in fig. 15 & corresponding col. 35, lines 16-30; “So long as the local heartbeat signal is received… then the operation of alarm 610 is verified”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yeazel (as otherwise modified above) such that the at least one data acquisition device is configured to send a periodic message from the at least one data acquisition device to at least one edge device, wherein the periodic message comprises a heartbeat signal confirming that the at least one data acquisition device is actively monitoring the live pipe zone sensor, the isolated zone sensor, and the zero-energy zone sensor, in view of the teachings of Jensen and McKinney, in order to conserve network bandwidth and/or device energy (i.e., as suggested by Jensen, a data acquisition device may collect sensor data and store the sensor data until the next periodic reporting opportunity, which reduces bandwidth usage and, by limiting the number of sensor samples and data transmissions, may conserve energy, especially when operating on battery power, etc.) while providing routine periodic indications to the edge device that the data acquisition device is functioning normally (i.e., monitoring the connected system, including the sensors thereof; whereby the use of a local heartbeat signal scheme may also enable a reduction in frequency of external heartbeat signals sent from the edge device to the remote device / network, thus further reducing external communication bandwidth, as suggested by McKinney).
The above combination would have otherwise been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as the use of a known technique (configuring a controller / data acquisition device monitoring a plurality of sensors to communicate an operational status of a sensor / alarm system being controlled by sending a heartbeat signal from the controller / data acquisition device to an edge device, as in McKinney, and/or configuring such a controller / data acquisition device to batch reporting sensor/system data at periodic reporting intervals, as in Jensen) to improve a similar device / system (i.e., the system of Yeazel in view of Karg; where, as in Karg, the data acquisition device is configured to send signals or other information regarding sensor operation / status to at least one edge device) in the same way (e.g., reducing bandwidth and/or conserving energy while still providing periodic indications to the edge device that the data acquisition device and its associated sensors are functioning normally, etc.).
As a result, all of the limitations of claim 14 are met, or are otherwise rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 15, the system of Yeazel, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation wherein the at least one data acquisition device is communicatively coupled to the plurality of sensors with wires.
As set forth for claim 14 above, Karg teaches that the controller 26 (i.e., a data acquisition device) may be connected to the sensors via a wired connection (para. 24, lines 11-18).
Regarding claim 17, the system of Yeazel, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation wherein the at least one data acquisition device processes the acquired data from the live pipe zone sensor, the isolated zone sensor, and the zero-energy zone sensor and stores the acquired data in a non-transitory memory.
In particular, Karg teaches that the local controller 26 (i.e., a data acquisition device) may process the acquired data (via microprocessor 36) from a live pipe zone sensor (temperature sensor 34a and/or pressure sensor 42 upstream of the primary sealing device), an isolated zone sensor (temperature sensor 34c and/or pressure sensor 44 between the primary and secondary sealing devices), and a zero-energy zone sensor (temperature sensor 34b and pressure sensor 43 downstream of the secondary sealing device) [see, e.g., paras 24 & 31], and may store the acquired data in a non-transitory memory (memory 37; “a non-volatile memory”, para. 38, lines 1-5).
See also para. 35 (the memory may be configured to record data related to sensed pressures, sensed differential pressures, sensed temperatures, and/or other measures) and para. 39 (the microprocessor 36 may determine and/or monitor a measure based, at least in part, on stored and/or monitored measures include pressure and/or temperature measures).
Regarding claim 18, the system of Yeazel, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation wherein the at least one data acquisition device comprises a user interface (e.g., via local display 76 of Karg; see paras. 60 & 71) and at least one instrument (e.g., the local controller 26 of Karg) communicatively coupled to the sensors (via wired or wireless connection; see para. 24 of Karg) and operable to upload to an information network (i.e., a network comprising at least communication link 100 to remote device 50, remote display 52, remote device 60, and remote display 62; via communications interface 110).
Regarding claim 19, the system of Yeazel, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation wherein the at least one data acquisition device comprises a user interface (e.g., via local display 76 of Karg; see paras. 60 & 71) and at least one instrument (e.g., the local controller 26 of Karg) communicatively coupled to the sensors (via wired or wireless connection; see para. 24 of Karg), and the at least one instrument is operable to upload to a remote application with a configuration module (see below).
Regarding the limitation wherein the at least one instrument is operable to upload to a remote application with a configuration module, Karg further teaches that the data acquisition device is operable to upload (via communications interface 110) data to remote device 50 and/or remote device 60, comprising respective remote displays 52 & 62; and that the remote displays 52 and/or 62 may be (or may interact with) a human-machine interface (80; see fig. 3).
Karg further teaches that the human-machine interface may comprise an application (see figs. 4-12C) which may comprise configuration modules (e.g., see various configuration modules including “General Settings”, “Unit Settings” in fig. 4; a leak detection test configuration module in fig. 5; a “settings” module, “Modbus config” and “guided valve setup” module in fig. 7; a reports administration module in figs. 10 & 11).
Finally, it is noted that Karg teaches that the human-machine interface (which, as above, may be or may otherwise interact with the remote displays 52, 62) may communicate via wired or wireless protocols such as NFC, Bluetooth, Infrared, WiFi, etc. (para. 84).
In view of the above, the system of Yeazel, as modified above, is reasonably seen as reading on or otherwise rendering obvious the additional limitation wherein the at least one instrument (i.e., the local controller 26) is operable to upload (via a communication interface 110) to a remote application (e.g., the HMI 80, e.g., formed by or interacting with remote displays 52 and/or 62) with a configuration module (e.g., settings modules, etc.; as shown).
Regarding claim 20, the system of Yeazel, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation wherein the at least one data acquisition device is configured to trigger an action if the acquired data meets a selected threshold.
In particular, Karg teaches that the monitoring system / arrangement may monitor one or more of the temperature values obtained by the temperature sensors, such as the isolation zone temperature value and, if there is a change in temperature greater than a threshold value, the controller 26 may “automatically decide” to take an action (such as repeating a test, accepting a test result, or providing a notification of a temperature change, etc.; see para. 59).
Karg further teaches that the controller 26 may (continuously or discontinuously) monitor pressure of the isolation zone via the sensors, determine a rate of pressure change, compare the pressure change rate to a stored threshold value, and may output a signal related to the determined rate of pressure change to one or more displays or remote devices; and may convey information including a time stamp related to events when the determined pressure change rate meet and/or exceed the threshold value, and/or may provide a visual and/or audible indication of passage or failure of a related test (see para. 77).
More generally, Karg explicitly states “In some cases, the valve controller 26 may interpret the results of the VL [valve leakage] test in view of a sensed temperature. In one example, if the valve controller 26 detects a change in temperature greater than a threshold and/or a temperature that has crossed a threshold, the valve controller may automatically repeat the VL test, accept the test results at the changed or sensed temperature, provide a notification, and/or automatically take one or more other actions.” (para. 79).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05 May 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the grounds of rejection set forth in the previous action, however, new or otherwise amended grounds of rejection have been applied to the claims in this action, as necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding the newly added limitations directed to features of the primary and secondary seal elements, the grounds of rejection in this action have been amended to include teachings of Ver Nooy, which suggests that a sealing head / seal element may be “other than normal to the pipe axis”, and thus may be elliptically shaped.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in the attached PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard K Durden whose telephone number is (571) 270-0538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone: Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881; Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Richard K. Durden/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights