DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-25 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s representative amended claims 1 (and, similarly claims 11 & 21) to further recite: “[...] the one or more magnetic field sensors configured to sense a movement of the one or more permanent magnets to determine a moving of the movable feature to determine a health of the safety valve.” Applicant’s representative argues that the amendments are sufficient in overcoming the most recent prior art rejection. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the claims are still broad in nature and do not overcome the most recent prior art rejection, as detailed herein. If there is a critical feature in the claims that have a certain degree of importance, it is advised to include that language in the claim(s) in keeping with the instant specification for purposes of overcoming the most recent prior art rejection.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
The line quality of all the drawings, when zoomed in, illustrate an inconsistent line quality. 37 CFR 1.84 (Standards for Drawings), section L (Character of lines, numbers, and letters) states: “All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined”. The drawings should be viewed in the USPTO’s patent center in order to see this problem.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 (and, similarly claims 11 and 21) is/are objected to because of the following informalities and should likely read as follows: “[...] one or more magnetic field sensors coupled to one of the fixed features of the safety valve...”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 (and, similarly claim 19) is/are objected to because of the following informalities and should likely read as follows: “[...] wherein the one or more permanent magnets are coupled to one of the movable features of the safety valve or the fixed feature of the safety valve and the one or more magnetic field sensors coupled to [[an other]]another of the fixed feature of the safety valve of the movable feature of the safety valve”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is/are objected to because of the following informalities and should likely read as follows: “[...] sensing [[a]]the movement of the movable feature using the one or more permanent magnets and the one or more magnetic field sensors to determine a health of the safety valve”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-5, 9-15 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biddick et al. (US Publication Number 2013/0341034 A1; herein “Biddick”) in view of Shaw et al. (US Publication Number 2006/0157240 A1; herein “Shaw”).
In regard to claim 1, Biddick discloses: A safety valve (12— as shown in figure 1), comprising:
an outer housing (i.e., outer tubular housing of 12);
a bore flow management actuator (comprising 17, 26) disposed within the outer housing (paragraph [0034] and figures 3-4);
a valve closure mechanism (i.e., mechanism comprising 22) disposed within the outer housing (paragraphs [0021-0022, 0024-0029] and figures 3-8), the bore flow management actuator configured to slide from a first initial state to a first subsequent state (i.e., various arbitrary states as shown in figures 5-8) to move the valve closure mechanism between a first closed state (figure 8) and a first open state (figure 5 — paragraphs [0021-0022, 0024-0029]);
one or more permanent magnets (29) coupled to one of a movable feature (at least 22, 26) of the safety valve or a fixed feature of the safety valve (paragraphs [0029, 0036] and figures 3-8); and
one or more magnetic field sensors (46, 48) coupled to one of the fixed features of the safety valve or the movable feature of the safety valve and positioned proximate the one or more permanent magnets (figures 3-8 and paragraphs [0021-0022, 0024-0036]).
Though Biddick teaches for the one or more magnetic field sensors (46, 48) to sense each other which in turn activates latch (29) to actuate the movable feature (22), Biddick fails to teach: the one or more magnetic field sensors configured to sense a movement of the one or more permanent magnets to determine a moving of the movable feature to determine a health of the safety valve.
Nonetheless, Shaw teaches a similar downhole subsurface safety valve (abstract), similar to that of Biddick. Shaw teaches that magnetic field sensors (14, 28, 30, 32, 70) coupled to subsurface safety valve assembly can sense/communicate information (via 34, 36) in regard to the state (“health”) of the movable feature (18) via signals sent to the surface (paragraphs [0017-0020, 0026]). Furthermore, Shaw teaches that one of the magnets used therein is permanent type (paragraphs [0016, 0019]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the magnetic safety valve, as taught by Biddick, to include for magnetic field sensors configured to sense a movement of the movable feature to determine a health of the safety valve using permanent magnets, as taught by Shaw, as it is important to have knowledge of the position and/or condition of SCSSV's for various reasons (paragraph [0003]).
In regard to claim 2, Biddick further discloses: wherein the movable feature is at least a portion of the bore flow management actuator (paragraphs [0021-0022, 0024-0036]).
In regard to claim 3, Biddick further discloses: wherein the bore flow management actuator includes a flow tube main body (26) configured to move the valve closure mechanism between the first closed state and the first open state, and further wherein the movable feature is the flow tube main body (paragraphs [0021-0022, 0024-0036] and figures 3-8).
In regard to claim 4, Biddick further discloses: wherein the movable feature is the valve closure mechanism (paragraphs [0021-0022, 0024-0036] and figures 3-8).
In regard to claim 5, Biddick further discloses: wherein the valve closure mechanism is a flapper valve (paragraphs [0021-0022, 0024-0036] and figures 3-8).
In regard to claim 9, Biddick further discloses: wherein the one or more permanent magnets are coupled to one of the movable features of the safety valve or the fixed feature of the safety valve and the one or more magnetic field sensors coupled to [[an other]]another of the fixed feature of the safety valve of the movable feature of the safety valve (as shown in figures 3-8).
In regard to claim 10, Biddick further discloses: wherein the one or more permanent magnets are coupled to the movable feature and the one or more magnetic field sensors are coupled to the fixed feature (as shown in figures 3-8).
In regard to claim 11, Biddick discloses: A well system (as shown in figure 1), comprising:
a wellbore (14) extending through one or more subterranean formations (5 — figure 1);
production tubing (20) disposed in the wellbore (figure 1); and
a safety valve (12— as shown in figure 1) disposed in the wellbore, the safety valve including:
an outer housing (i.e., outer tubular housing of 12);
a bore flow management actuator (comprising 17, 26) disposed within the outer housing (paragraph [0034] and figures 3-4);
a valve closure mechanism (i.e., mechanism comprising 22) disposed within the outer housing (paragraphs [0021-0022, 0024-0029] and figures 3-8), the bore flow management actuator configured to slide from a first initial state to a first subsequent (i.e., various arbitrary states as shown in figures 5-8) state to move the valve closure mechanism between a first closed state (figure 8) and a first open state (figure 5 — paragraphs [0021-0022, 0024-0029]);
one or more permanent magnets (29) coupled to one of a movable feature (at least 22, 26) of the safety valve or a fixed feature of the safety valve (paragraphs [0029, 0036] and figures 3-8); and
one or more magnetic field sensors (46, 48) coupled to one of the fixed features of the safety valve or the movable feature of the safety valve and positioned proximate the one or more permanent magnets (figures 3-8 and paragraphs [0021-0022, 0024-0036]).
Though Biddick teaches for the one or more magnetic field sensors (46, 48) to sense each other which in turn activates latch (29) to actuate the movable feature (22), Biddick fails to teach: the one or more magnetic field sensors configured to sense a movement of the one or more permanent magnets to determine a moving of the movable feature to determine a health of the safety valve.
Nonetheless, Shaw teaches a similar downhole subsurface safety valve (abstract), similar to that of Biddick. Shaw teaches that magnetic field sensors (14, 30, 32, 70) coupled to subsurface safety valve assembly can sense/communicate information (via 34, 36) in regard to the state (“health”) of the movable feature (18) via signals sent to the surface (paragraphs [0017-0020, 0026]). Furthermore, Shaw teaches that one of the magnets used therein is permanent type (paragraphs [0016, 0019]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the magnetic safety valve, as taught by Biddick, to include for magnetic field sensors configured to sense a movement of the movable feature to determine a health of the safety valve using permanent magnets, as taught by Shaw, as it is important to have knowledge of the position and/or condition of SCSSV's for various reasons (paragraph [0003]).
In regard to claim 12, Biddick further discloses: wherein the movable feature is at least a portion of the bore flow management actuator (paragraphs [0021-0022, 0024-0036]).
In regard to claim 13, Biddick further discloses: wherein the bore flow management actuator includes a flow tube main body (26) configured to move the valve closure mechanism between the first closed state and the first open state, and further wherein the movable feature is the flow tube main body (paragraphs [0021-0022, 0024-0036] and figures 3-8).
In regard to claim 14, Biddick further discloses: wherein the movable feature is the valve closure mechanism (paragraphs [0021-0022, 0024-0036] and figures 3-8).
In regard to claim 15, Biddick further discloses: wherein the valve closure mechanism is a flapper valve (paragraphs [0021-0022, 0024-0036] and figures 3-8).
In regard to claim 19, Biddick further discloses: wherein the one or more permanent magnets are coupled to one of the movable features of the safety valve or the fixed feature of the safety valve and the one or more magnetic field sensors coupled to [[an other]]another of the fixed feature of the safety valve of the movable feature of the safety valve (as shown in figures 3-8).
In regard to claim 20, Biddick further discloses: wherein the one or more permanent magnets are coupled to the movable feature and the one or more magnetic field sensors are coupled to the fixed feature (as shown in figures 3-8).
In regard to claim 21, Biddick discloses: A method (abstract and paragraph [0005]), comprising:
positioning a safety valve (12) within a wellbore (14) extending through one or more subterranean formations (5 — figure 1), the safety valve disposed in production tubing (20 — figure 1), the safety valve including:
an outer housing (i.e., outer tubular housing of 12);
a bore flow management actuator (comprising 17, 26) disposed within the outer housing (paragraph [0034] and figures 3-4);
a valve closure mechanism (i.e., mechanism comprising 22) disposed within the outer housing (paragraphs [0021-0022, 0024-0029] and figures 3-8), the bore flow management actuator configured to slide from a first initial state to a first subsequent state (i.e., various arbitrary states as shown in figures 5-8) to move the valve closure mechanism between a first closed state (figure 8) and a first open state (figure 5 — paragraphs [0021-0022, 0024-0029]);
one or more permanent magnets (29) coupled to one of a movable feature (at least 22, 26) of the safety valve or a fixed feature of the safety valve (paragraphs [0029, 0036] and figures 3-8); and
one or more magnetic field sensors (46, 48) coupled to one of the fixed features of the safety valve or the movable feature of the safety valve and positioned proximate the one or more permanent magnets (figures 3-8 and paragraphs [0021-0022, 0024-0036]).
Though Biddick teaches for the one or more magnetic field sensors (46, 48) to sense each other which in turn activates latch (29) to actuate the movable feature (22), Biddick fails to teach: the one or more magnetic field sensors configured to sense a movement of the one or more permanent magnets to determine a moving of the movable feature to determine a health of the safety valve; and
sensing the moving of the movable feature by using the movement of the one
one or more permanent magnets using one or more magnetic field sensors to determine a health of the safety valve.
Nonetheless, Shaw teaches a similar downhole subsurface safety valve (abstract), similar to that of Biddick. Shaw teaches that magnetic field sensors (14, 30, 32, 70) coupled to subsurface safety valve assembly can sense/communicate information (via 34, 36) in regard to the state (“health”) of the movable feature (18) via signals sent to the surface (paragraphs [0017-0020, 0026]). Furthermore, Shaw teaches that one of the magnets used therein is permanent type (paragraphs [0016, 0019]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the magnetic safety valve, as taught by Biddick, to include for magnetic field sensors configured to sense a movement of the movable feature to determine a health of the safety valve using permanent magnets, as taught by Shaw, as it is important to have knowledge of the position and/or condition of SCSSV's for various reasons (paragraph [0003]).
In regard to claim 24, in view of the modification of the preceding claim, Biddick further discloses: wherein the one or more magnetic field sensors are configured to couple with a processor (as taught by paragraphs [0025, 0036] of Biddick) configured to analyze sensor data to detect anomalies indicative of a degradation of the safety valve (as taught by Shaw).
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biddick et al. (US Publication Number 2013/0341034 A1; herein “Biddick”) in view of Shaw et al. (US Publication Number 2006/0157240 A1; herein “Shaw”) in further view of Vick, Jr. (US Publication Number 2012/0032099 A1; herein “Vick, Jr.”).
In regard to claim 6, Biddick in view of Shaw disclose claim the preceding claim(s).
However, Biddick in view of Shaw are silent in regard to: wherein the valve closure mechanism is a ball valve.
Nonetheless, Vick, Jr. teaches a similar downhole subsurface safety valve (abstract), similar to that of Biddick. Vick, Jr. cites: “[...] a ball valve type of closure assembly could be used in place of the flapper type closure assembly 24” (paragraph [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the valve mechanism (i.e., flapper valve), as taught by Biddick, to be a ball valve, as taught by Vick, Jr., in light of simple substitution of a known closure valve assembly since Vick, Jr. expressly teaches that ball valves are known alternatives (further supported by MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B).
In regard to claim 16, Biddick in view of Shaw disclose claim the preceding claim(s).
However, Biddick in view of Shaw are silent in regard to: wherein the valve closure mechanism is a ball valve.
Nonetheless, Vick, Jr. teaches a similar downhole subsurface safety valve (abstract), similar to that of Biddick. Vick, Jr. cites: “[...] a ball valve type of closure assembly could be used in place of the flapper type closure assembly 24” (paragraph [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the valve mechanism (i.e., flapper valve), as taught by Biddick, to be a ball valve, as taught by Vick, Jr., in light of simple substitution of a known closure valve assembly since Vick, Jr. expressly teaches that ball valves are known alternatives (further supported by MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B).
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biddick et al. (US Publication Number 2013/0341034 A1; herein “Biddick”) in view of Shaw et al. (US Publication Number 2006/0157240 A1; herein “Shaw”) in further view of Martinez (US Publication Number 2016/0115782 A1; herein “Martinez”).
In regard to claim 7, Biddick in view of Shaw disclose claim 1 above.
However, Biddick in view of Shaw are silent in regard to: wherein the one or magnetic field sensors are configured to sense a velocity of movement of the movable feature to determine the health of the safety valve.
Nonetheless, Martinez teaches a valve to be incorporated in the downhole system, similar to that of Biddick. Furthermore, Martinez discloses that its downhole valve (10) can be incorporated with a sensor (30), such as, but not limited to, position sensor, operation sensor, velocity sensor, etc. (paragraph [0004, 0016, 0021]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to simply substitute the sensor system parameters/mechanism sensing the movement of the movable feature (i.e., positioning/seating), as taught by Biddick in view of Shaw, with detecting velocity, as taught by Martinez, to yield the predictable result of remotely determining the status (“health”) of downhole element(s) (paragraph [0021] of Martinez). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B.
In regard to claim 17, Biddick in view of Shaw disclose claim 11 above.
However, Biddick in view of Shaw are silent in regard to: wherein the one or magnetic field sensors are configured to sense a velocity of movement of the movable feature to determine the health of the safety valve.
Nonetheless, Martinez teaches a valve to be incorporated in the downhole system, similar to that of Biddick. Furthermore, Martinez discloses that its downhole valve (10) can be incorporated with a sensor (30), such as, but not limited to, position sensor, operation sensor, velocity sensor, etc. (paragraph [0004, 0016, 0021]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to simply substitute the sensor system parameters/mechanism sensing the movement of the movable feature (i.e., positioning/seating), as taught by Biddick in view of Shaw, with detecting velocity, as taught by Martinez, to yield the predictable result of remotely determining the status (“health”) of downhole element(s) (paragraph [0021] of Martinez). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biddick et al. (US Publication Number 2013/0341034 A1; herein “Biddick”) in view of Shaw et al. (US Publication Number 2006/0157240 A1; herein “Shaw”) in further view of Mackenzie (US Publication Number 2007/0102164 A1; herein “Mackenzie”).
In regard to claim 8, Biddick in view of Shaw disclose claim 1 above.
However, Biddick in view of Shaw are silent in regard to: wherein the one or magnetic field sensors are configured to sense an acceleration versus time of movement of the movable feature to determine the health of the safety valve.
Nonetheless, Mackenzie teaches a valve to be incorporated in the downhole system, similar to that of Biddick. Furthermore, Mackenzie cites: “[...] an accelerometer or position sensor is associated with the circulating valve to determine when the packer or other tool has reached its desired depth” (paragraph [0006] | also, see paragraph [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to simply substitute the sensor system parameters/mechanism sensing the movement of the movable feature (i.e., positioning/seating), as taught by Biddick in view of Shaw, with detecting an acceleration versus time, as taught by Mackenzie, to yield the predictable result of remotely determining the positioning(s)/status (“health”) of downhole element(s) (paragraphs [0006, 0022] of Mackenzie). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B.
In regard to claim 18, Biddick in view of Shaw disclose claim 11 above.
However, Biddick in view of Shaw are silent in regard to: wherein the one or magnetic field sensors are configured to sense an acceleration versus time of movement of the movable feature to determine the health of the safety valve.
Nonetheless, Mackenzie teaches a valve to be incorporated in the downhole system, similar to that of Biddick. Furthermore, Mackenzie cites: “[...] an accelerometer or position sensor is associated with the circulating valve to determine when the packer or other tool has reached its desired depth” (paragraph [0006] | also, see paragraph [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to simply substitute the sensor system parameters/mechanism sensing the movement of the movable feature (i.e., positioning/seating), as taught by Biddick in view of Shaw, with detecting an acceleration versus time, as taught by Mackenzie, to yield the predictable result of remotely determining the positioning(s)/status (“health”) of downhole element(s) (paragraphs [0006, 0022] of Mackenzie). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biddick et al. (US Publication Number 2013/0341034 A1; herein “Biddick”) in view of Shaw et al. (US Publication Number 2006/0157240 A1; herein “Shaw”) in further view of Kyle et al. (US Publication Number 2017/0247960 A1; herein “Kyle”).
In regard to claim 22, Biddick in view of Shaw disclose the preceding claim. Shaw teaches wherein the one or more magnetic field sensors comprise angle-based sensors (paragraphs [0016-0017, 0019]).
However, Biddick in view of Shaw is/are silent in regard to: wherein the one or more magnetic field sensors comprise angle-based sensors selected from the group consisting of giant magnetoresistance (GMR), tunnel magnetoresistance (TMR), and anisotropic magnetoresistance (AMR) sensors.
Nonetheless, Kyle discloses a downhole sensing assembly using magnets (paragraph [0030]), similar to that of Biddick. Kyle cites: “sensor 202 can be any sensor that detects the magnetic field from the magnet, including, but not limited to, Hall effect sensor, magneto-diode, magneto-transistor, anisotropic magnetoresistance (AMR) magnetometer, giant magnetoresistance (GMR) magnetometer, magnetic tunnel junction magnetometer, magneto-optical sensor, Lorentz force-based micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) sensor, electron tunneling-based MEMS sensor, MEMS compass, optically pumped magnetic field sensor, fluxgate magnetometer, search coil magnetic field sensor, and superconducting quantum interference devices (SQUID) magnetometer” (paragraph [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to simply substitute the hall effect sensor, as taught by Biddick in view of Shaw, with, for example, a giant magnetoresistance (GMR) magnetometer, as taught by Kyle, to yield the predictable result of detecting magnetic fields in the wellbore (paragraph [0030] of Kyle). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B.
Claim(s) 23 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biddick et al. (US Publication Number 2013/0341034 A1; herein “Biddick”) in view of Shaw et al. (US Publication Number 2006/0157240 A1; herein “Shaw”) in further view of Oddie (US Publication Number 2010/0154530 A1; herein “Oddie”).
In regard to claim 22, Biddick in view of Shaw disclose the preceding claim. Shaw teaches wherein the one or more magnetic field sensors comprises hall effect sensors (paragraphs [0016-0017, 0019]).
However, Biddick in view of Shaw is/are silent in regard to: wherein the one or more magnetic field sensors are configured to measure a velocity of the movable feature during operation or an acceleration of the movable feature over time.
Nonetheless, Oddie cites: “A convenient and widely used method to measure the rotational velocity of the rotating member is to utilise a Hall effect sensor, involving locating a permanent magnet on the rotatable member. As the member rotates, the distance between the magnet and a circuit oscillates, producing a measurable effect with a frequency equal to that of the oscillation. This method is highly favoured because it does not require physical contact with the rotating member, giving a more accurate reading” (paragraph [0004]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to simply substitute method of sensing using the hall effect sensor, as taught by Biddick, with sensing velocity utilizing the Hall effect sensor, as taught by Oddie, to yield the predictable result of giving a more accurate reading (paragraph [0004] of Oddie). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B.
In regard to claim 25, in view of the modification of the preceding claim(s), Biddick further discloses: wherein the processor (as taught by paragraph [0025, 003] of Biddick) is configured to generate a health status signal based on deviations (as taught by Shaw).
However, Biddick in view of Shaw is/are silent in regard to: wherein the processor is configured to generate a health status signal based on deviations in velocity or acceleration profiles from baseline operational data.
Nonetheless, Oddie cites: “A convenient and widely used method to measure the rotational velocity of the rotating member is to utilise a Hall effect sensor, involving locating a permanent magnet on the rotatable member. As the member rotates, the distance between the magnet and a circuit oscillates, producing a measurable effect with a frequency equal to that of the oscillation. This method is highly favoured because it does not require physical contact with the rotating member, giving a more accurate reading” (paragraph [0004]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to simply substitute method of sensing using the hall effect sensor, as taught by Biddick in view of Shaw, with sensing velocity utilizing the Hall effect sensor, as taught by Oddie, to yield the predictable result of giving a more accurate reading (paragraph [0004] of Oddie). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEEL PATEL whose telephone number is (469)295-9168. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00AM-5:00PM CST.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/NEEL GIRISH PATEL/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights