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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation of “a device under test fault is raised”, wherein it is unclear what “a device” is referring to. Specifically, it is unclear as to what the exact relationship the “a device” have with the “two or more heating devices”, since the term “a device” has not differentiated how the “a device” are distinct from the recited “two or more heating devices” already recited in the claim. Is the term “a device under test fault is raised” requiring that there be a third device or referring back to the already recited “two or more heating devices”? Since the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, the limitation is indefinite, the claim is rendered indefinite and determined to be an antecedent basis issue.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency from a claim that has been rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saruwatari US 20090320507 A1 in view of CN ‘ 089 (CN112556089A).
Re claim 1, Saruwatari teach a diagnostic method of a system having a controller, two or more heating devices each having a heat exchanger (116), a valve (115) disposed upstream of the heat exchanger (noting everything is either upstream or downstream in a loop during operation), a device under test fault is raised (para 95).
Saruwatari fail to explicitly teach diagnostic method details.
CN ‘ 089 teach and a temperature sensor disposed downstream of the heat exchanger (para 101), said diagnostic method comprising, using the controller (page 1 last three paragraphs) to:
(a) identify active heating devices of the two or more heating devices in the system
to result in two or more active heating devices (page 1 last three paragraphs);
(b) determine at least one test to be performed on said two or more active heating
devices, said at least one test involves a unique pairing of said two or more
active heating devices, wherein said unique pairing comprises a first heating
device comprising a first valve and a first temperature sensor and a second
heating device comprising a second valve and a second temperature sensor (page 1 last three paragraphs);
(c) send a first command to open the first valve, obtain a response of the first
heating device as indicated by the first temperature sensor to said first command
and determine the existence of a first temperature rise as indicated by the first
temperature sensor, wherein if the first temperature rise does not exist, a first
deviation exists ( , noting “a temperature rise” is considered a delta, and naturally using a controller to detect a fault of any different bounds others than the expected delta teach the limitations of “determine the existence of a first temperature rise as indicated by the first
temperature sensor, wherein if the first temperature rise does not exist, a first
deviation exists”; page 1 last three paragraphs); and
(d) send a second command to open the second valve, obtain a response of the
second heating device as indicated by the second temperature sensor to said
second command and determine the existence of a second temperature rise as
indicated by the second temperature sensor, wherein if the second temperature
rise does not exist, a second deviation exists, wherein if both said first deviation
and said second deviation exist, a cross-wire fault is raised (page 3) and if only one of said first deviation and said second deviation exists (page 1 last three paragraphs, page 3), a device under test fault is raised (page 3) to compare differences between activating two separate valves in parallel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include diagnostic method details as taught by CN ‘ 089 in the Saruwatari invention in order to advantageously allow for xxx ().
Saruwatari , as modified, fail to explicitly teach duplication details.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include and (e) repeat steps (c)-(d) until said at least one test has been completed to advantageously allow for repeated diagnosing since it has been held that a mere duplication of the essential working parts involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04, section VI, part B.
Re claim 2, Saruwatari teach further comprising sending a first command to open the first valve as part of a normal operation of the first valve (page 4 first paragraph).
Re claim 3, Saruwatari teach further comprising sending a first command to open the first valve as part of an exerciser (page 4 first paragraph).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20190024908 A1, US 20180252418 A1, US 7804047 B2, US 20180313561 A1, US11473799, US11567490, US11226053, US12209772 , US 2020/0200417 Al, US 2021/0341165 Al;
US 20220178567 A1 teach a single valve diagnostic;
US 20150233597 A1 smart valve which uses a diagnostic and with opening valves but not in direct response to opening the valves;
US 11287144 B2 pressure relief valves related to temperature response from a single valve diagnostic.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/GORDON A JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights