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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: open seam. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: open seam does not have a reference number.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The limitation in Claim 1, lines 11–12, “applying an unknown strain to the bracket and converting the unknown strain to the determined torque value of the bracket using the determined relationship.” The aforementioned limitation is ambiguous in nature and a person having skills in the ordinary art at the time of invention would not be able to reproduce this limitation. This is because there are an enumerable amount of options available. Therefore, this limitation is indefinite.
The limitation in Claim 2, lines 11–12, “a unique equation for the bracket and wherein the unique equation is configured to provide the determined torque value for the unknown strain of the bracket based on at least a thickness of the bracket, a geometry of the bracket, a material property of the bracket, and one or more openings on the bracket.” The aforementioned limitation is ambiguous in nature and a person having skills in the ordinary art at the time of invention would not be able to reproduce this limitation. This is because the manner in which the “unique equation for the bracket” is not sufficiently described. Also, as described in the 112 rejection claim 1, the term “unknown strain” has enumerable options and as a result indefinite. Therefore, this claim is indefinite. Claim 3 also stands rejected as being dependent from claim 2.
The limitation in Claim 13, line 4 “unknown strain.” The aforementioned limitation is ambiguous in nature and a person having skills in the ordinary art at the time of invention would not be able to reproduce this limitation. This is because there are an enumerable amount of options available. Therefore, this limitation is indefinite. Please note that the term “unknown strain” occurs multiple times throughout the claim and also needs to be addressed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5 and 10–12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rak (USPN 5220843).
Regarding Claim 1, Rak discloses a method for obtaining a determined torque value experienced by a bracket of a valve system, comprising the steps of providing a strain gauge (122) mounted onto the bracket (50, where the yoke is the bracket); applying a first known torque (Col. 11, Line 65) to bracket (50); obtaining a first strain measurement data (Col. 11, Lines 64–67, where first strain measurement data is the strain gauge output associated with the initial calibration) from the strain gauge (70); applying a second known torque (Col. 12, Lines 3–10, where the second known torque and all additional torques are the strain gauge outputs) to bracket (50); obtaining a second strain measurement data (Col. 12, Lines 3–10, where the second known torque and all additional torques are the strain gauge outputs) from the strain gauge (70); determining a relationship between the first known torque (132/138), the first strain measurement data (Col. 11, Lines 64–67, where first strain measurement data is the strain gauge output associated with the initial calibration), the second known torque and the second strain measurement data (Col. 12, Lines 3–10, where the second known torque and all additional torques are the strain gauge outputs); and applying an unknown strain to the bracket and converting the unknown strain to the determined torque value of the bracket (50) using the determined relationship (Col. 12, Lines 3–10, where the second known torque and all additional torques are the strain gauge outputs).
Regarding Claim 5, Rak discloses the bracket (50) comprises an open seam rectangular tube structure (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 10, Rak discloses the steps of monitoring the determined torque value over time and relative to prior determined torque values (Col. 12, Lines 3–10, where the second known torque and all additional torques are the strain gauge outputs); evaluating whether the determined torque value reaches a threshold torque value (Col. 12, Lines 15–19, where the threshold torque value is the maximum); and inferring a potential for a maintenance event for the valve system according to the monitoring step (130) and the step for evaluating whether the determined torque value reaches the threshold torque value (134 and Col. 12, Lines 11–25).
Regarding Claim 11, Rak discloses the step of visualizing the determined torque value over time (Col. 8, Lines 54–58).
Regarding Claim 12, Rak discloses the step of providing a notification for maintenance or repair according to the step for inferring the potential for the maintenance event (Col. 12, Lines 11–25).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4 and 6–7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rak (USPN 5220843).
Regarding Claim 4, Rak discloses the bracket (50) but does not explicitly disclose the bracket that comprises a C-shaped structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed apparatus is significant, to change the shape of the apparatus as a matter of design choice. MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B). Here, Rak’s bracket 50 has two sides and a connecting structure which is similar to a “C” structure. Both have similar openings and as a result would have the same strain gauge placement. Therefore, the shape of the bracket is a matter of design choice.
Regarding Claim 6, Rak discloses the bracket (50) but does not explicitly disclose the bracket that comprises further defines a plurality of holes on a top side and on a bottom side of the bracket.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed apparatus is significant, to change the shape of the apparatus as a matter of design choice. MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B). Here, Rak’s bracket 50 has two sides and a connecting structure. The purpose of the use of strain gauges is to determine the torque in a particular structure regardless of its shape. Therefore, the shape of the bracket is a matter of design choice.
Regarding Claim 7, Rak discloses the bracket (50) but does not explicitly disclose the bracket further comprises a pattern of openings, and further comprising the step of increasing a strain response of the strain gauge via the pattern of openings.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed apparatus is significant, to change the shape of the apparatus as a matter of design choice. MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B). Here, Rak’s bracket 50 has two sides and a connecting structure. The purpose of the use of strain gauges is to determine the torque in a particular structure regardless of its shape. Therefore, the shape of the bracket is a matter of design choice.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rak (USPN 5220843) in view of Ko Do et al. (KR 101250807 B1).
Regarding Claim 8, Rak discloses the strain gauge (70), but does not disclose the steps of providing an enclosure to house the strain gauge, and protecting the strain gauge from water and dust ingress via the enclosure.
Ko Do teaches a strain gauge (21) located in an enclosure (22) in order to protect the strain gauge (Para. 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the strain gauge of Rak with an enclosure as taught by Ko Do in order to protect the strain gauge.
The Rak–Ko Do combination teaches providing an enclosure (Ko Do 22) to house the strain gauge (Rak 70), and protecting the strain gauge (Rak 70) from water and dust ingress via the enclosure (Ko Do 22).
Claim(s) 9 and 13–14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rak (USPN 5220843) in view of Ko Do et al. (KR 101250807 B1), in further view of Brown et al. (US PGPub 20200182377 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, the Rak–Ko Do combination does not explicitly teach the step of connecting the strain gauge to a microprocessor housed within the enclosure.
Brown teaches connecting the strain gauge (25, Para. 25, where the strain gauge is one of the potential sensors) to a microprocessor (23) in order to communicate and analyze the condition of the bracket (Para. 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control circuit of the Rak–Ko Do combination with a connection between a sensor and a microprocessor as taught by Brown in order to provide data, metrics, signals, and measurements to ensure that the proper upkeep and working order.
Regarding Claim 13, the Rak–Ko Do combination does not explicitly teach a microprocessor on the bracket and in connection with the strain gauge.
Brown teaches connecting the strain gauge (25, Para. 25, where the strain gauge is one of the potential sensors) to a microprocessor (23) in order to communicate and analyze the condition of the bracket (Para. 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control circuit of the Rak–Ko Do combination with a connection between a sensor and a microprocessor as taught by Brown in order to provide data, metrics, signals, and measurements to ensure that the proper upkeep and working order.
Per the Rak–Ko Do–Brown combination the microprocessor (Brown 23) performs the following steps: collecting a data (Brown Para. 24) based on the unknown strain and the determined torque value (Rak Col. 12, Lines 3–10, where the second known torque and all additional torques are the strain gauge outputs) via a data collection unit (Brown 51) of the microprocessor (Brown 23); evaluating a condition of the valve system (Rak Fig. 3) based on the data of the unknown strain (Brown Para. 30, where the microprocessor receives sensor information and that information is evaluated) and the determined torque value via a risk assessment analysis unit of the microprocessor (Brown Para. 25 where the sensor is a strain gauge that measures torque and Para. 24, where the sensors provide information to the data collection unit which communicates with the microprocessor and where the microprocessor provides a risk assessment analysis, 52); compiling the data of the unknown strain and the determined torque value over time via a historical data unit of the microprocessor (Brown Para. 31); and comparing the data of the unknown strain and the determined torque value; determining or predicting the condition of the valve system (Brown Para. 26); and responding to the data collection unit (Brown 51), the risk assessment analysis unit (Brown 52) and the historical data unit (Brown 53) via a comparative analysis unit (Brown 54) of the microprocessor (Brown 23).
Regarding Claim 14, the Rak–Ko Do–Brown combination teaches the step of creating and executing an implementation plan for remediation of the valve system (Rak Fig. 3) via the microprocessor (Brown Para. 31); and wherein the implementation plan includes a visual alert or an audible alert (Brown Para. 31).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rak (USPN 5220843) in view of Ko Do et al. (KR 101250807 B1), in further view of Brown et al. (US PGPub 20200182377 A1), in further view of Byrne (US PGPub 20190264667 A1)
Regarding Claim 15, the Rak–Ko Do–Brown combination teaches predictive modeling (Brown Para. 23) but does not teach a specific program.
Byrne teaches Finite Element Analysis in order to determine potential failures without having to physically evaluate the bracket (Para. 143).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the predictive modeling program of the Rak–Ko Do–Brown combination with a Finite Element Analysis program as taught by Byrne in order to provide reproducible results, decrease in costs and user error by manually analyzing the bracket.
The Rak–Ko Do–Brown–Byrne combination teaches the step of determining a thickness of the bracket via Finite Element Analysis (Byrne Para. 143) and wherein the thickness is configured to be scalable for a first size of the bracket and a second size of the bracket, wherein the first size and the second size are of different sizes. Where the purpose of a Finite Element Analysis program is to evaluate any portion of an element in which an user needs/wants information. Furthermore, the Rak–Ko Do–Brown–Byrne combination is capable of determining thickness of the bracket using the Finite Element Analysis program. Thus, the Rak–Ko Do–Brown–Byrne combination teaches the limitation above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Moon et al. (USPN 2927458 ) and Johnson et al. (USPN 5747697 ) disclose a strain gauge that measures torsion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Angelisa L. Hicks whose telephone number is 571-272-9552 and email is Angelisa.Hicks@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:30AM-5:00PM EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/Angelisa L. Hicks/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights