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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1–6 and 9–22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,339,073. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from the claims of the patent.
Regarding present claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,339,073 claims a method for monitoring a shell-and-tube device comprising a tube sheet having a plurality of tube ends arranged in a fixed pattern of rows and columns. Patent claim 1 further recites assigning a unique identifier to locations associated with the tube ends, acquiring an initial digital image at an initial acquisition time, determining from the digital image a visually distinguishable state associated with respective tube ends, and creating a data record in a relational database containing the initial acquisition time, unique identifier, and determined state. In particular, the patented method employs colored indicator disks associated with the tube ends, wherein different colors represent distinguishable states that are determined from the acquired digital image and recorded in the relational database.
Present claim 1 differs principally in broadly reciting “determining a state of an attribute for each of the tube ends” and defining the attribute as comprising at least one of several alternatives, including “visual appearance of markers installed either in or on the tube ends.” The colored indicator disks recited in patent claim 1 constitute visually distinguishable markers associated with the tube ends, and their different colors constitute different states of the visual appearance of those markers. Thus, the presently claimed “attribute” encompasses the same type of visually detectable marker condition already claimed in U.S. Patent No. 12,339,073.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to characterize the different visually detectable colors of the indicators of the patented method as respective states of a visual-appearance attribute and to associate the unique identifiers directly with the corresponding tube ends rather than the plugging plates positioned over those tube ends, because the plugging plates and indicators are positioned in correspondence with the respective tube locations and serve to identify and record the status of those tube locations. Such modification merely expresses the same monitoring information at the underlying tube-end level and would have yielded the predictable result of tracking the condition associated with each identified tube end.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention. Claim 13 recites “until said maintenance activity is complete.” However, neither claim 13 nor claim 1, from which claim 13 depends, previously introduces a “maintenance activity.” Therefore, it is unclear what maintenance activity is referenced by “said maintenance activity.”
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. Claims 14 and 15 respectively recite “said shell and tube device.” However, claim 1, from which claims 14 and 15 depend, does not previously introduce a “shell and tube device.” Claim 1 recites a “tube sheet,” but does not establish that the tube sheet forms part of the subsequently recited shell and tube device. Accordingly, the scope of “said shell and tube device” is unclear.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite because the claim recites “the maintenance activity,” whereas no maintenance activity is previously recited in claim 17 or claim 1, from which claim 17 depends. Therefore, it is unclear which activity the recited performance metrics concern.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite because the recitation “until said maintenance activity is complete” lacks antecedent basis. Neither claim 19 nor claims 18, 6, 5, and 1, from which claim 19 depends, previously recites a maintenance activity.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite because the recitation “the maintenance activity” lacks antecedent basis. Neither claim 22 nor claim 18 and its parent claims previously establishes a maintenance activity to which the predicted time-to-completion refers.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9, 11-13 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher et al. (US 2021/0065356 A1) in view of Johns et al. (US 2009/0095211 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fisher teaches a method for monitoring a tube sheet comprising a plurality of tube ends arranged in a fixed pattern of rows (R) and columns (C). Fisher describes a heat exchanger having a tube sheet 118 with a plurality of tube openings corresponding to tubes 110, and expressly teaches that the tube openings are arranged in a grid of rows and orthogonal columns. Fisher further teaches a truth table identifying each tube by its corresponding row and column numbers. (Fisher, paras. [0040]-[0042], [0052]; Fig. 6A).
Fisher teaches assigning a unique identifier to each of said plurality of tube ends, because the truth table includes an entry for each tube-sheet opening or feature, with each entry including an identifier such as a tube mark and/or row/column identifier associated with the respective tube location. (Fisher, para. [0052]).
Fisher teaches acquiring an initial digital image (Di) of at least a portion of the tube sheet at an initial acquisition time (Ti). Fisher teaches digital camera 124 positioned to capture image data encompassing a portion of tube sheet 118 and expressly states that the camera acquires an initial image when the robot reaches its initial tracking position. Fisher further teaches storing an acquired image in association with a timestamp identifying the time at which the image was acquired. (Fisher, paras. [0049], [0053], [0056]).
Fisher teaches determining a state of an attribute for each of the tube ends within said digital image at least insofar as Fisher analyzes each acquired image to identify individual tube-sheet characteristics and associate those detected characteristics with corresponding tube locations. The processing circuitry detects tube openings and other tube-related features within the image and correlates the detected features with their known locations on the tube sheet. (Fisher, paras. [0057]-[0060]).
Fisher further teaches recording data ... for each tube end within said digital image. Fisher's truth table includes an entry for each tube-sheet opening, and Fisher teaches storing information identifying tube-sheet features in association with their corresponding tube identifiers, coordinates, image information, and acquisition timestamps. Fisher also expressly refers to association of such identifying information in a system database. (Fisher, paras. [0052]-[0053], [0060]).
Thus, Fisher teaches recording data including the initial acquisition time (Ti) through the stored timestamp associated with the acquired image (para. [0053]); the unique identifier for the tube end through the row/column identifier associated with each tube opening (para. [0052]); and structured tube-specific information associated with the corresponding acquired image and tube location (paras. [0052]-[0053], [0060]).
Fisher does not expressly teach that the determined attribute comprises visual appearance of markers installed either in or on the tube ends, wherein the attribute has at least two possible states, nor does Fisher expressly teach recording that marker state as part of the corresponding tube-end record.
Johns teaches these limitations. Johns describes a tube sheet containing a plurality of tubes and teaches installing colored caps or plugs in the top ends of the tubes to visually identify the condition of the corresponding tube. Johns teaches that different visible colors correspond to different tube conditions, including tubes that have passed testing, failed high, failed low, or undergone corrective maintenance. (Johns, paras. [0002], [0047], [0073]-[0088]).
Johns further expressly teaches that the visible color of the tube indicator corresponds to a first tube condition and that changing the indicator to display a different color corresponds to a second tube condition. Thus, Johns teaches the attribute has at least two possible states and that the attribute comprises ... visual appearance of markers installed either in or on the tube ends. (Johns, para. [0067]).
Accordingly, when Johns' visually distinguishable tube-condition markers are used with Fisher's image-based tube identification system, the detected visual state of each marker is associated with the uniquely identified tube corresponding to that marker, thereby providing the claimed state of the attribute at the initial acquisition time (Ti) for the corresponding tube end.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the visually distinguishable tube-condition markers taught by Johns with Fisher's tube-sheet imaging and tube-identification system so that the maintenance condition of each uniquely identified tube could be determined from the acquired image and associated with the corresponding tube record, thereby facilitating automated and accurate tracking of individual tube conditions during inspection or maintenance.
Fisher does not expressly characterize the database as a relational database. However, Fisher already teaches structured records associating each tube identifier with corresponding tube location, image information, and acquisition timestamp. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to organize these related tube-specific records in a relational database because relational storage provides a conventional and predictable way to associate, retrieve, and update data fields corresponding to individual identified tube locations.
Regarding claim 2, Fisher further teaches wherein the unique identifier assigned to each of said plurality of tube ends is a set of Cartesian coordinates of the form (row, column). Fisher expressly teaches that the tube-sheet features are arranged in rows and orthogonal columns, and that each tube is individually identified in the truth table by its row and column numbers. Fisher also teaches a two-dimensional coordinate system for locating each tube opening on the tube-sheet surface. (Fisher, para. [0052]; Fig. 6A).
Regarding claim 3, Fisher further teaches wherein steps b) through d) are performed multiple times. Fisher teaches that after the initial image is acquired, the camera repeatedly acquires subsequent images as the robot moves across the tube sheet, and the processor repeatedly analyzes each subsequent image, identifies the tube-sheet characteristics, and stores information identifying the corresponding tube-sheet features for each image. Fisher expressly states that this process repeats for each subsequent image. (Fisher, paras. [0033], [0053]; Fig. 15, steps 720-722).
Regarding claim 4, Fisher further teaches illuminating the tube sheet in connection with image acquisition. Fisher recognizes that lighting conditions affect image detection and teaches applying light compensation to acquired tube-sheet image data, including high and/or low gamma compensation, to maximize distinguishable image details. Fisher also explains that poor lighting can impair identification of tube-sheet characteristics. (Fisher, paras. [0035], [0037], [0056]-[0057]; claims 4-5).
Fisher does not expressly identify the illumination source as emitting wavelengths within a visible light spectrum, an infrared spectrum, or an ultraviolet spectrum. However, Fisher's digital camera acquires visible images of the tube sheet for visual and machine-vision analysis, and Johns likewise relies on visually distinguishable colored tube indicators. Johns teaches colored portions including red, green, yellow, and blue that are viewed through a transparent or translucent window to indicate different tube conditions. (Johns, paras. [0058], [0062]-[0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to illuminate the tube sheet with a visible-light source when acquiring Fisher's digital images, particularly when using the visually distinguishable colored indicators of Johns, in order to provide sufficient illumination for the camera to reliably distinguish the tube-sheet features and marker colors.
Regarding claim 5, Fisher further teaches positioning at least one digital camera such that at least a portion of the tube sheet lies within a field of view of the at least one digital camera, and wherein the acquiring step is performed using said at least one digital camera. Fisher teaches digital camera 124 mounted on the robot with its field of view directed toward the tube sheet so as to capture image data encompassing a portion of tube sheet 118, and expressly teaches using camera 124 to acquire the initial image of the tube sheet. (Fisher, paras. [0049], [0051], [0056]).
Regarding claim 6, Fisher further teaches wherein the at least one digital camera detects wavelengths of light selected from one or more of the visible light spectrum, the infrared spectrum, or the ultraviolet (UV) spectrum. Fisher teaches digital camera 124 capturing image data of the tube sheet and expressly relies on visually detectable tube-sheet features, image display to an operator, grayscale processing, lighting compensation, and machine-vision analysis of the acquired images. (Fisher, paras. [0032], [0037], [0049], [0056]-[0057]).
Johns further teaches visually distinguishable colored tube indicators, including red, green, yellow, and blue portions, whose visible appearance indicates the condition of the respective tube. (Johns, paras. [0058], [0066]-[0067]). Accordingly, Fisher's digital camera, particularly when used to image the visibly colored indicators of Johns, would detect wavelengths within the visible light spectrum in order to capture and distinguish the visible tube-sheet features and indicator colors.
Regarding claim 9, Fisher further teaches wherein said tube sheet forms part of a heat exchanger, and said heat exchanger is one of a condenser, reboiler, preheater, boiler, superheater, quench exchanger, Transfer Line Exchanger (TLE), evaporator, waste heat boiler, recuperator, cross-exchanger and process heater. Fisher expressly teaches heat exchanger 100 having tube sheet 118 and identifies the illustrated heat exchanger as a vertical steam generator. Fisher further explains that the disclosed systems and methods may be employed with various types of heat exchangers. (Fisher, paras. [0040]-[0042]).
Regarding claim 11, Fisher further teaches wherein said tube sheet forms part of a nuclear power reactor. Fisher describes heat exchanger 100 as a steam generator and explains that inspection may be performed in nuclear applications where radiation and contamination are present. (Fisher, paras. [0040]-[0042]).
Regarding claim 12, Fisher further teaches using at least a portion of the data recorded in the relational database to produce one or more of tables, graphs, spreadsheets, and color-coded summary graphics. Fisher teaches storing tube-specific data in a truth table/database and generating a tube-sheet map from that stored data for presentation through the user interface. Fisher also teaches creating table entries identifying each tube opening by its image location and corresponding row/column number. (Fisher, paras. [0045], [0052], [0066]-[0068]).
Regarding claim 13, Fisher further teaches acquiring a later digital image (Dx) of at least a portion of the tube sheet at a later acquisition time (Tx), wherein Tx>Ti. Fisher teaches repeatedly acquiring subsequent images after the initial image as the robot moves over the tube sheet, with the images being associated with acquisition timestamps. (Fisher, paras. [0033], [0053], [0071]-[0072]).
Fisher further teaches determining a later state of the attribute for each tube end in said later digital image (Dx) by analyzing each subsequent image, identifying the tube-sheet characteristics therein, and assigning each identified characteristic the same tube-sheet identity corresponding to the respective tube location. (Fisher, para. [0072]). Johns teaches that the visual marker associated with a tube may be changed from a first color/state to a second color/state as the condition of the tube changes. (Johns, para. [0067]).
Fisher further teaches creating a later data record in the relational database for each tube end within said later digital image (Dx), including the later acquisition time and tube identifier, because Fisher stores information for each subsequent image identifying the tube-sheet characteristic and corresponding tube identity, with images associated with timestamps. (Fisher, paras. [0033], [0053], [0072]). Johns supplies the corresponding later marker state.
Fisher and Johns further render obvious repeating steps e) through g) until said maintenance activity is complete. Fisher expressly repeats the image-acquisition, identification, and storage process for subsequent images, while Johns teaches using the changing tube-condition indicators to track work progress on tubes while the reactor is out of service for maintenance and as the tubes are brought to the desired condition. (Fisher, paras. [0033], [0071]-[0072]; Johns, paras. [0002]-[0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to repeat Fisher's subsequent-image monitoring and recording while using Johns' changing tube-condition indicators until the maintenance activity is completed, thereby providing an updated record of the condition of each tube throughout the maintenance operation.
Regarding claim 16, Fisher further teaches using at least a portion of the recorded data to produce one or more of tables, graphs, spreadsheets, and color-coded summary graphics by storing tube-specific information in a truth table/database and presenting tube-sheet information through a generated tube-sheet map/user interface. (Fisher, paras. [0052], [0066]-[0068]).
Regarding claim 17, Fisher and Johns teach repeatedly acquiring and recording tube-specific condition data during the maintenance process, thereby providing the information necessary to determine progress of the maintenance activity. Fisher further teaches storing and presenting tube-related inspection information through its database and user interface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the recorded tube-condition data to calculate and display performance metrics for said maintenance activity, such as the number or percentage of tubes completed, remaining, or requiring further work, because such metrics are a predictable summary of the recorded maintenance-status data.
Regarding claim 18, Johns further teaches wherein the markers comprise colored tube caps, wherein a first color corresponds to a first state and a second color corresponds to a second state, and wherein the state of the attribute is the color of the tube cap. Johns teaches colored caps/plugs installed in tube ends, with different colors identifying different tube conditions, including green for a passing condition, red for a high-pressure-drop failure, and yellow for a low-pressure-drop failure. (Johns, paras. [0002]-[0003], [0073]-[0079]).
Johns further teaches changing the displayed color to correspond to a different condition or state of the tube. (Johns, paras. [0067], [0081]-[0088]).
Regarding claim 19, Johns further teaches removing or installing a colored tube cap to indicate a changed condition of a tube end. Johns teaches corrective work followed by recapping or changing the indicator so that a new color or color combination represents the updated condition of the tube. (Johns, paras. [0080]-[0083]).
Johns further teaches determining the later color for the tube end at the later acquisition time, because after correction the indicator is changed from the prior color to a new color corresponding to the tube’s later condition, e.g., red to red/green or yellow to yellow/green. (Johns, paras. [0067], [0081]-[0083]).
Fisher further teaches acquiring a later digital image and creating a later data record including the later acquisition time and tube identifier by repeatedly acquiring subsequent tube-sheet images and storing identifying information associated with the image and its acquisition timestamp. (Fisher, paras. [0033], [0053], [0071]-[0072]; Fig. 15, steps 720-722).
Johns further teaches repeating the tube-condition determination process as many times as required until the tubes are brought to the desired condition. (Johns, paras. [0084]-[0088]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to repeatedly acquire and record Fisher’s later tube-sheet images after Johns’ tube-cap color changes, thereby tracking the updated condition of each tube through completion of the maintenance activity.
Regarding claim 20, Fisher further teaches using the recorded data to produce reporting comprising one or more of tables, graphs, spreadsheets, and color-coded summary graphics by storing tube-specific information in a truth table/database and presenting tube-sheet information through a generated tube-sheet map and user interface. (Fisher, paras. [0052], [0066]-[0068]).
Regarding claim 21, Fisher further teaches transmitting said one or more of tables, graphs, spreadsheets, and color-coded summary graphics to at least one display by transmitting and displaying the generated tube-sheet information through a graphical user interface/display for presentation to an operator. (Fisher, paras. [0045], [0066]-[0068]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher et al. (US 2021/0065356 A1) in view of Johns et al. (US 2009/0095211 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Blanda et al. (US 2001/0040024 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Fisher and Johns do not teach wherein said tube sheet forms part of a reaction system for producing either Hydrogen Cyanide or Nitrogen Oxides.
Blanda teaches a hydrogen cyanide reaction system having a shell-and-tube heat exchanger with a tube sheet and a plurality of heat-exchange tubes, and expressly teaches preparing hydrogen cyanide in such a reactor. (Blanda, paras. [0001], [0010], [0022]-[0023], [0086], [0090]-[0093]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the tube-sheet monitoring method of Fisher and Johns to Blanda’s hydrogen cyanide reaction system to monitor the individual tubes thereof.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher et al. (US 2021/0065356 A1) in view of Johns et al. (US 2009/0095211 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Billig et al. (US 2002/0106316 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Fisher and Johns do not teach wherein said shell and tube device is utilized to perform a chemical conversion selected from the recited alternatives.
Billig teaches a shell-and-tube reactor having a plurality of catalyst-packed reaction tubes supported by tube sheets and expressly teaches conversion of ethylene to ethylene oxide. (Billig, paras. [0002], [0004], [0012]-[0015], [0020]-[0021], [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the tube-sheet monitoring method of Fisher and Johns to Billig’s shell-and-tube ethylene oxide reactor to monitor the individual reactor tubes during maintenance.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher et al. (US 2021/0065356 A1) in view of Johns et al. (US 2009/0095211 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Carmello et al. (US 5,841,009).
Regarding claim 15, Fisher and Johns do not teach wherein said shell and tube device is utilized for oxychlorination of ethylene to produce ethylene dichloride.
Carmello teaches oxychlorination of ethylene to produce 1,2-dichloroethane (EDC) in a tubular fixed-bed reactor comprising a plurality of tubes disposed within a common coolant jacket. (Carmello, col. 1–3; claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the tube-sheet monitoring method of Fisher and Johns to Carmello’s tubular ethylene oxychlorination reactor to monitor the reactor tubes during maintenance.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher et al. (US 2021/0065356 A1) in view of Johns et al. (US 2009/0095211 A1), as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Dillon et al. (US 2008/0288321 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Fisher and Johns do not teach predicting a time-to-completion of said maintenance activity.
Dillon teaches generating an estimated completion time for a maintenance order using maintenance-related information, including historical completion-time data, and further teaches determining a projected completion time and updating that projected completion time when maintenance progress changes. (Dillon, paras. [0012], [0064], [0080]-[0088], [0100]-[0102]; claims 2, 9, 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Dillon’s maintenance completion-time estimation with the maintenance-status data tracked by Fisher and Johns to predict a time-to-completion of the maintenance activity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Okumura et al (US 2021/0179375) para 0026, 0035 and 0079
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMEED ALIZADA whose telephone number is (571)270-5907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 am until 5:30 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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/OMEED ALIZADA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights