Systems and Methods for Monitoring a Valve
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/28/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “is at an extent satisfying a second criterion” is unclear to what degree “at an extent” requires. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the limitation as “satisfies a second criterion”. The dependent claims are likewise rejected and interpreted.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “insight information” is unclear. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the limitation as “second information”.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, the limitation “the outputted data” is unclear if it refers to the first and second data of claim 1 or something else. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the limitation as “the first and second data”.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “is at an extent satisfying a second criterion” is unclear to what degree “at an extent” requires. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the limitation as “satisfies a second criterion”. Further, the limitation “insight information” is unclear. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the limitation as “second information”. The dependent claims are likewise rejected and interpreted.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lei (CN 110953402; “Lei”).
Regarding claim 1, Lei discloses, in figures 1-2, a system (see fig. 1), comprising: a surge relief valve (see Lei’s translation, claim 1, Lei hydraulic system includes a valve device for water hammer safety protection); a set of instruments (see Lei’s translation, p. 4, ¶ 4, “body sensing device corresponding to the pressure gauge…, a water immersion sensor, noise sensor and the camera”) (i) coupled to the surge relief valve (see fig. 1) and (ii) configured to output first and second data (see Lei’s translation, p. 4, ¶ 4, Lei collects pressure, water immersion, noise and picture data) based on a prediction (see Lei’s translation, claim 6, examiner notes Lei’s data is collected based on the utilization of a device characteristic curve), each of the first and second data having a quality level satisfying a first criterion (the examiner asserts any data collected has a quality level that satisfies some threshold at least in terms of accuracy and precision, therefore this is an inherent element); a computer (see Lei’s translation, p. 2, ¶ 9, Lei’s collecting module is a single-chip microcomputer); and a non-transitory medium comprising instructions executable by the computer (see Lei’s translation, claim 6, “storing module comprises a storing chip, and integrating the simulation running data of the hydraulic model, device characteristic curve”) to perform a method, comprising: reporting information (see Lei’s translation, ABSTRACT, Lei determines attack risk and device health) based on the prediction (see previous comment) that an operating characteristic of the surge relief valve is at an extent satisfying a second criterion (see Lei’s translation, p. 3, ¶ 4, Lei’s system supports “identifying attack risk evaluation valve device with the device health, and eliminate the effect of the hammer” which correlates to proper valve timing and opening speed).
Regarding claim 3, Almazan discloses the second criterion (see Lei’s translation, p. 3, ¶ 4, Lei’s system eliminates the effect of water hammer) being satisfied relates to a pressure at an inlet of the surge relief valve exceeding a pressure set point in a cavity of the surge relief valve (examiner notes an ordinarily skilled artisan would know when the pressure at the inlet exceeds the pressure set point, Almazan’s surge relief valve opens to reduce the effect of water hammer).
Regarding claim 7, Lei discloses, in figures 1-2, a cloud-based computer (see fig. 1) configured to store the outputted data (examiner notes Lei depicts the intelligent monitoring terminal connected with bi-directional arrows to the cloud platform), wherein the cloud-based computer is configured to obtain the outputted data via a cellular network (see Lei’s translation, claim 8, Lei provides communication via wireless network).
Regarding claim 13, Lei discloses, in figures 1-2, the prediction is performed via a trained, machine-learning model (see Lei’s translation, claim 7, examiner notes Lei’s analysis is based on recognition of an AI image and AI semantics).
Regarding claim 17, Lei discloses, in figures 1-2, a method, comprising: providing a set of instruments (see Lei’s translation, p. 4, ¶ 4, “body sensing device corresponding to the pressure gauge…, a water immersion sensor, noise sensor and the camera”) configured to output data (see Lei’s translation, p. 4, ¶ 4, Lei collects pressure, water immersion, noise and picture data), each having a quality level satisfying a first criterion (the examiner asserts any data collected has a quality level that satisfies some threshold at least in terms of accuracy and precision, therefore this is an inherent element); and reporting, via a processor (see fig. 1), information (see Lei’s translation, ABSTRACT, Lei determines attack risk and device health) based on a plurality selected via a user interface (see fig. 1) from among: an alert upon a prediction that an operating characteristic of a valve is at an extent satisfying a second criterion (see Lei’s translation, p. 3, ¶ 4, Lei’s system supports “identifying attack risk evaluation valve device with the device health, and eliminate the effect of the hammer” which correlates to proper valve timing and opening speed).
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 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei (CN 110953402; “Lei”), as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Lei fails to explicitly disclose determining criteria at a user terminal.
The Examiner takes official notice that determining a criteria by a user at a user interface is well-known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine or set a criteria via a user interacting at a user interface of Lei system to set valve timing. Doing so provides a reliable way of adjusting and setting operating conditions.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei (CN 110953402; “Lei”), as applied to claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, Lei fails to disclose the report causes an adjustment or corrective maintenance.
The Examiner takes official notice that adjustment or corrective maintenance following an adverse report is well-known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust an operating characteristic of the assembly and start preventative or corrective maintenance when Lei system reports adverse device health. Doing so would increase safety by preventing a total failure of the relief valve.
Regarding claim 19, Lei discloses, in figures 1-2, the information (see Lei’s translation, ABSTRACT, Lei determines attack risk and device health) is automatically reported (see Lei’s translation and fig. 2, p. 4, ¶ 3, examiner notes Lei’s data acquisition and analysis are processed by the “internet of things” therefore automatically shared with the connected upper ring monitoring software system).
Lei does not explicitly disclose notification of customers.
However, the examiner takes official notice that notify customers of a device adverse health condition is well-known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a notification to customers delivered via e-mail, a text message, a web portal of a control-room computer, or an online application of a user device when Lei system reports adverse device health. Doing so would increase safety by alerting users of the condition.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almazan (US 20150219242; “Almazan”).
Regarding claim 20, Almazan discloses, in figures 1-3, a system (100), comprising: a surge relief valve (110) and an upstream piping system (¶ 0032, “process equipment”); a set of instruments ((112), ¶ 0031, examiner notes the pressure chamber filled with working fluid such as nitrogen is monitored via a fitting)(i) mounted in relation (see fig. 1) to the surge relief valve (110) and (ii) configured to output data (examiner asserts sensors and monitors output data), each of the outputted data having a quality level satisfying a first criterion (the examiner asserts any data collected has a quality level that satisfies some threshold at least in terms of accuracy and precision, therefore this is an inherent element); and a non-transitory medium comprising instructions executable by a computer (116) to perform a method, comprising: displaying (¶ 0034, examiner notes the user interface may display), via a user interface (118), at least one of (i) a shifted set point of a pressure of nitrogen in a cavity of the surge relief valve (¶ 0031, Almazan monitors and adjusts the pressure of the working fluid).
Almazan does not explicitly disclose an upstream piping system comprising one or more other valves.
However, the examiner takes official notice that upstream piping systems with one or more other valves is well-known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect an upstream piping systems with one or more other valves to Almazan’s relief valve to monitor surge relief in the system. Doing so would increase safety by monitoring relief frequency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-6, 8-12 and 14-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY P GRAVES whose telephone number is (469)295-9072. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/TIMOTHY P GRAVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855