DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 Application
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Priority
This application claims priority to U. S. Provisional Application No. 63/348,195, filed June 2, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 12/02/2024 has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “detect a first air pressure at the utility at a first time and a second air pressure at the utility at a second time” but appears it should recite “detect a first air pressure at the utility device at a first time and a second air pressure at the utility device at a second time.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) 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 controller…wherein the controller is configured to receive an operational state indication…wherein the controller is configured to receive the first air pressure and the second air pressure…wherein the controller is configured to determine a change in pressure…determine a first predetermined utility pressure change threshold…compare the change in pressure…generate an alert…” of claim 1
“the controller is further configured to determine if a warranty for the utility device applies” of claim 2
“wherein the controller is configured to determine if the warranty applies…” of claims 3-4
“wherein the controller is configured to store a plurality of warranty data packets…and wherein the controller is configured to select a first warranty data packet…” of claim 5
“wherein the controller is configured to transmit…” of claims 6 and 8
“a controller…wherein the controller is configured to receive the first air pressure and the second air pressure…wherein the controller is configured to determine a change in pressure…compare the change in pressure… and…generate a tamper alert…” of claim 11
“wherein the controller is further configured to receive an operational state indication…and determine the first predetermined utility housing pressure change threshold…” of claim 12
“wherein the controller is configured to generate the tamper alert…” of claim 16
“wherein the controller is configured to receive and store a utility maintenance schedule…” of claim 17
“wherein the controller is configured to transmit the tamper alert…” of claim 18
“wherein the controller is further configured to receive an operational state indication…” of claim 20
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.
Note that the corresponding structure for “a controller” is recited in the filed specification, referring to “a controller (e.g., programmable processing circuitry, such as a printed circuit board)” (¶ 0014).
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-10 recite “A system comprising: a utility device; a pressure sensor…and a controller…” (i.e. a machine); and claims 11-20 recite “A utility tamper detection assembly comprising: a utility housing…a pressure sensor…and a controller…” (i.e. a machine). These claims fall under one of the four categories of statutory subject matter and as a result, pass Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test. However, “Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) in Step 1 does not end the eligibility analysis, because claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection.” See MPEP 2106.04. Accordingly, the examiner continues the subject matter eligibility analysis below.
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claim 1 recites limitations to:
receive an operational state indication of a utility device
receive a first air pressure that was detected at a first time at the utility device and a second air pressure that was detected at a second time at the utility device,
the first time being different than the second time,
determine a change in pressure at the utility device using at least the first air pressure and the second air pressure,
determine a first predetermined utility pressure change threshold that is associated with the operational state indication,
compare the change in pressure at the utility device to the first predetermined utility pressure change threshold,
and, when the change in pressure at the utility device matches the first predetermined utility pressure change threshold, generate an alert relating to the utility device
Independent claim 11 recites similar limitations for:
receive a first air pressure that was detected at a utility housing at a first time and a second air pressure that was detected at a utility housing at a second time,
the first time being different than the second time,
determine a change in pressure at a utility housing using at least the first air pressure and the second air pressure,
compare the change in pressure at the utility housing to a first predetermined utility housing pressure change threshold,
and, when the change in pressure at the utility housing matches the first predetermined utility housing pressure change threshold, generate a tamper alert relating to the utility housing
The limitations of independent claims 1 and 11 above are determined to recite an abstract idea (i.e. collecting and analyzing air pressure information against a pressure change threshold, and generating an alert when the pressure change threshold is exceeded) for the reasons discussed in the following continued Step 2A Prong One analysis. Note that “An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), “[T]he "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” and “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” The limitations recited by the representative independent claims 1 and 11 above, under the broadest reasonable interpretation and but for the use of generic computer components, cover concepts (e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) that can reasonably be performed in the human mind or by the human mind with the aid of simple tools such as pen and paper. For example, the steps to receive an operational state indication, receive first and second air pressures of claim 1 and the steps to receive first and second air pressures of claim 11 are observations, while the “determine,” “determine,” “compare,” and “generate an alert” steps of claim 1 and the “determine” and “compare,” and “generate an alert” steps of claim 11 are evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Therefore, as the processes above described by the representative independent claims 1 and 11 can be characterized as mental processes (i.e. observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion), but for the recitation of generic computer components in the claims, the claims fall under the “mental processes” category of judicial exceptions (i.e. abstract ideas).
Step 2A Prong Two:
The judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) recited in claims 1 and 11 is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. collecting and analyzing air pressure information against a pressure change threshold, and generating an alert when the pressure change threshold is exceeded) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. a controller in communication with a utility device and a pressure sensor of claim 1; and a controller in communication with a pressure sensor of claim 11). See MPEP 2106.05(f), showing “[C]laims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp.”
The recitation of “a utility device” and “a pressure sensor,” where the operational state information and the pressure readings correspond to the utility device (claim 1), and “A utility tamper detection assembly comprising: a utility housing at least partially enclosing a utility device,” and “a pressure sensor at the utility housing,” where the pressure readings correspond to a utility housing (claim 11), merely generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular field of use/technological environment (the abstract idea is carried out in the context of a utility device including a pressure sensor, or a temper detection assembly comprising a utility housing and a pressure sensor).
Furthermore, the claims recite using “a pressure sensor configured to detect a first air pressure…and a second air pressure …,” wherein the pressure sensor and the other computing devices (a utility device, a controller) are in communication for receiving and transmitting data of claims 1 and 11. However, these additional elements/functions merely amount to the use of a pressure sensor in its ordinary capacity to detect air pressures transmit air pressures to the controller (i.e. collect and provide the data used in the performance of the abstract idea), and the use of computer elements in their ordinary capacity for receiving and transmitting data between a controller, utility device, and pressure sensor. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, but instead indicates mere instructions apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or computer components.
The recited additional elements do not improve the functioning of a computer/the controller itself, improve the way in which pressure sensors detect air pressures (e.g. improved accuracy or improved detection mechanisms), or provide a specific configuration/arrangement of these additional elements that solves a specific technical problem, but instead uses generic or “off the shelf” components in conjunction with a controller to automate the abstract idea of collecting and analyzing air pressure information against a pressure change threshold, and generating an alert when the pressure change threshold is exceeded.
Therefore, because the claims, considered as a whole, do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claims 1 and 11 do not include additional elements, whether considered alone or as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) because as mentioned above, the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. collecting and analyzing air pressure information against a pressure change threshold, and generating an alert when the pressure change threshold is exceeded) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. a controller in communication with a utility device and a pressure sensor of claim 1; and a controller in communication with a pressure sensor of claim 11).
The recited “a utility device” and “a pressure sensor,” where the operational state information and the pressure readings correspond to the utility device (claim 1), and “A utility tamper detection assembly comprising: a utility housing at least partially enclosing a utility device,” and “a pressure sensor,” where the pressure readings correspond to a utility housing (claim 11), merely generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular field of use/technological environment. As above, the limitations for using pressure sensors to detect air pressures and the communication of data between the pressure sensor and other computer elements (utility device, controller) merely describes the use of computers or other machinery in their ordinary capacity, or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea – which does not add significantly more. The recited additional elements do not improve the functioning of a computer/the controller itself, improve the way in which pressure sensors detect air pressures (e.g. improved accuracy or improved detection mechanisms), or provide a specific configuration/arrangement of these additional elements that solves a specific technical problem, but instead uses generic or “off the shelf” components in conjunction with a controller to automate the abstract idea of collecting and analyzing air pressure information against a pressure change threshold, and generating an alert when the pressure change threshold is exceeded. Considering the additional elements as an ordered combination does not alter the analysis above or otherwise add significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 2-10 and 12-20:
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are directed to the same abstract idea as independent claims 1 and 11 above as they do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2-4 further describe the abstract idea by reciting limitations for: determining if a warranty for the utility device applies according to various conditions and other information about the warranty (claims 2-4). These abstract limitations are applied using generic computer components already addressed above (“the controller” of claims 2-4).
Claim 5 recites the use of the controller to store warranty data packets, which describes generic computers functions/use a controller in its ordinary capacity (storing data in memory), and recites further instructions to apply the abstract idea (“select a first warranty packet…”) using a generic computer component (the controller).
Claims 6 and 8 similarly uses the controller to perform generic computers functions/use computers in their ordinary capacity (“wherein the controller is configured to transmit a maintenance scheduling request to a third party when the controller determines that the warranty for the utility device applies” of claim 6; and “wherein the controller is configured to transmit the alert to a remote user device”) to carry out the abstract idea.
Claims 7, 10 and 14-15 do not introduce additional element beyond those already addressed above but merely further describe the abstract idea by reciting limitations for: “wherein the alert…includes a notice that the utility device needs maintenance” (claim 7); “wherein the operational state indication…includes data relating to an operation being executed by the utility device…” (claim 10); “wherein the tamper alert relates to the access door being open” (claim 14); and “wherein when the access door is closed the utility device is concealed within the utility housing and when the access door is open the utility device is accessible within the utility housing” (claim 15).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, claim 9 recites “wherein the utility device is selected from the group consisting of: a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) unit and a water heater,” and claim 19 recites “wherein the utility device is selected from the group consisting of. an electrical meter and a boiler” which at best merely further describes the field of use in which the abstract idea is performed, i.e. generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular field of use/technical environment.
Claims 12 and 16 recite further steps describing the abstract idea (“receive an operational state indication from the utility device and determine the first predetermined utility housing pressure change threshold using the operational state indication” of claim 12; “generate the tamper alert when a time at which the change in pressure at the utility housing matches the first predetermined utility housing pressure change threshold differs from a prescheduled utility device maintenance time” of claim 16) being applied using generic computer components (“wherein the controller is in communication with the utility device” and “the controller is further configured to” of claims 12, 16).
Claim 13 further describes the utility housing above (“an access door at the utility housing”) which generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular field of use/technological environment, while further describing the abstract idea above (“wherein the first time is when the access door is closed and the second time is when the access door is open”) – which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
Claims 17, 18 and 20 recite further limitations which merely recite the use of computers or other machinery (“the controller,” “a remote user device,” “the utility device”) in their ordinary capacity to receive, transmit, or store data: “the controller is configured to receive and store a utility maintenance schedule that includes the prescheduled utility device maintenance time” (claim 17), “the controller is configured to transmit the tamper alert to a remote user device” (claim 18); and “the controller is in communication with the utility device, wherein the controller is further configured to receive an operational state indication…” (claim 20). Such limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more, but instead invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under § 101.
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 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
(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.
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20230041634 A1 to Iliev.
Claim 11: Iliev discloses:
A utility tamper detection assembly (Iliev: Fig. 2 and ¶ 0019, an example gas meter 200 having a gas-environment 202 and an air-environment 204; ¶ 0030, ¶ 0054 showing tamper detection) comprising:
a utility housing at least partially enclosing a utility device (Iliev: Fig. 2, ¶ 0022 “The air-environment 204 of the gas meter 200 is separated from the gas-environment 202 by portions of the enclosure 224 of the gas meter 200. Accordingly, gas is not able to enter the air-environment (and vice versa)”);
a pressure sensor at the utility housing (Iliev: Fig. 2, ¶ 0019-0021, ¶ 0023-0025 showing index PCBA (printed circuit board assembly) 220 in communication with sensors 206, 208 within the utility housing, and where both sensors report to index PCBA as per ¶ 0046-0047; also note that the combined configuration of sensors 206, 208 can be considered a single sensor assembly as the index PCBA receives the measurements of both sensors via bus controller)
and configured to detect a first air pressure at the utility housing at a first time (Iliev: ¶ 0046 “At block 402, an index PCBA, within an air-environment of the gas meter, receives a first pressure value” which may be measured by ) and a second air pressure at the utility housing at a second time, the first time being different than the second time (Iliev: ¶ 0047 “At block 404, the index PCBA measures a second pressure value”; as per Fig. 4, block 404 occurs after block 402); and
a controller in communication with the pressure sensor, wherein the controller is configured to receive the first air pressure and the second air pressure from the pressure sensor (Iliev: ¶ 0024 showing index PCBA includes processor 224, and ¶ 0025 “the processor 224 may utilize techniques described in FIGS. 3-9 to process and utilize the pressure data”; ¶ 0046-0047 as above showing index PCBA receives the first and second sensor measurements),
wherein the controller is configured to determine a change in pressure at the utility housing using at least the first air pressure and the second air pressure (Iliev: ¶ 0048 “a pressure difference value is calculated to be equal to the first pressure value minus the second pressure value”),
compare the change in pressure at the utility housing to a first predetermined utility housing pressure change threshold (Iliev: ¶ 0049 “the pressure difference value is compared to a threshold value”), and,
when the change in pressure at the utility housing matches the first predetermined utility housing pressure change threshold (Iliev: Fig. 5 and ¶ 0050, with Fig. 5 showing “responsive to the pressure difference exceeding the threshold value, perform an action”),
generate a tamper alert relating to the utility housing (Iliev: Fig. 4 showing the responsive action 508 “send a message indicating tampering with the gas meter”; and ¶ 0054 “a message indicating tampering with the gas meter may be sent”)
Claim 18: Iliev discloses claim 11. Iliev further discloses:
wherein the controller is configured to transmit the tamper alert to a remote user device (Iliev: ¶ 0054 – “a message indicating tampering with the gas meter may be sent. In an example, the message is sent to a headend device, such as a utility company server, main office computing center, etc.”)
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120323375 A1 to Dean-Hendricks et al. (Dean-Hendricks) in view of US 20220100802 A1 to Saini et al. (Saini).
Claim 1: Dean-Hendricks teaches:
A system (Dean-Hendricks: Fig. 1, ¶ 0039-0047 showing HVAC system) comprising:
a utility device (Dean-Hendricks: Fig. 1, 0046 showing HVAC system includes at least air filter monitor 34 associated with air filter 30);
a pressure sensor (Dean-Hendricks: ¶ 0046 showing “differential pressure sensor” for detecting a differential pressure associated with the air filter; see ¶ 0010-0013, ¶ 0072) configured to detect a first air pressure at the utility at a first time (Dean-Hendricks:¶ 0071-0072 showing the sensor measures a differential pressure across a clean air filter to obtain a first differential pressure value when the air filter is clean) and a second air pressure at the utility at a second time, the first time being different than the second time (Dean-Hendricks: ¶ 0136-0137 showing measuring a subsequent differential pressure value); and
a controller in communication with the utility device and the pressure sensor (Dean-Hendricks: ¶ 0047, ¶ 0072, ¶ 0122, ¶ 0135 controller in communication with the air filter monitoring including pressure sensor),
With respect to the limitation:
wherein the controller is configured to receive an operational state indication from the utility device,
While Dean-Hendricks describes the HVAC system as operating in one of a plurality of modes or states, as instructed by the controller (Dean-Hendricks: ¶ 0071-0073 “the controller may instruct the HVAC system to operate in a selected mode or state”, ¶ 0085-0087, ¶ 0111-0114), and thus is clearly aware of the state or mode of operation in which the HVAC system is in, but Dean-Hendricks falls short of explicitly stating that the controller receives an indication of the current operational state.
However, Saini teaches a BMS (building management system) controller that receives information on temperatures, operating statuses, diagnostics, etc.) from an HVAC utility device (e.g. air handling unit controller device) (Saini: ¶ 0055-0056). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the controller receiving operating status information from a utility device of Saini in the monitoring system of Dean-Hendricks with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Dean-Hendricks, as modified above, further teaches:
and wherein the controller is configured to receive the first air pressure (Dean-Hendricks: ¶ 0072-0073, ¶ 0089 showing receiving first differential pressure for clean air filter, and used as baseline for calculating air filter change threshold) and the second air pressure from the pressure sensor (Hendricks: ¶ 0136-0138 showing the controller receives measurement of a subsequent differential pressure value from sensors of air filter monitoring device), and
wherein the controller is configured to determine a change in pressure at the utility device using at least the first air pressure and the second air pressure (Dean-Hendricks: ¶ 0136-0138 showing based on the controller receives measurement of a subsequent differential pressure value, and compares it against the previously determined air filter change threshold value, which as per ¶ 0072-0073, ¶ 0089, and ¶ 0138 represents a threshold difference/offset from the first measured differential pressure value; therefore, the controller determines whether the subsequent differential pressure value has changed by a threshold amount (a threshold difference) from the first differential pressure based on a clean air filter; also see ¶ 0044 and ¶ 0046 for context, describing that over time, the differential pressure of a clean air filter increases as it becomes dirty, and the air filter monitor measures and reports the change in this value over time),
determine a first predetermined utility pressure change threshold that is associated with the operational state indication (Dean-Hendricks: Fig. 10, ¶ 0072-0073, ¶ 0089 as cited above showing the original determination of an “air filter change threshold value” that is indicative of a pressure differential value that indicates a dirty air filter, which is determined as a threshold increase or “offset” in differential pressure above the measured differential pressure when a filter is clean, according to a selected mode or state in which the HVAC system is set to operate),
compare the change in pressure at the utility device to the first predetermined utility pressure change threshold (Dean-Hendricks: ¶ 0138-0140, ¶ 0077, ¶ 0106 showing comparing the current/subsequently measured pressure differential value against the air filter change threshold value, which represents whether the current/subsequently measured pressure differential value of the filter has increased enough over the original differential value of the clean air filter used to calibrate the threshold value, such that it exceeds the air filter change threshold value),
and, when the change in pressure at the utility device matches the first predetermined utility pressure change threshold, generate an alert relating to the utility device (Dean-Hendricks: ¶ 0138-0140, ¶ 0070, ¶ 0077, ¶ 0094, ¶ 0106 showing when the current differential pressure exceeds the air filter change threshold value amount (i.e. the differential pressure has changed by a threshold amount such that it is exceeds the air filter change threshold), generating and transmitting alerts or filter change notifications notifying the user that the air filter is dirty and needs to be replaced; see Fig. 17D-17F, ¶ 0147 showing “replace air filter now” notice)
Claim 7: Dean-Hendricks/Saini teach claim 1. Dean-Hendricks, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the alert relating to the utility device includes a notice that the utility device needs maintenance (Dean-Hendricks: ¶ 0138-0140, ¶ 0070, ¶ 0077, ¶ 0094, ¶ 0106 showing when the current differential pressure exceeds the air filter change threshold value amount (i.e. the differential pressure has changed by a threshold amount such that it is exceeds the air filter change threshold), generating and transmitting alerts or filter change notifications notifying the user that the air filter is dirty and needs to be replaced; see Fig. 17D-17F, ¶ 0147 showing “replace air filter now” notice)
Claim 8: Dean-Hendricks/Saini teach claim 7. With respect to the following limitation, while Dean-Hendricks teaches generating and displaying an alert in response to an air filter condition requiring maintenance (Dean-Hendricks: ¶ 0138-0140, ¶ 0070, ¶ 0077, ¶ 0094, ¶ 0106), Dean-Hendricks does not explicitly teach transmitting the alert to a remote user device. However, Saini teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to transmit the alert to a remote user device (Saini: ¶ 0136 showing an indication of a fault condition is “generated and transmitted to the user's device as a text message, an email, a voice call, a push notification, etc.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included transmitting an alert to a user’s device of Saini in the monitoring system of Dean-Hendricks/Saini (such that the alert of Dean-Hendricks is transmitted to a user’s device) with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 9: Dean-Hendricks/Saini teach claim 1. Dean-Hendricks, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the utility device is selected from the group consisting of: a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) unit (Dean-Hendricks: Dean-Hendricks: Fig. 1, ¶ 0046 showing HVAC system including various devices/HVAC units, including air filter monitoring unit) and a water heater
Claim 10: Dean-Hendricks/Saini teach claim 9. Dean-Hendricks, as modified above (such that as per Saini the controller receives the operational state indication), further teaches:
wherein the operational state indication from the utility device includes data relating to an operation being executed by the utility device when the first air pressure and the second air pressure are received from the pressure sensor (Dean-Hendricks: ¶ 0071-0072, ¶ 0085 showing operational modes such as fan only mode, heating mode, cooling mode, etc.; and ¶ 0072 showing “While the HVAC system is operating in the selected mode, the controller (e.g., controller 18) may command or require the air filter monitor 34 to measure one or more parameters related to the current condition of the one or more air filters 30 of the HVAC system 4 with one or more sensors…”)
Claims 2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120323375 A1 to Dean-Hendricks et al. (Dean-Hendricks) in view of US 20220100802 A1 to Saini et al. (Saini), and further in view of US 20230141593 A1 to Ramer et al. (Ramer).
Note: The “Ramer” reference claims priority to US Provisional Application No. 63276770, filed on 11/08/2021. The provisional application provides support for the teachings relied upon herein.
Claim 2: Dean-Hendricks/Saini teach claim 1. With respect to the limitation:
wherein, when the change in pressure at the utility device matches the first predetermined utility pressure change threshold, the controller is further configured to determine if a warranty for the utility device applies
Dean-Hendricks teaches triggering an alert that maintenance is needed when the current differential pressure exceeds the determined air filter change threshold as per above (Dean-Hendricks: ¶ 0138-0140, ¶ 0070, ¶ 0077, ¶ 0094, ¶ 0106 as above) – but Dean-Hendricks/Saini do not explicitly teach, upon this determination that maintenance is needed, whether a warranty applies.
However, Ramer teaches, in response to determining that a maintenance/repair is needed, determining whether the maintenance/repair is covered by a home warranty service (Ramer: ¶ 0237-0240 showing automatically determining and scheduling a needed maintenance/repair with service provider to create a warranty claim, wherein “If the claim management system 1100 determines that the service request is a covered claim, the claim management system 1100 may instruct the servicer management system 1110 to create a job associated with the claim/service request and may assign a servicer to the job”; also generally see ¶ 0100, ¶ 0108, ¶ 0132, ¶ 0237, ¶ 0379 for context and showing applicability to HVAC systems and HVAC air filter replacement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included determining whether a warranty covers a service request, upon detection that maintenance or repair at a property is needed as taught Ramer in the monitoring system of Dean-Hendricks/Saini with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to “improve outcomes, including cost management outcomes, customer satisfaction outcomes, job completion outcomes, total customer value outcomes” (Ramer: ¶ 0240).
Claim 5: Dean-Hendricks/Saini/Ramer teach claim 2. With respect to the following limitations, Dean-Hendricks/Saini do not explicitly teach, however, Ramer teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to store a plurality of warranty data packets relating to different utility devices (Ramer: ¶ 0178-0180 showing a plurality of labels associated with each component and subcomponent (e.g. an HVAC system, and its corresponding parts) at a subscriber's premises that may be “covered” by the home service plan, and are “stored in a graph structure, such as a directed acyclic graph, which may be stored in a graph database”; also see ¶ 0026),
and wherein the controller is configured to select a first warranty data packet, from the plurality of warranty data packets, as relating to the utility device using a utility device identifier received from the utility device (Ramer: ¶ 0039-0042, ¶ 0312-0314 showing each service request including one or more taxonomy of repair labels that may be associated with the at least one repair service, and/or a system taxonomy label that may identify a component or an aspect of the property that may be a subject of the at least one repair service; also see, with ¶ 0069-0071, ¶ 0239 showing automatically creating the service request)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included storing a label corresponding covered parts in the home service plan and including one or more corresponding labels in service requests as taught Ramer in the monitoring system of Dean-Hendricks/Saini/Ramer, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Claim 6: Dean-Hendricks/Saini/Ramer teach claim 5. With respect to the following limitation, Dean-Hendricks/Saini do not explicitly teach, however, Ramer teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to transmit a maintenance scheduling request to a third party when the controller determines that the warranty for the utility device applies (Ramer: ¶ 0239 showing determining claim is covered, and then creating a job for the service request that is assigned to a servicer; see ¶ 0498, ¶ 0014 showing the service request can be forwarded to one or more selected servicers, i.e. one of a plurality of third party servicers)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included assigning the request to a servicer in response to determining the repair claim is covered as taught Ramer in the monitoring system of Dean-Hendricks/Saini/Ramer, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120323375 A1 to Dean-Hendricks et al. (Dean-Hendricks) in view of US 20220100802 A1 to Saini et al. (Saini), further in view of US 20230141593 A1 to Ramer et al. (Ramer), and even further in view of US 20180240124 A1 to Natarajan et al. (Natarajan).
Claim 3: Dean-Hendricks/Saini/Ramer teach claim 2. With respect to the limitation
wherein the controller is configured to determine if the warranty applies by comparing a time at which the change in pressure at the utility device matches the first predetermined utility pressure change threshold and a term of the warranty
Dean-Hendricks teaches comparing a time at which the change in pressure at the utility device matches the first predetermined utility pressure change threshold to determine and generate an alert that an HVAC air filter change is needed (Dean-Hendricks: ¶ 0138-0140, ¶ 0070, ¶ 0077, ¶ 0094, ¶ 0106), and Ramer teaches checking claim coverage for a home warranty (Ramer: ¶ 0237-0240 as above) and determining an age of a home protection plan/payment status as factor in claim adjudication process (Ramer: ¶ 0342-0344) – but Dean-Hendricks/Ramer do not explicitly teach comparing a time at which an issue occurs to a term of a warranty to determine whether the warranty applies.
However, Natarajan teaches, when an operational issue is detected requiring repair/maintenance service, determining whether a warranty applies based on whether a term of the warranty has expired (Natarajan: ¶ 0043 “if the actual warranty expiration date has not yet expired, a warranty service provider is notified to schedule an appointment with the customer…”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included determining whether or not a warranty term has expired as taught Natarajan in the monitoring system of Dean-Hendricks/Saini/Ramer with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 4: Dean-Hendricks/Saini/Ramer/Natarajan teach claim 3. With respect to the following limitations, Dean-Hendricks/Saini do not explicitly teach the following, however, Ramer teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to determine if the warranty applies by comparing the operational state indication (Ramer: ¶ 0070, ¶ 0075 sensor data sent from an entity at a property to determined a type of repair or servicing needed; see Fig. 8, ¶ 0185-0188 showing subscriber A has an HVAC system with sensor 320-1 in communication with premises controller 1310, where the sensors detect and report information to premises controller and cloud computing system that “may include operational state, efficiency, and early indications of failure”; and also see ¶ 0232-0236 further describing sensor operation to collect operational state information) and one or more operational conditions specified by the warranty (Ramer: ¶ 0237-0240 showing based on the sensor information detecting an issue, a service request and claim is created using the reported sensor data, and in ¶ 0239 “If the claim management system 1100 determines that the service request is a covered claim, the claim management system 1100 may instruct the servicer management system 1110 to create a job associated with the claim/service request and may assign a servicer to the job”; also see ¶ 0207, ¶ 0267-0268, ¶ 0315, ¶ 0320, ¶ 0369 showing rules defining coverage for the subscriber plan/home warranty plan, wherein the information in the service request is matched against coverage information of the home services policy for the subscriber to determine whether a particular repair/service corresponding to the detected operational state above is covered)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included detecting an operational state/indications of failure by a sensor to create a service request and determining whether the required service/repair is covered by a home service policy by matching the information in the service request to rules/terms in a home service policy as taught Ramer in the monitoring system of Dean-Hendricks/Saini/Ramer/Natarajan, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230041634 A1 to Iliev in view of US 20180023989 A1 to Droin et al. (Droin).
Claim 12: Iliev discloses claim 11. Iliev further discloses:
wherein the controller is in communication with the utility device (Iliev: ¶ 0020-0024 showing the index PCBA comprising processor 224 is in communication with the MIG PCBA, and ¶ 0020 “Each MIG PCBA may be configured to operate one or more devices, such as a valve, valve motor, sensor, switch, etc. In an example, a main gas shutoff valve 228 and valve motor 228 is controlled by the MIG PCBA 214”; also see ¶ 0015 showing FMU which (flow measuring unit) in communication with the index PCBA and processor),
wherein the controller is further configured to receive an operational state indication from the utility device (Iliev: ¶ 0015 “The index PCBA may include a processor and memory, and may be configured to receive gas consumption data and gas pressure data from the FMU and/or one or more MIG PCBA or sensor devices”)
With respect to the limitation:
and determine the first predetermined utility housing pressure change threshold using the operational state indication
Iliev teaches at least one predetermined utility housing pressure change threshold in order to detect an abnormal operating state/issue or tampering relating to a utility device (Iliev: ¶ 0045-0055 generally), but does not explicitly teach adjusting a threshold based upon an operational state of a utility device.
However, Droin teaches fraud/tampering detection thresholds of a meter which may be adjusted dynamically according to the current operating conditions related to the utility device (Droin: ¶ 0047-0048, with ¶ 0048 showing “One or more of the thresholds may be adjusted dynamically in response to conditions relating to the water mains network…” and ¶ 0050-0055, with ¶ 0054 showing “One or more of the thresholds may be adjusted dynamically in response to conditions relating to the location of the meter…”; also see ¶ 0084). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included adjusting thresholds based upon current utility operating conditions related to the meter of Droin in the tamper detection system of Iliev with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to “provide more accurate tamper detection and reduce the occurrence of false alarms” (Droin: ¶ 0049).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230041634 A1 to Iliev in view of US 6522252 B2 to Horibe et al. (Horibe), and further in view of US5844134A to Jiles.
Claim 13: Iliev discloses claim 11. With respect to the limitations:
further comprising: an access door at the utility housing,
wherein the first time is when the access door is closed and the second time is when the access door is open
Iliev teaches an enclosure, i.e. utility housing, associated with a utility meter as per claim 11 above (Iliev: Fig. 2, ¶ 0022), but is silent regarding the presence of an access panel or door to access to the enclosure, and detecting pressure when the door is closed and opened.
However, Jiles teaches a gas meter cabinet including an access door that can be opened and closed to access the gas meter (Jiles: Fis. 1, 2a-2b, and Col. 2: 24-34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the gas meter cabinet with an access door as taught by Jiles in the tamper detection system for a gas meter of Iliev (such that the enclosure of Iliev includes an access door), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Still, Iliev/Jiles do not explicitly teach that the pressure detection corresponds to times at which a door is opened and closed.
However, Horibe teaches an enclosure with a door that is opened and closed (Horibe: ¶ 0040-0043) and using a pressure sensor to detect intrusion in an enclosed space, including detecting pressure changes at the specific time that the door to the enclosure is closed, and specific times where the door to the enclosure is opened, i.e. at least a first and second time where the door is open and closed (Horibe: ¶ 004-0043, Figs. 3A-3B, with Fig. 3B showing pressure wave form at a time when door is closed, and pressure wave form at a time when door is opened; also see Fig. 12B, ¶ 0069-0070 showing pressure change over time, as door goes from closed to open). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the pressure monitoring system for detecting when a door of an enclosure is opened or closed of Horibe in the tamper detection system of Iliev/Jiles with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation “provide a pressure sensor and a door opening/closing monitoring system which will solve the problems as described above, is small and capable of detecting the opening/dosing of the door with high sensitivity, allowing a detection of an operation condition, that is, whether the door is opened or closed, is subjected to less limitation in an installation position thereof and can be installed such that the sensor is not readily noticeable from outside” (Horibe: ¶ 0009). Furthermore, it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to do so, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 14: Iliev/Jiles/Horibe teach claim 13. With respect to the following limitation, Iliev teaches an alert corresponding to a tamper alert (Iliev: Fig. 4, ¶ 0054), but Iliev/Jiles do not explicitly teach the following. However, Horibe teaches:
wherein the tamper alert relates to the access door being open (Horibe: ¶ 0074 showing output of alarm signal, ¶ 0040-0043, ¶ 0060 showing detection of door opening, and sending indication of abnormal condition/signal)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included an alarm corresponding to a door being opened of Horibe in the tamper detection system of Iliev/Jiles/Horibe with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 13 above.
Claim 15: Iliev/Jiles/Horibe teach claim 13. With respect to the following limitation, Iliev does not explicitly teach the following, however, Jiles teaches:
wherein when the access door is closed the utility device is concealed within the utility housing and when the access door is open the utility device is accessible within the utility housing (Jiles: Fis. 1, 2a-2b, and Col. 2: 24-34 showing door closed, concealing interior of gas meter cabinet, and door open provides access to the contents of the cabinet)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the gas meter cabinet with an access door for concealing or exposing contents of the gas meter cabinet as taught by Jiles in the tamper detection system for a gas meter of Iliev/Jiles/Horibe, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230041634 A1 to Iliev in view of US 20130154833 A1 to Kiss et al. (Kiss).
Claim 16: Iliev discloses claim 11. With respect to the limitation:
wherein the controller is configured to generate the tamper alert when a time at which the change in pressure at the utility housing matches the first predetermined utility housing pressure change threshold differs from a prescheduled utility device maintenance time
Iliev teaches wherein the controller is configured to generate the tamper alert when the change in pressure at the utility housing matches the first predetermined utility housing pressure change threshold (Iliev: ¶ 0049-0050, Fig. 5; see rejection of claim 11 above), but does not explicitly teach that the alert is only generated when it differs from a prescheduled utility device maintenance time.
However, Kiss teaches ignoring a detected tampering alert associated with a door of a utility device enclosure being opened, when a metering device is placed into an “ignore mode” during scheduled maintenance (Kiss: ¶ 0034-0038; also see ¶ 0002-0004, ¶ 0031-0033 generally), but if the ignore conditions are not satisfied (“differs from a prescheduled utility device maintenance time”), the device does not ignore a disconnect command and disconnects the utility (Kiss: ¶ 0040, ¶ 0046) including setting a tamper status flag to generate an alarm relating to tampering (Kiss: ¶ 0032). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included conditionally triggering the tampering signal/alert based on whether or not the utility device is an “ignore mode” according to a maintenance schedule of Kiss in the tamper detection system of Iliev with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 17: Iliev/Kiss teach claim 16. With respect to the following limitation, Iliev does not explicitly teach, however, Iliev teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to receive and store a utility maintenance schedule that includes the prescheduled utility device maintenance time (Kiss: ¶ 0034 “the back office 210 schedules maintenance for a particular enclosure 400 for Tuesday between the hours of 1:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. Therefore, to ensure that the end-devices 125 only ignore openings of the door 402 during the scheduled maintenance time, the back office 210 sends the end-devices 125 an "ignore" command at 1:00 a.m. on Tuesday and a "stop ignoring" at 4:00 a.m. on Tuesday” and ¶ 0035 “Alternatively, the back office 210 can send an "ignore" command to the end-devices 125 at any time before 1:00 a.m. on Tuesday and can use the "ignore` conditions to specify a Tuesday, 1:00 a.m. start time and a Tuesday, 4:00 a.m. end time. Based on the "ignore" conditions, the NIC 302 can automatically set the status flag at 1:00 a.m. on Tuesday and can automatically unset the status flag at 4:00 a.m. on Tuesday without requiring further commands or signals from the back office 210”; see ¶ 0031, ¶ 0033 showing the NIC 302 can store and reference the information and conditions relating to the ignore command)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included receiving and storing the “ignore mode” command and conditions (which pertain to maintenance schedule times) for the utility device of Kiss in the tamper detection system of Iliev/Kiss with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230041634 A1 to Iliev in view of US 20190219618 A1 to Davis et al. (Davis).
Claim 19: Iliev discloses claim 11. With respect to the limitation:
wherein the utility device is selected from the group consisting of an electrical meter and a boiler
Iliev teaches a utility device such as a gas meter (Iliev: Fig. 2, ¶ 0019), but does not explicitly teach the utility device being an electrical meter or boiler. However, Davis teaches a utility meter enclosure/cabinet which may be used for housing utility devices including, but not limited to gas meters, electric meters, and hybrid combinations of gas and electric meters, and monitored to detect tampering (Davis: ¶ 0034, ¶ 0036-0038, ¶ 0050, ¶ 0064). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a utility device being an electrical meter as taught by Davis in the tamper detection system of Iliev, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 20: Iliev/Davis teach claim 19. Iliev, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the controller is in communication with the utility device (Iliev: ¶ 0020-0024 showing the index PCBA comprising processor 224 is in communication with the MIG PCBA, and ¶ 0020 “Each MIG PCBA may be configured to operate one or more devices, such as a valve, valve motor, sensor, switch, etc. In an example, a main gas shutoff valve 228 and valve motor 228 is controlled by the MIG PCBA 214”; also see ¶ 0015 showing FMU which (flow measuring unit) in communication with the index PCBA and processor),
wherein the controller is further configured to receive an operational state indication from the utility device (Iliev: ¶ 0015 “The index PCBA may include a processor and memory, and may be configured to receive gas consumption data and gas pressure data from the FMU and/or one or more MIG PCBA or sensor devices”; also see ¶ 0042 showing reporting an operation or event from the MIG PCBA to the index PCBA that a main gas valve has been closed), and
wherein the operational state indication from the utility device includes data relating to an operation being executed by the utility device when the first air pressure and the second air pressure are received from the pressure sensor (Iliev: ¶ 0042, Fig. 3 showing after comparing pressure differences to threshold, an operational state may be change to close a gas valve and then report the valve closed information to the index PCBA)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hunter Molnar whose telephone number is (571)272-8271. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 - 4:00 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 supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/HUNTER MOLNAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3628