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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 the recites “comparing the vibration information and temperature differential to at least one threshold… and determining, as a function of the comparing, that at least one of the vibration information or temperature differential satisfies the at least one threshold”. The examiner is unclear how different physical characteristic, like vibration and temperature differential, are compared against one threshold without combining the data into a signal metric. The claim does not appear to require these two physical quantities by fused together. Is the vibration information and temperature differential being compared against their own respective thresholds? The claim appears to require both the vibration information and the temperature differential to be compared to at least one threshold and then later only requires one of the vibrational information or differential temperature to be used to determine if one of these data values satisfies at least one threshold? Claims 12 and 15 are rejected similarly. Clarification in the claims is required. To further prosecution, the examiner will interpret that each is compared to their own respective threshold.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites: receiving the first sensor feedback from the first sensor; receiving the second sensor feedback from the plurality of sensors; determining, as a function of the second sensor feedback, a temperature differential between an inlet of the valve and an outlet of the valve; comparing the vibration information and temperature differential to at least one threshold; determining, as a function of the comparing, that at least one of the vibration information or temperature differential satisfies the at least one threshold; and providing, to a receiver and as a function of the determination, information comprising an indication of a passing condition of the valve which falls into the abstract idea grouping of mental processes. The examiner considers the identified limitations as collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. The claimed determining, as a function of the second sensor feedback, a temperature differential between an inlet of the valve and an outlet of the valve; comparing the vibration information and temperature differential to at least one threshold; determining, as a function of the comparing, that at least one of the vibration information or temperature differential satisfies the at least one threshold is considered to be data analysis steps recited at a high level of generality such that they can be performed in the human mind.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element sensors are considered to elements directed towards an insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering. The data gathered by these generically claimed sensors is merely fed into the abstract idea, as neither the result or the performance of the abstract idea improves the sensors or the data gathered. MPEP 2106.05(g)
The additional element valve and its positions merely links the abstract idea to a field of use, as neither the result or performance of the abstract idea improves the operation of the valve. MPEP 2106.05(h)
The additional element system comprising one or more computers, storage devices, instructions and receiver merely act as tools for performing the abstract idea; as neither the result or the performance of the abstract improves the generically claimed computer and its elements. MPEP 2106.05(a)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, fail to be improved by the result or performance of the abstract idea. The claimed sensors merely act in their conventional and well-known manner (as shown below in the provided art rejections) to provide vibrational and temperature data to the abstract idea. The claimed valve is not affected by the result or performance of the abstract. The valve merely reading as a limitation that generically links the abstract idea to a technology. Lastly, the claimed computer elements are merely performing the abstract idea without being improved or bettered. Note: Claim 12 is rejected similarly to claim 1.
Claims 2 and 13 further define the data collected by the sensors relative to the generically linked valve. The data, as further defined, merely links the data to field of use. The data is solely fed into the abstract idea, where neither the performance or result of the abstract idea has any real-world effect of the valve or the collected data. Therefore, the claims fail to providing significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 3 and 5 further define a valve position sensor performing an insignificant activity of mere data gathering used by the abstract idea. The valve or sensor is not improved or bettered by the result of the abstract idea, and therefore, fails to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 4 and 10 further define the system by defining a machine learning processing system and a machine learning algorithm. The claimed machine learning processing system reads as a computer element for performing the machine learning algorithm, which is recited generically. It is well-known that a machine learning algorithm is rooted in mathematics, therefore, the machine learning processing system is merely acting as a tool for performing the machine learning algorithm based in mathematics. Therefore, the claim further defines an abstract idea falling into the abstract grouping of mathematical concepts, where the additional element system and machine learning processing system are merely acting as tools for performing the identified abstract idea without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 6 further defines the data itself, i.e. fused data. The data merely links the abstract idea to a field of use without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 7 and 14 further define an additional element pressure sensor and the data collected and fed into the abstract idea without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. The sensor is merely acting in a conventional manner and is not improved or bettered by the performance or result of the abstract idea. The claims go on to further define the abstract idea relative to the pressure data without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 8 further defines the mental steps of comparing using the collected data by the generically claimed sensors without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application, as there is no real-world action to the claimed additional elements.
Claim 9 further defines an additional element pressure sensor as comprising a dynamic pressure sensor residing downstream the valve seats and the data collected and fed into the abstract idea without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. The sensor is merely acting in a conventional manner and is not improved or bettered by the performance or result of the abstract idea.
Claim 11 further defines the additional element first sensor as comprising a radio frequency Nano-sensor and the frequency data range collected and fed into the abstract idea without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. The sensor is merely acting in a conventional manner and is not improved or bettered by the performance or result of the abstract idea.
Claim 15 recites: receive first sensor feedback from a sensor attached to a valve in a closed position and in a passing condition, the first sensor feedback comprising vibration information of the valve; receive second sensor feedback from a plurality of sensors coupled to the valve in the closed position and in the passing condition; determine, as a function of the second sensor feedback, a temperature differential between an inlet of the valve and an outlet of the valve; compare a combination of the vibration information and temperature differential to at least one threshold; determine, as a function of the comparison, that the combination satisfies the at least one threshold; and provide, to a receiver and as a function of determining that the combination satisfies the threshold, information comprising an indication of a valve passing condition which falls into the abstract idea grouping of mental processes. The examiner considers the identified limitations as collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. The claimed determine, as a function of the second sensor feedback, a temperature differential between an inlet of the valve and an outlet of the valve; compare a combination of the vibration information and temperature differential to at least one threshold; determine, as a function of the comparison, that the combination satisfies the at least one threshold is considered to be data analysis steps recited at a high level of generality such that they can be performed in the human mind.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element sensors are considered to elements directed towards an insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering. The data gathered by these generically claimed sensors is merely fed into the abstract idea, as neither the result or the performance of the abstract improves the sensors or the data. MPEP 2106.05(g)
The additional element valve and its positions merely links the abstract idea to a field of use, as neither the result or performance of the abstract idea improves the operation of the valve. MPEP 2106.05(h)
The additional element system comprising one or more computers, storage devices, instructions and receiver merely act as tools for performing the abstract idea; as neither the result or the performance of the abstract idea improves the generically claimed computer and its elements. MPEP 2106.05(a)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, fail to be affected by the result or performance of the abstract idea. The claimed sensors merely act in their conventional and well-known manner to provide vibrational and temperature data to the abstract idea. The claimed valve is not affected by the result or performance of the abstract, thereby merely reading as a limitation that generically links the abstract idea to a technology. Lastly, the claimed computer elements are merely performing the abstract idea without being improved or bettered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 8 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen et al. (2008/0252475) in view of Saban et al. (WO2019/135231A1).
With respect to claim 1, Jensen et al. teaches a valve assembly (i.e. a ball valve; [0037]), comprising: a first sensor (a LDT series vibration detector; [0044]) configured to generate, when attached to a valve [0044] in a closed position and in a passing condition (as the sensor is configured to monitor valve moments; [0044]), first sensor feedback comprising vibration information of the valve (i.e. as Jensen et al. discloses the LDT series detection vibration indicative valve movement; [0044]); a plurality of sensors (Temperature Gages seen in Fig. 3) configured to generate, when residing at or near the valve (as seen in Fig. 3) in the closed position and in the passing condition (as these sensors are located at an inlet and outlet as seen in Fig. 3), second sensor feedback (i.e. temperature feedback); and a system (seen in Fig. 1) comprising one or more computers (i.e. microprocessor; Fig. 1) in one or more locations (i.e. a base station location) and one or more storage devices (compact flash memory module; Fig. 1) storing instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers (i.e. microprocessor), to cause the one or more computers (microprocessors) to perform operations comprising: receiving (via a microprocessor receiver) the first sensor feedback from the first sensor (as Fig. 1 shows LVDT sensor data being received by the microprocessor); receiving (as Fig. 1 shows another microprocessor receiver) the second sensor feedback from the plurality of sensors (i.e. temperature sensors); comparing the vibration information to at least one threshold (as Jensen et al. teaches the vibration information being collected and used to generate indicate events, which indirectly teaches a comparison occurring using the collected data against an indirectly taught threshold to indicate the event against other events; [0035]); determining, as a function of the comparing, that the vibration information or temperature differential satisfies the at least one threshold (i.e. that the vibration information indicates a failure event [0035], for example) and providing, to a receiver (of the microprocess) and as a function of a determination (based on the sensor data), information comprising an indication of a passing condition of the valve (as Jensen et al. teaches the data is provided to the base station to indicated a passing condition of the valve, for example passing conditions that indicate failure of the valve; [0035]).
Jensen et al. remains silent regarding determining, as a function of the second sensor feedback, a temperature differential between an inlet of the valve and an outlet of the valve; comparing temperature differential to at least one threshold.
Saban et al. teaches a similar assembly having temperature sensors, where a computer determines, as a function of sensor feedback (i.e. a function of a temperature response), a temperature differential between an inlet of the valve and an outlet of the valve (page 3, lines 20-25); comparing the temperature differential to at least one threshold (as Saban et al. teaches a step of recognizing a fault from the data collected, i.e. temperature differential, which requires a comparison to a threshold; page 7 lines 3-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the control logic of Jensen et al. to include the temperature differential determination and comparison to a threshold for the purpose of recognizing a fault, as taught in Saban et al. because Saban et al. teaches such a modification improves Jensen et al. by providing more sensing capabilities to report a failure in the valve, Col. 5 lines 7-9.
The method steps of claim 12 are performed during the operation of the rejected structure of claim 1.
With respect to claims 2 and 13, Jensen et al. as modified teaches the valve assembly (i.e. a ball valve; [0037]) wherein the first sensor (LVDT) is configured to generate, when attached to the valve [0037] in the closed position and in a non-passing condition (of the ball valve), third sensor feedback (i.e. vibrational sensor feedback) comprising baseline vibration information of the valve (as the data collected is capable of being baseline vibration information as sensed by the LVDT sensor; as the data is used to project valve failures, which indirectly requires a baseline measurement), and the plurality of sensors (TC sensors) are configured to generate, when residing at or near the valve in the closed position and in the non-passing condition (as seen in Fig. 3), fourth sensor feedback (i.e. temperature feedback), the operations further comprising, before receiving the first sensor feedback (from the LVDT sensor): receiving the third sensor feedback from the first sensor (via the microprocessor receiver seen in Fig. 1); receiving the fourth sensor feedback from the plurality of sensors (via the microprocessor receiver seen in Fig. 1); determining, as a function of the fourth sensor feedback, a baseline temperature differential between an inlet of the valve and an outlet of the valve (as the data collected by the TC sensors are capable of being baseline temperature differential, as modified; as the data is used to project valve failures, which indirectly requires a baseline measurement being used); and determining, as a function of the third sensor feedback (temperature feedback data) and the baseline temperature differential (as taught by the combination as a whole, where Saban et al. calculated temperature differential data), the at least one threshold (as the vibration data is compared to the taught threshold in Jensen et al. such to determine specific events).
With respect to claim 3, Jensen et al. as modified teaches the valve assembly (i.e. a ball valve; [0037]) wherein the operations further comprise, before receiving the first sensor feedback (i.e. vibrational data): receiving (via a microprocessor receiver, seen in Fig. 1), from a valve position sensor [0024] coupled to the valve [0037], fifth sensor feedback comprising information indicating that the valve is closed (as the sensor senses valve cycles from open to close and vice versa; [0026]); wherein the determining of the at least one threshold comprises determining the at least one threshold as a function of i) the fifth sensor feedback, ii) the third sensor feedback, and iii) the baseline temperature differential (as Jensen et al. teaches each sensor is used to determine specific events from each specific sensor, thereby based on the valve position feedback, vibrational data as the third sensor feedback, and baseline data of the temperature different, taught by Saban et al, data to determine specific events and failures).
With respect to claim 5, Jensen et al. as modified teaches the valve assembly (i.e. a ball valve; [0037]) the operations further comprising: receiving (via a microprocessor receiver, seen in Fig. 1), from a valve position sensor [0024] coupled to the valve [0037], fifth sensor feedback (i.e. position data), and determining, as a function of the fifth sensor feedback (i.e. position data of that valve as the valve cycles from open and closed), that the valve is closed; wherein the determination comprises determining, as a function of the fifth sensor feedback (from the position sensor of the valve) and as a function of the comparing, that a combination of the vibration information (as sensed by LVDT) and the temperature differential (as taught by the combination as a whole) satisfies the at least one threshold (as if when determined the valve is in the closed position but the data from the vibration sensor and temperature sensors show vibrations and temperatures above a closed threshold, leaking is determined).
With respect to claims 7 and 14, Jensen et al. as modified teaches the valve assembly (i.e. a ball valve; [0037]) further comprising a pressure sensor [0033] configured to generate, when coupled to or near the valve [0033] in a closed position and in a passing condition (i.e. open and closed positions), sixth sensor feedback (i.e. pressure feedback), the operations further comprising: receiving, from the pressure sensor [0033], the sixth sensor feedback (pressure feedback); determining, as a function of the sixth sensor feedback (i.e. pressure feedback), a pressure fluctuation of a fluid at an outlet of the valve (as the pressure sensor will sense any pressure fluctuations when the valve is either open or closed); comparing a combination of the vibration information (via LVDT), temperature differential (as taught by the combination), and the pressure fluctuation (as sensed by the pressure sensor), to the at least one threshold (for determining an event); determining, as a function of the comparing, that the combination satisfies the at least one threshold (that indicates an event has occurred through the comparison of the sensed data to the indirectly taught threshold).
With respect to claim 8, Jensen et al. as modified teaches the valve assembly (i.e. a ball valve; [0037]) wherein the at least one threshold comprises a vibration threshold that corresponds with the vibration information (as Jensen et al. indirectly teaches a vibration threshold used to compare the sensed vibrations to a threshold to indicate an event has occurred), a temperature differential threshold that corresponds with the temperature differential (as Jensen et al. as modified indirectly teaches a temperature differential threshold used to compare the sensed temperature differentials to a threshold to indicate an event has occurred), and a pressure fluctuation threshold that corresponds with the pressure fluctuation (as Jensen et al. as modified indirectly teaches a pressure fluctuation threshold used to compare the sensed pressure fluctuations to a threshold to indicate an event has occurred), and determining that the combination satisfies the at least one threshold comprises determining that at least two of the i) vibration information, ii) temperature differential, or iii) pressure fluctuation satisfies its corresponding threshold (as all the data is used to determine if an event has occurred based on the crossing of a threshold, as indirectly taught in Jensen et al.).
With respect to claim 15, Jensen et al. teaches a system (Fig 1), comprising: one or more computers (i.e. microprocessor) and one or more storage devices (compact flash card; Fig. 1) on which are stored instructions that are operable (for controlling the microprocessor), when executed by the one or more computers (microprocessor), to cause the one or more computers(microprocessor) to perform operations comprising: receive (via a microprocessor receiver) first sensor feedback from a sensor (as Fig. 1 shows LVDT sensor data being received by the microprocessor) attached to a valve [0033] in a closed position and an opening position (of the ball valve); the first sensor feedback comprising vibration information of the valve [0035]; receive second sensor feedback (temperature) from a plurality of sensors (TC; Fig.1) coupled to the valve in the closed position and in the passing condition (of the ball valve; [0033]); compare the vibration information to at least one threshold (i.e. that the vibration information indicates a failure event [0035], which indirectly compares the vibration information against a threshold that indicates a failure); determine, as a function of the comparison, that information satisfies the at least one threshold (i.e. there is not a failure based on the determination); and provide, to a receiver (of the microprocessor) and as a function of determining that the information satisfies the threshold, information comprising an indication of a valve passing conditio (as Jensen et al. teaches the data is provided to the base station to indicated a passing condition of the valve, for example passing conditions that indicate failure of the valve; [0035]).
Jensen et al. remains silent regarding determine, as a function of the second sensor feedback, a temperature differential between an inlet of the valve and an outlet of the valve; comparing temperature differential to at least one threshold.
Saban et al. teaches a similar assembly having temperature sensors, where a computer determines, as a function of sensor feedback (i.e. a function of a temperature response), a temperature differential between an inlet of the valve and an outlet of the valve (page 3, lines 20-25); comparing the temperature differential to at least one threshold (as Saban et al. teaches a step of recognizing a fault from the data collected, i.e. temperature differential, which requires a comparison to a threshold; page 7 lines 3-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the control logic of Jensen et al. to include the temperature differential determination and comparison to a threshold for the purpose of recognizing a fault, as taught in Saban et al. because Saban et al. teaches such a modification improves Jensen et al. by providing more sensing capabilities to report a failure in the valve, Col. 5 lines 7-9.
Claim(s) 4, 6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen et al. (2008/0252475) in view of Saban et al. (WO2019/135231A1), as applied to claims 2 and 5, further in view of Anuzis et al. (WO 02/03041 A1).
With respect to claim 4, Jensen et al. as modified teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 2 but remains silent regarding the system comprises a machine learning processing system configured to process the third sensor feedback and fourth sensor feedback to fine-tune, based on a machine learning algorithm, the at least one threshold.
Anuzis et al. teaches a similar system that uses valves, where the system comprises a machine learning processing system configured to process various sensor feedbacks to fine-tune, based on a machine learning algorithm, the at least one threshold (as the machine learning model used within the machine learning processing system, once trained, uses detected events and abnormalities from a learnt model to refine the model, page 4 line 29 to page 5 line 1 and page 22 lines 15-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the system of Jensen et al. to include the machine learning processing system of Anuzis because Anuzis teaches such a modification allows for continuously monitoring of a system and to provide useful information about the health of the system in real time during operation, page 3 lines 21-34, thereby improving the versatility of Jensen et al.
With respect to claim 6, Jensen et al. as modified teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 5 but remains silent regarding the combination comprises fused data of the vibration information and the temperature differential.
Anuzi et al. teaches fusing data, page 3 lines 21-34.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the system of Jensen et al. to include the fusing of data because such a modification allows for providing a normalized signature, making it easier to compare data is a simplified manner, page 3 lines 21-34; thereby improving the versatility of Jensen et al.
With respect to claim 10, Jensen et al. as modified teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 1 but remains silent regarding the system comprises a machine learning processing system configured to process information from the first sensor and plurality of sensors to fine tune, based on a machine learning algorithm, the comparing for the determination that at least one of the vibration information or temperature differential satisfies the at least one threshold.
Anuzis et al. teaches a similar system that uses valves, where the system comprises a machine learning processing system configured to process information from sensors to fine tune, based on a machine learning algorithm, the comparing for the determination that sensed information satisfies the at least one threshold (as Anuzis et al. teaches a machine learning model used within the machine learning processing system, once trained, uses detected events and abnormalities from a learnt model, comparing the sensed information to thresholds; Abstract and page 4 line 29 to page 5 line 1 and page 22 lines 15-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the system of Jensen et al. to include the machine learning processing system of Anuzis because Anuzis teaches such a modification allows for continuously monitoring of a system while providing useful information about the health of the system in real time during operation, page 3 lines 21-34, thereby improving the versatility of Jensen et al.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen et al. (2008/0252475) in view of Saban et al. (WO2019/135231A1), as applied to claim 7, further in view of Nukui et al. (JP H11183208A).
With respect to claim 9, Jensen et al. as modified teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 7 but remains silent regarding the pressure sensor comprises a dynamic pressure sensor residing downstream of valve seats of the valve, the dynamic pressure sensor configured to sense ultrasound frequencies associated with early stages of a passing condition of the valve.
Nukui et al. teaches a similar pressure sensor being a dynamic pressure sensor residing downstream of valve seats of the valve (as Nukui et al. teaches using a dynamic pressure [0003] downstream valve seats to detect a leak; Abstract), the dynamic pressure sensor [0003] configured to sense ultrasound frequencies (as taught in Nukui et al.) associated with early stages of a passing condition of the valve (i.e. detecting microleaks).
Because both Jensen et al. and Nukui et al. teach sensors sensing pressure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to substitute the pressure sensor taught in Jensen et al. with the sensor taught in Nukui et al. to achieve the predictable results of detecting pressure fluctuations indicative of a leak. Further, such a modification ensures accurate and reliable leak detection; Abstract of Nukui.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen et al. (2008/0252475) in view of Saban et al. (WO2019/135231A1), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Lio et al. (CN 103840744A).
With respect to claim 9, Jensen et al. as modified teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 7 but remains silent regarding the first sensor comprises a radio frequency Nano-sensor, the radio frequency Nano-sensor configured to detect a frequency range of between 0 and 1000 Hz.
Lio et al. teaches a similar vibration sensor being a radio frequency Nano-sensor [0005-0006], the radio frequency Nano-sensor configured to detect a frequency range of between 0 and 1000 Hz (as a piezoelectric materials making up the taught sensors is known to sense frequency ranges below 100 Hz, thereby falling within the recited range).
Because both Jensen et al. and Lio et al. teach sensors sensing vibrations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to substitute the sensor in Jensen et al. with the sensor taught in Nukui et al. to achieve the predictable results of detecting vibrations. Further, such a modification improves power consumption, [0014] thereby improving the power consumption of the system of Jensen et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Killion et al. (7,711,500) which teaches monitoring a pressure valve.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW G MARINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/MATTHEW G MARINI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853