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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 25 July 2024 and 11 Feb 2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 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 1 recites the limitation "the scale" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the diagnosis” in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, “the diagnosis” will be interpreted as “the self-diagnosis” from line 5.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the diagnosis” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, “the diagnosis” will be interpreted as “the self-diagnosis” from line 5 of Claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the scale" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the diagnosis” in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, “the diagnosis” will be interpreted as “the self-diagnosis” from line 8.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the diagnosis” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, “the diagnosis” will be interpreted as “the self-diagnosis” from line 20 of Claim 3.
Claims not specifically referenced are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yazaki Energy System Corp (hereinafter “Yazaki Energy”; JP2020008487A; reference provided by Applicant on the IDS dated 25 July 2024 and paragraph numbers referenced from the attached Examiner provided English Machine Translation).
Regarding Claim 3, Yazaki Energy discloses a gas blocking restoration determining system (Figures 1 and 3). The system comprising:
gas meters (10; ¶ 16) corresponding to consumers' places (¶ 41); and
a center server (within 80; ¶ 31) that is communicable with the gas meters (¶ 30 and 31), wherein:
each of the gas meters (¶ 16; Figure 1) includes:
a flow rate measurer (via the flow sensor disclosed in ¶ 17) that is located at a passage through which gas to be supplied to a gas appliance located at a consumer's place flows (¶ 17; from 14a to 14b of Figure 1),
and measures a flow rate of the gas flowing through the passage (through pipe 10; ¶ 17);
a self-diagnoser (20) that performs self-diagnosis (¶ 22);
a vibration detector (18) that detects vibration (¶ 19);
a calculator that calculates an earthquake index value (the seismic intensity of ¶ 22) based on the vibration detected by the vibration detector (via vibration detector 18; ¶ 22),
the earthquake index value (the seismic intensity of ¶ 23) indicating the scale of an earthquake (¶ 22-23);
a blocker (22) that switches from an open state to a closed state when the earthquake index value is not less than a predetermined value (¶ 22; where the valve blocker 22 closes when the seismic intensity is greater than the predetermined intensity),
the open state being a state where the gas is allowed to flow through the passage (¶ 21),
the closed state being a state where the flow of the gas in the passage is blocked (¶ 22);
a communicator that communicates with the center server (24; ¶ 28); and
the center server (within 80) includes an inspection method determiner that determines an inspection method for the gas meter corresponding to each consumer's place based on a result of the diagnosis by the self-diagnoser and the earthquake index value which have been acquired from the gas meter (¶s 70-77 and 104 where each gas meter 10 is inspected via the outputs sent to the management center to determine damage to the meter and surrounding structures).
Regarding Claim 4, Yazaki Energy discloses where the inspection method determiner determines the inspection method for the gas meter based on an SI value as the earthquake index value (¶s 70-77 discloses a seismic intensity value (or SI valve)).
Regarding Claim 5, Yazaki Energy discloses where the center server (within 80) further includes a storage that stores consumer's place information regarding each consumer's place (86; ¶ 32);
and the inspection method determiner determines the inspection method based on the result of the diagnosis by the self-diagnoser, the earthquake index value, and in addition, the consumer's place information (¶s 70-77 and 104).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yazaki Energy System Corp (hereinafter “Yazaki Energy”; JP2020008487A; reference provided by Applicant on the IDS dated 25 July 2024 and paragraph numbers referenced from the attached Examiner provided English Machine Translation) in view of Tokyo Gas Co Ltd (hereinafter “Tokyo Gas”; JPH09250746A reference provided by Applicant on the IDS dated 25 July 2024 and paragraph numbers referenced from the attached Examiner provided English Machine Translation).
Regarding Claim 1, Yazaki Energy discloses a gas meter (10 generally of Figure 1). The gas meter comprising:
a flow rate measurer (via the flow sensor disclosed in ¶ 17) that is located at a passage through which gas to be supplied to a gas appliance located at a consumer's place flows (¶ 17; from 14a to 14b of Figure 1),
and measures a flow rate of the gas flowing through the passage (through pipe 10; ¶ 17);
a self-diagnoser (20) that performs self-diagnosis (¶ 22);
a vibration detector (18) that detects vibration (¶ 19);
a calculator that calculates an earthquake index value (the seismic intensity of ¶ 22) based on the vibration detected by the vibration detector (via vibration detector 18; ¶ 22),
the earthquake index value (the seismic intensity of ¶ 23) indicating the scale of an earthquake (¶ 22-23);
a blocker (22) that switches from an open state to a closed state when the earthquake index value is not less than a predetermined value (¶ 22; where the valve blocker 22 closes when the seismic intensity is greater than the predetermined intensity),
the open state being a state where the gas is allowed to flow through the passage (¶ 21),
the closed state being a state where the flow of the gas in the passage is blocked (¶ 22);
but fails to expressly disclose a restoring method determiner that, when the blocker is in the closed state, determines a restoring method of restoring the blocker from the closed state to the open state based on a result of the diagnosis by the self-diagnoser and the earthquake index value.
Tokyo Gas teaches a gas meter (¶ 2), a self-diagnoser (26) that performs self-diagnosis (¶ 23); a vibration detector (20) that detects vibration (¶ 18); a calculator (28) that calculates an earthquake index value (¶ 22) based on the vibration detected by the vibration detector (¶ 18), the earthquake index value (¶ 22) indicating the scale of an earthquake (¶ 22); a blocker (the shut off valve of ¶ 23) that switches from an open state to a closed state when the earthquake index value is not less than a predetermined value (¶ 23 and ¶ 27; where the valve closes when the seismic intensity is greater than the predetermined intensity), and a restoring method determiner that, when the blocker is in the closed state, determines a restoring method of restoring the blocker from the closed state to the open state based on a result of the diagnosis by the self-diagnoser and the earthquake index value (¶ 27-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gas meter of Yazaki Energy with the restoring method determiner as taught by Tokyo Gas for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (a restoring method determiner to open a closed gas meter valve) to yield predictable results (to provide automated, remote operation of the valve).
Regarding Claim 2, Yazaki Energy discloses a storage (86; ¶ 31) that stores consumer's place information regarding the consumer's place (¶ 31-32 where the storage device at least stores data stored from the gas meters attached to the consumers place), but fails to expressly disclose where the restoring method determiner determines the restoring method based on the result of the diagnosis by the self-diagnoser, the earthquake index value, and in addition, the consumer's place information.
Tokyo Gas teaches a gas meter (¶ 2), a self-diagnoser (26) that performs self-diagnosis (¶ 23); a vibration detector (20) that detects vibration (¶ 18); a calculator (28) that calculates an earthquake index value (¶ 22) based on the vibration detected by the vibration detector (¶ 18), the earthquake index value (¶ 22) indicating the scale of an earthquake (¶ 22); a blocker (the shut off valve of ¶ 23) that switches from an open state to a closed state when the earthquake index value is not less than a predetermined value (¶ 23 and ¶ 27; where the valve closes when the seismic intensity is greater than the predetermined intensity), and a restoring method determiner that, when the blocker is in the closed state, determines a restoring method of restoring the blocker from the closed state to the open state based on a result of the diagnosis by the self-diagnoser and the earthquake index value (¶ 27-29), and in addition, the consumer's place information (disclosed by Yazaki Energy in ¶ 31-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gas meter of Yazaki Energy with the restoring method determiner as taught by Tokyo Gas for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (a restoring method determiner to open a closed gas meter valve) to yield predictable results (to provide automated, remote operation of the valve).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE GARDNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-4PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors, KENNETH RINEHART (571-272-4881) or CRAIG SCHNEIDER (571-272-3607) can be reached by telephone. 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.
/NICOLE GARDNER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights