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 the claims
Claims 19-25, 27-29, 31-24 is/are amended, and claims 35-37 is/are added. Currently claims 19-37 are pending in this application.
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.
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) 19, 20, 27, 30-32, 34-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller et al (20180142806) in view of Taitt et al (20150204458), further in view of Cunningham et al (20220345668).
Regarding claims 19 and 35, in in making and/or using the device of Mueller for operating a device for providing data associated with an exchangeable (diaphragm 14 as s separate piece is seen as exchangeable) process valve shut-off body, in particular with a valve diaphragm 14, one would perform the generating, by at least one image sensor (Para 10, imaging device), at least one digital image of the process valve shut-off body arranged in the chamber (space formed by 12,18); determining, by at least one data processing unit (Para 10, imaging processing program), the data associated with the process valve shut-off body, wherein the data comprises the at least one digital image.
Mueller fails to disclose illuminating, by at least one illumination apparatus, the process valve shut-off body arranged in a chamber and taking the image of the valve body irradiated with light by the illumination apparatus. Taitt (Fig 4,5) teaches valve image recording and processing mechanism with an illuminating, by at least one illumination apparatus (backlights in camera 56), the process valve body 40 arranged in a chamber 52 and taking the image of the valve body irradiated with light by the illumination apparatus.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Mueller with illumination apparatus and camera taken illuminated picture in valve chamber as taught by Taitt in order to improve the picture quality.
Mueller as modified fails to disclose image display or sending the valve data via a mobile radio interface. Cunningham, (teaches valve monitoring (Para 80) system including image recording and diagnostic processing system comprising an image display of captured image (Para 39) by a camera 10 and sending the valve data and image via a mobile radio interface (Para 158 teaches reporting data to human interface displays including smart phones 19, Fig 2, which are mobile radio devices and such would include mobile transceiver to server 15).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Mueller as modified with image display and sending valve data/image via mobile radio interface to mobile human interface as taught by Cunningham in order to enable remote monitoring and analysis.
As to claim 20, Mueller discloses (Para 31,34) input devices 42 for determining a valve diaphragm property (energy consumption, pressure, temperature). In view of Cunningham, (transmitting valve data and image to smart phone, Para 155), the data communication would include the determined valve properties.
As to claim 27, in Mueller (Para 10, imaging processing program) would inherently compare optical features of the shut-off body in the digital image with predefined target optical features (evaluating state of valve would inherently compare the image against an expected image); and displaying (in view of Cunningham), by display unit, an indication to the user if the comparison shows deviations (valve data) of the optical features from the target optical features). Mueller fails to disclose image sensing/analyzing in different valve states by repeated image generation. Taitt (Fig 5, 6) teaches image capture in different valve states which would include repeated image genrations.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Mueller as modified with image sensing/analyzing in different valve states as taught by Taitt in order to enable continuous monitoring.
As to claim 30, normal valve function (opening/closing) would necessarily include deforming the process valve shut-off body from a relaxed state into a deformed state by a deformation apparatus (valve actuator). Mueller fails to disclose image sensing/analyzing in different valve states. Taitt (Fig 5, 6) teaches image capture in different valve states.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Mueller as modified with image sensing/analyzing in different valve states as taught by Taitt in order to enable continuous monitoring.
As to claims 31 and 36, Mueller discloses a device for providing data associated with a process valve shut-off body, the device comprising: a valve shut-off body 14 arranged in a chamber; at least one image sensor (Para 10, imaging device) configured to generate at least one digital image of the process valve shut-off body arranged in the chamber; at least one data processing unit (Para 10, imaging processing program) configured to determine the data associated with the process valve shut-off body, wherein the data comprises the at least one digital image.
Mueller fails to disclose illuminating, by at least one illumination apparatus, the process valve shut-off body arranged in a chamber and taking the image of the valve body irradiated with light by the illumination apparatus. Taitt (Fig 4,5) teaches valve image recording and processing mechanism with an illuminating, by at least one illumination apparatus (backlights in camera 56), the process valve body 40 arranged in a chamber 52 and taking the image of the valve body irradiated with light by the illumination apparatus.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Mueller with illumination apparatus and camera taken illuminated picture in valve chamber as taught by Taitt in order to improve the picture quality.
Mueller as modified fails to disclose image display or sending the valve data via a mobile radio interface. Cunningham, (teaches valve monitoring (Para 80) system including image recording and diagnostic processing system comprising an image display of captured image (Para 39) by a camera 10 and sending the valve data and image via a mobile radio interface (Para 158 teaches reporting data to human interface displays including smart phones 19, Fig 2, which are mobile radio devices and such would include mobile transceiver to server 15).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Mueller as modified with image display and sending valve data/image via mobile radio interface to mobile human interface as taught by Cunningham in order to enable remote monitoring and analysis.
As to claim 32, Mueller as modified discloses input unit 14 configured to determine a property of the process valve shut-off body (pressure, temperature, energy use); wherein the data (in view of Cunningham which sends the image and sensor data, Para 155) associated with the process valve shut-off body comprises the at least one digital image and the property.
As to claim 34, Mueller as modified (in view of Taitt) discloses one illumination apparatus as backlight which is a diffuse light toward the process valve shut-off body.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-26, 28, 29, 33, 37 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 50/008/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Taitt that “reference numeral 40 is not a ‘valve body’ but rather the spring plate of the actuator” are not persuasive since the valve actuator of valve can be regarded as a part of the valve and as such the spring plate would be part of valve components and a valve body among body parts of the valve. Even, in arguendo, spring plate is not considered as would valve body, Taitt reference teaches adding a light bulb in the mechanism of taking a picture of an object to be monitored. Therefore, the combination would still yield same result.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Taitt that “Nowhere does Taitt disclose imaging a valve diaphragm, a valve shut-off body, or any sealing element of a valve. Taitt is silent regarding inspection of an exchangeable process valve shut-off body. The structure that Taitt images is the spring plate of an actuator, which is part of the actuator assembly that operates the valve, not the valve diaphragm or other shut-off body that controls fluid flow” are not persuasive since Taitt is cited only to show teaching of a light bulb in the mechanism of taking a picture of an object to be monitored.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant’s arguments regarding Mueller that “disclosure regarding imaging is incidental and optional” are not persuasive since a reference is prior art for what it teaches.
Applicant’s arguments that “Mueller does not disclose illuminating, by at least one illumination apparatus, the process valve shut-off body arranged in a chamber or generating, by at least one image sensor, at least one digital image of the process valve shut-off body arranged in the chamber and irradiated with light by the illumination apparatus” are not persuasive since one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant’s arguments that “Mueller's incidental, optional reference to a smartphone or "another imaging device" (Mueller, 0010) does not suggest the desirability of the recited combination of an illumination apparatus, image sensor, chamber, and structured image generation, nor does it satisfy the requirement that the prior art teach all claim limitations in their recited combination” are not persuasive since, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the combinations would have been obvious for the reasons stated in the rejection above.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Cunningham that “Cunningham does not disclose illuminating, by at least one illumination apparatus, the process valve shut-off body arranged in a chamber or generating, by at least one image sensor, at least one digital image of the process valve shut-off body arranged in the chamber and irradiated with light by the illumination apparatus, as recited in claim 19” are not persuasive since one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that Cunningham is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, all Muller and Cunningham are both related to valve monitoring.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Atif Chaudry at phone number 571-270-3768. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881, or Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/ATIF H CHAUDRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights