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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 27 and 30-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rice et al. (US 6,164,116).
Regarding claim 1, Rice et al. disclose a check valve testing system configured to be coupled to a fluid supply system, the fluid supply system comprising a check valve assembly (312, which can be e.g. CV3 in Fig. 5A), an inlet valve PV11 including an inlet fluidly coupled to a fluid source 502 and an outlet coupled to a first pressure zone 516 upstream, the first pressure zone being fluidly coupled to an inlet of a check valve CV3 in the check valve assembly, an inlet of an outlet valve PAV4 fluidly coupled to a second pressure zone 202 downstream of an outlet of the check valve CV3, and a drain valve PV6 fluidly coupled to the first pressure zone 516 (see Figs. 5A-B), wherein the check valve testing system comprises: a pressure sensor PS1 configured to detect a fluid pressure in the second pressure zone 202 (col. 5 lines 10-12 and Fig. 5A); and a controller (computer 608) configured to communicatively couple to the pressure sensor; wherein the controller is further configured (see col. 13 lines 39-61, computer controls test operations and acquires sensor data), when the inlet valve PV11 is closed and the drain valve PV6 is open, to determine whether there is a leak in the check valve CV3 based at least in part on a first sensor signal issued by said pressure sensor PS1, the first sensor signal indicative of a detected fluid pressure in said second pressure zone 202 (see col. 16 lines 17-26 and Figs. 5A-B).
Regarding claim 4, Rice et al. disclose that the controller 608 is configured to issue a first control signal, the first control signal configured to cause the inlet valve PV11 to close prior to determining whether there is a leak in the check valve CV3 (see col. 16 lines 17-19; see col. 13 lines 39-55, computer 608 with software that automatically performs tests including actuating valves).
Regarding claim 5, Rice et al. disclose that the controller 608 is configured to issue a second control signal, the second control signal configured to cause the drain valve PV6 to open prior to determining whether there is a leak in the check valve CV3 (see col. 16 lines 17-19; see col. 13 lines 39-55, computer 608 with software that automatically performs tests including actuating valves).
Regarding claim 6, Rice et al. disclose that the controller 608 is configured to issue a third control signal, the third control signal configured to cause the outlet valve PAV4 to close prior to determining whether there is a leak in the check valve CV3 (see Fig. 5A and col. 16 lines 3-6, removes pressure from manifold 202 and then closes all valves including PAV4; see col. 13 lines 39-55, computer 608 with software that automatically performs tests including actuating valves).
Regarding claim 27, Rice et al. disclose a method of leak testing in a fluid supply system, said fluid supply system comprising a check valve assembly (312, which can be e.g. CV3 in Fig. 5A), an inlet valve PV11 including an inlet fluidly coupled to a fluid source 502 and an outlet coupled to a first pressure zone 516, the first pressure zone being fluidly coupled to an inlet of a check valve CV3 in the check valve assembly, an inlet of an outlet valve PAV4 fluidly coupled to a second pressure zone 202 downstream of an outlet of the check valve CV3, and a drain valve PV6 fluidly coupled to the first pressure zone 516 (see Figs. 5A-B), the method comprising: when the inlet valve PV11 is closed and the drain valve PV6 is open, detecting a fluid pressure within the second pressure zone 202 with a pressure sensor PS1 and producing a first sensor signal indicative of the detected fluid pressure (col. 16 lines 17-26); and with a controller 608 communicatively coupled to the pressure sensor PS1, determining whether there is a leak in the check valve based at least in part on the first sensor signal (see Id. and col. 13 lines 39-55).
Regarding claim 30, Rice et al. disclose the method further comprising issuing a first control signal with the controller 608, the first control signal configured to cause the inlet valve PV11 to close prior to determining whether there is a leak in the check valve CV3 (see col. 16 lines 17-19; see col. 13 lines 39-55, computer 608 with software that automatically performs tests including actuating valves).
Regarding claim 31, Rice et al. disclose the method further comprising issuing a second control signal with the controller 608, the second control signal configured to cause the drain valve PV6 to open prior to determining whether there is a leak in the check valve CV3 (see col. 16 lines 17-19; see col. 13 lines 39-55, computer 608 with software that automatically performs tests including actuating valves).
Regarding claim 32, Rice et al. disclose the method further comprising issuing a third control signal with the controller 608, the third control signal configured to cause the outlet valve PAV4 to close prior to determining whether there is a leak in the check valve CV3 (see Fig. 5A and col. 16 lines 3-6, removes pressure from manifold 202 and then closes all valves including PAV4; see col. 13 lines 39-55, computer 608 with software that automatically performs tests including actuating valves).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 7, 28, 29 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice et al. (US 6,164,116).
Regarding claim 2, Rice et al. disclose that the controller is further configured to determine whether there is a leak in the check valve at least in part by: determining whether the detected fluid pressure within the second pressure zone is stable (see col. 17 lines 18-25 and lines 43-54); and when the detected fluid pressure within the second pressure zone 202 is unstable, determining that a leak is present in the check valve CV3.
Rice et al. do not explicitly disclose the determining and monitoring being done over a first test period. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have performed the pressure monitoring over some particular test period because some period of time is required in order to know whether pressure decreases over time and a particular specified test period of time would have allowed for consistent and repeatable measuring standards.
Rice et al. also do not explicitly disclose that when the detected fluid pressure within the second pressure zone is stable during the first test period, determining that a leak is not present in the check valve. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made this determination because it is a logical and reasonable conclusion to make when no fluid leakage pressure change occurs.
Regarding claim 3, Rice et al. disclose that determining whether the detected fluid pressure within the second pressure zone is stable over the first test period comprises: determining whether the detected fluid pressure varied over a test period of time (col. 17 lines 43-46, monitoring for pressure decrease); and when the detected fluid pressure during some time period varied, determining that the fluid pressure in the second pressure zone indicates leakage and is therefore unstable (col. 17 lines 43-54).
Rice et al. do not explicitly disclose determining if the pressure varied by greater than a first pressure variance threshold and using the threshold to determine when the pressure decrease was enough to conclude the pressure was unstable and there was a leak. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used some pressure change threshold when determining whether the pressure was changing enough to consider it unstable and conclude there was a leak; this would have been obvious because a threshold for determining the significance of measured value changes or fluctuations is a known and common way to ensure that consistent and repeatable measurement determinations. It is also known to one of ordinary skill in the art that measured values of pressure can vary slightly over time based on temperature and/or tolerance in measuring equipment, and using a threshold would ensure that small pressure changes not caused by leakage are ignored in leakage determination.
Regarding claim 7, Rice et al. do disclose that the controller is further configured to cause signals to be issued and displayed, which can be considered alerts, in the form of measurement data and results (col. 14 lines 12-43). Rice et al. do not explicitly state that the controller issues an alert signal when it determines that there is a leak in the check valve. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used the interface 606 display to provide any and all type of measurement data and results, including the leakage test results and determinations, because it would have provided the information to a user and allowed for remedy actions to be initiated quickly and efficiently.
Regarding claim 28, Rice et al. disclose that determining whether there is a leak in the check valve comprises, with the controller: determining whether the detected fluid pressure within the second pressure zone is stable (see col. 17 lines 18-25 and lines 43-54); and when the detected fluid pressure within the second pressure zone 202 is unstable, determining that a leak is present in the check valve CV3.
Rice et al. do not explicitly disclose the determining and monitoring being done over a first test period. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have performed the pressure monitoring over some particular test period because some period of time is required in order to know whether pressure decreases over time and a particular specified test period of time would have allowed for consistent and repeatable measuring standards.
Rice et al. also do not explicitly disclose that when the detected fluid pressure within the second pressure zone is stable during the first test period, determining that a leak is not present in the check valve. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made this determination because it is a logical and reasonable conclusion to make when no fluid leakage pressure change occurs.
Regarding claim 29, Rice et al. disclose that determining whether the detected fluid pressure within the second pressure zone is stable over the first test period comprises: determining whether the detected fluid pressure varied over a test period of time (col. 17 lines 43-46, monitoring for pressure decrease); and when the detected fluid pressure during some time period varied, determining that the fluid pressure in the second pressure zone indicates leakage and is therefore unstable (col. 17 lines 43-54).
Rice et al. do not explicitly disclose determining if the pressure varied by greater than a first pressure variance threshold and using the threshold to determine when the pressure decrease was enough to conclude the pressure was unstable and there was a leak. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used some pressure change threshold when determining whether the pressure was changing enough to consider it unstable and conclude there was a leak; this would have been obvious because a threshold for determining the significance of measured value changes or fluctuations is a known and common way to ensure that consistent and repeatable measurement determinations. It is also known to one of ordinary skill in the art that measured values of pressure can vary slightly over time based on temperature and/or tolerance in measuring equipment, and using a threshold would ensure that small pressure changes not caused by leakage are ignored in leakage determination.
Regarding claim 33, Rice et al. do disclose that the controller causes signals to be issued and displayed, which can be considered alerts, in the form of measurement data and results (col. 14 lines 12-43). Rice et al. do not explicitly state that the controller issues an alert signal when it determines that there is a leak in the check valve. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used the interface 606 display to provide any and all type of measurement data and results, including the leakage test results and determinations, because it would have provided the information to a user and allowed for remedy actions to be initiated quickly and efficiently.
Claim(s) 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armano et al. (US 2019/0226183) in view of Rice et al. (US 6,164,116).
Regarding claim 14, Armano et al. disclose a water supply system, comprising: a check valve assembly comprising a check valve 32, a first pressure zone (pipe 42 in Fig. 1) upstream of an inlet of the check valve 32, and a second pressure zone downstream of an outlet of the check valve (see pipe section between valve 32 and faucet in Fig. 1); an inlet valve 20, wherein an inlet of the inlet valve is fluidly coupled to a water source and an outlet of the inlet valve is fluidly coupled to the first pressure zone of the check valve assembly (see par. 0070 and 0077); an outlet valve (tap/faucet downstream of check valve 32 in Fig. 1), wherein an inlet of the outlet valve is fluidly coupled to the second pressure zone (see Fig. 1).
Armano et al. do not disclose a drain valve fluidly coupled to the first pressure zone; a pressure sensor configured to detect a fluid pressure within the second pressure zone; and a controller; wherein: the controller is communicatively coupled to the pressure sensor, and is configured, when the inlet valve is closed and the drain valve is open, to determine whether there is a leak in the check valve based at least in part on a first sensor signal issued by said pressure sensor, the first sensor signal indicative of a detected fluid pressure in said second pressure zone.
Rice et al. disclose a system for determining if there is a leak in a check valve in fluid supply system, comprising: a check valve assembly comprising a check valve (312, which can be e.g. CV3 in Fig. 5A), a first pressure zone 516 upstream of an inlet of the check valve CV3, and a second pressure zone 202 downstream of an outlet of the check valve CV3; an inlet valve PV11, wherein an inlet of the inlet valve is fluidly coupled to a fluid source 502 and an outlet of the inlet valve is fluidly coupled to the first pressure zone 516 of the check valve assembly; an outlet valve PAV4, wherein an inlet of the outlet valve is fluidly coupled to the second pressure zone 202; a drain valve PV6 fluidly coupled to the first pressure zone 516 (see Figs. 5A-B); a pressure sensor PS1 configured to detect a fluid pressure within the second pressure zone 202 (col. 5 lines 10-12 and Fig. 5A); and a controller (computer 608); wherein: the controller 608 is communicatively coupled to the pressure sensor PS1, and is configured, when the inlet valve PV11 is closed and the drain valve PV6 is open, to determine whether there is a leak in the check valve CV3 based at least in part on a first sensor signal issued by said pressure sensor, the first sensor signal indicative of a detected fluid pressure in said second pressure zone (see col. 16 lines 17-26 and Figs. 5A-B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have included a drain valve fluidly coupled to the first pressure zone; a pressure sensor configured to detect a fluid pressure within the second pressure zone; and a controller for determining leakage based on the pressure as taught by Rice et al., in the water supply system of Armano et al., because it would have provided for more precise and localized determination of leakage in the check valve.
Regarding claim 15, Rice et al. disclose that the controller is further configured to determine whether there is a leak in the check valve at least in part by: determining whether the detected fluid pressure within the second pressure zone is stable (see col. 17 lines 18-25 and lines 43-54); and when the detected fluid pressure within the second pressure zone 202 is unstable, determining that a leak is present in the check valve CV3.
Rice et al. do not explicitly disclose the determining and monitoring being done over a first test period. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have performed the pressure monitoring over some particular test period in the combination of Rice and Armano because some period of time is required in order to know whether pressure decreases over time and a particular specified test period of time would have allowed for consistent and repeatable measuring standards.
Rice et al. also do not explicitly disclose that when the detected fluid pressure within the second pressure zone is stable during the first test period, determining that a leak is not present in the check valve. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made this determination in the combination of Rice and Armano because it is a logical and reasonable conclusion to make when no fluid leakage pressure change occurs.
Regarding claim 16, Rice et al. disclose that determining whether the detected fluid pressure within the second pressure zone is stable over the first test period comprises: determining whether the detected fluid pressure varied over a test period of time (col. 17 lines 43-46, monitoring for pressure decrease); and when the detected fluid pressure during some time period varied, determining that the fluid pressure in the second pressure zone indicates leakage and is therefore unstable (col. 17 lines 43-54).
Rice et al. do not explicitly disclose determining if the pressure varied by greater than a first pressure variance threshold and using the threshold to determine when the pressure decrease was enough to conclude the pressure was unstable and there was a leak. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used some pressure change threshold when determining whether the pressure was changing enough to consider it unstable and conclude there was a leak in the combination of Rice and Armano; this would have been obvious because a threshold for determining the significance of measured value changes or fluctuations is a known and common way to ensure that consistent and repeatable measurement determinations. It is also known to one of ordinary skill in the art that measured values of pressure can vary slightly over time based on temperature and/or tolerance in measuring equipment, and using a threshold would ensure that small pressure changes not caused by leakage are ignored in leakage determination.
Regarding claim 17, Rice et al. disclose that the controller 608 is configured to issue a first control signal, the first control signal configured to cause the inlet valve PV11 to close prior to determining whether there is a leak in the check valve CV3 (see col. 16 lines 17-19; see col. 13 lines 39-55, computer 608 with software that automatically performs tests including actuating valves), and these elements would necessarily be a part of the controller in the combination of Rice with Armano.
Regarding claim 18, Rice et al. disclose that the controller 608 is configured to issue a second control signal, the second control signal configured to cause the drain valve PV6 to open prior to determining whether there is a leak in the check valve CV3 (see col. 16 lines 17-19; see col. 13 lines 39-55, computer 608 with software that automatically performs tests including actuating valves), and these elements would necessarily be a part of the controller in the combination of Rice with Armano.
Regarding claim 19, Rice et al. disclose that the controller 608 is configured to issue a third control signal, the third control signal configured to cause the outlet valve PAV4 to close prior to determining whether there is a leak in the check valve CV3 (see Fig. 5A and col. 16 lines 3-6, removes pressure from manifold 202 and then closes all valves including PAV4; see col. 13 lines 39-55, computer 608 with software that automatically performs tests including actuating valves), and these elements would necessarily be a part of the controller in the combination of Rice with Armano.
Regarding claim 20, Rice et al. do disclose that the controller is further configured to cause signals to be issued and displayed, which can be considered alerts, in the form of measurement data and results (col. 14 lines 12-43). Rice et al. do not explicitly state that the controller issues an alert signal when it determines that there is a leak in the check valve. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used the interface 606 display of Rice et al. in the system of Armano et al. to provide any and all type of measurement data and results, including the leakage test results and determinations, because it would have provided the information to a user and allowed for remedy actions to be initiated quickly and efficiently.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-13, 21-26 and 34-39 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claims 8, 21 and 34, Rice et al. and the other prior art fail to disclose or suggest the controller or method being such that when the inlet and drain valves are closed and the outlet valve is open, it determines whether there is a leak downstream of the outlet valve based at least in part on a second sensor signal issued by said pressure sensor, the second sensor signal indicative of a detected fluid pressure in said second pressure zone.
With regard to claims 11, 24 and 37, Rice et al. and the other prior art fail to disclose or suggest the controller or method being such that when the inlet, drain, and outlet valves are closed, it determines whether there is a leak through the outlet valve based at least in part on a third sensor signal issued by said pressure sensor, the third sensor signal indicative of a detected fluid pressure in said second pressure zone.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL M WEST whose telephone number is (571)272-2139. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5:30 pm (CT).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/PAUL M. WEST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855