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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “VI.”
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “1” in fig. 2.
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 2 and 3 are difficult to read. Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height. They should not be placed in the drawing so as to interfere with its comprehension. Therefore, they should not cross or mingle with the lines. See 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3).
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 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites in lines 9-10, a current detector “monitoring magnetizing current” which should read as capable of or for monitoring magnetizing current to avoid being interpreted as a step in a method. The same applies to the “detecting” and “monitoring” in lines 12 and 14 respectively.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites the limitation of a pressure sensor “measuring the energizing/de-energizing” which should be changed similar to above to avoid the appearance of a step.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 4 of the claim, the word “being” should be changed to –is--.
The verbs such as “read,” “store,” “evaluate,” and “generate” should be changed to reading, storing, evaluating and generating to be interpreted as method steps.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites similar verbs as in claim 7 which should each be amended to better define a method.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation of the fluid line “ahead of the actuator” in line 4. It is not clear as to what is meant by “ahead of” in this sense. For the purpose of examination, it will be assumed to mean “upstream” from, or similar.
The claim recites the limitation of “at least one solenoid valve” and later that “each solenoid valve is activated by a solenoid controlled by external control systems.” In the instance where there is only a single solenoid valve, it is not clear as to how it would be controlled by external control systems since seemingly each valve is controlled by a single, respective control system.
Line 8 of the claim refers to “safe position” of the valve which has not been defined and will be interpreted as a closed position, or similar.
Regarding claims 3 and 7, it is not clear as to what is meant by the limitation of the “event messages” as claimed. For the purpose of examination, the events will be interpreted to be the fault messages or other information generated by the system.
It is not clear as to what is meant by the predefined “program sequence” as disclosed in the claim since no details have been provided as to what a program sequence would be. For the purposes of examination, the program sequence is interpreted to be a threshold of values or similar.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites the limitation of “reading and storing” time series of signals, however it is not clear as to where the signals are stored. For the purpose of examination, it will be assumed that they are stored in the controller.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites the limitation of “if pressure is high” in lines 7-8. It is not clear as to what would be considered “high” since it is a term of degree and there is no detail as to what distinguishes high from low.
In line 9, the claim recites the term “else.” It is not clear if everything that follows is in the alternative to everything previous to “else” or only the step checking the first solenoid valve which immediately follows.
The claim recites the limitation that the valves are checked for “safe closing” however it is not clear as to what “safe closing” means. For the purpose of examination, it will be interpreted to mean operating correctly or similar. It is additionally not clear as to what would be performed in the step of “checking” for safe closing or which element would perform such a check.
The claim recites the limitation of “if a second solenoid valve is installed” and “if a third solenoid valve is installed” followed by a series of steps. It is therefore not clear if the second and third solenoid valves are required in the method or not and the steps which follow do not appear to be required to satisfy the method claim.
The claim recites on page 5, the external control system A, system B, and System C which each lack antecedent basis. Additionally, it is not clear as to what system A, B, and C comprise since they have not been described in any manner which would allow for such an understanding.
The claim again recites the term “else” which once again is unclear if all of the steps which follow are part of the “else” or only the step which immediately follows.
The claim recites the limitation of “saving all relevant data,” however it is not clear as to how or where it is to be saved, or what is considered to be “relevant” versus irrelevant data.
All claims which depend from those above are rejected for the same reasons due to their dependency thereon.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zachary US 2007/0227226 and N et al. US 2018/0045375.
Regarding claim 1, Zachary discloses a system for determining faults in a valve actuation system of an on/off valve 6 (fig. 2) comprising an actuator connected to a pneumatic hydraulic pressurized fluid line, the system including at least one solenoid valve (1, 2, 3) connected in the fluid line ahead of the actuator, wherein each connected solenoid valve is activated by a solenoid controlled by an external control system (paragraph 0020), said solenoid valves being adapted to block the fluid line when deactivated, and vent the fluid line releasing pressure from the actuator (paragraph 0020 discloses the fluid line and venting). An external control system in the form of a logic control system or processor receives information from the solenoid and uses the information for fault detection (paragraph 0028). Zachary does not explicitly disclose the current detector associated with each connected solenoid monitoring a magnetizing current in said solenoid, the fluid flow detector, associated with each solenoid valve detecting any flow of fluid vented from the fluid line through the valve, or the controller which monitors the signals from the flow detectors.
N teaches a solenoid control system as seen in fig. 2 in which a solenoid 202 is provided and monitored with a current detector 206-1 (paragraph 0023), a fluid flow detector 204-3 for monitoring a flow in the system which would occur when the valve is open. N further discloses a controller 214 for receiving and analyzing the data (paragraph 0027) and determining the presence of a fault in the system (paragraph 0029). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of N with those of Zachary in order to provide monitoring of the solenoids in the system to ensure they are functioning property and to alert when a fault is present since Zachary discloses the potential for faults to occur but does not explicitly disclose the detection means therefor.
Regarding claim 2, Zachary discloses a pressure sensor PS1, PS2, PS3 disposed in the fluid line for measuring the pressure in the valves during operation (abstract, paragraph 0045). N also discloses a pressure sensor 204-1 in the fluid line (fig. 2) which is connected to the controller 214.
Regarding claim 3, Zachary detects if any of the solenoids have vented fluid from the actuator (paragraph 0028) to move the on/off valve to a safe position (safety action). In combination, the fault detection would occur when the values are detected to be a specified range and an alarm is generated (Zachary, paragraph 0028). Zachary does not explicitly disclose the current monitoring as claimed. N, however, detects the current of the solenoid which indicates whether the solenoid is open or closed since the operating principles of the solenoid would open them when a current is applied. Therefore, when combining the references for fault determination, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have used all of the data over time to determine if a fault has occurred in the system and to safely provide an alert or shutdown.
Regarding claim 4, the valve of Zachary is not explicitly disclosed as being a shutdown or blowdown valve which is safe position is open or closed as claimed. N teaches the valve as being a solenoid-operated shut-off valve (paragraph 0003) which would operate in the claimed manner and shut under error. In combination with Zachary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have applied the teachings of N to any valve such as a shutdown valve in order to determine a fault and prevent the development of an unsafe environment.
Regarding claim 5, in combination the system of Zachary and N would be part of a safety instrumented system (Zachary, paragraph 0019).
Regarding claim 6, the system of Zachary includes three solenoid valves connected in series as shown in fig. 2 for example.
Regarding claim 7, in use, Zachary detects if any of the solenoids have vented fluid from the actuator (paragraph 0028) to move the on/off valve to a safe position (safety action). In combination, the fault detection would occur when the values are detected to be a specified range and an alarm is generated (Zachary, paragraph 0028). Zachary does not explicitly disclose the current monitoring as claimed. N, however, detects the current of the solenoid which indicates whether the solenoid is open or closed since the operating principles of the solenoid would open them when a current is applied. Therefore, when combining the references for fault determination, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have operated the device in a method which used all of the data over time to determine if a fault has occurred in the system and to safely provide an alert or shutdown.
Regarding claim 8, as best interpreted, the claim requires the steps of waking the controller when a current detector detects a magnetizing current is turned on, and comparing a pressure with a predetermined value. The steps following are prefaced by the term “else” and “if” which does not require their teaching to meet the limitations of the claim. Therefore, as combined, Zachary and N teach the method by detecting a current (Zachary, paragraph 0007 and N, paragraph 0006) to read and compute time series of reading from the current detector and flow detector (the system of Zachary and N monitors the current and flow over time), and compares the actuator pressure with a predetermined setting to record that the actuator is energize and the valve is in an operating position (the fault detection relies upon the values of the actuator pressure being monitored to determine functionality and generate an overpressure alarm if the pressure is high (N, paragraph 0042).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Kobayahsi, Schmieding, Bergquist and Sullivan references are provided as they teach similar systems for monitoring a valve for a fault using solenoids and processing means, but do not teach the specifics of the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark A. Shabman whose telephone number is (571)272-8589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 EST.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/MARK A SHABMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855