DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office action is responsive to the communication filed on 12/06/2024. The claims 1-20 are pending, of which the claim(s) 1, 10, & 17 is/are in independent form.
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to Judicial Exception (“abstract idea”) without significantly more.
As to claim 17
17. A method of detecting a pressure relief valve nearing activation, the method comprising:
receiving sensor data corresponding to an identification of a pressure sensor within a fluid system, the pressure sensor to measure pressure within the pressure relief valve, the pressure relief valve including an inlet and a dome;
receiving setpoint data corresponding to an activation pressure of the pressure relief valve;
receiving pressure data from the pressure sensor; and
determining if the pressure relief valve is nearing activation based on the sensor data, the pressure data, and the setpoint data.
1. Step 1: Yes. The claim is to a method with series of steps, which is one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
2. Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes. The claim recites “determining if the pressure relief valve is nearing activation based on the sensor data, the pressure data, and the setpoint data”.
This limitation (shown above with the bold emphasis) can be practically performed in human’s mind at most with the aid of pen and paper hence is an example of “Mental Processes”. This limitation merely requires human user to analyze/evaluate sensor data like sensor identification, the pressure data from the sensor, and the setpoint data, which are all numerical values. Based on human’s knowledge/opinion, they can judge that pressure relief valve is nearing activation. For example, applicant’s own specification in para. [047] of the specification shows that when first and second sensor’s pressure difference is almost reaching the activation threshold, relief valve is nearing activation is concluded. Simply put, in the claim, the determining step is simple enough for human user to perform it in their head, at most with the aid of pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
3. Step 2A, Prong 2: No. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim requires 3 receiving steps (shown above without bold emphasis), and they all are additional elements. Please note that all these receiving steps are recited at very high level of generality as part of data gathering step so that the last determining of pressure relief valve is nearing activation (mental processes) can be performed. Therefore, all of these receiving steps are akin to adding pre-solution insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the limitation of “the pressure sensor to measure pressure within the pressure relief valve, the pressure relief valve including an inlet and a dome” is akin to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The individual and combination of additional elements with the abstract idea fail to integrate the abstract idea of determining step into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the above abstract idea other than performing an abstract idea by performing data collection in a technological field of pressure control system using pressure relief valve. The mere determining of pressure relief valve is nearing activation does not provide a practical application/tangible benefits to the pressure relief valve operation unless some other actions are being taken after determining valve is nearing activation. However, the claim is silent on stating what happens after determining the valve is nearing activation. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
4. Step 2B: No. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, since additional elements are recited at high level of generality, all three receiving steps amount to no more than adding of pre-solution insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation of “the pressure sensor to measure pressure within the pressure relief valve, the pressure relief valve including an inlet and a dome” is also akin to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Please note that in Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here for receiving of “sensor data”, “setpoint data” and “pressure data”). Accordingly, the conclusion that the receiving steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. Furthermore, examiner takes an Official notice that all of these three receiving steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activities by relying on the cited prior arts as evidence- Berkheimer memo. The additional elements when considered separately and in combination do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The claim is not patent eligible under 101.
Regarding claim 1:
1. A computing device comprising:
interface circuitry; machine readable instructions; and programmable circuitry to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine readable instructions to:
obtain pressure data from a pressure sensor, the pressure data associated with a differential pressure between a first area of a pressure relief valve and a second area of the pressure relief valve, the first area different than the second area;
obtain setpoint data corresponding to a threshold pressure and an activation pressure of the pressure relief valve;
determine if the differential pressure is between the threshold pressure and the activation pressure based on the pressure data and the setpoint data; and
generate an indication corresponding to the differential pressure being between the threshold pressure and the activation pressure.
1. Step 1: Yes. The claim is to a computing device with an interface circuitry and machine readable instructions and programmable circuitry, which is one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
2. Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes. The claim recites the limitation of “determine if the differential pressure is between the threshold pressure and the activation pressure based on the pressure data and the setpoint data”.
This determining limitation is considered an abstract idea based exception because it can be practically performed in human’s mind. While the claim states the determining step is being performed by a programmable circuitry, the using of the programmable circuitry is not necessary to determine whether the differential pressure is between two ranges (lower threshold, namely “a threshold pressure” for warning generation and higher threshold, namely “activation pressure”). Rather, human mind can simply calculate the pressure differential and can compare (evaluate) with threshold to see whether the pressure difference is between threshold pressure and activation pressure--which is described as a nearing an activation pressure in applicant’s spec in paras. 014, 017. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components as in this case, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
3. Step 2A, Prong 2: No. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
(1) interface circuitry; machine readable instructions; and programmable circuitry to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine readable instructions to:
(2) obtain pressure data from a pressure sensor, the pressure data associated with a differential pressure between a first area of a pressure relief valve and a second area of the pressure relief valve, the first area different than the second area;
(3) obtain setpoint data corresponding to a threshold pressure and an activation pressure of the pressure relief valve;
(4) generate an indication corresponding to the differential pressure being between the threshold pressure and the activation pressure.
Here, all of these four additional elements are recited at very high level of generality. Specifically, the additional element (1) is akin to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element (2) and (3) are akin to mere adding of pre-solution insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and additional element (4) is akin to adding of post-solution insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the portion of additional element (2) “the pressure data associated with a differential pressure between a first area of a pressure relief valve and a second area of the pressure relief valve, the first area different than the second area” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (using of pressure relief valve) – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The individual and combination of additional elements with the abstract idea fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the above abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
4. Step 2B: No. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Even upon reconsideration, the additional elements continue to remain using computer as a tool, adding insignificant extra solution activities to the abstract idea and generally linking the abstract idea into a technological field of computer controlled pressure relief valve. Furthermore, examiner takes an Official notice that the additional elements (2) –(4) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities by relying on the cited prior arts as evidence—Berkheimer memo. Accordingly, the additional elements when considered separately and in combination do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The claim is not patent eligible under 101.
Regarding claim 10:
10. A non-transitory machine readable storage medium comprising instructions to cause programmable circuitry to at least:
[a] obtain sensor identification data corresponding to a sensor operatively coupled to a pressure relief valve within a fluid system, the pressure relief valve coupled to a pressure vessel;
[b] obtain setpoint data corresponding to an activation differential pressure of the pressure relief valve;
[c] obtain pressure data from the sensor, the pressure data corresponding to a differential pressure across a flow control member within the pressure relief valve, the flow control member to selectively fluidly couple and selectively isolate an inlet of the pressure relief valve from an outlet of the pressure relief valve based on the differential pressure rising above or falling below the activation differential pressure of the pressure relief valve; and
[d] determine a state of the pressure relief valve based on the sensor identification data, the setpoint data, and the pressure data.
1. Step 1: Yes. The claim is to a “non-transitory machine readable storage medium”, which is one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
2. Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes. The claim(s) recites limitation of “determine a state of the pressure relief valve based on the sensor identification data, the setpoint data, and the pressure data”. This limitation can be practically performed in human’s mind hence abstract. That is, the limitation of the claim shown above with bold emphasis can be practically performed in human’s mind via user’s judgment, opinion and hence falls into “Mental Processes” grouping of the abstract idea. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
3. Step 2A, Prong 2: No. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the limitations [a] to [c] shown above without the bold emphasis are additional elements. However, these additional elements are recited at high level of generalities for computer controlled fluid system using a pressure relief valve and sensors. These additional elements of all three obtain steps are akin to mere adding insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the individual and combination of additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the above abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
4. Step 2B: No. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are akin to adding insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. Furthermore, all three obtain steps cover well-understood, routine, conventional activities and examiner takes an Official notice to that effect by relying on the cited prior arts as evidence-Berkheimer memo. Accordingly, the additional elements when considered separately and in combination do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The claim is not patent eligible under 101.
Regarding claims 2- 9, 11- 16, & 18- 20, these claims depend on independent claims 1, 10, & 17 respectively and hence recite the same abstract idea and additional elements set forth above in respective independent claims. These claims further add new limitations, but they too can be practically performed in human’s mind since they merely further narrow down the mental processes of the respective base claims hence still abstract except for:
Claim 4-- “generate a second indication corresponding to the state of the pressure relief valve”
Claim 5 – “generating the second indication includes generating an indication corresponding to a closed state of the pressure relief valve”
Claim 6-- “generating the second indication includes generating an indication corresponding to a proportional release state of the pressure relief valve”
Claim 7—“ generating the second indication includes generating an indication
corresponding to a maximum release state of the pressure relief valve”;
Claim 8—“ generating the second indication includes generating an indication
corresponding to an operational error state of the pressure relief valve”;
Claim 18 – “sending the sensor data corresponding to the identification of the pressure relief valve determined to be nearing activation to a control system”.
That is, other than generate a second indication and sending the sensor data limitations, the remaining limitations added by the dependent claims can be practically performed in human’s mind. Here, the generating of second indication limitation in claims 4- 8 and sending the sensor data limitation in claim 18 are recited at high level of generality and hence are akin to mere adding of post-solution extra-solution activity that cannot provide a practical application in Step 2A, Prong 2. Additionally, the generating of second indication and sending of sensor data limitations as claimed are well-understood, routine and conventional activities and examiner takes an Official notice to that effect by relying on the cited prior arts as evidence—Berkheimer memo. The additional elements when considered separately and in combination with the abstract idea do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The dependent claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 10 & 13- 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brazier (US 20030071736 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Brazier teaches a non-transitory machine readable storage medium comprising instructions to cause programmable circuitry [computer 50 of fig. 3] to at least: ([055, 059]);
obtain sensor multiple sensors communicate with the control computer 50 are known to provide sensor specific data about each sensor out of many sensors (items 42, 44, 45) so that the control computer 50 knows which data is from which sensor] corresponding to a sensor [“the sensors may generate and transmit signals representative of their respective function”] operatively coupled to a pressure relief valve [“auxiliary device 12 may be a pressure reduction device”, wherein the auxiliary device “activate, or open, when the pressure of the fluid within the container reaches a predetermined pressure limit that is indicative of an over-pressure condition”] within a fluid system [“a monitoring system for a pressurized container is shown in FIG. 1 and is designated generally by reference number 10”], the pressure relief valve coupled to a pressure vessel ([004, 032, 043-047, 056]);
obtain setpoint data [Fig. 3, “using input device 70, a user may enter specified performance characteristics… and threshold parameters (as described in greater detail below)”] corresponding to an activation differential pressure [“the rated activation pressure of the pressure relief device, temperature parameters”] of the pressure relief valve ([058]);
obtain pressure data from the sensor [sensor 44/45], the pressure data corresponding to a differential pressure [“the pressure differential, i.e. inlet pressure-outlet pressure”] across a flow control member [“Rupture disk 40 is seemingly engaged between an inlet safety head 26 and an outlet safety head 28”] within the pressure relief valve, the flow control member to selectively fluidly couple and selectively isolate an inlet [“inlet pipe 18 has an opening 32”] of the pressure relief valve from an outlet [“Outlet pipe 19 has an opening 34 that provides a vent path for fluid that escapes container 11”] of the pressure relief valve based on the differential pressure rising above [“the fluid in the container reaches the predetermined pressure level, the pressure relief device will activate to create a vent path”, “rupture when the pressure differential across the rupturable portion of the rupture disk reaches a predetermined limit.”] or falling below the activation differential pressure of the pressure relief valve ([036-045, 064-065, 072]); and
determine a state [control computer reading/monitoring of the received “signal from the sensor” and showing a warning message] of the pressure relief valve based on the sensor identification data, the setpoint data, and the pressure data (Abstract, [036, 065-066, 073, 086]).
Brazier teaches:
[0073] Control 50 determines if the operating pressure ratio has been exceeded. (Step 106). When both the inlet and outlet pressure signals are received, control 50 determines if the pressure differential, i.e. inlet pressure-outlet pressure, exceeds the operating pressure ratio threshold. As noted above, the operating pressure ratio is determined as a percentage of the activation pressure of rupture disk 40. The parameters defining the operating pressure ratio threshold may be input into control 50 or default values may be used. If the pressure differential exceeds the operating pressure ratio threshold, an "operating pressure ratio" warning is generated. (Step 107).
[0086] Control 50 may also generate one or more warnings in response to received signals that indicate rupture disk 40 has experienced a pressure event, such as, for example, activation or leaking. As described in greater detail below, these conditions are identified by signals received from one or more of pressure event sensor 42, first pressure sensor 44, and second pressure sensor 45.
It can be argued that the control computer 50 may or may not “obtain sensor identification data” when it processes data from multiple sensors and perform various determination and “generate one or more warnings in response to received signals” ([086]).
However, in order for the computer 50 to clearly distinguish between different sensors (such as inlet sensor 44 vs outlet sensor 45, or “trigger pressure event sensor 42”), the obtaining sensor identification data would help to recognize/distinguish which obtained data belongs was originated from which sensor so that appropriate control decision can be performed at the control computer 50. Accordingly, even if one were to attempt to argue that Brazier may not anticipate the invention of this claim, Brazier still suggests (see MPEP 2144.01) each limitation of the claim including receiving of the sensor identification data and also renders invention of this claim obvious to PHOSITA.
Regarding claim 13, Brazier teaches/suggests the non-transitory machine readable storage medium of claim 10, wherein the setpoint data includes an upper threshold differential pressure [“maximum allowable working pressure”], the upper threshold differential pressure corresponding to the flow control member being at a maximum distance from the inlet, and wherein determining [“determine if the maximum allowable working pressure of the system is being exceeded. “] the state of the pressure relief valve includes determining if the differential pressure is at or above the upper threshold differential pressure ( [008-009, 075]).
Regarding claim 14, Brazier teaches/suggests the non-transitory machine readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein determining the state of the pressure relief valve includes determining if the differential pressure is above [“exceeds the rated activation pressure by a certain percentage, such as, for example 110%”] the activation differential pressure and below the upper threshold differential pressure ( [075, 090]).
Regarding claim 15, Brazier teaches the non-transitory machine readable storage medium of claim 10, wherein the instructions further cause the programmable circuitry to:
obtain sensor identification data corresponding to a second sensor [“first pressure sensor 44 may be exposed to the system fluid”] operatively coupled to the inlet of the pressure relief valve; obtain setpoint data [“the rated activation pressure of the pressure relief device,”] corresponding to an activation gauge pressure of the pressure relief valve; and obtain pressure data from the second sensor corresponding to a pressure in the inlet ([043-046, 058, 078], Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 16, Brazier teaches the non-transitory machine readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein determining the state of the pressure relief valve includes determining [the computer 50 receiving and processing of the collected pressure sensor data by comparing the received pressor sensor with the corresponding thresholds] if the pressure in the inlet is greater than the activation gauge pressure and if the differential pressure is below the activation differential pressure ([058, 073], Fig. 5).
Claim(s) 1-2, 9, 11-12, & 17- 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brazier (US 20030071736 A1) in view of You (CN 117212902 A, Publication Date: 2023-12-12).
Regarding claim 1, Brazier teaches a computing device [Fig. 3, “a control 50 is operatively connected to sensor 14 to receive the generated signal 16”, wherein the control 50 receives data from “multiple sensors” that are “operatively disposed in container 11 and/or auxiliary device 12 to monitor several operating conditions simultaneously at the inlet, outlet, or both the inlet and outlet of the device”] comprising: interface circuitry; machine readable instructions; and programmable circuitry [“Control 50 may include a processor or computer”] to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine readable instructions to: ([050, 054, 058], Figs. 1-3, 5);
obtain pressure data from a pressure sensor [e.g., pressor sensor 44/45/42], the pressure data associated with a differential pressure [“control 50 determines if the pressure differential, i.e. inlet pressure-outlet pressure”] between a first area [“first pressure sensor 44 may be disposed in inlet safety head 26. Alternatively, first pressure sensor 44 may be disposed further upstream of inlet safety head 26 or may be attached directly to pressurized container 11”] of a pressure relief valve [“an auxiliary device 12”, wherein the device 12 of fig. 1 (item 20 of fig. 2) includes “a pressure relief device that is configured to activate, or open, when a fluid within the system reaches a predetermined pressure level… a pressure safety valve, a control valve, a buckling pin device” ] and a second area [“second pressure sensor 45 may be exposed to the system fluid on the outlet side”] of the pressure relief valve, the first area different than the second area ([034, 043-044, 050, 1056, 073]);
obtain setpoint data [Fig. 3, “user may enter specified performance characteristics” from the input device 70] corresponding to a threshold pressure [e.g., “threshold parameters (as described in greater detail below)” or some other information entered by the user from the “input device 70”] and an activation pressure [e.g., “the rated activation pressure of the pressure relief device”, “information needed to determine if the operating pressure ratio is exceeded is input to control 50 as part of the performance characteristics” ] of the pressure relief valve ([058, 065]);
determine if the differential pressure [“control 50 determines if the pressure differential, i.e. inlet pressure-outlet pressure, exceeds the operating pressure ratio threshold”] reaches the activation pressure based on the pressure data and the setpoint data ([011, 065, 073, 075, 2090]); and
generate an indication [“If the pressure differential exceeds the operating pressure ratio threshold, an "operating pressure ratio" warning is generated. (Step 107)”] corresponding to the differential pressure beingreaching the activation pressure ([059, 073, 086]).
Brazier teaches a computing device [computer 50] to monitor pressure difference across the pressure relief device 12 based on the pressure difference sensed by the first sensor 44 and second sensor 45 and generate one or more warning when the operating conditions meet certain conditions such as reaching activation pressure of the pressure relief valve 12 ([059], Figs. 1-3).
While Brazier teaches both of “threshold pressure” and “an activation pressure of the pressure relief valve” and experiencing “a pressure event”, it still may not explicitly teach its generating warning upon meeting certain conditions/pressure event to include “determine if the differential pressure is between the threshold pressure and the activation pressure” and the generated an indication corresponding to the differential pressure being meeting certain conditions include “the differential pressure being between the threshold pressure and the activation pressure” as claimed. Thus, Brazier may not teach limitations shown above with the strikethrough emphasis but are cured by You.
You teaches a computing device [“control module 141 may be communicatively coupled to the differential pressure sensor 132”, analogous to Brazier’s control computer 50] monitoring pressure difference sensed by a differential sensor 132 across a filter [“filter portion 120”, analogous to Brazier’s relief valve “device 12”] of an air conditioning system 100 (Fig. 1 & associated texts, page 7). Specifically, You teaches a computing device [item 141] comprising: interface circuitry; machine readable instructions; and programmable circuitry to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine readable instructions to:
obtain pressure data from a pressure sensor [“differential pressure sensor 132 can correspondingly generate a differential pressure signal and transmit the differential pressure signal to the control module 141 when the differential pressure is detected”], the pressure data associated with a differential pressure between a first area of a filter element of the air conditioner system and a second area of the filter element of the air conditioner system, the first area different than the second area (Page 8);
obtain setpoint data [“the pre-warning threshold and the fault threshold of the first filter member 121 may be 90 Pa and 120 Pa, respectively”] corresponding to a threshold pressure [“pre-warning threshold and the fault threshold can be adjusted according to the speed of the air flowing through the filter”] and an activation pressure [“pressure difference is greater than the fault threshold value”] of the filter element of the air conditioner system (Page 8, page 9);
determine if the differential pressure is between [“when the pressure difference is greater than or equal to the early warning threshold value, and less than or equal to the fault threshold value, it can indicate that the air flowing through the first filter element 121 is subjected to a large resistance”] the threshold pressure and the activation pressure based on the pressure data and the setpoint data; and generate [“air conditioning system 100 may inform the user by sending an early warning signal”] an indication corresponding to the differential pressure being between the threshold pressure and the activation pressure (Page 8).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have (1) combined You and Brazier because they both related to a computing device comparing determined differential pressure across a monitored target with pressure sensors to one or more thresholds and generate warning messages and (2) modified programmable circuitry of Brazier to determine if the differential pressure is between the threshold pressure and the activation pressure based on the pressure data and the setpoint data and generate an indication corresponding to the differential pressure being between the threshold pressure and the activation pressure as in You so that there will be no need to keep checking the activation condition of the relief value 12 periodically when the pressure in the container 11 is increasing (You, page 16, Brazier Fig. 2).
Furthermore, doing so would provide “early warning signal” to the operator that the pressure is approaching the activation pressure level and gives time for user to be prepared for the pressure relief valve 12 to be activated (You, pages 4,13). That is, providing an early warning about the pressure difference being between the threshold pressure and the activation pressure can be understood by PHOSITA as an example of generating warnings when the operating conditions meet certain conditions (Brazier [017, 0059]). Accordingly, Brazier in view of You teaches each element of the claim and renders invention thereof obvious to PHOSITA.
Regarding claim 2, Brazier in view of You teaches the computing device of claim 1, wherein the indication corresponds to the pressure relief valve [“auxiliary device 12 is a rupture disk 40” and determining this device’s pressure is close to activation pressure as in You] being near activation (Brazier [037, 073] & You Page 8).
Regarding claim 9, Brazier in view of You teaches the computing device of claim 1, wherein the setpoint data is received via a user input [“input device 70”] (Brazier [058], Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Brazier further teaches the non-transitory machine readable storage medium of claim 10 as stated above but fails to teach wherein the setpoint data includes a lower threshold differential pressure, the lower threshold differential pressure greater than zero and less than the activation differential pressure, and wherein determining the state of the pressure relief valve includes determining if the differential pressure is above the lower threshold differential pressure and below the activation differential pressure. This deficiency is cured by You.
You teaches a non-transitory machine readable storage medium [“computer readable storage medium…which can remind the user that the filtering effect of the filtering piece is reduced,”] comprising instructions to cause programmable circuitry to at least: obtain pressure data from the sensor and comparing the obtained pressure data with one or more setpoint data, wherein setpoint data includes a lower threshold differential pressure, the lower threshold differential pressure greater than zero and less than the activation differential pressure, and wherein determining the state of the pressure relief valve includes determining [“When the pressure difference is less than the pre-warning threshold, it can be indicated that the air flowing through the first filter member 121 is subjected to relatively small resistance, and the first filter member 121 can ensure good filtering effect when the air conditioning system 100 is inworking state.”] if the differential pressure is above the lower threshold differential pressure and below [“less than or equal to the fault threshold value”] the activation differential pressure (Page 8, Page 16, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have (1) combined You and Brazier because they both related to a computing device comparing determining differential pressure with one or more thresholds to generate warning messages and (2) the non-transitory machine readable storage medium of Brazier to include missing limitations (have the setpoint to include a lower (pre-warning setpoint) thresholds) so that there will be no need to keep checking the activation condition of the relief value periodically when the pressure in the container 11 is increasing (You, page 16, Brazier Fig. 2). Accordingly, Brazier in view of You teaches each element of the claim and renders invention thereof obvious to PHOSITA.
Regarding claim 12, Brazier in view of You teaches the non-transitory machine readable storage medium of claim 11, wherein the setpoint data is obtained via a user input and the lower threshold differential pressure is defined by a user input (Brazier [058] & You Page, page 8, “pre-warning threshold and the fault threshold can be adjusted according to the speed of the air flowing through the filter”).
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claims 1 & 10 are incorporated. Thus, only in summary, Brazier teaches a method of detecting a pressure relief valve [“auxiliary device 12“] nearing activation, the method comprising: (Fig. 5, [034]);
receiving sensor data corresponding to an identification of a pressure sensor within a fluid system [item 10 of fig. 1], the pressure sensor to measure pressure within the pressure relief valve, the pressure relief valve including an inlet and a dome (Figs. 1-3, [056]);
receiving setpoint data [“user may enter specified performance characteristics”] corresponding to an activation pressure of the pressure relief valve ([058]);
receiving [“control 50 is operatively connected to sensor 14 to receive the generated signal 16.”] pressure data from the pressure sensor ([050, 073]); and
determining if the pressure relief valve is at activation based on the sensor data, the pressure data, and the setpoint data ([073]).
Brazier fails to teach determining if the pressure relief valve is nearing activation although it’s control processor keeps monitoring the various sensors and pressure data and also comparing with corresponding setpoint data entered by the user via the input unit 70.
You teaches a method of detecting a fault condition, the method comprising:
receiving sensor data [information about which sensor before recognizing the received data of the sensor] corresponding to an identification of a pressure sensor within a fluid system, the pressure sensor [“differential pressure sensor 132 can detect the differential pressure of the corresponding filter in real time”] to measure pressure within the filter element, pre-warning threshold and the fault threshold can be adjusted according to the speed of the air flowing through the filter”] corresponding to an activation pressure of the filter element; receiving pressure data from the pressure sensor; and determining if the pressure filter element is nearing activation based on the sensor data, the pressure data, and the setpoint data (Page 8- page 13).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have (1) combined You and Brazier because they both related to a monitoring computer comparing collected pressure sensor data with one or more thresholds to generate warnings and (2) modified the method of Brazier to include determining if the pressure relief valve (of Brazier) is nearing activation based on the sensor data, the pressure data, and the setpoint data as in You.
Doing so would allow to provide early warning to an operator of the Brazier about the pressure difference is approaching the activation pressure level and gives time to prepare for the pressure relief valve to begin activation and avoid surprising the user (You, page 13). Furthermore, providing an early warning about the differential pressure reaching between the threshold pressure and the activation pressure can be understood by PHOSITA as an example of generating warnings when the operating conditions meet certain conditions (Brazier [017, 0059]). Accordingly, Brazier in view of You teaches each element of the claim and renders invention thereof obvious to PHOSITA.
Regarding claim 18, Brazier in view of You teaches the method of claim 17, further including sending the sensor data corresponding to the identification of the pressure relief valve determined to be nearing activation to a control system (Brazier [073] & You page 8, page 13).
Regarding claim 19, Brazier in view of You teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the setpoint data includes a minimum threshold pressure [“pre-warning threshold and the fault threshold can be adjusted according to the speed of the air flowing through the filter”] of the pressure relief valve and determining [“when the pressure difference is greater than the ore-warning threshold] if the pressure relief valve is nearing activation includes determining if the pressure data is between the minimum threshold pressure and the activation pressure (Brazier [073] & You page 8, page 13).
Regarding claim 20, Brazier in view of You teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the setpoint data includes a maximum threshold pressure of the pressure relief valve and determining if the pressure relief valve is nearing activation includes determining if the pressure data is between the activation pressure and the maximum threshold pressure (Brazier [073] & You page 8, page 13).
Claim(s) 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brazier in view of You, and further in view of Kalyanasundaram et al. (US 20200103042 A1). The combination of Brazier, You, and Kalyanasundaram is referred as BYK hereinafter.
Regarding claim 3, Brazier in view of You teaches The computing device of claim 1, wherein the first area is an inlet [“first pressure sensor 44 may be disposed further upstream of inlet safety head 2”] of the pressure relief valve and the second area is an outlet of the pressure relief valve (Brazier, Fig. 2, [043-044]).
Brazier in view of You fails to teach the second area is a dome of the pressure
relief valve.
Kalyanasundaram relates to a computing device with a processing circuitry monitoring pressure across pressure relief valve, wherein the processing circuitry obtain pressure data from a pressure sensor, the pressure data associated with a differential pressure between a first area of a pressure relief valve and a second area of the pressure relief valve, the first area different than the second area ([047]). Specifically, Kalyanasundaram teaches wherein the first area is an inlet of the pressure relief valve and the second area is a dome [“measure and transmit one or more of a pressure differential between the valve inlet 68 and the dome 66”] of the pressure relief valve ([050-051, 060]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have (1) combined Kalyanasundaram and Brazier in view of You because they both related to determining pressure differential across a pressure relief valve and (2) modified the system of Brazier in view of You to include the second area from a dome of the pressure
relief valve as in Kalyanasundaram. Doing so would allow the determining pressure differential from another redundant/backup position (from dome of the relief valve) so that even if the outlet sensor 45 of Brazier fails, the generating of the warnings and the comparing of the pressure difference with associated thresholds can continue.
Regarding claim 4, BYK further teaches The computing device of claim 3, wherein the programmable circuitry is further to: determine [comparing of the pressure sensor data with user entered “performance characteristics”] a state of the pressure relief valve based on the pressure data and the setpoint data; and generate a second indication [the computer 50 generating the relationship between pressure sensor data and the “performance characteristics”] corresponding to the state of the pressure relief valve (Brazier, [087-088], Claim 15, Fig. 2 & You, page 8).
Regarding claim 5, BYK further teaches The computing device of claim 4, wherein determining the state of the pressure relief valve includes determining [Brazier Fig. 4, No in Step S84] if the differential pressure is below the activation pressure based on the pressure data and the setpoint data, and generating the second indication includes generating [“may inform the user by sending an early warning signal”] an indication corresponding to a closed state of the pressure relief valve (You, page 8, Brazier [065, 073, 087]).
Regarding claim 6, BYK further teaches the computing device of claim 4, wherein: the setpoint data includes a second threshold pressure [“user may enter specified performance characteristics …the maximum allowable working pressure of the system”], the second threshold pressure greater than the activation pressure; determining the state of the pressure relief valve includes determining if the differential pressure is greater than the activation pressure and less than the second threshold pressure based on the pressure data and the setpoint data and generating the second indication includes generating an indication corresponding to a proportional release state of the pressure relief valve (Brazier [039, 058, 090], & Kalyanasundaram [037]).
Regarding claim 7, BYK further teaches/suggests the computing device of claim 4, wherein: the setpoint data includes a second threshold pressure [“the maximum allowable working pressure of the system”], the second threshold pressure greater than the activation pressure (Brazier [058]); determining the state of the pressure relief valve includes determining if the differential pressure is greater than the second threshold pressure based on the pressure data and the setpoint data; and generating the second indication includes generating an indication corresponding to a maximum release state [“percentage that indicates a degree to which a particular valve is open,”] of the pressure relief valve (Brazier [075, 091] Kalyanasundaram [037]).
Regarding claim 8, BYK further teaches/suggests the computing device of claim 4, wherein: obtaining the pressure data includes obtaining pressure data from a second pressure sensor [e.g., “control 50 receives a signal from pressure event sensor 42 that the rupture disk has activated”], the second pressure sensor to generate a gauge pressure measurement associated with the second area; the setpoint data includes an activation gauge pressure [“The system includes a pressure event sensor operable to generate an event signal when a significant pressure event is identified”, any pressure value that indicates significant pressure event]; determining the state of the pressure relief valve includes determining if the gauge pressure measurement is greater than the activation gauge pressure and the differential pressure is less than the activation pressure based on the pressure data and the setpoint data; and generating the second indication includes generating an indication corresponding to an operational error state of the pressure relief valve (Brazier [023, 058, 075, 087, 091] Kalyanasundaram [037]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Dultra (US 20240044420 A1) teaches verify whether the relief valve 100 can be expected to also open during system operation(e.g., when a set pressure is reached) ([065]).
2) Koukoravas (US 20220155170 A1) teaches when pressure difference becomes too high, the operator can change or clean the filter ([029]).
3) Bass (US 20190375389 A1) arranged to open when subject to a pressure differential at or above a threshold value (Abstract).
4) Yue (CN 116552203 A) teaches depending on the sensed pressure, adjusting the opening degree of the pressure relief valve 104(“As an embodiment of the present application, when the calculated pressure difference parameter is higher than 5 Pa and not higher than 50 Pa, the pressure relief valve 104 is opened to 50 % of the maximum opening; When the calculated pressure difference parameter is higher than 50 Pa, the pressure relief valve 104 is completely opened”).
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANTOSH R. POUDEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 am - 5:00 pm).
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/SANTOSH R POUDEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 “control 50 is configured to receive signals representative of the operating conditions of the container
and perhaps also the auxiliary device(s) as generated by the temperature, pressure, and burst sensors”
2 “pressure differential, as sensed by first pressure sensor 44 and second pressure sensor 45, exceeds the rated activation pressure by a certain percentage”
