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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1-16 are rejected.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed for Application No. EP23425051.2 on 02/24/2026.
The instant application therefore claims the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C 119(a)-(d). Accordingly, the effective filing date for the instant application is 8/10/2023 claiming benefit to EP23425051.2.
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 claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
a control logic unit (claims 1-5, 8, and 13)
a threshold value access module (claim 1)
a first comparison module (claim 1)
a recording module (claims 1 and 5-6)
a processing module (claims 1-2, 4, and 7)
a second comparison module (claim 1)
an interruption module (claim 1)
a reopening module (claim 1)
a threshold module (claim 2)
a storage module (claims 2)
an update module (claims 3 and 4)
transceiver unit (claim 13)
The specification provides that the module components of the control logic unit are all software programs performable via a PLC - programmable logic controller type processor, i.e. a computer for industrial use adapted to the control and execution of processes of components controlled by it (see the instant specification on p. 7 line 33 – p. 8 line 1). Therefore, the control logic will be interpreted as a general purpose computer with corresponding software modules performed by the processor. The
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Subject Matter Eligibility
Under the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, patent eligible subject matter must be analyzed following a two-step test – first, the examiner must see if the claimed invention is directed towards a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter – the claimed invention is directed towards a device. Therefore, the claims are directed towards a statutory category. Second, the examiner must analyze if the claims are directed towards a judicial exception. While the claimed invention does contain claim language directed towards a mental process (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) citing the abstract idea grouping for mental processes with or without physical aid), the claims qualify as eligible subject matter.
The claims recite in part “activate the gas supply blocking member to block the gas supply, when the measured values are higher than the first predetermined threshold values” and “inhibit the gas supply blocking member and allow the gas supply, when the measured values are higher than the first predetermined threshold values and when the values obtained from processing of the one or more time series by the processing module are lower than the second predetermined threshold values” which are considered meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). Therefore, claims 1-16 are subject matter eligible.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bondesan (IT201900006012A1)[hereinafter Bondesan] in view of Kann et al. (US 20220412787)[hereinafter Kann].
As per claim 1, Bondesan teaches on the following limitations of the claim:
a device for reading and controlling a gas supply, comprising is taught on p. 1 line 10 and p. 2 lines 56-58 (teaching on a device for reading and checking gas supply)
an input connector and an output connector of a pipe in which gas flows from a distribution network towards at least one residential user is taught on p. 1 line 59 - p. 2 line 1 and p. 2 lines 56-58 (teaching on an inlet connector and an outlet connector of a pipe in which gas flows from a distribution network to at least one residential use)
a control logic unit for the operation of the device is taught on p. 2 lines 2-4, p. 2 lines 56-58, and p. 3 lines 18-19 (teaching on a logic control unit comprising a computer with corresponding processor for the operation of the gas supply check/read device)
a plurality of sensors operationally connected to the control logic unit for measuring values of physical quantities; and is taught on p. 2 lines 18-30 and p. 2 lines 56-58 (teaching on a plurality of sensors comprising a pressure sensor, flow sensor, seismic sensor, and temperature sensor connected to the logic control unit)
a gas supply blocking member operationally connected to the control logic unit is taught on p. 2 lines 4-7 (teaching on a blocking organ to block the supply of gas connected to the logic control unit)
wherein the control logic unit includes: a threshold value access module configured to receive, from an archive, first predetermined threshold values and/or second predetermined threshold values is taught on p. 2 lines 1-2 and p. 4 lines 51-52 (teaching on storing and retrieving threshold values for each of the sensor measurements)
a first comparison module configured to compare the values measured by the plurality of sensors with the first predetermined threshold values is taught on p. 4 lines 51-52 (teaching on comparing the sensor values to the corresponding threshold values)
a recording module, operatively connected to the plurality of sensors configured to record one or more time series of the values measured by each sensor of the plurality of sensors is taught on p. 3 lines 59-60 and p. 4 lines 2-4 (teaching on recording and storing the collected sensor data over a predefined time period/interval)
a processing module configured to process the one or more time series recorded by the recording module is taught on p. 3 lines 7-8 and p. 5 lines 6-22 (teaching on processing the collected time period/interval data to determine if the measured value is higher is the threshold value for a first sensor value (here a temperature value rising))
a second comparison module configured to compare the one or more time series with the second predetermined threshold values is taught on p. 3 lines 7-8 and p. 5 lines 6-22 (teaching on sending an alarm and immediately closing the gas supply via the blocking organ when the measured temperature is greater than the threshold value)
an interruption module configured to send an alarm signal and activate the gas supply blocking member to block the gas supply, when the measured values are higher than the first predetermined threshold values; and is taught on p. 4 lines 1-14 (teaching on not shutting off the gas supply, and therefore inhibiting the blocking off, if a first time-series sensor measurement is above a threshold and a second time-series sensor measurement is below a threshold)
Bondesan fails to teach the following limitation of claim 1. Kann, however, does teach the following:
a reopening module configured to send an inhibition command of the gas supply blocking member to inhibit the gas supply blocking member and allow the gas supply, when the measured values are higher than the first predetermined threshold values and when the values obtained from processing of the one or more time series by the processing module are lower than the second predetermined threshold values is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0085-86 (teaching on not shutting off the gas supply, and therefore inhibiting the blocking off, if a first time-series sensor measurement is above a threshold and a second time-series sensor measurement is below a threshold)
One of ordinary skill in the art would combine the gas line monitoring system and automatic cut off of Bondesan with the gas line remaining open event via a duel threshold comparison of Kann with the motivation of keeping the gas on “because pressure can vary due to many factors, including gas supply, user gas demand, pipe lengths, bends, joints, and gas friction with pipe interiors and other gas” (Kann in the Background in ¶ 0002) and “reduces the chance that decisions will be made based on false positives” (Kann in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0042).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under the same rational.
As per claim 2, the combination of Bondesan and Kann discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Bondesan also discloses the following:
the device according to claim 1, wherein the control logic unit further comprises: a threshold module configured to determine additional second threshold values obtained from the one or more time series processed by the processing module; and is taught on p. 3 lines 7-8 and p. 5 lines 6-22 (teaching on processing the collected time period/interval data to determine if the measured value is lower than the threshold value for a first sensor value (here a pressure value dropping))
a storage module configured to store, in the archive, the additional second threshold values obtained from the processing of the one or more time series is taught on p. 4 lines 51-52, p. 6 lines 16-17 and 30-31, and p. 7 lines 1-26 (teaching on recording and storing the collected sensor data over a predefined time period/interval)
As per claim 3, the combination of Bondesan and Kann discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Bondesan also discloses the following:
the device according to claim 2, wherein the control logic unit further comprises an update module for updating the second predetermined threshold values is taught on p. 7 line 34 and p. 5 lines 49-58 (teaching on updating the sensor measurements over a time interval)
As per claim 4, the combination of Bondesan and Kann discloses all of the limitations of claim 3. Bondesan fails to teach the following; Kann, however, does disclose:
the device according to claim 3, wherein the update module is capable of updating the second predetermined threshold values with the additional second threshold values obtained from the processing of the one or more time series is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0043 and ¶ 0052 (teaching on sending new threshold values to the device after collecting and analyzing additional sensor data values)
One of ordinary skill in the art would combine the gas line monitoring system and automatic cut off of Bondesan with the updated sensor threshold data of Kann with the motivation of “reduc[ing] the chance that decisions will be made based on false positives” (Kann in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0052).
As per claim 5, the combination of Bondesan and Kann discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Bondesan also discloses the following:
the device according to claim 1, wherein the recording module is capable of saving the one or more time series in a dedicated memory space, which is accessible from the control logic unit is taught on p. 4 lines 51-52, p. 6 lines 16-17 and 30-31, and p. 7 lines 1-26 (teaching on recording and storing the collected sensor data over a predefined time period/interval)
As per claim 6, the combination of Bondesan and Kann discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Bondesan also discloses the following:
the device according to claim 1, wherein the recording module is capable of defining a frequency and a duration at which to record the one or more time series of the measured values is taught on p. 3 lines 49-51 (teaching on defining a frequency or time period/interval for sensor data collection)
As per claim 7, the combination of Bondesan and Kann discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Bondesan also discloses the following:
the device according to claim 1, wherein the processing module is configured to process a plurality of time series, each of the plurality of time series corresponding to a sensor of the plurality of sensors, so as to combine the plurality of time series and define a parameter to compare with a second threshold value is taught on p. 4 lines 6-8 (teaching on combining a plurality of the time period/interval sensor data - here the temperature and flow rate to compare to a threshold value)
As per claim 8, the combination of Bondesan and Kann discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Bondesan also discloses the following:
the device according to claim 1, comprising a display, operationally connected to the control logic unit, for displaying the measured values, the alarm signal, and/or a reopening control command is taught on p. 4 lines 2-4 and lines 29-30 (teaching on a data viewer or display operatively connected to said control logic unit for displaying the alarm)
As per claim 9, the combination of Bondesan and Kann discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Bondesan also discloses the following:
the device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of sensors comprises at least one of a flow sensor, a temperature sensor, a pressure sensor, and a vibration sensor, and wherein is taught on p. 2 lines 18-30 and p. 2 lines 56-58 (teaching on the plurality of sensors comprising a pressure sensor, flow sensor, seismic sensor, and temperature sensor connected to the logic control unit)
the first predetermined threshold values and the second predetermined threshold values include predetermined threshold values of at least one of a flow rate, a temperature, a pressure, and a vibration, or a combination thereof is taught on p. 4 lines 54-56 (teaching on predetermined threshold values for each sensor value)
As per claim 10, the combination of Bondesan and Kann discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Bondesan also discloses the following:
the device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of sensors comprises a temperature sensor arranged in contact with the gas for measuring a temperature of the gas is taught on p. 2 lines 18-30 and p. 2 lines 56-58 (teaching on the plurality of sensors comprising the temperature sensor arranged in contact with the gas for measuring the temperature of the gas itself)
As per claim 11, the combination of Bondesan and Kann discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Bondesan also discloses the following:
the device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of sensors comprises a pressure sensor for detecting a gas supply pressure close to the input connector and/or the output connector is taught on p. 2 lines 18-30 and p. 2 lines 56-58 (teaching on the plurality of sensors comprising the pressure sensor, capable of detecting the gas delivery pressure in proximity to said inlet connector and / or said outlet connector of said gas pipe)
As per claim 12, the combination of Bondesan and Kann discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Bondesan also discloses the following:
the device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of sensors comprises a seismic sensor for detecting vibrations corresponding to removal of the device is taught on p. 2 lines 18-30 and p. 2 lines 56-58 (teaching on the plurality of sensors comprising the seismic sensor for detecting vibrations above a predefined threshold)
As per claim 13, the combination of Bondesan and Kann discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Bondesan also discloses the following:
the device according to claim 1, comprising a transceiver unit operationally connected to the control logic unit for sending the alarm signal to a remote control unit and for receiving, from the remote control unit, commands and parameters for the operation of the control logic unit is taught on p. 4 lines 2-4 and lines 16-27 (teaching on a transceiver unit operatively connected with said logic control unit for sending the alarm and data packets of predefined dimensions/parameters)
As per claim 14, the combination of Bondesan and Kann discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Bondesan also discloses the following:
the device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of sensors comprises one or more sensors capable of detecting an attempt to tamper with the device is taught on p. 7 lines 8-10 (teaching on determining from the sensor data damage to the device on the residential user - Examiner notes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a seismic sensor at a residential location would be "capable of detecting an attempt to tamper with the device" )
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN LYNN JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-4:30PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JORDAN L JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights