DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the figures 3-5 are missing the labels for x- and y-axis. As an example, what does the x-axis represent? 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 Objections
Claim 14 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. In other words, referring back to Claim 13 and claim 8 is improper. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 14 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are various limitation that recite: “unit” in claims, such as “an analysis unit” in claim 1.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-16 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 recites the limitation "the wear" in lines 3-4, the limitation “the maintenance value,” in line 16, the limitation “the next maintenance time,” the claim 6 recites the limitation “the acquired image data,” in line 3, the claim 8 recites the limitation “the maintenance operations,” in line 2, the claim 9 recites the limitation “the condition of the wear part,” in line 3, claim 11 recites the limitation “ the next maintenance interval,” in line 2, claim 14 recites the limitation “the mean system value,” in line 2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 9, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gross et al., US-PGPUB 2009/0076874 (hereinafter Gross).
Regarding Claims 1 and 15. Gross discloses improving a timing of a planned maintenance of a wear part in a device (Abstract, scheduled maintenance; Figs. 1-4), comprising:
acquiring at least one system value of the device, which is related to the wear of the wear part, by an acquisition device during operation of the device (Paragraph [0016], a schedule maintenance service or anticipated wear, based on number of cycles);
evaluating the at least one system value by an analysis unit (Paragraph [0002], computer, processor, etc.);
determine a maintenance time by the analysis unit at which the wear part is to be replaced on the basis of the at least one system value (Paragraph [0016], scheduled maintenance based on number of cycles reaching a predetermined cycle number);
replacing the wear part when the system value reaches a defined maintenance value (Paragraph [0016], schedule maintenance requiring replacing after reaching a predefined cycle numbers, such as 10000 cycles, as an example),
assessing the replaced wear part with regard to its wear and classifying it into one of three categories, a first category denoting too early a replacement of the wear part, a second category denoting a timely replacement of the wear part, and a third category denoting too late a replacement of the wear part (Paragraphs [0016]-[0022], maintenance service too late, absolutely necessary and was necessary (or timely), could have been performed later (or too early), claims 19 and 20),
redetermining the maintenance value based on the categorization of the wear part by the analysis unit, wherein the redetermined maintenance value constitutes a recommendation for the next maintenance time (Paragraph [0016], modify the maintenance schedule/plan accordingly, or improved service plan, recommendations, etc; Paragraph [0025], Fig. 2, additional step of providing feedback)
Regarding Claim 4. Gross discloses the system value is an operating time, a number of cycles, an end of travel position, a distance covered by a drive element and/or a number of changes in direction of a drive element (Paragraph [0016], number of cycles, as an example)
Regarding Claim 5. Gross discloses system values based on different parameters are provided, on each of which separate maintenance values are based (Paragraph [0016], cycles, activations)
Regarding Claim 7. Gross discloses the categorization of the replaced wear parts is performed taking into account a medium used, a temperature prevailing in the device and/or prevailing process conditions (Paragraph [0024], environmental factors, such as temperature)
Regarding Claim 9. Gross discloses during each maintenance the system value, at which the maintenance is performed, is acquired and is also assigned to the category corresponding to the condition of the wear part by the analysis unit (Paragraphs [0016]-[0021]; claims 19 and 20)
Regarding Claim 13. Gross discloses optimizing a maintenance of a device comprising a plurality of devices, in which at least two wear parts are replaced, wherein for the at least two wear parts of the device or the process plant (Figs. 1 and 2), a timing of a planned maintenance is improved in accordance with claim 1, and wherein, if different recommended maintenance times result for the two wear parts based on the respective maintenance values, a deviation from the recommended maintenance value is effected for at least one of the wear parts by the analysis unit (Paragraphs [0015]-[0022])
Regarding Claim 16. Gross discloses the device is a process valve (Paragraph [0016])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross, US-PGPUB 2009/0076874.
Regarding Claim 10. Gross discloses system values based on different parameters are provided, on each of which separate maintenance values are based (Paragraph [0016], cycles, activations, based on influencing and environmental factors, Paragraph [0024]), and wherein, when taking into account a plurality of system
values, a separate categorization is performed for each system value (Paragraphs [0016]-[0021]; claims 19 and 20; where it would be obvious to have a separate categorization that results in different dynamic maintenance schedules, such as cycles which may require maintenances of the valve at 8000 cycles, while brake needs maintenance at 5000 activations)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross, US-PGPUB 2009/0076874 in view of Theegala, US-PGPUB 2009/0064578 (hereinafter Thhegala)
Regarding Claim 2. Gross discloses the device is a process valve (Paragraph [0016]).
Gross does not explicitly disclose the method is carried out for an electropneumatic or electric motor-driven process valve.
Theegala disclose repairing pneumatic or electric valves (Paragraphs [0043]-[0044])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Theegala in Gross and perform maintenance for an electropneumatic or electric motor-driven process valve, so as to ensure their optimal operation.
13. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross, US-PGPUB 2009/0076874 in view of Leine, US-PGPUB 2021/0269132 (hereinafter Leine)
Regarding Claim 3. Gross does not disclose the wear part is a sealing diaphragm, a packing gland, a valve seat set, an impeller or a supercapacitor.
Leine discloses the wear part is an impeller (Paragraphs [0033]; [0066])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Leine in Gross and perform maintenance on the impeller, so as to ensure their optimal operation.
14. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross, US-PGPUB 2009/0076874 in view of Plouzek et al., US-PGPUB 2020/0363203 (hereinafter Plouzek)
Regarding Claim 6. Gross discloses inspecting and determining the degree of wear and categorizing into at least three categories (Paragraph [0016]-[0022])
Gross does not disclose the categorization is performed by means of a visual acquisition unit that visually acquires the wear part that has been replaced, compares the acquired image data with image data stored in a memory and, based on the comparison, assigns the wear part replaced to a first, a second or a third category.
Plouzek discloses visually acquiring the wear part, compares the acquired image data with image data stored in a memory and determining the amount of wear (Abstract; Paragraph [0073]; Paragraph [0007])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Plouzek in Gross and perform the categorization by means of a visual acquisition unit that visually acquires the wear part that has been replaced, compares the acquired image data with image data stored in a memory and, based on the comparison, assigns the wear part replaced to a first, a second or a third category, so as to provide the necessary maintenance accurately and in timely manner.
15. Claims 8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross, US-PGPUB 2009/0076874 in view of Hinduja et al., US-PGPUB 2022/0129861 (hereinafter Hinduja)
Regarding Claim 8. Gross discloses inspecting and determining the degree of wear and categorizing into at least three categories (Paragraphs [0016]-[0022])
Gross does not disclose for each category separately the number of maintenance operations carried out is counted in which the wear part is assigned to the respective category by the analysis unit.
Hinduja discloses dynamic maintenance scheduling, which includes counting the number of maintenance that were too early, too late or on time (Paragraph [0004], maintenance too early or too late; Paragraph [0014], historical scheduled maintenance sessions, Paragraph [0022]; Paragraph [0018], count of non-scheduled maintenance sessions, Paragraph [0023], [0049]-[0050]; Paragraph [0077], trend corresponding to historical schedules maintenance sessions that were too early, too late or on time; Paragraphs [0004]-[0005])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Hinduja in Gross and have for each category separately, the number of maintenance operations carried out is counted in which the wear part is assigned to the respective category by the analysis unit, so as to dynamically and efficiently perform maintenance for the optimal operation of the given part.
Regarding Claim 11. Gross does not disclose at least for the second category a mean value serving as a maintenance value for the next maintenance interval is formed by the analysis unit from the system values that are assigned to the second category.
Hinduja discloses a mean value serving as a maintenance value for the next maintenance interval (Paragraph [0047], mean time between consecutive failures, requiring repairing)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Hinduja in Gross and have at least for the second category a mean value serving as a maintenance value for the next maintenance interval is formed by the analysis unit from the system values that are assigned to the second category, so as to dynamically and efficiently perform maintenance for the optimal operation of the given part.
Regarding Claim 12. Gross does not disclose wherein a separate mean value is formed by the analysis unit from the system values for each category of the system values that are assigned to the respective category.
Hinduja discloses a mean value serving as a maintenance value for the next maintenance interval (Paragraph [0047], mean time between consecutive failures, requiring repairing)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Hinduja in Gross and have a separate mean value is formed by the analysis unit from the system values for each category of the system values that are assigned to the respective category, so as to dynamically and efficiently perform maintenance for the optimal operation of the given part.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wagner et al., US-PGPUB 2018/0165884
Jammu et al., US-PGPUB 2004/0064225, averaging.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857