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.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 objected to because of the following informalities: “I/O link communication interface,” should read as “I/O link communication interface.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 2 recites “the industrial sensor module is for use in…”. This limitation is interpreted as intended use. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (See MPEP 2114).
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 3-7, 10-13, 15-16, and 20-21 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 3 recites the limitation "the fluidic system" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the fluidic system” will be interpreted as “a fluidic system”.
Claims 4-7, 10-13, and 16 depend on claim 3, therefore claims 4-7, 10-13, and 16 inherit the same issues as claim 3 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the detected pressurized fluid pressure" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the detected pressurized fluid pressure” will be interpreted as “a detected pressurized fluid pressure”.
Claims 12 and 16 depend on claim 11, therefore claims 12 and 16 inherit the same issues as claim 11 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the passive operating state" and "the active operating state" in lines 3 and 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the passive operating state” and “the active operating state” will be interpreted as “a passive operating state” and “an active operating state”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "a maintenance assembly" in line 1 of the claim. Claim 19 also recites “a maintenance assembly”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, making it unclear whether the industrial sensor module of claim 20 is the same as the one recited in claim 19. For examination purposes, “a maintenance assembly” in claim 20 will be interpreted as “the maintenance assembly”.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "an industrial sensor module" in line 1 of the claim. Claim 1 also recites “an industrial sensor module”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, making it unclear whether the industrial sensor module of claim 21 is the same as the one recited in claim 1. For examination purposes, “an industrial sensor module” in claim 21 will be interpreted as “the industrial sensor module”.
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 1-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to the statutory class of an apparatus or a process.
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that the abstract idea belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Claim 1 is copied below, with limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
An industrial sensor module comprising:
a module housing,
a pressurized fluid inlet arranged on the module housing,
a pressurized fluid channel arranged in the module housing and a pressurized fluid outlet arranged on the module housing and fluidically connected to the pressurized fluid inlet via the pressurized fluid channel,
as well as a sensor device arranged in the module housing with a flow sensor for detecting a pressurized fluid flow from the pressurized fluid inlet to the pressurized fluid outlet in order to provide one or more flow values, and
wherein the sensor module further comprises a computing unit arranged in the module housing, wherein the computing unit is configured to provide at least one diagnostic function for generating diagnostic information on the basis of the one or more flow values.
The limitation underline can be considered to describe a mental process or mathematical calculation, namely a mathematical operation or mental activity to determine the state and health of a fluidic process using measured values by a sensor or sensors.
Step 2A Prong 2 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim fails to recite a particular practical application because no improvement to the underlying sensor or sensors or any other field of endeavor is realized through performance of the abstract idea.
Step 2B of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The additional limitations of “module housing”, “pressurized fluid inlet”, “pressurized fluid channel”, “pressurized fluid outlet”, and “flow sensor” amount to the recitation of well understood, routine, and conventional structure in the field of flow measuring sensors (Medow US 20130323088 A1 teaches a housing apparatus 5, apparatus inlet 6, apparatus outlet 7, internal outlet passage 22, and flow sensor 25 in Fig. 1; and Unterdorfer US 20190257329 teaches device housing 5, device inlet 6, internal inlet channel 11, device outlet 7, and flow sensor 25 in Fig. 1) and do not serve to amount to the recitation of significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The detecting of sensor values for evaluation amounts to the recitation of mere necessary data gathering and extra-solution activity required to implement the algorithm on a general purpose computer and does not serve to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The additional limitation of “computing unit” does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a computer (see ALICE CORP. v. CLS BANK INT’L 573 U. S. 208 (2014)).
Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Dependent Claims 2-21 are similarly ineligible. Dependent Claim 2 additionally recites “for use in a maintenance assembly” which only limits the abstract idea to an intended field of use. Dependent Claim 3 adds the recited “configured to recognize … when providing the diagnostic function and/or generating the diagnostic information” to the abstract idea limitations recited above. Dependent Claim 4 adds the recited “flow monitoring procedure” to the abstract idea limitations. Claim 4 additionally recites “a predetermined state” which only determines which values are used in the flow monitoring procedure abstract idea, as such it does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself. Dependent Claim 5 additionally recites “an active operating state” which only associates the state with a threshold value to be used in the abstract idea, as such it does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself. Dependent Claim 6 adds the recited “generate the flow monitoring information”, “configured to calculate”, and “calculate the flow reference value” to the abstract idea limitations. Dependent Claim 7 adds the recited “generate the flow monitoring information” to the abstract idea limitations. Claim 7 additionally recites “an enable signal” which is insignificant extra-solution activity in implementing the abstract idea through use of a general-purpose computer (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Dependent Claim 8 additionally recites “a pressure sensor” amounts to recitation of mere necessary data gathering and extra-solution activity required to implement the algorithm and does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself. Dependent Claim 9 adds the recited “configured to recognize a system operating state” to the abstract idea limitations. Dependent Claim 10 adds the recited “generating the diagnostic information” to the abstract idea limitations. Dependent Claim 11 additionally recites “depressurized operating state”, “passive operating state”, and “active operating state” which only associates the states with several threshold values to be used in the abstract idea, as such it does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself. Dependent Claim 12 additionally recites “active-static operating state” and “active-dynamic operating state” which only informs the abstract idea of if the state should have changes in the measured value, as such it does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself. Dependent Claim 13 additionally recites “plurality of operating state counters … detects a respective operating state time duration” which is an extension of the abstract idea. Dependent Claim 14 adds the recited “pressure drop monitoring procedure” to the abstract idea limitations. Dependent Claim 15 adds the recited “configured to calculate” to the abstract idea limitations. Dependent Claim 16 adds the recited “pressure supply stability monitoring procedure” to the abstract idea limitations. Dependent Claim 17 additionally recites “a digital communication interface” which is a merely generic computer component. Dependent Claim 18 additionally recites “I/O link communication interface” which is a merely generic computer component. Dependent Claim 19 additionally recites “a maintenance assembly” and “a functional unit” which only limits the abstract idea to a field of use. Dependent Claim 20 additionally recites a mere field of use. Dependent Claim 21 adds the recited “generating diagnostic information” to the abstract idea limitations. Claim 21 additionally recites “detecting the pressurized fluid flow” which is insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity. None of these dependent claims recite any further additional elements which would cause the claim as a whole to integrate the recited abstract idea into a particular practical application at Prong 2, or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea at Step 2B. Claims 2-21 are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101 as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10, 14-15, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Medow (US 20130323088 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Medow teaches an industrial sensor module (compressed air conditioning apparatus 2 Fig. 1; Para 39) comprising:
a module housing (apparatus housing 5 Fig. 1; Para 40: “The compressed air conditioning apparatus 2 has an apparatus housing 5”),
a pressurized fluid inlet arranged on the module housing (apparatus inlet 6 Fig. 1; Para 41),
a pressurized fluid channel (feed inlet 16 and internal outlet passage 22 Fig. 1; Para 46) arranged in the module housing and a pressurized fluid outlet (apparatus outlet 7 Fig. 1; Para 41) arranged on the module housing and fluidically connected to the pressurized fluid inlet via the pressurized fluid channel (feed inlet 16 and internal outlet passage 22 Fig. 1; Para 46),
as well as a sensor device arranged in the module housing with a flow sensor for detecting a pressurized fluid flow from the pressurized fluid inlet to the pressurized fluid outlet in order to provide one or more flow values (flow sensor 25 Fig. 1; Para 52), and
wherein the sensor module further comprises a computing unit arranged in the module housing (internal electronic control unit 26 Fig. 1; Para 55), wherein the computing unit is configured to provide at least one diagnostic function for generating diagnostic information on the basis of the one or more flow values (Para 60: “The outputting means 36 are capable of outputting an electric diagnostic signal as a function of the comparison result determined by the comparator means 35”).
Regarding Claim 2, Medow teaches wherein the industrial sensor module (compressed air conditioning apparatus 2 Fig. 1; Para 39) is for use in a maintenance assembly which serves for a treatment of pressurized fluid of a fluidic system (As noted above in the claim interpretation section, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (See MPEP 2114)).
Regarding Claim 3, Medow teaches wherein the computing unit is configured to recognize, on the basis of the detected pressurized fluid flow (Para 76: “By comparing the actual outlet flow detected in the monitoring mode to the associated second reference data 44”), a system operating state of the fluidic system from among a plurality of possible system operating states (Para 23: “can optionally be operated either in a teaching mode or in a monitoring mode”, Para 47: “switch-on valve 14 can adopt a blocking position”, Para 48: “The two other possible switching positions of the switch-on valve 14 define a working position and a venting position”, and Para 75: “monitoring the operating cycle of the load device A not only as a whole, but also of monitoring one or more sub-cycles of the overall operating cycle individually”), and to take the recognized system operating state into account when providing the diagnostic function and/or generating the diagnostic information (Para 23: “The latter facilitates the output of an electric diagnostic signal for general use if the internal pressure sensor and/or the flow sensor of the compressed air conditioning apparatus detect(s) pneumatic conditions which deviate from the values expected or tolerable in normal operation” and Para 70: “the data to be compared can be assigned to one and the same operating state”).
Regarding Claim 4, Medow teaches wherein the possible system operating states comprise a predetermined operating state (Para 75: “monitoring the operating cycle of the load device A not only as a whole, but also of monitoring one or more sub-cycles of the overall operating cycle individually”), wherein the diagnostic function comprises a flow monitoring procedure for monitoring the pressurized fluid flow, and the computing unit is configured to generate, as part of the flow monitoring procedure, flow monitoring information based on flow values, the computing unit being configured to use flow values for generating the flow monitoring information depending on the flow values being associated with the predetermined operating state (Para 76: “By comparing the actual outlet flow detected in the monitoring mode to the associated second reference data 44, it is made easy to monitor whether there is an increased air consumption during the operating cycle or during some of its phases or sub-cycles, which would indicate a malfunction of faulty working components”).
Regarding Claim 5, Medow teaches wherein the predetermined operating state is an active operating state (Para 68: “the working position of the switch-on valve 14”), in which the detected pressurized fluid flow is above a flow threshold value (Para 68: “a time-dependent flow profile Q(t) of the outlet pressure in the outlet passage as indicated by the reference number 44a can be determined” and Para 69: “In the subsequent normal operation of the load control device 1, the internal control unit 26 operating in the monitoring mode can generate an electric diagnostic signal which indicates the energetic situation of the connected load device A from a comparison between the measured actual data and the first or second reference data 43, 44” and Para 77: “tolerance bands 45a, 45b, which flank the characteristics 44a of the second reference data 44 from above and below”).
Regarding Claim 6, Medow teaches wherein the computing unit is configured to generate the flow monitoring information on the basis of a difference between a flow monitoring value and a flow reference value (Para 69: “In the subsequent normal operation of the load control device 1, the internal control unit 26 operating in the monitoring mode can generate an electric diagnostic signal which indicates the energetic situation of the connected load device A from a comparison between the measured actual data and the first or second reference data 43, 44), wherein the computing unit is configured to calculate the flow monitoring value on the basis of flow values detected in a current diagnostic period, and to calculate the flow reference value on the basis of flow values detected in a reference diagnostic period (Para 23: “a teaching mode for recording individual reference data for pressure and/or flow, which can in the subsequent operation of the system be used for comparison to actually measured data in a monitoring mode”).
Regarding Claim 7, Medow teaches wherein the computing unit is configured to use, in response to an enable signal from an external control device, flow values for the generation of the flow monitoring information and/or to generate, in response to the enable signal, the flow monitoring information (Para 32: “At least one communication interface can be designed for inputting and/or outputting binary and/or analogue signals”).
Regarding Claim 8, Medow teaches wherein the sensor device further comprises a pressure sensor for detecting a pressurized fluid pressure of pressurized fluid present in the pressurized fluid channel to provide one or more pressure values (pressure sensor 24 Fig. 1; Para 52-53).
Regarding Claim 9, Medow teaches wherein the computing unit is configured to recognize a system operating state taking into account the detected pressurized fluid pressure (Para 70: “actual data delivered by the pressure sensor 24 in the blocking position of the switch-on valve 14 are recorded by the internal control unit 26 and compared to the first reference data 43 recorded and stored in the teaching mode”).
Regarding Claim 10, Medow teaches wherein the computing unit is configured to use flow values and/or pressure values for generating the diagnostic information depending on which system operating state the flow values and/or pressure values are associated with (Para 69: “In the subsequent normal operation of the load control device 1, the internal control unit 26 operating in the monitoring mode can generate an electric diagnostic signal which indicates the energetic situation of the connected load device A from a comparison between the measured actual data and the first or second reference data 43, 44”).
Regarding Claim 14, Medow teaches wherein the diagnostic function comprises a pressure drop monitoring procedure for monitoring a pressure drop occurring in a part of the fluidic system upstream of the sensor module, wherein the computing unit is configured to generate, as part of the pressure drop monitoring procedure, pressure drop monitoring information based on pressure values and to use pressure values for generating the pressure drop monitoring information depending on which system operating state the pressure values are associated with (Para 71: “the internal control unit 26 then for example initiates the output of a diagnostic signal if the pressure drop of the outlet pressure determined in the monitoring mode falls below the reference value”).
Regarding Claim 15, Medow teaches wherein the computing unit is configured to calculate, as part of the pressure drop monitoring procedure, a pressure drop value on the basis of a pressure value associated with the passive operating state (Para 71: “reference value recorded in the teaching mode”) and a pressure value associated with the active operating state (Para 71: “pressure determined in the monitoring mode”) and to generate the pressure drop monitoring information on the basis of the pressure drop value (Para 71: “the internal control unit 26 then for example initiates the output of a diagnostic signal if the pressure drop of the outlet pressure determined in the monitoring mode falls below the reference value”).
Regarding Claim 17, Medow teaches further comprising a digital communication interface arranged on the module housing for outputting the diagnostic information (outputting means 36 Fig. 1; Para 60: “The outputting means 36 are capable of outputting an electric diagnostic signal as a function of the comparison result determined by the comparator means 35”).
Regarding Claim 18, Medow teaches wherein the digital communication interface is an I/O link communication interface (Para 32: “Such a communication interface is in particular provided in addition to a communication interface designed as a bus interface”).
Regarding Claim 19, Medow teaches a maintenance assembly for the pressurized fluid treatment of a fluidic system (load control device 1 Fig. 1), the maintenance assembly comprising an industrial sensor module according to claim 1 and a functional unit fluidically connected to the industrial sensor module, wherein the functional unit comprises a pressure regulator, a switch-on valve (switch-on valve 14 Fig. 1; Para 44), a pressure build-up valve, a pressurized fluid filter, a pressurized fluid dryer and/or a pressurized fluid oiler.
Regarding Claim 20, Medow teaches a fluidic system comprising a pressurized fluid source (compressed air source P Fig. 1; Para 41), a maintenance assembly according to claim 19 (load control device 1 Fig. 1), a fluidic consumer (external load device A Fig. 1; Para 42) which is fluidically connected to the pressurized fluid source via the maintenance assembly (operating line 13 Fig. 1; Para 42), so that pressurized fluid required for the operation of the fluidic consumer can be supplied from the pressurized fluid source to the fluidic consumer via the maintenance assembly.
Regarding Claim 21, Medow teaches detecting the pressurized fluid flow and generating the diagnostic information (Para 60: “pressure values of the outlet pressure measured by the pressure sensor 24 and flow values of the outlet flow measured by the flow sensor 25 can be stored as reference data and preferably as actual values as well. The comparator means 35 are capable of comparing stored reference data to actual values which are in particular also buffered or else measured directly. The outputting means 36 are capable of outputting an electric diagnostic signal as a function of the comparison result determined by the comparator means 35”).
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.
Claims 11-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medow in view of Unterdorfer (US 20190257329 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Medow teaches the limitations of claim 3, and Medow further teaches at least one active operating state in which the detected pressurized fluid pressure is above the pressure threshold value and/or the detected pressurized fluid flow is above the flow threshold value (Para 68: “a time-dependent flow profile Q(t) of the outlet pressure in the outlet passage as indicated by the reference number 44a can be determined” and Para 69: “In the subsequent normal operation of the load control device 1, the internal control unit 26 operating in the monitoring mode can generate an electric diagnostic signal which indicates the energetic situation of the connected load device A from a comparison between the measured actual data and the first or second reference data 43, 44” and Para 77: “tolerance bands 45a, 45b, which flank the characteristics 44a of the second reference data 44 from above and below”).
Medow does not explicitly teach wherein the possible system operating states comprise a depressurized operating state in which the detected pressurized fluid pressure is below a pressure threshold and/or comprise a passive operating state, in which the detected pressurized fluid pressure is above the pressure threshold value and/or the detected pressurized fluid flow is below a flow threshold value, and/or at least one active operating state in which the detected pressurized fluid pressure is above the pressure threshold value and/or the detected pressurized fluid flow is above the flow threshold value.
Unterdorfer teaches wherein the possible system operating states comprise a passive operating state, in which the detected pressurized fluid pressure is above the pressure threshold value and/or the detected pressurized fluid flow is below a flow threshold value (Para 24: “if the measured air flow within a specified time limit is not higher than a specified shutdown flow threshold, as a result of which from then on the consumer control device is operated in a stand-by mode phase”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Medow with the passive operating state of Unterdorfer by including the passive state of Unterdorfer in the plurality of operating states of Medow. Having an operating state based on low fluid flow threshold values would improve the diagnostic capabilities by being able to better determine if a measured flow was normal or irregular for that operating state.
Regarding Claim 12, Medow in view of Unterdorfer teach the limitations of claim 11, and Medow further teaches wherein the at least one active operating state comprises an active-static operating state in which a static pressurized fluid flow is present and/or an active-dynamic operating state in which a dynamic pressurized fluid flow is present (fluid flow graph 44 Fig. 1; Para 76: “By comparing the actual outlet flow detected in the monitoring mode to the associated second reference data 44, it is made easy to monitor whether there is an increased air consumption during the operating cycle”).
Regarding Claim 13, Medow teaches the limitations of claim 3, but Medow does not explicitly teach further comprising a plurality of operating state counters, wherein each operating state counter is associated with a respective system operating state and detects a respective operating state time duration describing how long the industrial sensor module has been in the respective operating state.
Unterdorfer teaches a plurality of operating state counters, wherein each operating state counter is associated with a respective system operating state and detects a respective operating state time duration describing how long the industrial sensor module has been in the respective operating state (AM, HM, NBP, and SBP Fig. 2; Para 105: “normal operating phase NBP” and “working mode AM”, Para 106: “stand-by mode phase SBP”, and Para 110: “hold mode HM”. The examiner notes that Fig. 2 tracks the time duration for a plurality of operating states.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Medow with the method of Unterdorfer by adding the time duration tracking of Unterdorfer to the operating states of Medow. Doing so would improve diagnostic capabilities by having knowledge of how long the system of Medow has been in any operating state.
Regarding Claim 16, Medow in view of Unterdorfer teach the limitations of claim 11, and Medow further teaches wherein the diagnostic function comprises a pressure supply stability monitoring procedure for monitoring a stability of a pressurized fluid supply, and the computing unit is configured to generate, as part of the pressure supply stability monitoring procedure, pressure supply stability monitoring information (Para 71: “the internal control unit 26 then for example initiates the output of a diagnostic signal if the pressure drop of the outlet pressure determined in the monitoring mode falls below the reference value”).
Medow does not explicitly teach to use pressure values for generating the pressure supply stability monitoring information depending on the fact that the pressure values are associated with the passive operating state.
Unterdorfer teaches to use pressure values for generating the pressure supply stability monitoring information depending on the fact that the pressure values are associated with the passive operating state (SBP and characteristic curve 52 Fig. 2; Para 109: “If the outlet pressure P2 drops during the stand-by mode phase SBP to the specified threshold pressure value P2G, visualised in the top section of the diagram of FIG. 2 by a falling section of the characteristic curve 52”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Medow with the method of Unterdorfer by replacing the reference value of Medow with the stand-by mode threshold pressure value of Unterdorfer. Doing so would allow for accurate diagnostics of pressure by using the threshold pressure value associated with the passive state.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Piscitelli (US 20190226355 A1) teaches a diagnostic method for a pneumatic actuator-regulating accessor (Abstract). Piscitelli also teaches a plurality of operating states (Fig. 4; Para 27 and Para 58).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODGER MENSING whose telephone number is (571)270-0129. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/RODGER STEWART MENSING/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/KYLE R QUIGLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights