A Control Valve Diagnostics System Utilizing G-Force and Valve Position Measurement Sensors Inside Valve Positioner
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 08/29/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the microprocessor” should read “a microprocessor”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1-19 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 claims 1 and 5-6, the limitation “maximum ‘g-force’ “is unclear is the limitation refers to a maximum acceleration threshold or a measure of peak acceleration.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “enables valve position measurement against maximum 'g-force' for a time range of 5-20 milli seconds, where said system captures the 'g-force' continuously” is unclear if the 5-20 milli seconds period limits the amount of time the valve position / acceleration are correlated.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “the non-volatile memory is EEPROM/Flash/PRAM/FRAM/MRAM which is located inside the microprocessor” is unclear if all the listed types of memory or just one type of memory are required by the limitation. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the limitation as “the non-volatile memory is at least one of: EEPROM, Flash, PRAM, FRAM, MRAM which is located inside the microprocessor”. The dependent claims are likewise interpreted and rejected.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation with parenthetical reference to EEPROM/Flash/PRAM/FRAM/MRAM is unclear if this specific memory technology is required or is inserted as a reference to the disclosure. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the reference as merely referring to the disclosure and does not require the memory to be limited to the parenthetical reference types. 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 1-2, 5-7 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aoyama (WO 2021220766; “Aoyama”).
Regarding claim 1, Aoyama discloses, in figures 1-1, a control valve diagnostics system (see fig. 4)(100) for valve position measurement against maximum ‘g-force’, wherein the system comprises: a. a smart valve positioner (4, 7)(101) pre-installed with an accelerometer (492)(101a) and a non-contact (see Aoyama’s translation, p. 4, ¶ 3, “position sensor 491 is composed of an ultrasonic sensor, an infrared sensor, a hallsensor”) position sensor (491)(101b); b. an actuator (12)(102) to control the valve (11); c. a power source (16)(103) to supply power to the control valve diagnostics system (see fig. 4)(100); and d. a non-volatile memory (see Aoyama’s translation, p. 13, ¶ 4, the processor includes non-volatile memory)(104) which stores the data in a microprocessor; wherein the control valve diagnostics system (see fig. 4)(100) enables valve position measurement against maximum ‘g-force’ for a time range of 5-20 milli seconds, where said system captures the ‘g-force’ continuously (see Aoyama’s translation, p. 9, ¶ 6-7, examiner notes Aoyama’s control unit acquires a plurality of data during a sampling cycle when the main valve is opened and closed including during an entire period of a stroke test, the data sampled including time-series valve opening degree data and acceleration data) through inbuilt accelerometer (492)(101a).
Regarding claim 2, Aoyama discloses, in figures 1-11, the smart valve positioner (4, 7)(101) has an inbuilt accelerometer (492)(101a) which measures the accelerations or vibrations for different valve opening percentage (see Aoyama’s translation, p. 9, ¶ 6-7, examiner notes Aoyama’s control unit samples time-series valve opening degree data and acceleration data during a sampling cycle when the main valve is opened and closed including during an entire period of a stroke test).
Regarding claim 5, Aoyama discloses, in figures 1-11, the non-volatile memory (see Aoyama’s translation, p. 13, ¶ 4, the processor includes non-volatile memory)(104) enables saving the logged data to monitor the valve position (see Aoyama translation, p. 19, ¶ 8, “Time-series data of the valve opening degree”) at maximum ‘g-force’ (see Aoyama translation, p. 19, ¶ 8, “time series data of the acceleration”), through which any damages in the valve internals is detected (see Aoyama translation, p. 19, ¶ 9, “time series data of the acceleration”, p. 10, ¶ 2, Aoyama’s diagnoses includes internal damage to various parts of the valve assembly).
Regarding claim 6, Aoyama discloses, in figures 1-11, a method of operation of a control valve diagnostics system (see fig. 4)(100) comprises the steps of: a. powering a smart valve positioner (4, 7) (101) by supplying power from a power source (16) (103); b. providing a pneumatic output (A) to an actuator (12)(102) where said actuator (102) controls a valve (11) which controls a fluid flow (see Aoyama’s translation, p. 2, ¶ 4, Aoyama’s valve controls the flow of gases or oil through a pipe) and further provides pressure (41) and position (491) feedback to said smart valve positioner (4, 7)(101); c. measuring accelerations or vibrations for different valve opening percentage (see Aoyama’s translation, p. 9, ¶ 6-7, examiner notes Aoyama’s control unit samples time-series valve opening degree data and acceleration data during a sampling cycle when the main valve is opened and closed including during an entire period of a stroke test) by accelerometer (492)(101a) which is located inside (see fig. 1) the smart valve positioner (4, 7)(101); d. saving the measurement data in a non-volatile memory (see Aoyama’s translation, p. 13, ¶ 4, the processor includes non-volatile memory)(104) which stores the data in a microprocessor (70), which includes on-chip program and storage memory (see Aoyama translation, p. 7, ¶ 8 “The microcontroller 70 includes a processor (not shown) such as a CPU (Central Processing Unit) and a memory composed of a ROM (Read Only Memory), a RAM (Random Access Memory), and the like”)(EEPROM/Flash/PRAM/FRAM/MRAM); and e. monitoring a change in valve position (see Aoyama translation, p. 19, ¶ 8, “Time-series data of the valve opening degree”) corresponding to maximum ‘g-force’ (see Aoyama translation, p. 19, ¶ 8, “time series data of the acceleration”) and its analysis from logged data to predict of issues related to valve internals and process the fluid parameters for valve diagnosis (see Aoyama translation, p. 19, ¶ 9, “time series data of the acceleration”, p. 10, ¶ 2, Aoyama’s diagnoses includes internal damage to various parts of the valve assembly).
Regarding claim 7, Aoyama discloses, in figures 1-11, the ‘g-force’ data generated by the system is logged (see Aoyama translation, p. 19, ¶ 8, “time series data of the acceleration”, examiner notes data input to the microprocessor is recorded in memory for analysis) and the logged diagnosis data (see Aoyama translation, p. 19, ¶ 9, “time series data of the acceleration”, p. 10, ¶ 2, Aoyama’s diagnoses includes internal damage to various parts of the valve assembly) can be downloaded on any electronic device through wired means or through wireless means (see Aoyama’s translation, p. 2, ¶ 7, Aoyama’s external device transmits and receives data and abnormality information therefore Aoyama’s sensor data including data used in abnormality diagnosis and abnormality occurrence can be downloaded).
Regarding claim 16, Aoyama discloses the logged diagnosis data (see Aoyama translation, p. 19, ¶ 9, “time series data of the acceleration”, p. 10, ¶ 2, Aoyama’s diagnoses include internal damage to various parts of the valve assembly) can be downloaded through wired means (see Aoyama’s translation, p. 2, ¶ 7, “USB”).
Regarding claim 17, Aoyama discloses the wired means comprises a USB cable (see Aoyama’s translation, p. 2, ¶ 7, “USB”).
Regarding claim 18, Aoyama discloses the logged diagnosis data (see Aoyama translation, p. 19, ¶ 9, “time series data of the acceleration”, p. 10, ¶ 2, Aoyama’s diagnoses include internal damage to various parts of the valve assembly) can be downloaded through wireless means (see Aoyama’s translation, p. 3, ¶ 1, “Aoyama uses wireless communication between the external device and the valve”).
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 3 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoyama (WO 2021220766; “Aoyama”), as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Aoyama discloses, in figures 1-11, the non-volatile memory (see Aoyama’s translation, p. 13, ¶ 4, the processor includes non-volatile memory)(104) is EEPROM/Flash/PRAM/FRAM/MRAM (see Aoyama’s translation, p. 7, ¶ 8, examiner notes the microprocessor has memory composed of ROM and RAM which is located inside the microprocessor (300).
Aoyama fails to explicitly disclose EEPROM/Flash/PRAM/FRAM/MRAM.
The Examiner takes official notice that EEPROM/Flash/PRAM/FRAM/MRAM 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 use one of a well-known memory technology including EEPROM/Flash/PRAM/FRAM/MRAM as Aoyama’s memory. Doing so provides a reliable non-volatile memory.
Regarding claim 8, Aoyama fails to explicitly disclose the non-volatile memory comprises EEPROM.
The Examiner takes official notice that EEPROM 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 use the well-known memory technology EEPROM as Aoyama’s memory. Doing so provides a reliable non-volatile memory.
Regarding claim 9, Aoyama fails to explicitly disclose the non-volatile memory comprises Flash.
The Examiner takes official notice that Flash 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 use the well-known memory technology Flash as Aoyama’s memory. Doing so provides a reliable non-volatile memory.
Regarding claim 10, Aoyama fails to explicitly disclose the non-volatile memory comprises PRAM.
The Examiner takes official notice that PRAM 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 use the well-known memory technology PRAM as Aoyama’s memory. Doing so provides a reliable non-volatile memory.
Regarding claim 11, Aoyama fails to explicitly disclose the non-volatile memory comprises FRAM.
The Examiner takes official notice that FRAM 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 use the well-known memory technology FRAM as Aoyama’s memory. Doing so provides a reliable non-volatile memory.
Regarding claim 12, Aoyama fails to explicitly disclose the non-volatile memory comprises MRAM.
The Examiner takes official notice that MRAM 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 use the well-known memory technology MRAM as Aoyama’s memory. Doing so provides a reliable non-volatile memory.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoyama (WO 2021220766; “Aoyama”), as applied to claim 1, in view of Saito (US 20060092039; “Saito”).
Regarding claim 4, Aoyama fails to explicitly disclose a type of power source.
Saito teaches, in figure 1, the power source (see fig. 1)(103) is a 2 wire 4-20 mA loop power (¶ 0080, “Power supply block 17a receives power from 4-20 mA signal input block 11”), wherein the power source (see fig. 1) (103) enables the system to be self-sufficient as its independent of any external power source (¶ 0080, Power supply block 17a is configured so as to accumulate the extra electric current in a rechargeable battery, ¶ 0071, “electric currents are accumulated in a battery and reused as electric power for transmitting or receiving signals, thereby eliminating the need for battery replacement or any external power supply input”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Saito’s scheme of using a 4-20mA source and rechargeable battery into Aoyama’s system that ascertains valve abnormality since it is well known to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so provides a reliable way of powering the system.
Regarding claim 13, Aoyama and Saito disclose, in Saito’s figure 1, the power source (see Saito’s fig. 1)(103) is a 2 wire 4-20 mA loop power (Saito, ¶ 0080, “Power supply block 17a receives power from 4-20 mA signal input block 11”).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoyama (WO 2021220766; “Aoyama”), as applied to claim 1, in view of Kemp (US 20160041539; “Kemp”).
Regarding claim 4, Aoyama fails to explicitly disclose a type of power source.
Kemp teaches, in figure 3, the power source (see fig. 2)(103) is a 2-wire fieldbus/profibus (¶ 0063, the communication network is a fieldbus/profibus, the examiner notes fieldbus/profibus PA is well known for delivering power over 2-wire cable), (103), wherein the power source ((75), ¶ 0060, “local power source or energy storage device 75 is rechargeable”)(103) enables the system to be self-sufficient as its independent of any external power source (¶ 0060, “the local power source or energy storage device 75 may be a battery, capacitor, or other rechargeable energy storage device, and any known technique for recharging the local power source or energy storage device 75 may be used to recharge the device 75, such as by capturing solar energy; replacing a battery; harvesting or recovering energy from local heat, vibration and/or movement; temporarily connecting to a plug-in source such as a AC power source; inductively recharging using a proximity charger; or other suitable recharging technique”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kemp’s scheme of using a 2-wire fieldbus/Profibus source and rechargeable battery into Aoyama’s system that ascertains valve abnormality since it is well known to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so provides a reliable way of powering the system.
Regarding claim 14, Aoyama and Kemp disclose, in Kemp’s figure 1, the power source (see Kemp’s fig. 2)(103) is a 2 wire fieldbus/profibus (Kemp, ¶ 0063, the communication network is a fieldbus/profibus).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoyama (WO 2021220766; “Aoyama”), as applied to claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, Aoyama fails to explicitly disclose logged data and diagnoses can be downloaded to a smartphone.
However, the Examiner takes official notice that using a smartphone to download data 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 use the well-known scheme of downloading data to a smartphone to teach Aoyama to use a smartphone as the external device. Doing so provides a reliable instrument to communicate data with a maintenance inspector.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoyama (WO 2021220766; “Aoyama”), as applied to claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, Aoyama fails to disclose the wireless means comprises BLE.
However, the Examiner takes official notice that BLE, Bluetooth Low Energy, 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 use the well-known technology of BLE as Aoyama’s wireless technology. Doing so provides a reliable technology to connect wirelessly while conserving power.
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
Prosecution Insights