This is 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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Claims 12-20 are non-elected.
Examiner’s Note: The examiner has cited particular passages including column and line numbers, paragraphs as designated numerically and/or figures as designated numerically in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claims, other passages, paragraphs and figures of any and all cited prior art references may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing an eventual response, to fully consider the context of the passages, paragraphs and figures as taught by the prior art and/or cited by the examiner while including in such consideration the cited prior art references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. MPEP 2141.02 VI: “PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS."
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/30/2024, 03/17/2025, 08/25/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I (claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 12/11/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that group I have significant overlap with group II (claims 12-13). By way of example, dependent claim 4 of group I recites the step of “detecting fugitive emissions with an emissions sensor… and notifying the operator of the valve with alarm if fugitive emission are detected”. Moreover, the recitation of steps in claims 1 and 12, wherein a gland retainer as a load cell that detects change in compressional force, significantly overlaps between group I and II. This is not found persuasive because group I is directed to a method comprising a steps of providing a gland retainer is a load cell configured to sense a compression force, generate an alarm based on the sense compression force, and an emission sensor to notifying the operator with the alarm if fugitive emissions are detected; while group II is directed to a method comprising the steps of providing a gland retainer is a load cell configured to detect potential for the emission leak from the valve overtime.
In summary, group I used the load cell primarily as real time force measurement and compliance mechanism to preserver packing and stem integrity and trigger alarms based on absolute force threshold, while use another sensor connected to the valve to detect fugitive emissions. Group II used the load cell primarily as a diagnostic and predictive sensing mechanism to infer and predict emission leaks based on force degradation trends overtime. Therefore, although the groups may belong to the same classification, they have a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter and that required different search queries since prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 limitation(s) is/are: “a data collection unit”, “a risk assessment analysis unit”, “a historical data unit” in claim 9, “a comparative analysis unit” in claim 10, “an implementation unit” in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/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 9-11 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 limitation “a data collection unit”, “a risk assessment analysis unit”, “a historical data unit” in claim 9, “a comparative analysis unit” in claim 10, “an implementation unit” in claim 11invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Examiner notes, the specification does state above the function of these unit and further shows corresponding items in fig. 8 but merely as black box1 units. See item 31 to 37. However, the provided description for these black box entities is not sufficient to clarify the structural details. Thus, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Davie et al. US Pub. No. 2003/0033886 (“Davie”).
Regarding claim 1, Davie discloses a method for preserving the integrity of a packing and the integrity a stem of a valve, comprising the steps of:
[0006] The present invention provides a valve packing gland load sensor and monitoring system that determines loading based upon a measurement of the capacitance of sensor capacitor that is associated with a packing gland or follower.
PNG
media_image1.png
247
417
media_image1.png
Greyscale
providing a gland ring [packing follower 22 – SEE also fig. 3] mounted above the packing [R] surrounding the stem [S];
providing a gland retainer [packing gland 10] mounted above the gland ring, wherein the gland retainer is secured to the valve with one or more fasteners [studs 25 and nuts 26], wherein the gland retainer is a load cell;
sensing a compressional force between a top surface and a bottom surface of the gland retainer;
[0035] Referring now to FIG. 5, valve packing gland load sensor capacitor 10 is shown installed in a typical bolt-down type packing arrangement. In a typical bolt-down packing arrangement, a valve packing gland stem S is surrounded by a plurality of stacked packing rings R disposed in a stuffing box B and are engaged by the bottom end of a packing follower 22. The packing follower 22 is pressed against the packing rings R by a flange 23 mounted on the valve packing gland bonnet 24 by a plurality of studs 25 and nuts 26. The packing rings R are compressed by tightening the nuts 26. This compresses the packing rings R to conform to the stem S and the stuffing box B in the bonnet 24 and thus forms a seal.
[0007] A thin flat disk-like capacitive load sensor of layered sandwich construction having a central opening and a circular outer periphery is installed above a packing follower or beneath the packing follower or packing gland. The load sensor has a thin first and second insulating outer layer between which an inner layer is secured. The inner layer is formed of dielectric material having a known dielectric constant which does not change when subjected to compression, a first face having at least one thin electrically conductive circular ring surrounding the central opening in coaxial radially spaced relation, and a second face having a thin electrically conductive circular ring surrounding the central opening in coaxial radially spaced relation. The inner and outer layers contain electrical conductors engaged with respective electrically conductive circular rings on the opposed faces that are adapted to be connected with an electrical measurement apparatus. As the inner layer is compressed, the spacing between the electrically conductive rings on the opposed faces is decreased such that compressive force on the packing can be measured as a function of the change in capacitance of the sensor. Proper compression of the packing can be achieved by monitoring during installation, and sampling or continuous measurement of packing compression provides early detection prior to packing failure to allow corrective action.
converting the sensed each compressional force into a data point; transmitting the data point to a computing unit [SEE fig. 10 and READ further paragraph 0045-0046, 0062].
[0043] FIG. 8 shows a signal-processing instrument implemented as a dedicated microprocessor-based unit without all the capabilities normally provided by a personal computer. Such a signal-processing instrument can provide for valve packing gland integrity data collection, data storage, data display, and data transmission over a communication link. Instrument 90 includes conductors 200 and 202 for connecting to the capacitor plates of a valve packing gland arrangement shown in any of FIGS. 5, 6 and 7. The conductors connect the capacitor plates to a capacitance measuring circuit and amplifier 150. Circuit 150 may also be provided as a separate unit. The capacitance measurement is applied to an analog-to-digital (A/D) converter 140 coupled to data bus 190. Also, coupled to the data bus is microprocessor 100, RAM 170, display 240, UART 110, and real time clock 160. A control/address bus 180 also interconnects those components as shown. The UART 110 provides formatted data to a transceiver unit 120. The unit 120 includes a modem for connection to the tip (T) and ring (R) lines of a telephone circuit. Also, unit 120 includes a wireless communications capability over an antenna. Instrument 90 can be packaged as a portable, battery-powered unit for handheld operation by field personnel.
Regarding claim 8, Davie discloses one or more cables connected at a first end of the cable to the load cell, wherein each cable is configured to transmit data and power to the load cell, and further wherein each cable is connected at a second end to the computing unit or wireless transmission device [See par. 0039].
Regarding claim 9, Davie discloses a data collection unit configured to receive the data point regarding the valve from the load cell; a risk assessment analysis unit configured to evaluate a condition of the valve based on the received data point; and a historical data unit to compile the received data points over time [See par. 0053-0055].
Regarding claim 10, Davie discloses the computing unit further comprises a comparative analysis unit to compare the received data points, determine or predict via analysis and responsive to the data collection unit, the risk analysis unit, and the historical data unit configured to generate a report detailing actual failure, a likelihood of a failure and/or a probability of future failure or need for service [See par. 0053-0054].
Regarding claim 11, Davie discloses the computing unit further comprises an implementation unit configured create and execute an implementation plan for remediation of the valve [See par. 0054 - a set of maintenance instructions based on the valve packing gland status indicator 374 could be transmitted directly to the field personnel directing them to modify the valve packing gland installation in some manner].
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3, 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davie as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Davie teaches
[0004] Common causes of packing failure in equipment such as valve packing glands, pumps, compressors, probes, etc. can be from improper loading, over or under tightening of glands and misalignment of the shaft or stem. Too much compression can lead to excessive friction and premature wear, while too little compression can lead to premature leakage. Shaft or stem misalignment can lead to all the above problems. Packing integrity can change by over pressuring, surging, flashing, excessive temperature and combinations thereof by the material flowing through the valve packing gland. Such occurrences may cause over compression of the packing inside the stuffing box creating a leakage path even when springs are used to maintain compression.
[0044] FIG. 9 shows a flowchart 300 for implementation as a software module. The flowchart illustrates the programmed operation of personal computer 82 and the signal-processing instrument 90. After an identification of the particular valve packing gland is made by the Select ID block 302, the capacitance-measuring instrument is initialized at block 304. Then, a period of time is allowed at Wait block 306 during which time the capacitance measurement is made. The data is received at block 308. The received data is used to create a new data file at block 310. If the valve packing gland has already been installed such that there is an existing data file, the file was retrieved at block 312 after the Select ID operation. The retrieved data is provided to a Compare Data block 314 which also is provided with the received data at block 308. After a new data file is generated, the valve packing gland compression is computed at block 316. This computation is done on the basis of the equation for capacitance from which the distance "d" parameter is derived. The distance "d" parameter is then used in accordance with a stored look-up table to determine the valve packing gland compression. The computed compression is displayed at block 318. The flowchart also shows that based upon the data comparison at block 314, a report is generated at block 320 and transmitted at block 322. Also, the data comparison is displayed at block 324. The circuitry of FIG. 8 may be conveniently packaged in a handheld device similar to a personal digital assistant (PDA) or a similar portable data entry instrument.
[0053] For each valve packing gland being installed or monitored, the server system 334 periodically receives a data file comprising a collected measures set 378 which is forwarded to the database module 370 for processing. The database module 370 organizes the individual valve packing gland records stored in the database 335 and provides the facilities for efficiently storing and accessing the collected measures sets 378 and valve packing gland data maintained in those records. Any type of database organization can be utilized, including a flat file system, hierarchical database, relational database, or distributed database. The analysis module 372 analyzes the collected measures sets 378 stored in the valve packing gland data files of database 335. The analysis module 372 makes an automated determination of valve packing gland integrity in the form of a valve packing gland status indicator 374. Collected measures sets 378 are received from the field and maintained by the database module 370 in the database 335. Through the use of this collected information, the analysis module 372 can continuously follow the integrity of a valve packing gland over the course of its maintenance history and can recognize any trends in the collected information that might indicate a defect and warrant replacement. The analysis module 372 compares individual measures obtained from both the database records for the individual valve packing gland and the records for a specific group of valve packing glands.
[0054] The feedback module 376 provides automated feedback to the field concerning an individual valve packing gland based, in part, on the valve packing gland status indicator 374. As described above, the feedback could be by electronic mail or by automated voice mail or facsimile. In the described embodiment, four levels of automated feedback are provided. At a first level, an interpretation of the valve packing gland status indicator 374 is provided. At a second level, a notification of potential defect concern based on the valve packing gland status indicator 374 is provided. This feedback level could also be coupled with human contact by specially trained technicians or engineering personnel. At a third level, the notification of potential defect concern is forwarded to field personnel located in the geographic area of the valve packing gland installation. Finally, at a fourth level, a set of maintenance instructions based on the valve packing gland status indicator 374 could be transmitted directly to the field personnel directing them to modify the valve packing gland installation in some manner.
Therefore, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Davie teaches the steps of comparing the data point with a threshold range and notifying an operator of the valve with an alarm if the data point is outside a limit of the threshold range.
Regarding claim 5, Davie teaches the step of recording the data point over time and predicting a condition of the stem and the packing [See par. 0053-0054].
Regarding claim 6, Davie teaches
Common causes of packing failure in equipment such as valve packing glands, pumps, compressors, probes, etc. can be from improper loading, over or under tightening of glands and misalignment of the shaft or stem. Too much compression can lead to excessive friction and premature wear, while too little compression can lead to premature leakage. Shaft or stem misalignment can lead to all the above problems. Packing integrity can change by over pressuring, surging, flashing, excessive temperature and combinations thereof by the material flowing through the valve packing gland [0004], the feedback module 376 provides automated feedback to the field concerning an individual valve packing gland based, in part, on the valve packing gland status indicator 374, and a set of maintenance instructions based on the valve packing gland status indicator 374 could be transmitted directly to the field personnel directing them to modify the valve packing gland installation in some manner [0054]. Therefore, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Davie’s teachings of to modify the valve packing gland installation in some manner would include the step of adjusting the one or more fasteners to achieve a desired compression across the load cell. Such step would prevent premature leakage as pointed by Davie.
Regarding claim 7, Davie teaches the load cell comprises at least one load cell, and further comprising the step of averaging the data points [par. 0057 - One correction technique would be to divide each sensor measurement by the value of the reference sensor measurement].
Davie does not teach the load cell comprises at least two load cells.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include two load cells because Applicant has not disclosed that implement two load cells provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either the claimed two load cells or one load of Davie that covering a multiple compression point that experienced by the stem because both load cell perform the same function of monitoring compression forces of the valve stem and packing element2.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Davie to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davie as applied to claims 2-3 above, and further in view of Martens Alex et al. WO 2014/032812 AI (“Alex”).
Regarding claim 4, Davie teaches critical packing applications may contain liquids, gases or solids where leakage could lead to emissions with dramatic effect to safety or to the environment. Common causes of packing failure in equipment such as valve packing glands, pumps, compressors, probes, etc. can be from improper loading where too little compression can lead to premature leakage. However, Davie does not expressly teach detecting fugitive emissions with an emissions sensor connected to the valve; and notifying the operator of the valve with the alarm if fugitive emissions are detected.
Alex teaches an invention relates to a monitoring device for a control valve or shut-off valve, having a stuffing box (8) for sealing the actuating rod (6), which is driven by a drive (6), of the actuating element of the control valve or shut-off valve and having a plurality of sensors, the measured data of which is processed by an expert system (14) and output via an optical device and/or via a bus system for further use, wherein the stuffing box (8) is paired with at least one pressure sensor (12) for monitoring leaks. For this purpose, the invention proposes at least one force sensor (13) which is paired with the clamping device (10, 11) of the stuffing box (8) in order to monitor the pretension of the stuffing box (8), and the measured data from the pressure sensor (12) and the force sensor (13) are analyzed simultaneously by the expert system (14) [ABS and SEE fig. 1 and 2]. Specifically, Alex teaches detecting fugitive emissions with an emissions sensor connected to the valve; and notifying the operator of the valve with the alarm if fugitive emissions are detected.
To further improve the leakage monitoring is provided in the monitoring device according to the invention, an integrated into the stuffing box lantern ring, which keeps the connection area of the leakage monitoring serving pressure sensor. Such lantern rings for leakage monitoring are known in the prior art, but are used here for the first time in combination with the above-described measurement of the axial preload force of the stuffing box, resulting in a significantly improved fault diagnosis.
All information of the aforementioned sensors are processed simultaneously in the expert system and lead via a logical system to the respective conclusions. In this case, preferably fuzzy logic is used. This means that the combination of sharp and fuzzy criteria leads to an efficient conclusion. According to the state of the art, only sharp criteria are used to monitor regulating or shut-off valves. [page 4]
Finally, an acceleration sensor 24 and / or a structure-borne noise sensor, which detects the noises generated by leaks in the region of the seat rings, are arranged on the control and shut-off fitting, preferably on the housing 1 in the vicinity of the seat rings. The measured values of this sensor 24 are also supplied to the expert system 14 via a corresponding signal line and additionally included in the monitoring system. To carry out the method, the different measured variables of the sensors of the control or shut-off valve are read into the expert system 14. The optical output 15, preferably a separate display, allows a permanent observation of the individual measured variables. Thus, these measurements retain their meaning for permanent monitoring. At the same time, however, the expert system 14 accesses the measured variables read out. This expert system 14 preferably uses fuzzy logic, which is distinguished by the fact that not only precisely measured quantities but also inaccurately determined ranges of measured values are used as a criterion. If a predefined combination of criteria or measured variables occurs, the expert system 14 generates a corresponding alarm signal. If none or only one of the predefined criteria is present, this alarm signal will be off. [page 6]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Davie to include the step of detecting fugitive emissions with an emissions sensor connected to the valve; and notifying the operator of the valve with the alarm if fugitive emissions are detected. The motivation for doing so would has been to reduce the risk of fugitive emissions which could dramatically effect safety or to the environment and allows timely repairs to the control valves.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 4,759,224 to Charbonneau et al. teach an apparatus is mounted to the remote drive housing and utilizes the existing valve drive sleeve (with the valve, i.e. butterfly valve, removed from the sleeve) and the apparatus simulates a one-quarter turn valve. Specifically, Charbonneau et al. teach he operator mounted torque measuring apparatus 18 is seen as comprising a lower plate member 19, having a central, circular opening 20, an upper plate member 22 having its own central, circular opening 23, two load cells 25, 26, a hollow, elongated shaft member 28, a brake drum 30, brake shoe assembly 33 and various connecting elements as described below.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT HUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7210. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00.
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, Kamini S Shah can be reached at 571-272-2279. 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.
VINCENT H TRAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2115
/VINCENT H TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 MPEP 2181 “Mere reference to a general purpose computer with appropriate programming without providing an explanation of the appropriate programming, or simply reciting "software" without providing detail about the means to accomplish a specific software function, would not be an adequate disclosure of the corresponding structure to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph… undefined component of a computer system (e.g., "access control manager"), "logic," "code," or elements that are essentially a black box designed to perform the recited function, will not be sufficient because there must be some explanation of how the computer or the computer component performs the claimed function. Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1383-85, 91 USPQ2d 1481, 1491-93 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1366-67, 88 USPQ2d 1751, 1756-57 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Rodriguez, 92 USPQ2d at 1405-06.”
2 Note: applicant’s specification pointed out that “more or less load cells 50 may be installed as desired by the operator of the valve/valve system 10” – par. 0019.