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 .
This action is responsive to communication filed on 02/13/2024.
Claims 1-37 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 1, 2, 9, 17, 30, 31, and 32 contains partially illegible text. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that the limitations recited by claims 7, 15, 19, 25, 28, and 37 are required in the alternative. For examination on the merits the claim have been interpreted as requiring only one of the alternatives.
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.
Claim 3 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.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “implementing an improvement path detailed in the report to repair the control valve and not repair a second control valve of a plurality of control valves, wherein the improvement path includes a first score associated with the control valve an a second score associated with the second control valve, and the first score indicates a greater likelihood of issue than the second score” (emphasis added), it is unclear whether the implementing an improvement path step have the function of not repairing a second control valve and how the calculated scores are related to the step of “not repair a second control valve”. It is unclear from the claim how the improvement path detained in the report is capable of repairing and not repairing a second control valve. It is also unclear from the claim as to what does the “likelihood of issue than the second score” is referring to since there is no antecedent basis for the claimed “issue” recited by the claim. Clarification and correction is required.
Furthermore, the term “greater likelihood” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “greater likelihood” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear from the claim as to what would constitute “greater likelihood” as the claim do not define a specific standard or limit as to ascertain what would constitute to be “greater likelihood of issue”. Clarification and correction is required.
Regarding claim 18 and 24, the claims recite “implementing an improvement path detailed in the report to repair the control valve and not repair a second control valve of a plurality of control valves, renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear whether the implementing an improvement path step have the function of repairing and not repairing a second control valve. It is unclear from the claim how the improvement path detained in the report is capable of repairing and not repairing a second control valve. Clarification and correction is required.
For examination on the merits claim 3 is interpreted as best understood in light of the 35 USC 112(b) rejections above.
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 1-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1, belongs to a statutory category, namely a method. Similarly claims 17 and 22 belongs to a statutory category namely a system.
Under Step 2A, prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim(s) 1-37 recite(s) concepts related to at least one category of abstract idea in which the recited judicial exception falls. Claim 1, 17 and 22 recites concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and/or concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion for “performing an analysis corresponding to the control valve using at least the data obtained; and generating a report using the analysis, the report including information associated with the control valve” and which is mere characterization of the data acquired and applied to implement the abstract idea
The concepts discussed above can be considered to describe mental processes, namely concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and/or mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers. Although the claim does not spell out any particular equation or formula being used, the lack of specific equations for individual steps merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps. These steps recited by the claims, therefore amount to a series of mental or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the “a and system”, recited by claims 17 and 22 “computing device processor” recited by claim 17, “a processor” recited by claim 22, amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea; and the “obtaining, using one or more sensors associate with a control valve, data associated with the control valve”, (claims 1 and 22), and “one or more sensors configured to obtain data associated with the control valve” (claim 17) which is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use (i.e. control valve) or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed and the results are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application and the results of the algorithm are merely output/stored as part of insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. generate a report using the analysis, the report including information associated with the control valve, “non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “stored instructions”), and are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application.
Under Step 2B, 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, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer “system” and “processor”, used to apply the abstract idea and mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, claims 1, 17 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-16, 18-21, and 23-37 merely expand on the abstract idea by appending additional steps to the mathematical algorithm on their respective independent claims 1, 17 and 22.
Dependent claims 2-16, 18-21, and 23-37 merely expands on the abstract idea by reciting additional steps related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion and mere characterization of the data acquired and applied for performing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-16, 18-21, and 23-37 do not set forth further additional elements that integrate the rejected abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, these claims are found to be ineligible for the reasons discussed with respect to respective independent claims 1, 17 and 22 from which they depend.
With respect to claim 2, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization (i.e. “…confirm the user viewed the report and correctness of the report”) and introduces the additional element of “obtaining an input from a user…” which is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 3, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization (i.e. first score associated with the control valve and a second score associated with the second control valve, and the first score indicates a greater likelihood of issue than the second score) which recites concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion for “implementing an improvement path” and introduces the additional element of “…report to repair the control valve an not repair a second control valve of a plurality of control valves”, however this is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and to insignificant post solution activities.
With respect to claim 4, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization and introduces the additional element of “one or more sensors are traceable-calibration sensors that are located in oner or more of the control valve , a distributed control system or an independent measuring system” which is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 5, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization (i.e. “wherein the data is used to determine a valve signature, the data including checks of the control valve…”) and introduces the additional element of “…one or more of a valve stem position measurement, an air supply pressure measurement and an actuator air pressure measurement.” which is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 6, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization (i.e. “wherein determining the valve signature is performed over a span of travel of the control valve and wherein one or more tests are used to detect galling in the control valve by observing stiction in the data associated with the control valve …”) and which is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 7, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization and introduces the additional element of “wherein the data is obtained using one or more tests including at least one of an alternating step test, a same direction step test, a step speed test, a hysteresis test and a deadband test” which is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 8, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization (i.e. “…the one or more tests are used to detect galling in the control valve by observing stiction in the data associated with the control valve”) and introduces the additional element of “wherein the one or more tests are performed over a span of travel of the control valve…” which is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 9, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization (i.e. “…wherein stiction is observed by comparing a first measurement relative to a second measurement and determining stair-stepping in a result of the comparison of the first measurement relative to the second measurement”) and which is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 10, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization (i.e. “wherein the analysis compromises one or more of identifying a root cause of an issue associated with the control valve, prioritizing investigation steps associated with the issue, determining an improvement path associated with the issue, estimating a severity of the issue, determining a level of invasiveness associated with the improvement path and determining an alert associated with the issue to include in the report”) and which is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 11, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization (i.e. “wherein the analysis comprises performing a correlation between the issue and one or more additional issues to eliminate at least one root cause”) and which is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 12, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization (i.e. “wherein the analysis further comprises sorting the issue and the one or more additional issues according to an estimated severity of the issue and the one or more additional issues”) and which is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 13, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization (i.e. “…wherein the analysis is performed…”) and introduces the additional element of “… the report is generated in real-time.” which is mere generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and insignificant post solution activity and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 14, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization (i.e. “…wherein the first entity is operable to identify one or more optimization operations to provide the second entity to optimize performance of the control valve”) and introduces the additional element of “transmitting a first portion of the report to a first entity and transmitting a second portion of the report to a second entity…” which is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 15, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization (i.e. “…wherein the information includes at least one of an issue priority, a graph associated with an output of the control valve, diagnostic information, investigation steps, one or more recommended improvements, likelihood of successful impact, and diagnostic aids”) and which is generality and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 16, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization (i.e. “…comparing the data from a first measurement associated with the control valve relative to the data from a second measurement associated with the control valve”) and which is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 18, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization which recites concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion for “implementing an improvement path” and introduces the additional element of “…report to repair the control valve an not repair a second control valve of a plurality of control valves”, however this is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use), in which the results are output as part as insignificant extrasolution activity (i.e. “report”) use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 19, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization and introduces the additional element of “wherein the data is obtained using one or more tests, the one or more tests including at least one of an alternating step test, a same direction step test, a step speed test, a hysteresis test, and a deadband test” which is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 20, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization (i.e. “wherein the analysis comprises one or more of identifying a root cause of an issue associated with the control valve, prioritizing investigation steps associated with the issue, determining an improvement path associated with the issue, estimating a severity of the issue, determining a level of invasiveness associated with the improvement path, and determining an alert associated with the issue to include in the report”) and which is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of user), in which the results are output as part as insignificant extrasolution activity (i.e. “alert”, “report”) and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 21, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization (i.e. “…wherein the analysis is performed…”) and introduces the additional element of “… the report is generated in real-time.” which is mere generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and insignificant post solution activity and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 23, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization (i.e. “…confirm the user viewed the report and correctness of the report”) and introduces the additional element of “obtaining an input from a user…” which is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 24, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization which recites concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion for “implementing an improvement path” and introduces the additional element of “…report to repair the control valve an not repair a second control valve of a plurality of control valves”, however this is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use, in which the results are output as part as insignificant extrasolution activity (i.e. “report”) and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 25, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization and introduces the additional element of “one or more sensors are traceable-calibration sensors that are located in oner or more of the control valve , a distributed control system or an independent measuring system” which is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 26, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization (i.e. “wherein the data is used to determine a valve signature, the data including checks of the control valve…”) and introduces the additional element of “…one or more of a valve stem position measurement, an air supply pressure measurement and an actuator air pressure measurement.” which is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 27, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization (i.e. “wherein determining the valve signature is performed over a span of travel of the control valve and wherein one or more tests are used to detect galling in the control valve by observing stiction in the data associated with the control valve …”) and which is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 28, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization and introduces the additional element of “wherein the data is obtained using one or more tests including at least one of an alternating step test, a same direction step test, a step speed test, a hysteresis test and a deadband test” which is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 29, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization and introduces the additional element of “wherein the one or more tests are performed over a span of travel of the control valve” which is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 30, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization (i.e. “…the one or more tests are used to detect galling in the control valve by observing stiction in the data associated with the control valve”) and which is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 31, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization (i.e. “…wherein stiction is observed by comparing a positioner measurement relative to a shaft measurement and determining stair-stepping in a result of the comparison of the positioner measurement relative to the shaft measurement”) and which is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 32, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization (i.e. “wherein the analysis comprises one or more of identifying a root cause of an issue associated with the control valve, prioritizing investigation steps associated with the issue, determining an improvement path associated with the issue, estimating a severity of the issue, determining a level of invasiveness associated with the improvement path, and determining an alert associated with the issue to include in the report”) and which is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use in which the results are output as part as insignificant extrasolution activity (i.e. “report”) and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 33, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization (i.e. “wherein the analysis comprises performing a correlation between the issue and one or more additional issues to eliminate at least one root cause”) and which is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 34, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization (i.e. “wherein the analysis further comprises sorting the issue and the one or more additional issues according to the estimated severity of the issue and the one or more additional issues”) and which is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 35, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization (i.e. “…wherein the analysis is performed…”) and introduces the additional element of “… the report is generated in real-time.” which is mere generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and insignificant post solution activity and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 36, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization (i.e. “…wherein the first entity is operable to identify one or more optimization operations to provide the second entity to optimize performance of the control valve”) and introduces the additional element of “transmitting a first portion of the report to a first entity and transmitting a second portion of the report to a second entity…” which is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and post solution activity generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use, and in which the results are output as part as insignificant extrasolution activity (i.e. “transmitting”) and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 37, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization (i.e. “…wherein the information includes at least one of an issue priority, a graph associated with an output of the control valve, diagnostic information, investigation steps, one or more recommended improvements, likelihood of successful impact, and diagnostic aids”) and which is generality and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a
Therefore, for similar reasons as discussed above the additional elements disclosed by dependent claims 2-16, 18-21, and 23-37 fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Therefore claims 1-37 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 32, 35 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schmidt et al. US 20200116170 A1 (hereinafter Schmidt).
Regarding claim 1, Schmidt disclose a method comprising:
obtaining, using one or more sensors (see abstract, para. 0005, 0020, 00023; Figs. 1-2, 5, sensors 25, “sensors”) associated with a control valve (see abstract, para. 0020 “smart valve or smart valve system 10”; Figs. 1-2, 5), data associated with the control valve (see para. 0020, “receiving and processing the sensor data 60”; 0027, “receives or obtains one or more data or metric measurements 60 from the sensors);
performing an analysis corresponding to the control valve using at least the data obtained (see para. 0020, “receiving and processing the sensor data 60”; 0027-0028, “data or signals 60 may be further processed and analyzed… to provide predictive modeling or analysis or to determined desired valve 10 parameters for the smart valve system 10”; Figs 1-2, 5, 7); and
generating a report using the analysis, the report including information associated with the control valve (see para. 0028-0029, measurement metric or data may be transmitted, and wherein a notification unit 55 is disclosed, Fig. 7; see para. 0035, “notification unit 55 may alert the operator”, “notification unit 55 may include the visual display interface(s) (such as interface or visual alarm system 55a of FIG. 3), audible sounds or alarms, a kinetic or automated response, and/or a combination thereof”).
Regarding claim 10, Schmidt disclose the materials discussed above with respect to claim 1. Schmidt further disclose wherein the analysis comprises one or more of identifying a root cause of an issue associated with the control valve (see para. 0031, 0034, wherein real-time analysis is performed to extract and deduce information or predictions regarding remaining valve life, remaining actuator life, service intervals, potential pending failure or loss of failure and preventive maintenance, therefore at least a root cause is being identified), prioritizing investigation steps associated with the issue, determining an improvement path associated with the issue (see para. 0031, 0034, wherein data may be further used to troubleshoot, maintain, and repair the components of the smart valve), estimating a severity of the issue (see para. 0031, 0034, wherein the system accounts for wear/deterioration, therefore a severity of the issue is disclosed), determining a level of invasiveness associated with the improvement path, and determining an alert associated with the issue to include in the report (see para. 0031, 0034, wherein a visual and audible alert or alarm can be provided to the operator based on the data acquired and analyzed to alert the operator of maintenance or repair needs based on the measurements or stored data for the valve, therefore, at least the determined alert associated with the issue to include in the report is disclosed).
Regarding claim 13, Schmidt disclose all the materials discussed above with respect to claim 1. Schmidt further disclose wherein the analysis is performed and the report is generated in real-time (see para. 0031, “real-time analysis of the collected data”, 0034, “real time analytical techniques”).
Regarding claim 15, Schmidt disclose all the materials discussed above with respect to claim 1. Schmidt further disclose wherein the information includes at least one of an issue priority, a graph associated with an output of the control valve, diagnostic information, investigation steps, one or more recommended improvements, likelihood of successful impact, and diagnostic aids (see para. 0004, 0020, 0031, wherein valve wear can be deduced from measured data; para. 0034, wherein it is determined if there is any present or future risk likely at the smart valve, i.e. potential pending failure or loss of service, therefore at least diagnostic information is disclosed; para. 0003, 0028-0029, 0031 wherein predictive analysis, risk analysis [investigation steps] is disclosed).
Regarding claim 16, Schmidt disclose the materials discussed with respect to claim 1. Schmidt further disclose, wherein the analysis comprises comparing the data from a first measurement associated with the control valve relative to the data from a second measurement associated with the control valve (see para. 0004, wherein baseline vibration measurement is obtained by comparing this measurement over time; para. 0034, see claim 15, wherein observed and recorded metric is compared with stored data).
Regarding claim 17, Schmidt disclose a system (Figs. 1-2, para. 0020-0023) comprising:
a control valve (para. 0020 “smart valve or smart valve system 10”);
one or more sensors (see abstract, para. 0005, 0020, 00023; Figs. 1-2, 5, sensors 25, “sensors”) configured to obtain data associated with the control valve (see abstract, Figs. 1-2, 5; see para. 0020, “receiving and processing the sensor data 60”; 0027, “receives or obtains one or more data or metric measurements 60 from the sensors); and
a computing device processor (see para. 0020, wherein microcontrollers or microprocessors 23 are disclosed) configured to:
perform an analysis corresponding to the control valve using at least the data (see para. 0020, “receiving and processing the sensor data 60”; 0027-0028, “data or signals 60 may be further processed and analyzed… to provide predictive modeling or analysis or to determined desired valve 10 parameters for the smart valve system 10”; Figs 1-2, 5, 7), and
generate a report using the analysis, the report including information associated with the control valve (see para. 0028-0029, measurement metric or data may be transmitted, and wherein a notification unit 55 is disclosed, Fig. 7; see para. 0035, “notification unit 55 may alert the operator”, “notification unit 55 may include the visual display interface(s) (such as interface or visual alarm system 55a of FIG. 3), audible sounds or alarms, a kinetic or automated response, and/or a combination thereof”).
Regarding claim 20, Schmidt disclose the materials discussed above with respect to claim 17. Schmidt further disclose wherein the analysis comprises one or more of identifying a root cause of an issue associated with the control valve (see para. 0031, 0034, wherein real-time analysis is performed to extract and deduce information or predictions regarding remaining valve life, remaining actuator life, service intervals, potential pending failure or loss of failure and preventive maintenance, therefore at least a root cause is being identified), prioritizing investigation steps associated with the issue, determining an improvement path associated with the issue (see para. 0031, 0034, wherein data may be further used to troubleshoot, maintain, and repair the components of the smart valve), estimating a severity of the issue (see para. 0031, 0034, wherein the system accounts for wear/deterioration, therefore a severity of the issue is disclosed), determining a level of invasiveness associated with the improvement path, and determining an alert associated with the issue to include in the report (see para. 0031, 0034, wherein a visual and audible alert or alarm can be provided to the operator based on the data acquired and analyzed to alert the operator of maintenance or repair needs based on the measurements or stored data for the valve, therefore, at least the determined alert associated with the issue to include in the report is disclosed).
Regarding claim 21, Schmidt disclose all the materials discussed above with respect to claim 17. Schmidt further disclose wherein the analysis is performed and the report is generated in real-time (see para. 0031, “real-time analysis of the collected data”, 0034, “real time analytical techniques”).
Regarding claim 22, Schmidt disclose a system for providing an experience (Figs. 1-2, para. 0020-0023) comprising:
a processor (see para. 0020, wherein microcontrollers or microprocessors 23 are disclosed; see para. 0030 wherein processor is disclosed);
a non-transitory computer-readable medium (see para. 0030); and
stored instructions translatable by the processor to perform (see para. 0030):
obtaining, using one or more sensors (see abstract, para. 0005, 0020, 00023; Figs. 1-2, 5, sensors 25, “sensors”) associated with a control valve (para. 0020 “smart valve or smart valve system 10”), data associated with the control valve (see abstract, Figs. 1-2, 5; see para. 0020, “receiving and processing the sensor data 60”; 0027, “receives or obtains one or more data or metric measurements 60 from the sensors),
performing an analysis corresponding to the control valve using at least the data obtained (see para. 0020, “receiving and processing the sensor data 60”; 0027-0028, “data or signals 60 may be further processed and analyzed… to provide predictive modeling or analysis or to determined desired valve 10 parameters for the smart valve system 10”; Figs 1-2, 5, 7), and
generating a report using the analysis, the report including information associated with the control valve (see para. 0028-0029, measurement metric or data may be transmitted, and wherein a notification unit 55 is disclosed, Fig. 7; see para. 0035, “notification unit 55 may alert the operator”, “notification unit 55 may include the visual display interface(s) (such as interface or visual alarm system 55a of FIG. 3), audible sounds or alarms, a kinetic or automated response, and/or a combination thereof”).
Regarding claim 32, Schmidt disclose the materials discussed above with respect to claim 22. Schmidt further disclose wherein the analysis comprises one or more of identifying a root cause of an issue associated with the control valve (see para. 0031, 0034, wherein real-time analysis is performed to extract and deduce information or predictions regarding remaining valve life, remaining actuator life, service intervals, potential pending failure or loss of failure and preventive maintenance, therefore at least a root cause is being identified), prioritizing investigation steps associated with the issue, determining an improvement path associated with the issue (see para. 0031, 0034, wherein data may be further used to troubleshoot, maintain, and repair the components of the smart valve), estimating a severity of the issue (see para. 0031, 0034, wherein the system accounts for wear/deterioration, therefore a severity of the issue is disclosed), determining a level of invasiveness associated with the improvement path, and determining an alert associated with the issue to include in the report (see para. 0031, 0034, wherein a visual and audible alert or alarm can be provided to the operator based on the data acquired and analyzed to alert the operator of maintenance or repair needs based on the measurements or stored data for the valve, therefore, at least the determined alert associated with the issue to include in the report is disclosed).
Regarding claim 35, Schmidt disclose all the materials discussed above with respect to claim 22. Schmidt further disclose wherein the analysis is performed and the report is generated in real-time (see para. 0031, “real-time analysis of the collected data”, 0034, “real time analytical techniques”).
Regarding claim 37, Schmidt disclose all the materials discussed above with respect to claim 22. Schmidt further disclose wherein the information includes at least one of an issue priority, a graph associated with an output of the control valve, diagnostic information, investigation steps, one or more recommended improvements, likelihood of successful impact, and diagnostic aids (see para. 0004, 0020, 0031, wherein valve wear can be deduced from measured data; para. 0034, wherein it is determined if there is any present or future risk likely at the smart valve, i.e. potential pending failure or loss of service, therefore at least diagnostic information is disclosed; para. 0003, 0028-0029, 0031 wherein predictive analysis, risk analysis [investigation steps] is disclosed).
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) 2, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200116170 A1 (hereinafter Schmidt) in view of Meng et al. CN 113076716 A (hereinafter Meng).
Regarding claim 2, Schmidt disclose the materials discussed with respect to claim 1 and further disclose obtaining an input from a user (para.0028, “data metrics or measurements may be entered as input into the microprocessor or computing unit”; see para. 0031, wherein measurements or inputs includes user/operator unit in order to generate output controls or commands that may trigger or change processes of the microprocessor or the smart valve 10). Schmidt further disclose to receive a feedback to adjust and correct the smart valve 10 system (see para. 0031).
However Schmidt do not expressly or explicitly disclose that the input from a user is obtained to confirm the user viewed the report and a correctness of the report.
Meng disclose a system obtaining an input from a user to confirm the user viewed the report and a correctness of the report (see para. n0138, wherein data confirmation module is provided in with a report in which the user confirms or view corresponding reports and confirm whether the data on the report is correct; n0169, n0173, wherein the user can click the view button to view the document/yearbook, wherein user can view).
Therefore given the teachings of Meng discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Schmidt such that the input from a user is obtained to confirm the user viewed the report and a correctness of the report, for the benefit of providing an enhanced system with data verification such that comprehensive and systematically such that important diagnostic events are recorded accurately thereby improving data management and correct diagnosis of the system.
Regarding claim 23, Schmidt teach all the limitations of parent claim 22 as described above. Schmidt and Meng render obvious “further comprising obtaining an input from a user to confirm the user viewed the report and a correctness of the report” as discussed for similar claim 2.
Claim(s) 3 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt US 20200116170 A1 (hereinafter Schmidt) in view of US Patent 10,371,285 (hereinafter Schoonover).
Regarding claim 3, Schmidt disclose the materials discussed with respect to claim 1. However Schmidt do not expressly or explicitly disclose implementing an improvement path detailed in the report to repair the control valve and not repair a second control valve of a plurality of control valves, wherein the improvement path includes a first score associated with the control valve and a second score associated with the second control valve, and the first score indicates a greater likelihood of issue than the second score.
Schoonover disclose implementing an improvement path detailed in the report to repair the control valve and not repair a second control valve of a plurality of control valves, wherein the improvement path includes a first score associated with the control valve and a second score associated with the second control valve, and the first score indicates a greater likelihood of issue than the second score (see Fig. 5; abstract; col. 6, ll. 9-28, wherein maintenance variable is compared to a threshold criteria and include oner or more stages for calculating the maintenance variable associated with the operation of the valve assembly; col. 6, ll. 29-59, wherein maintenance variable may be calculated using a pattern coefficient which may correspond to predictive patterns that predict failure modes that may occur in the valve assembly; col. 6, ll. 60-67, wherein pattern recognition techniques are discussed to bests associate patterns in data with a particular failure mode; col. 7, ll. 5-21, wherein operation and maintenance of valve assemblies is disclosed; col. 7, ll. 54-67, wherein one or more stages for determining the values for the pattern coefficients and for updating values for the pattern coefficients may include one or more stages for writing data to the training set of data and wherein the data may embody entries that are collected during lifetime operations of valve assemblies (V1 and V2); col. 8, ll. 2-19, wherein pattern coefficients are determined and stages may include one or more stages for writing data to the training set of data, and wherein the data may embody data that are collected during the lifetime operation of valve assemblies (V1 and V2);. col. 8, ll.20-49, wherein stages for finding trends are disclosed and wherein the trends are associated with maintenance task which require for maintenance to occur; col. 9, ll. 50-58, wherein maintenance task may require an end user to at least test the valve assembly to confirm the results of the predictive analysis and wherein end user may need to lubricate the valve assemblies that are identified in the group as indicating problems).
Therefore given the teachings of Schoonover discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention ton configure the system of Schmidt to implementing an improvement path detailed in the report to repair the control valve and not repair a second control valve of a plurality of control valves, wherein the improvement path includes a first score associated with the control valve and a second score associated with the second control valve, and the first score indicates a greater likelihood of issue than the second score, for the benefit of providing an enhanced system for detecting and predicting maintenance requirements and potential failure modes on a valve assembly (see col. 1, ll. 18-20). in an accurate and precise manner.
Regarding claim 24, Schmidt disclose the materials discussed above with respect to claim 22.
However, Schmidt do not expressly or specifically disclose, implementing an improvement path detailed in the report to repair the control valve and not repair a second control valve of a plurality of control valves.
Schoonover disclose implementing an improvement path detailed in the report to repair the control valve and not repair a second control valve of a plurality of control valves, (see Fig. 5; abstract; col. 6, ll. 9-28, wherein maintenance variable is compared to a threshold criteria and include oner or more stages for calculating the maintenance variable associated with the operation of the valve assembly; col. 6, ll. 29-59, wherein maintenance variable may be calculated using a pattern coefficient which may correspond to predictive patterns that predict failure modes that may occur in the valve assembly; col. 6, ll. 60-67, wherein pattern recognition techniques are discussed to bests associate patterns in data with a particular failure mode; col. 7, ll. 5-21, wherein operation and maintenance of valve assemblies is disclosed; col. 7, ll. 54-67, wherein one or more stages for determining the values for the pattern coefficients and for updating values for the pattern coefficients of valve assemblies (V1 and V2) is discussed; col. 8, ll.20-49, wherein stages for finding trends are disclosed and wherein the trends are associated with maintenance task which require for maintenance to occur; col. 9, ll. 50-58, wherein maintenance task may require an end user to at least test the valve assembly to confirm the results of the predictive analysis and wherein end user may need to lubricate the valve assemblies that are identified in the group as indicating problems).
Therefore given the teachings of Schoonover discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention ton configure the system of Schmidt to implementing an improvement path detailed in the report to repair the control valve and not repair a second control valve of a plurality of control valves, for the benefit of providing an enhanced system for detecting and predicting maintenance requirements and potential failure modes on a valve assembly (see col. 1, ll. 18-20). in an accurate and precise manner.
Claim(s) 4 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200116170 A1 (hereinafter Schmidt) in view of Scholz et al. US20250341461 (hereinafter Scholz).
Regarding claim 4, Schmidt disclose the materials discussed with respect to independent claim 1.
Schmidt further disclose one or more sensors that are located in one or more of the control valve, a distributed control system, or an independent measuring system (see abstract, para. 0005, 0020-0021, wherein one or more sensors are located within the valve stem or a valve).
However, it do not expressly or explicitly disclose the one or more sensors are traceable-calibration sensors that are located in one or more of the control valve, a distributed control system, or an independent measuring system (emphasis added).
Scholz disclose a devise assembly and method for calibrating a sensor in which a sensor which is a traceable-calibration sensor is used in a measurement system containing a valve or combination of valves, wherein the sensor is traceable to a standard or a calibration according to a national or regional organization for standardization (see para. 0016, 0045, 0049).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, given the teachings of Scholz discussed above to configure the sensors of the system of Schmidt to be traceable-calibration sensors located in one or more of the control valve, a distributed control system or an independent measuring system, for the benefit of providing precise and accurate measurements that are in compliance with standardized national or regional organizations in accordance with the regulations and requirements by regulatory agencies.
Regarding claim 25, Schmidt teach all the limitations of parent claim 22. Schmidt and Scholz render obvious the “the one or more sensors are traceable-calibration sensors that are located in at least one of: the control valve, a distributed control system, or an independent measuring system” as discussed above for similar claim 4.
Claim(s) 5 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200116170 A1 (hereinafter Schmidt) in view of Wagner-Sturz US2023/0279966A1 (hereinafter Sturz).
Regarding claim 5, Schmidt disclose the materials discussed with respect to claim 1. Schmidt is silent as to disclose wherein the data is used to determine a valve signature, the data including checks of the control valve, including one or more of a valve stem position measurement, an air supply pressure measurement, and an actuator air pressure measurement.
Sturz disclose wherein the data is used to determine a valve signature, the data including checks of the control valve, including one or more of a valve stem position measurement, an air supply pressure measurement, and an actuator air pressure measurement (para.0013, 0028-0033, 0075, 0087; wherein diagnosis of a control valve member and wherein valve signatures defined by two curves is discussed, and wherein the valve member is a valve stem; para. 0077-0078, 0081, 0083, wherein the pressure of the air is measured).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Sturz discussed above to configure the system of Schmidt such that the data is used to determine a valve signature, the data including checks of the control valve, including one or more of a valve stem position measurement, an air supply pressure measurement, and an actuator air pressure measurement for the benefit of providing an enhanced system capable of detecting failures in actuator stem of a control valve in order to avoid friction losses and undesirable loads on the components of the valve (see para. 0002-0003).
Regarding claim 26, Schmidt teach all the limitations of parent claim 22. Schmidt and Sturz render obvious the “, wherein the data is used to determine a valve signature, the data including checks of the control valve, including one or more of a valve stem position measurement, an air supply pressure measurement, and an actuator air pressure measurement” as discussed above for similar claim 5.
Claim(s) 6 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt US 20200116170 A1 (hereinafter Schmidt) in view of Wagner-Sturz US2023/0279966A1 (hereinafter Sturz) in further view of Choudhury et al. US2007/0288103 (hereinafter Choudhury) in further view of Packham Trent WO 2015103499 A1 (hereinafter Trent) .
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Schmidt and Sturz disclose the materials discussed with respect to claim 5.
Sturz further disclose that the valve signature is performed over a span of travel of the control valve (see para. 0016, 0018, 0028, 0130, claim 1).
However Schmidt and Sturz do not expressly or explicitly disclose wherein one or more tests are used to detect galling in the control valve by observing stiction in the data associated with the control valve.
Choudhury et al. disclose a method and system of detection and quantification of stiction present in control valves in which one or more test, are used by observing stiction in the data associated with a control valve (see abstract, para. 0003-0004, 0038).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Schmidt as modified by Sturz with one or more tests by observing stiction in the data associated with the control valve, for the benefit of providing a system capable of measuring and quantifying stiction in order to identify valves or other control elements that need maintenance or repair (see para. 0005).
However the combination of Schmidt, Sturz, and Choudhury do not expressly disclose that the one or more tests are used to detect galling in the control valve by observing the stiction in the data associated with the control valve.
Trent disclose a system for overcoming natural stiction between a valve and the valve housing and discusses that stiction is more pronounced in metal couplings where a metal valve left in contact with a metal housing surface may be over time susceptible to galling (see abstract, page 2, ll. 12-22; page 11, ll. 28-32; page 12, ll.1-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Trent to configure the system of Schmidt, as modified by Choudhury such that the one or more tests are used to detect galling in the control valve by observing the stiction in the data associated with the control valve since it is known that stiction will lead to galling, hence, it would have been obvious that the presence of galling can be determined by determined by the detection of stiction. One of ordinary skilled in the art would have recognized that galling is a result form stiction and therefore would have been obvious to use stiction test to determine the presence of galling, for the benefit of providing a robust system capable of detecting galling accurately and precisely in order to detect and identify valves that may need maintenance or repair and allowing for regulation of fluid that is flowing through the system to take place.
Regarding claim 27, Schmidt and Sturz teach all the limitations of parent claim 26. Schmidt, Sturz, Choudhury and Trent render obvious the “wherein determining the valve signature is performed over a span of travel of the control valve and wherein one or more tests are used to detect galling in the control valve by observing stiction in the data associated with the control valve” as discussed above for similar claim 6.
Claim(s) 7, 19, 28 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Schmidt 20200116170 A1 (hereinafter Schmidt) in view of Choundhury et al. US2007/0288103 (hereinafter Choudhurry).
Regarding claim 7, Schmidt disclose the materials as discussed with respect to claim 1.
However Schmidt do not expressly or explicitly disclose the data is obtained using one or more tests, the one or more tests including at least one of an alternating step test, a same direction step test, a step speed test, a hysteresis test, and a deadband test.
Choudhury disclose a method and system of detection and quantification of stiction present in control valves in which one or more test, are used by observing stiction in the data associated with a control valve (see abstract, para. 0003-0004, 0038). Choudhury further disclose the data is obtained using one or more tests, the one or more tests including at least one of an alternating step test, a same direction step test, a step speed test, a hysteresis test, and a deadband test (see abstract, para. 0002, wherein hysteresis is disclosed; 0003-0004, 0038; 0040, 0055, wherein deadband test is disclosed).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Schmidt such that the data is obtained using one or more tests, the one or more tests including at least one of an alternating step test, a same direction step test, a step speed test, a hysteresis test, and a deadband test, for the benefit of providing an enhanced system capable of performing measurements that would allow to identify valves or other control elements that need maintenance or repair (see para. 0005).
Regarding claim 19, Schmidt teach all the limitations of parent claim 17 as described above. Schmidt and Choudhury and further render obvious “wherein the data is obtained using one or more tests, the one or more tests including at least one of an alternating step test, a same direction step test, a step speed test, a hysteresis test, and a deadband test” as discussed for similar claim 7.
Regarding claim 28, Schmidt teach all the limitations of parent claim 22 as described above. Schmidt and Choudhury and further render obvious “wherein the data is obtained using one or more tests, the one or more tests including at least one of an alternating step test, a same direction step test, a step speed test, a hysteresis test, and a deadband test” as discussed for similar claim 7.
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Schmidt of Choundhyry disclose the materials discussed with respect to claim 28.
Choundhury disclose known method that require stroking or traveling the valve over its full travel span when in service or out of service (see para. 0003).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Choudhury of known full travel span valve test, to provide the system of Schmidt with one or more tests are performed over a span of travel of the control valve in order to be able to provide a system capable of analysis and performance tests of control valves able to test a valve over its full travel span when in service or out of service.
Claim(s) 8 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt US 20200116170 A1 (hereinafter Schmidt) in view of Choundhury et al. US2007/0288103 (hereinafter Choudhurry) in further view of Packham Trent WO 2015103499 A1 (hereinafter Trent) .
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Schmidt of Choundhyry disclose the materials discussed with respect to claim 7.
Choundhury disclose known method that require stroking or traveling the valve over its full travel span when in service or out of service (see para. 0003). Choudhury et al. disclose a method and system of detection and quantification of stiction present in control valves in which one or more test, are used by observing stiction in the data associated with a control valve (see abstract, para. 0003-0004, 0038).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Choudhury of known full travel span valve test, to provide the system of Schmidt with one or more tests are performed over a span of travel of the control valve in order to be able to provide a system capable of analysis and performance tests of control valves able to test a valve over its full travel span when in service or out of service. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Schmidt with one or more tests by observing stiction in the data associated with the control valve, for the benefit of providing a system capable of measuring and quantifying stiction in order to identify valves or other control elements that need maintenance or repair (see para. 0005).
However the combination of Schmidt, and Choudhury do not expressly disclose that the one or more tests are used to detect galling in the control valve by observing the stiction in the data associated with the control valve.
Trent disclose a system for overcoming natural stiction between a valve and the valve housing and discusses that stiction is more pronounced in metal couplings where a metal valve left in contact with a metal housing surface may be over time susceptible to galling (see abstract, page 2, ll. 12-22; page 11, ll. 28-32; page 12, ll.1-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Trent to configure the system of Schmidt, as modified by Choudhury such that the one or more tests are used to detect galling in the control valve by observing the stiction in the data associated with the control valve since it is known that stiction will lead to galling, hence, it would have been obvious that the presence of galling can be determined by determined by the detection of stiction. One of ordinary skilled in the art would have recognized that galling is a result form stiction and therefore would have been obvious to use stiction test to determine the presence of galling, for the benefit of providing a robust system capable of detecting galling accurately and precisely in order to detect and identify valves that may need maintenance or repair and allowing for regulation of fluid that is flowing through the system to take place.
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Schmidt of Choundhyry disclose the materials discussed with respect to claim 28.
Choudhury further disclose a method and system of detection and quantification of stiction present in control valves in which one or more test, are used by observing stiction in the data associated with a control valve (see abstract, para. 0003-0004, 0038).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Choudhury of known full travel span valve test, to provide the system of Schmidt with one or more tests by observing stiction in the data associated with the control valve, for the benefit of providing a system capable of measuring and quantifying stiction in order to identify valves or other control elements that need maintenance or repair (see para. 0005).
However the combination of Schmidt, and Choudhury do not expressly disclose that the one or more tests are used to detect galling in the control valve by observing the stiction in the data associated with the control valve.
Trent disclose a system for overcoming natural stiction between a valve and the valve housing and discusses that stiction is more pronounced in metal couplings where a metal valve left in contact with a metal housing surface may be over time susceptible to galling (see abstract, page 2, ll. 12-22; page 11, ll. 28-32; page 12, ll.1-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Trent to configure the system of Schmidt, as modified by Choudhury such that the one or more tests are used to detect galling in the control valve by observing the stiction in the data associated with the control valve since it is known that stiction will lead to galling, hence, it would have been obvious that the presence of galling can be determined by determined by the detection of stiction. One of ordinary skilled in the art would have recognized that galling is a result form stiction and therefore would have been obvious to use stiction test to determine the presence of galling, for the benefit of providing a robust system capable of detecting galling accurately and precisely in order to detect and identify valves that may need maintenance or repair and allowing for regulation of fluid that is flowing through the system to take place.
Claim(s) 11 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt US 20200116170 A1 (hereinafter Schmidt) in view of Suriyanarayanan et al. US2014/0325279A1 (hereinafter Suriyanarayanan).
Regarding claim 11, Schmidt disclose the materials discussed above with respect to claim 10, Schmidt further disclose performing a correlation between the issue and one or more additional issues (see para. 0028), in particular, Schmidt disclose that valve measured parameters (valve vibration, valve temperature, valve emissions) can be indicative of or correlated to several valve issues (i.e. accelerated packing and valve seat wear, escape or leakage of the media, torque and cavitation). Schmidt further disclose baseline performance measured at commissioning is compared to long term operation and wherein changes can be directly correlated to the need for service, and wherein the analysis is correlated with direct torque measurements so that statistical significance of the correlated data results in accurate predictive assertions (see para. 0034).
However Schmidt do not expressly or explicitly disclose that the analysis correlation is performed to eliminate at least one root cause.
Suriyanarayanan disclose a target failure based root cause analysis in which a probe failure (issue) is correlated with target failures or destination faults (one or more additional issues) to eliminate at least one root cause (eliminate the cause) and prevent the problem from reoccurring.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Suriyanarayanan to configure the system of Schmidt such that the correlation is performed to eliminate at least one root cause for the benefit of preventing a problem for reoccurring and to find out whether the actual problem is occurring (see para. 0010).
Examiner Note: It is noted that the recited limitation “eliminate at least one root cause” is not positively recited and is intended use of the positively recited correlation and is not given patentable weight, however it has been treated on the merits over Schmidt in view of Suriyanarayanan as discussed above.
Regarding claim 33, Schmidt teach the materials discussed above with respect to parent claim 32. Schmidt and Suriyanarayanan render obvious “wherein the analysis comprises performing a correlation between the issue and one or more additional issues to eliminate at least one root cause” as discussed above for similar claim 11.
Claim(s) 12 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt US 20200116170 A1 (hereinafter Schmidt) in view of Suriyanarayanan et al. US2014/0325279A1 (hereinafter Suriyanarayanan) in further view of Salahshoor et al. US2016/0071004A1 (hereinafter Salahshoor).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Schmidt and Suriyanarayanan disclose all the materials as discussed above with respect to dependent claim 11. However the combination of Schmidt and Suriyanarayanan do not expressly disclose wherein the analysis further comprises sorting the issue and the one or more additional issues according to an estimated severity of the issue and the one or more additional issues.
Salahshoor disclose wherein the analysis further comprises sorting the issue and the one or more additional issues according to an estimated severity of the issue and the one or more additional issues (see para. 0018, 0149, wherein one or more faults of control valves are ranked based on severity of the faults).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Salahshoor discussed above to configure the system of Schmidt as modified by Suriyanarayanan such that the analysis further comprises sorting the issue and the one or more additional issues according to an estimated severity of the issue and the one or more additional issues for the benefit of providing a robust predictive maintenance of valves such as control valves in order to avoid potentially catastrophic failures of the vales by allowing for early diagnosis and detection of faults in valves and reducing costs that arise from replacing valves that are working perfectly (see para. 0005-0006).
Regarding claim 34, Schmidt teach the materials discussed above with respect to parent claim 33. Schmidt and Suriyanarayanan render obvious “wherein the analysis further comprises sorting the issue and the one or more additional issues according to the estimated severity of the issue and the one or more additional issues” as discussed above for similar claim 12.
Claim(s) 14 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt US 20200116170 A1 (hereinafter Schmidt) in view of Eryurek et al. US2004/0186927A1 (hereinafter Eryurek).
Regarding claims 14 and 36, Schmidt discloses the materials discussed with respect to respective independent claims 1 and 22.
However, Schmidt do not expressly or explicitly disclose transmitting a first portion of the report to a first entity and transmitting a second portion of the report to a second entity, wherein the first entity is operable to identify one or more optimization operations to provide the second entity to optimize performance of the control valve.
Eryurek discloses transmitting a first portion of the report to a first entity and transmitting a second portion of the report to a second entity, wherein the first entity is operable to identify one or more optimization operations to provide the second entity to optimize performance of the control valve (see para. 0028, 0044, 0056, “the asset optimization reporter receives status information from data sources including the asset utilization expert 50, data tools, data collectors, data generators, etc., and generates a report for a user”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Eryurek to configure the system of Schmidt for transmitting a first portion of the report to a first entity and transmitting a second portion of the report to a second entity, wherein the first entity is operable to identify one or more optimization operations to provide the second entity to optimize performance of the control valve for the benefit of providing a means for presenting information about a device that may be of importance to the process operator in regards to how it will affect the operational status and optimization of the process (see para. 0012).
Examiner Note: It has been held that the recitation that an element is "operable to" perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. it does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200116170 A1 (hereinafter Schmidt) in view of Meng et al. CN 113076716 A (hereinafter Meng) in further view of US Patent 10,371,285 (hereinafter Schoonover)
Regarding claim 18, Schmidt further discloses wherein the computing device processor (see para. 0020) is further configured to: obtaining an input from a user (para.0028, “data metrics or measurements may be entered as input into the microprocessor or computing unit”; see para. 0031, wherein measurements or inputs includes user/operator unit to generate output controls or commands that may trigger or change processes of the microprocessor or the smart valve 10). Schmidt further disclose to receive a feedback to adjust and correct the smart valve 10 system (see para. 0031).
However, Schmidt do not expressly or explicitly disclose that the input from a user is obtained to confirm the user viewed the report and the correctness of the report.
Meng discloses a system obtaining an input from a user to confirm the user viewed the report and correctness of the report (see para. n0138, wherein data confirmation module is provided in with a report in which the user confirms or view corresponding reports and confirm whether the data on the report is correct; n0169, n0173, wherein the user can click the view button to view the document/yearbook, wherein user can view).
Therefore given the teachings of Meng discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Schmidt such that the input from a user is obtained to confirm the user viewed the report and a correctness of the report, for the benefit of providing an enhanced system with data verification such that comprehensive and systematically such that important diagnostic events are recorded accurately thereby improving data management and correct diagnosis of the system.
However, Schmidt and Meng do not expressly or explicitly disclose implementing an improvement path detailed in the report to repair the control valve and not repair a second control valve of a plurality of control valves.
Schoonover disclose implementing an improvement path detailed in the report to repair the control valve and not repair a second control valve of a plurality of control valves, (see Fig. 5; abstract; col. 6, ll. 9-28, wherein maintenance variable is compared to a threshold criteria and include oner or more stages for calculating the maintenance variable associated with the operation of the valve assembly; col. 6, ll. 29-59, wherein maintenance variable may be calculated using a pattern coefficient which may correspond to predictive patterns that predict failure modes that may occur in the valve assembly; col. 6, ll. 60-67, wherein pattern recognition techniques are discussed to bests associate patterns in data with a particular failure mode; col. 7, ll. 5-21, wherein operation and maintenance of valve assemblies is disclosed; col. 7, ll. 54-67, wherein one or more stages for determining the values for the pattern coefficients and for updating values for the pattern coefficients of valve assemblies (V1 and V2) is discussed; col. 8, ll.20-49, wherein stages for finding trends are disclosed and wherein the trends are associated with maintenance task which require for maintenance to occur; col. 9, ll. 50-58, wherein maintenance task may require an end user to at least test the valve assembly to confirm the results of the predictive analysis and wherein end user may need to lubricate the valve assemblies that are identified in the group as indicating problems).
Therefore given the teachings of Schoonover discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention ton configure the system of Schmidt to implementing an improvement path detailed in the report to repair the control valve and not repair a second control valve of a plurality of control valves, for the benefit of providing an enhanced system for detecting and predicting maintenance requirements and potential failure modes on a valve assembly (see col. 1, ll. 18-20). in an accurate and precise manner.
Reasons for Overcoming the Prior Art
Regarding claims 9, and 31 which are currently rejected under 35 USC 101, the closest prior art of made of record either in singularly or in combination fails to teach, disclose or suggest the features set forth by dependent claims 9 and 31, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
The prior art of record cited in form PTOL-892 and not relied upon is pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YARITZA H PEREZ BERMUDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/YARITZA H. PEREZ BERMUDEZ/
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights