US 9625349

I'll search for authoritative information on this specific patent number, including any litigation activity.

Let me try additional search formulations.

Let me do a final targeted check for any litigation or post-grant proceedings.

Summary of US Patent 9,625,349

Important scope note: I was asked to search the USPTO database and CAFC 2026 dockets for patent number 9625349 specifically. My searches returned the patent's own bibliographic/legal-status records but no district-court litigation, ITC proceeding, PTAB post-grant proceeding (IPR/PGR/CBM), or Federal Circuit appeal tied to this patent number. I could not directly query the CAFC docket system or USPTO PatentCenter in this session, so I cannot affirmatively rule out a recently filed 2026 appeal or suit — but nothing in the searched materials indicates one exists. Treat the "no litigation found" conclusion as an absence of evidence, not proof of absence.

Bibliographic data (from the authoritative patent text)

Abstract (verbatim)

"The claimed method and system provide a process control device monitoring system and a process control valve assembly with a process control device monitoring system to measure one or more operating states of a process control device. The process control device monitoring system may also associate a time-stamp with the one or more measured operating states of the process control device in response to a trigger generated based on the one or more measured operating states. The process control device monitoring system may also transmit the time-stamp and an indication of the one or more operating states to a monitoring device."

Independent claim 1 — plain language

A method performed in the process control device monitoring system itself (i.e., at the field device, not at a host):

1. Measure one or more operating states of a process control device.
2. Time-stamp those measured operating state(s) at the point in time when a fugitive emission to the surrounding atmosphere begins to occur. The time-stamp is applied in response to a trigger that (a) is generated based on the measured operating state(s) and (b) is indicative that the fugitive emission has occurred.
3. Transmit the time-stamp plus an indication of the operating state(s) to a monitoring device that quantifies an amount of fugitive emissions from the time-stamp and the state indication.
4. Where the data is position-sensor data, the trigger must be one of: a change in the position-sensor data, a minimum value, or a maximum value of that data.

Independent claim 16 — plain language

A process control valve assembly comprising:

• a valve to control a process;
• a position sensor measuring the position of a portion of the valve;
• a valve monitoring system that receives the position-sensor data and is configured to associate a time-stamp with that data at the point in time when a fugitive emission to atmosphere begins to occur; the monitoring system includes a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium whose instructions cause the processor to quantify an amount of fugitive emissions based on the time-stamp and the position data; and
• a communications interface transmitting data representative of that quantified fugitive-emission amount.

The time-stamp must be applied in response to a trigger that is a change in the position-sensor data, a minimum value, or a maximum value of that data.

Dependent-claim landscape (brief)

• Claims 2–15 depend from claim 1: process control valve form (2); operating states such as activation state, position state, leakage state, total displacement, time not fully closed, and simmering (3–6); time-stamp as start/end/duration (7) or absolute/relative (8); per-state time-stamping (9); general trigger definition (10); data-unit format with header, sequence number, time-stamp, valve position, volume flow rate, simmer data, checksum/CRC (11); execution on external request (12); response to a data request (13); periodic transmission (14); and protocol selection among TCP/IP, UDP/IP, HART, Fieldbus, PROFIBUS, WORLDFIP, Device-Net, AS-Interface, CAN (15).
• Claims 17–23 depend from claim 16: start/end/duration (17); absolute/relative (18); added process-variable sensor with triggered time-stamping (19–20); transmitted data content list (21); protocol list (22); and the actuator/valve-position-controller/process-controller architecture of FIG. 3 (23).

Analytic observations

• Prosecution narrowing. The granted independent claims are materially narrower than the claims as published in US 2013/0223494 A1. The granted claims add the "at a point in time when a fugitive emission, to a surrounding atmosphere, begins to occur" temporal limitation, a trigger "indicative that the fugitive emission has occurred," and the requirement that a downstream monitoring device quantify an amount of fugitive emissions (claim 1), or that the processor quantify the amount of fugitive emissions (claim 16). The originally published claim 1 contained none of these fugitive-emission-specific quantifications. This suggests the applicant distinguished prior art of record — most plausibly US 2005/0028037 (Junk, "Triggered field device data collection in a process control system") and/or the LDAR/fugitive-emissions references (US 7,657,384; US 8,751,173) — by tying the trigger and time-stamp expressly to a fugitive emission event.
• Closest prior art of record. The two references most directly on point are US 2005/0028037 A1 (Junk, Fisher-Rosemount, 2003) for triggered field-device data collection, and US 7,657,384 B1 / US 8,751,173 B1 (Environmental Analytics / LDARtools) for management of fugitive-emissions monitoring. The non-patent citation to the EPA's 1995 Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates confirms the regulatory context that motivates the claimed quantification.
• Claim-drafting note. Claim 16 recites that the instructions are "executable by the processor of the valve monitoring system to quantify an amount of fugitive emissions," whereas the specification (¶ on the data analysis module 414) contemplates that quantification may instead occur in a host system receiving raw data. The claim, as granted, appears to require the field-side processor to perform the quantification — a point that could matter in any future infringement analysis.
• Forward citations include Bray International smart-valve patents (US 11,408,451; US 11,624,453; US 12,018,772), Siemens US 2022/0260177, and Fisher-Rosemount's own US 11,700,232 (data-diode publishing), indicating continued relevance in the valve-diagnostics/Industrial-IoT space.

Uncertainty disclosure

• I did not find any CAFC 2026 docket entry, district-court case, or PTAB proceeding referencing 9,625,349. I was not able to run a live docket query against CourtListener, PACER, or the CAFC docket in this session.
• The "adjusted expiration 2033-12-24" is Google Patents' computed figure based on the 574-day § 154(b) adjustment and terminal disclaimer assumptions; it is not a legal conclusion. The face of the patent lists a 574-day adjustment, which is consistent with a 17-year-from-issue-equivalent expiry but should be verified against the USPTO Patent Term Adjustment determination, and any later disclaimer would shorten it.
• All bibliographic values above are taken directly from the patent document text and Google Patents record; the patent number and identifiers have been interpreted literally and not auto-corrected.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 9625349. Let me run several targeted queries.

Let me search more specifically, including the patent holder's name and litigation databases.

Let me check litigation-specific databases more directly.

Litigation Search Results: US Patent No. 9,625,349

Bottom line: I found no evidence of any litigation involving US Patent No. 9,625,349.

What I searched

I ran targeted queries across litigation-oriented sources and the open web, including:

• The patent number in several formats: 9625349, "9,625,349", US 9,625,349 B2
• Patent-holder based queries: Fisher Controls International / Fisher-Rosemount / Emerson
• Litigation databases referenced in your instructions: Unified Patents portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist), PTAB/USPTO PTACTS records surfaced in results, Docket Alarm, Justia/Lex Machina-style listing
• The patent's own Google Patents page (including its citation, family, and "Cited By" sections)

Findings

1. No district court, CAFC, PTAB, or ITC proceeding naming US 9,625,349 was located. Google Patents' record for this patent lists the "Cited By," "Family Cites Families," and "Patent Citations" sections, but there is no "Litigation" section — which is where Google Patents normally surfaces asserted patents. No PACER/CAFC docket, complaint, or IPR/PGR petition referring to this patent appeared.

2. No assertion campaign. The patent is owned by Fisher Controls International LLC (an Emerson company), a large operating entity, and its family members (EP2820390B1, CN103291998B, CA2864913C, RU2637049C2, JP2015515663A, MX337951B, etc.) show prosecution/opposition activity abroad but no infringement suits.

3. Important non-match to flag (literal-ID caution): A search hit did surface a "'534 Patent" in a claim-construction dispute between RDMI Tech Ventures and SCEA (Sony Computer Entertainment America). That is a different patent — it involves "remote server assembly / auxiliary site addresses" technology and has nothing to do with time-stamped emissions data for process control devices. Per your strict rule, I am not treating it as US 9,625,349. It is a distinct '534 patent and should be excluded.

4. Related-but-not-litigation items. The only enforcement-adjacent activity I saw was:

   • USPTO maintenance-fee payments (4th year, 2020-09-18; 8th year, 2024-09-19), confirming the patent is still Active (adjusted expiration listed as 2033-12-24).
   • Foreign patent-office actions during prosecution/opposition (e.g., Chinese Office Actions on 201310063860.5, EPC Rule 164(2)(a) communication, Mexican Office Action) — these are prosecution matters, not infringement litigation.

Requested table

Caveats on confidence

• I could not complete every planned follow-up query (I hit my tool-call limit mid-search), so this is based on the results that returned.
• Public litigation databases are not exhaustive, and very recent suits can lag. I have high confidence that no well-known or reported litigation exists, and moderate confidence that there is no litigation at all. I did not find, and therefore cannot represent, any case-specific details.

If you want a definitive negative, the authoritative next steps would be a direct Docket Navigator / Lex Machina party-and-patent query, a PACER "party name" search under Fisher Controls / Fisher-Rosemount / Emerson, and a USPTO PTAB API query for the patent number — none of which I was able to complete here.

I'll verify the "no PTAB activity" default with targeted web searches before finalizing.

Let me run a few more targeted checks before concluding.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 0. The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding for US 9,625,349 as of the most recent ingest, and my independent web searches (Google Patents family/litigation data, PTAB petition text, Federal Circuit materials) surfaced nothing to contradict that — no petition number, no institution decision, no FWD, no appeal referencing this patent. Breakdown by status is therefore: active 0 / claims invalidated 0 / claims sustained 0 / settled 0 / institution denied 0. Bottom-line defensive posture: this is not a "hardened by IPR" patent and not a "claims canceled" patent — it is an untested patent. All 23 claims stand as issued, with no PTAB estoppel or claim-cancellation history to hand a defendant.

Proceedings

No entries. There are no proceedings to detail. I am not listing any proceeding numbers because none exist in the structured data and none were found in search — inventing a docket number here would be worse than reporting the null result.

Strategic summary

Claim status. Because no AIA trial was ever instituted, none of the 23 claims of 9,625,349 have been canceled, narrowed, or even subjected to a PTAB claim-construction. Claims 1–23 all remain in force and UNTESTED. The relevant statutory term runs from the 2012-02-29 priority date / 2012-05-29 filing, with the published adjusted expiration of 2033-12-24 (574 days of PTA per the face of the patent). For a defendant, that means there is no "claims 1–5 are dead" argument to make and no FWD to cite — the validity fight, if any, has to be built from scratch. Note also that claim 1 as issued is narrower than the specification's framing: it requires the time-stamp to be associated "at a point in time when a fugitive emission, to a surrounding atmosphere, begins to occur," with the trigger being "indicative that the fugitive emission has occurred." That is a meaningful limitation to work with on infringement and on § 112.

Estoppel landscape. There is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel against anyone — estoppel attaches only after an instituted IPR reaches a final written decision (35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2)), and no IPR was ever instituted. Accordingly, every prior-art ground is still fully available: § 102 and § 103 challenges on patents and printed publications, plus § 112 and § 101 arguments in district court or the ITC that an IPR could never have reached. The 44 examiner-cited references and the "1995 Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates" NPL citation are all fair game to build on, re-combine, or attack (nothing has been "previously presented and decided" by the Board for § 325(d) purposes). The one real cost of first-mover status: whoever files first bears the full petition cost with no roadmap from a prior panel. Given the current institution-rate environment (net institution rates have dropped sharply under the 2025 workload-management changes), a first petition here should be drafted to beat discretionary denial, not merely to clear the § 314(a) reasonable-likelihood threshold.

Pattern signals. None of the usual patterns are present. There is no repeat petitioner, no serial-filing pattern, no Unified Patents or other defensive-aggregator proceeding, and no patent-owner appeal activity at the Federal Circuit — the patent has simply never been challenged at the Board. The closest thing to a signal is absence: a patent that issued in 2017, sits on a commercially significant subject (pressure-relief-valve fugitive-emission monitoring, tied to EPA compliance), and has been cited by later Fisher-Rosemount/Fisher Controls filings but never drew an IPR is more consistent with a patent that has not been aggressively asserted than with one that has been tested and survived. Well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs; this one hasn't, which cuts against treating it as a proven litigation-grade asset — but also means you cannot borrow someone else's invalidity work product.

Recommended next steps

• No PTAB shortcut exists. Do not file a mock "copy the FWD" defense — there is no FWD. Any obviousness or anticipation case must be constructed from the ground up, using the 44 cited references, the examiner's NPL citation ("1995 Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates, Nov. 1995"), and any uncited prior art of your own.
• Prosecution-history check first. Pull the full file wrapper (US 13/482,639) before drafting anything. The claims as issued are considerably narrower than the provisional/spec disclosure — the "point in time when a fugitive emission... begins to occur" and "trigger... indicative that the fugitive emission has occurred" recitations in claim 1 and the parallel limitation in claim 16 look like the kind of language added to overcome art. That history controls both claim construction and § 325(d) risk.
• Build the defense on the narrow limitations, not on the abstract. Because claims 1 and 16 require the time-stamp to be tied to the onset of an actual fugitive emission, non-infringement and § 112 indefiniteness are live and may be cheaper than an IPR. How the accused device detects "begins to occur" and distinguishes simmering from lift is the battleground.
• Consider timing mechanics if you do file. With no co-pending PTAB proceeding and no institution history, a petition would be a first filing — watch the § 315(b) one-year bar from service of any complaint, and note that a prior stipulation or early invalidity contentions position can matter for discretionary denial under the current Director/Fintiv-successor practice.
• Verify the null result yourself before relying on it. Prior to any deadline, confirm on PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) and the USPTO Patent Center docket for US 13/482,639 that no recently-filed petition (which ODP ingest lags and which my web searches are not guaranteed to surface) has been accorded a filing date. If one appears, re-run this analysis — an institution decision would reset the defensive posture entirely.

Confidence note: I have high confidence in the no-PTAB-activity conclusion given the structured ODP block plus negative search results, but I cannot prove a negative to certainty; the E2E check above closes that gap. I found no Federal Circuit appeal, no district court assertion, and no settlement involving this patent — but absence of search hits is weaker evidence than absence of PTAB records, so treat the litigation-negative as unconfirmed.

I'll research the assignment record for US 9625349 before drafting.

Let me try to pin down the recording details and correspondent for the sole assignment entry.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 9,625,349 B2

Patent: Time-stamped emissions data collection for process control devices
Application: US 13/482,639 · filed 2012-05-29 · provisional 61/605,131 filed 2012-02-29 · issued 2017-04-18
Source of record: USPTO Patent Assignment Search / assignment.uspto.gov mirror; cross-checked against the Google Patents legal-events tab bundled in the source text and Espacenet.

Inventors

Both inventors executed an assignment to Fisher Controls International LLC with an effective date of 2012-05-03, i.e. pre-dating the 2012-05-29 non-provisional filing and post-dating the 2012-02-29 provisional.

Unusual-pattern check — no signal. There is no evidence in the record of either inventor departing Fisher/Emerson within 12 months of filing. There is no second assignment, no inventor-held reversion, and no individual inventor appearing as an assignee at any later point. The only execution/recorded event tied to the inventors is the single confirmatory assignment to their employer. I could not independently verify employment status beyond the assignment instrument, so treat "employer at filing" as documented (assigned) rather than confirmed by a payroll/H.R. source.

Original assignee

Fisher Controls International LLC — named on the issued patent, and still the current assignee (see timeline).

• Line of business: Design, engineering, procurement and manufacture of process control equipment — specifically final control elements (control valves, valve positioners, digital valve controllers) sold under the Fisher brand within Emerson's process-automation business. Corporate HQ listed at 205 South Center Street, Marshalltown, Iowa 50158; U.S. manufacturing at Marshalltown, IA and Sherman, TX (per Fisher/Emerson ISO 9001 certification documents).
• Product embodying the claims: Yes. Fisher/Emerson ships valve instrumentation with local position sensing, local diagnostics and time-based event capture — the FIELDVUE digital valve controller family and associated ValveLink diagnostic software operate in exactly the technical space claimed (local valve-position measurement, event-triggered data capture, reporting of valve position/status to a host). Whether any specific shipping SKU reads on every limitation of claim 1 is an infringement question I have not tested; the assignee is unambiguously a product-shipping operating company, not a licensing vehicle.
• Corporate lineage / status: Operating. Fisher was acquired by Emerson Electric Co. from Monsanto in 1992 (~$1.28B) and folded into Emerson Process Management; the division was renamed Emerson Automation Solutions (2016). Fisher Controls International LLC remains an Emerson Electric Co. (NYSE: EMR) subsidiary. No dissolution, no bankruptcy, no Chapter 7/11 proceeding. The patent's maintenance fees were paid in 2020 and 2024 (4th and 8th year, large entity), which is inconsistent with an abandoned or fire-sold asset.

Assignment timeline

One (1) recorded assignment exists for this patent.

• 2012-05-03 (executed) / recorded 2012-05-29 — Reel 028282 / 0557
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Kurtis K. Jensen; Mitchell S. Panther (joint inventors, individually)
  • Assignee: Fisher Controls International LLC (Marshalltown, Iowa)
  • Correspondent: ⚠️ Not retrievable from the sources I could access. The Google Patents legal-events record for the reel/frame entry (ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST; ASSIGNORS: JENSEN, KURTIS K.; PANTHER, MITCHELL S.; REEL/FRAME: 028282/0557; effective 2012-05-03) does not carry the correspondent-of-record field, and I was unable to load the Assignment Center detail page for this reel/frame. I am not supplying a correspondent name by inference — for an ordinary inventor-to-employer confirmatory assignment the correspondent is typically the employer's outside or in-house patent counsel, but that is a guess and I am declining to state it as fact. This should be pulled directly from the Assignment Center detail view (search US 9,625,349 → reel 028282/0557 → "Correspondent").
  • Context: Routine pre-filing confirmatory assignment — the inventor-to-employer instrument that every corporate-filed patent carries. Not an acquisition, fire-sale, reorg, securitization or asserter transfer.

No post-issuance assignments, no security agreements, no name changes, no releases, no mergers. The Google Patents legal-events tab shows only: (i) the 2012 assignment above; (ii) 2017-03-29 patent-grant status; (iii) 2020-09-18 and 2024-09-19 maintenance-fee payments. The reels for those two fee payments are fee records, not conveyances.

Note on the family: US 13/482,639 spawned national-phase/priority filings in CN (CN 103291998 B; CN 203363353 U), EP (EP 2820390 B1), JP (JP 2015-515663), CA (CA 2864913 C), MX (MX 337951 B), RU (RU 2637049 C2), AR (AR 090182 A1) and WO 2013/130539 A2. Those are the same corporate family — foreign counterparts filed by Fisher/Emerson — not assignment events, and none of them indicates a transfer of the US patent.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9625349
    2012 : Provisional filed Feb 29
         : Assignment executed May 3
         : Application filed May 29
    2017 : Patent issued Apr 18
    2020 : Maintenance fee paid
    2024 : Maintenance fee paid

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Aggregate signal strength: zero strong signals, zero weak signals.

Verdict

Insufficient data (no records, or only the original assignment)

The Assignment Center record for US 9,625,349 contains exactly one conveyance: the 2012-05-03 executed / 2012-05-29 recorded inventor-to-employer assignment to Fisher Controls International LLC at Reel 028282 / Frame 0557, with no subsequent transfer of any kind through the 2024-09-19 maintenance-fee payment. That single-link chain is dispositive of the NPE question in the negative — every troll-pattern signal (shell transfer, known asserter, cascading LLCs, pre-litigation transfer, fire-sale, privateering) requires a post-issuance transfer that does not exist here, so the correct bucket is the rubric's "only the original assignment" case, not an assertion finding.

Substantively, this is a clean operating-company ownership record: the patent remains with the Emerson Electric subsidiary that shipped (and ships) Fisher valve instrumentation in the claimed technical space, and there is no evidence of assertion activity. The one open item for a full record closure is the correspondent-of-record for reel 028282/0557, which I could not retrieve and did not fabricate; and a docket-level litigation sweep should be run to confirm the absence of suits.

Verify:

• Assignment Center search (enter "9625349" → open Reel 028282 / Frame 0557): https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/
• Mirror: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Patent record / legal events: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9625349/en

I'll research US patent 9625349 and its cited prior art references. Let me start with searches to ground this analysis.

Let me examine the key prior art references cited against this patent.

I have confirmed the patent and gathered the citation data. Note: the request asked me to search the USPTO database for "9625349." The authoritative full text was supplied in the task and cross-checked against Google Patents/Espacenet/USPTO records (application no. 13/482,639). Below is my analysis.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 9,625,349 B2

A. Patent identification (as found / verified)

Note on literal IDs: I did not alter any number. The original assignment record (Reel/Frame 028282/0557, effective 2012-05-03) names "Jensen, Kurtis K." and "Panther, Mitchell S."

B. The claims that drive the prior-art analysis

To assess §102 anticipation, the independent claims must be read element-by-element.

Claim 1 (method) — elements:

1. Measuring, in the process control device monitoring system, one or more operating states of a process control device;
2. Associating a time-stamp with the operating state(s) at a point in time when a fugitive emission, to a surrounding atmosphere, begins to occur;
3. The association is in response to a trigger generated based on the measured operating state(s), the trigger being indicative that the fugitive emission has occurred;
4. Transmitting the time-stamp + indication of the operating state(s) to a monitoring device that quantifies an amount of fugitive emissions based on the time-stamp and indication;
5. The time-stamp is associated with position-sensor data in response to a trigger representative of a change / a minimum value / a maximum value of the position-sensor data.

Claim 16 (assembly) — elements: valve to control a process; position sensor; valve monitoring system that associates a time-stamp with position-sensor data at the point in time a fugitive emission begins, with instructions to quantify an amount of fugitive emissions, triggered by change/min/max of the position-sensor data; and a communications interface.

Key observation: The "fugitive emission … begins to occur / indicative that the fugitive emission has occurred / monitoring device that quantifies an amount of fugitive emissions" limitations are the narrowing elements. Any anticipation case under §102 must disclose all of these, not merely triggered data collection. Most cited art discloses the trigger/time-stamp mechanics but not the fugitive-emission-specific framing, making those references primarily §103 (obviousness) art rather than §102 anticipation art.

C. Most relevant prior art (Tier 1 — closest to claims 1 and 16)

C1. US 2005/0028037 A1 — Triggered field device data collection in a process control system

• Citation: Junk, Kenneth W.; Latwesen, Annette L. (Fisher Controls International LLC). Also published as WO 2005/013023 A1; EP 1654603 B1; JP 4904155 B2 (granted as US 7,516,043 B2).
• Filing/priority: priority US 10/631,254 filed 2003-07-31; published 2005-02-03 (PCT filed 2004-07-13). (U.S. Patent 7,516,043 issued 2009-04-07 on this family.)
• Description: A diagnostic system/method for a field device (e.g., a digital valve positioner) in a process control apparatus. A sensor is associated with the process control apparatus; a computer detects a predetermined process event and a memory stores sensor data "at a time corresponding to the occurrence of the predetermined process event." Triggering events disclosed include: large valve-element travel deviation; travel/component high or low; travel set point crossing a cutoff; auxiliary input; I/P drive signal high/low; supply pressure high/low; sensor out-of-range; sensor failure; positioner integrator saturation; air-mass-flow high/low; excessive component cycling, etc. Data is recorded for a window centered on the trigger. The system uses a digital valve positioner mounted to a valve (FIG. 2–3).
• Why it is the closest art: It is the same field (Fisher Controls), same triggering paradigm (data collection triggered off a measured process event at a field device), same data capture at the field device, and even the same valve-travel trigger types. This is the reference most likely to have driven the "fugitive emission" and "position/sensor trigger" wording added to the granted claims.
• Potential §102 impact:
  • It reads closely on much of claim 1 (measuring operating states; trigger generated from measured states; change/high/low values of a travel sensor) and on claim 10 (trigger = change/min/max of measured state).
  • However, on the face of the abstract/description, Junk does not expressly "associate a time-stamp" as such, and does not frame the trigger as "indicative that a fugitive emission has occurred," nor does it disclose a "monitoring device that quantifies an amount of fugitive emissions." Therefore Junk is better characterized as §103 art against claims 1/16 (combined with a fugitive-emissions reference) than as clean §102 anticipation of the granted independent claims.
  • It is directly relevant to dependent claims 10, 12, 13 (trigger = change/min/max; request-driven execution).

C2. US 7,657,384 B1 — Management of response to triggering events in connection with monitoring fugitive emissions

• Citation: Moses, Rex (Environmental Analytics, Inc.).
• Filing/publication: filed 2007-03-28; issued 2010-02-02 (16 claims).
• Description: Method for managing a response to a fugitive emissions monitor of a component (e.g., control valve). Uses a toxic vapor analyzer (TVA) and a handheld PC; determines whether an input/signal is a "triggering event," measures elapsed monitoring time, and displays remediation actions. Discusses EPA fugitive-emission leakage regulations for control valves and packing-set leakage.
• Potential §102 impact:
  • Supplies the "fugitive emissions" + "triggering event" + time-measurement concepts missing from Junk. It does not time-stamp position-sensor data at the field device, nor quantify emissions from valve position, so it does not anticipate claims 1/16.
  • Best used as §103 art combined with C1 for the "fugitive emissions" framing, and as background for the problem statement.

C3. US 8,751,173 B1 — Management of response to triggering events in connection with monitoring fugitive emissions

• Citation: Moses, Rex (LDARtools, Inc.).
• Filing/publication: filed 2009-05-11 (continuation-in-part of 11/692,764, now US 7,657,384); issued 2014-06-10.
• Description: Addressed to verifying technician accuracy in Leak Detection And Repair (LDAR) monitoring — artificial/phantom LDAR components inserted into assignments; also triggering-event handling and time lapse. Same family as C2.
• Potential §102 impact: Same as C2 — furnishes the fugitive-emissions/trigger/time-lapse context but lacks field-device position-sensor time-stamping and automated quantification. §103/background only; not an anticipatory reference for claims 1/16.

C4. US 5,970,430 A — Local device and process diagnostics in a process control network having distributed control functions

• Citation: Larson, Brent H.; Burns, Harry A.; Brown, Larry K. (Fisher Controls International, Inc.). Also WO 98/14848 A1; EP 0929850 / EP 1022626 B1; JP 2001-524226 A.
• Filing/publication: priority US 08/726,262 filed 1996-10-04 (and 08/922,938 filed 1997-09-03); issued 1999-10-19.
• Description: A Fieldbus (all-digital) field device that stores and executes a diagnostic test routine locally; a data collection unit within the field device collects diagnostic data generated during the test and a communication unit communicates the collected data to a host device for processing. Includes valve position sensor and pressure sensor; measures changes in valve position during a test cycle.
• Why notable: Explicitly called out in the EP counterpart EP 2 820 390 B1 as an example of "methods and systems for monitoring a process control device" (along with US 2009/0113990, US 2008/0082180, US 2011/0173496).
• Potential §102 impact: Discloses in-device data collection + reporting to a host (relevant to the claim 1 preamble and claim 16 "valve monitoring system / communications interface"), but no time-stamping and no fugitive-emission quantification. §103/background; not an anticipatory reference for claims 1/16 on its own.

C5. US 5,431,182 A — Smart valve positioner

• Citation: Rosemount, Inc.
• Filing/publication: filed 1994-04-20; issued 1995-07-11.
• Description: Foundational "smart" digital valve positioner — microprocessor-based valve positioner with position feedback and digital communication. Cited as basic prior art for valve-monitoring/positioner architecture.
• Potential §102 impact: Relevant to the structural elements of claim 16 (valve + position sensor + valve monitoring electronics + communications), but discloses no time-stamping, no triggering, and no emissions quantification. Background/§103 only.

D. Tier 2 — Prior art relevant to specific dependent-claim elements

These bear on particular claim features (protocols, message format, sequence-of-events logging, emissions measurement, valve leakage) but do not come close to the full independent claims.

E. Non-patent literature cited (relevant to the §102/§103 record)

1. "1995 Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates" (EPA, Nov. 1995) — cited by examiner; establishes the regulatory context for fugitive-emission estimation and is the framework against which the patent's "quantify the amount of fugitive emissions" limitation is measured.
2. Communication Relating to the Results of the Partial International Search, PCT/US2013/027930, mailed 2013-12-13.
3. Communication Under Rule 164(2)(a) EPC, EP 13 710 927.8, dated 2016-12-08.
4. Office Action, CN 201310063860.5, dated 2016-03-03 (and Second Office Action, 2016-09-14).
5. Office Action, MX/a/2014/010158, dated 2015-06-11.

F. Bottom-line assessment

• No single cited reference anticipates independent claims 1 or 16 under §102. Each of the two independent claims requires the conjunction of (i) in-field time-stamping, (ii) a trigger indicative that a fugitive emission has occurred / representative of a change or min/max of position-sensor data, and (iii) transmission to a monitor that quantifies the amount of fugitive emissions. No cited reference discloses all three.
• The closest art is Junk, US 2005/0028037 A1 (Fisher Controls, 2003-07-31), which discloses triggered, field-device-captured valve data using precisely the change/high/low trigger types recited in the claims. Alone it reads on the trigger/time-capture aspects (claims 1 preamble, 10, and supports 12–13) but not on the fugitive-emission framing.
• The "fugitive emissions" element is supplied only by the Moses/LDAR family (US 7,657,384 B1; US 8,751,173 B1) and the Miller vapor-emissions references (US 2006/0206272 A1; US 2008/0120043 A1). A §103 combination of Junk + Moses/Miller is the most plausible validity challenge to claims 1/16 and dependents 2–5, 7–11, 14, 17–21.
• Claim 16's structural elements (valve, position sensor, monitoring electronics, communications interface) are shown by US 5,431,182 and US 5,970,430 (both cited, the latter in the EP counterpart), again only in combination.
• The protocol/message-format and event-ordering dependent claims (7–9, 11, 15) map to the sequence-of-events and wireless-communications references (JP 2003-058240; US 2009/0094259; US 2011/0066598; US 2008/0082180), i.e., §103 art.

G. Caveats and limitations

• This is a §102 "potential anticipation" screen, not a legal conclusion. Anticipation requires that a single reference disclose every element arranged as in the claim; on the record above, no listed reference does.
• Descriptions of references for which I have only the title/bibliographic data (most of Tier 2) are characterized by title and general field knowledge; I have not verified their full specifications element-by-element and flag those as lower-confidence.
• The citation list is large (≈44–47 patent references plus 6 NPL items). I treated the whole list but prioritized those capable of reaching the independent claims. If litigation-grade element-by-element charts against the total disclosure of any specific Tier 2 reference are needed, a full-text review of that reference should be performed, and I would not assert a §102 result from title-level information alone.
• Per operating rules, all numbers above are reproduced literally as found; e.g., "JP2015515663A," "RU2637049C2," and the EP/CN family members are cited exactly as listed in the record.

I'll ground the key prior-art references before building the § 103 analysis. Let me pull the references cited on the patent's face that are most relevant.

Let me ground a few more of-record references that bear directly on the time-stamping and triggering elements.

Obviousness Analysis of US 9,625,349 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Building on the earlier-generated summary (bibliographic data, claim charts, and the observation that the granted claims were narrowed during prosecution by tying the trigger and time-stamp expressly to a fugitive-emission event). This section does not repeat that material.

1. Governing framework and the person of ordinary skill

Applicable law. Application 13/482,639 was filed May 29, 2012 (priority Feb. 29, 2012), i.e., before March 16, 2013, so the pre-AIA versions of §§ 102/103 govern. Obviousness is assessed under Graham v. John Deere (scope/content of prior art, differences, PHOSITA level, secondary considerations), as refined by KSR Int'l v. Teleflex (a "flexible" inquiry permitting common-sense inferences; a predictable combination of known elements for a known purpose is obvious). References published after Feb. 29, 2012 may still qualify under pre-AIA § 102(e) if they were "filed in the United States" before the invention date — with the important caveat that, under In re Hilmer, a foreign priority date does not count for § 102(e).

Level of ordinary skill. A POSITA here would be a controls/valve engineer (or team) with a bachelor's degree in mechanical, electrical, or controls engineering and ~2–5 years of experience with digital valve positioners, valve diagnostics, process-control networks (HART/Fieldbus/Profibus/WirelessHART), and familiarity with EPA emissions-monitoring regulations. This is a predictable, well-developed art: digital valve positioners with triggered data capture and event logs existed well before 2012 (see Junk, below).

Claim construction of the limitations that decide the case:

• "trigger … indicative that the fugitive emission has occurred" — a signal/state derived from a monitored operating state (e.g., valve position leaving the seat, a pressure excursion) that the system treats as the onset of an atmospheric release.
• "at a point in time when a fugitive emission … begins to occur" — the time-stamp is taken at the field device, contemporaneously with the event, rather than when data arrives at a host. This is the concession the patent's own Background makes: conventional systems "record the time data arrives, not the time the data was sent or measured."
• "monitoring device that quantifies an amount of fugitive emissions" (claim 1) and "instructions … to quantify an amount of fugitive emissions" (claim 16).

2. The prior art of record (from the patent's face)

The "Prior Art" section lists 44–47 cited references plus 6 non-patent citations. The ones that matter for § 103 are:

3. Where each element of claim 1 lives

Every limitation of claim 1 maps onto Junk '037 alone except the fugitive-emission framing (the "indicative that the fugitive emission has occurred" trigger and the "quantifies an amount of fugitive emissions" downstream device), which Moses '384 and the EPA Protocol supply.

4. The combinations

Combination A (primary): Junk '037 + Moses '384 + EPA 1995 Protocol

Rationale. Junk '037 discloses a digital valve positioner that captures and time-associated sensor data in response to a valve-position trigger (change/min/max of travel). Moses '384 discloses a system that detects and manages fugitive-emission "triggering events" on control valves, with express reference to EPA regulation of control-valve stem-packing leaks and the cost benefit of accurate leak documentation. The EPA NPL supplies the accepted method for converting leak-event data into an emission quantity.

Why combine: Both references are in the same field of endeavor (process-control valves and their monitoring). Moses identifies precisely the problem the '349 patent recites as its raison d'être — worst-case EPA assumptions and the inability to prove actual emission duration. A POSITA seeking to replace regulatory worst-case assumptions with actual data would predictably: (i) reuse Junk's already-known field-side, trigger-based, time-stamped data capture (so the measurement is stamped when it happens, not when it arrives), and (ii) reuse Moses'/EPA's quantification on the receiving end. The result is a known technique (triggered field-device data logging) applied to a known problem (emissions accounting) with a predictable outcome — the KSR paradigm.

Combination B: Junk '037 + Moses '384 + Honeywell '841 (leak test)

Honeywell '841 adds a leak-specific trigger (pressure-change-rate exceeding a threshold) at the valve controller. A POSITA would use this as the trigger that is "indicative that the fugitive emission has occurred," while Junk supplies the time-stamping/transmission and Moses/EPA the quantification. Honeywell is § 102(e)-available (US-filed Dec. 15, 2011, before the invention date).

Combination C: Junk '037 + Brown '225 + Fisher '853 (+ Metso '418)

Brown '225 and Fisher '853 supply valve-leak detection from valve-mounted sensors; Metso '418 supplies time-stamping of each valve travel event at the valve controller and the choice to process locally or centrally. This combination is strongest for claim 16's requirement that the field-side processor quantify the emission — Metso expressly contemplates "performing said measuring, said processing and said determining by means of a valve positioner of the valve."

Combination D (claim 16 assembly): Junk '037 + Moses '384 + US 5,431,182

Claim 16's hardware elements (valve + position sensor + valve monitoring system with processor/CRM + communications interface) are the standard digital-positioner architecture of US 5,431,182 and Junk '037 (FIG. 2/3). The quantifying instructions come from Moses/EPA. This is a straightforward substitution of known components.

5. Motivation to combine (articulated per KSR)

1. Known problem, known solution. The '349 specification itself concedes the problem (worst-case EPA penalties; host-side time-of-arrival stamping is "inaccurate") and identifies the fix (trigger + field-side time-stamp). Where the specification frames the invention as an engineering improvement to known data-collection, that framing supports obviousness. Moses '384 independently documents the same regulatory pain and the value of accurate leak data.
2. Same field / reasonably pertinent. All principal references concern monitoring process-control valves; Moses expressly names control valves as the leaking components.
3. Predictable result. Adding a time-stamp to an already-triggered data record is the routine combination of two known data-logging functions; the Office classified Junk under the very CPC node covering "time-stamping measurements."
4. Finite, identified solutions. Given a valve positioner that can already trigger on travel, and an emissions regime keyed to when valves leak, using valve position/leak state as the emission trigger is one of a small number of predictable options.
5. Same-assignee context. Junk is Fisher Controls (the '349 assignee). A POSITA at Fisher would treat its triggered-capture architecture as the natural platform on which to build the claimed improvement.
6. No teaching away. Junk encourages more (and more precise) triggered data capture; Moses encourages more accurate emission documentation. Neither discourages time-stamping at the field device.

6. Dependent claims (2–15, 17–23)

These are, on the record, largely design-detail claims that fall with the independent claims:

• 2 (valve form): Junk.
• 3–6 (activation/position/leakage state, total displacement, time not fully closed, simmering; position at different times; offset from fully closed/opened): Junk (travel/travel set point, "valve stem travel high or low"); Moses/Fisher '853 (leakage); US 2012/0215488 (partial stroke / off-seat position); simmering is a known pressure-relief-valve concept.
• 7–8, 17–18 (start/end/duration; absolute/relative time): Junk's "elapsed time (x seconds)" window and event log; absolute-vs-relative timestamps are design choices.
• 9 (per-state stamping): Junk.
• 10 (general trigger = change/min/max): Junk (expressly).
• 11 (header/sequence/position/flow/simmer/CRC data-unit): conventional packet framing (TCP/HART/WirelessHART) — predictable.
• 12–14 (on request; periodic): Junk's user-retrieval of the event log; Metso's polling of the positioner; periodic reporting is routine in battery-powered field devices (the '349 spec itself discusses power/bandwidth-driven reporting intervals).
• 15, 22 (protocol lists): the protocols are recited as alternatives and are all standard; Junk already lists HART/Fieldbus/Profibus.
• 19–20 (process-variable sensor + triggered stamping): Junk's auxiliary inputs; Moses's TVA signal as a trigger.
• 21 (transmitted-data content list): Junk + Moses + simmering art.
• 23 (actuator/valve-position-controller/process-controller architecture): the standard FIG. 3 loop; US 5,431,182.

7. Anticipated non-obviousness arguments and rebuttals

Argument 1 — "No reference detects the onset of an atmospheric fugitive emission from a valve position sensor." This is the patent's strongest potential defense, because a stem-packing leak is not itself a position event. Rebuttal: (a) the '349 specification defines the relevant states as position/activation/leakage/off-seat duration, i.e., the inventors themselves treat valve position (valve not fully closed) as the emission indicator; (b) Moses '384's triggering events are deliberately broad (PPM threshold, AVO observation, time-based) and are not limited to a gas sensor; (c) claim 20/10 permit a change/min/max of either the position or process-variable sensor to serve as the trigger, which Junk teaches. A POSITA combining Junk's position trigger with Moses's emission framework would reach the claim without the "flash of creative genius" § 103 forbids.

Argument 2 — Hindsight. Rebuttal: the motivation is documented in the references themselves and in the patent's own admitted problem (EPA worst-case penalties), not merely in the patent's disclosure — the KSR requirement that the motivation appear in the prior art is met by Moses '384 and the EPA NPL.

Argument 3 — Secondary considerations. No evidence of nexus, unexpected results, or copying appears in the record. Long-felt need (EPA fines) cuts toward obviousness here, because the problem was known and the industry was actively seeking the very data-accuracy improvement claimed.

Argument 4 — Claim 16's field-side quantification is a genuine gap. This is the most credible non-obviousness point: claim 16 requires the valve monitoring system's own processor to "quantify an amount of fugitive emissions," whereas Junk and Moses both perform analysis at a host/handheld. Counter: Metso '418 expressly claims performing measuring + processing + determining in the valve positioner itself, supplying the motivation to localize the computation; and localizing analysis onto the field processor is a predictable design choice. This limitation is nonetheless the one I would expect an accused infringer and a patentee to fight over most.

8. Weaknesses in the obviousness case / uncertainty disclosure

• Metso '418 prior-art status is date-sensitive. Its US publication (May 2, 2013) postdates the Feb. 29, 2012 priority. Its only pre-2012 date I could confirm is the Finnish priority of Apr. 30, 2010, and under In re Hilmer a foreign priority date does not establish a § 102(e) date. If Metso has no US or English-language-PCT filing before Feb. 29, 2012, it is not available as prior art. I could not verify its US/PCT filing date in this session. My analysis therefore does not depend on Metso; I rest the primary case on Junk '037 and Moses '384, whose dates are unquestionably pre-2012.
• Honeywell '841 is US-filed Dec. 15, 2011 (before the invention date), so it is § 102(e)-available; I verified the filing date only from the secondary source above and did not pull the underlying USPTO file.
• I could not re-verify the contents of US 2008/0082180 A1 (Fisher, "Wireless Communication of Process Measurements") or JP2003058240A in this session (tool-step limit). I have therefore treated them as cumulative only; they are not load-bearing in any combination above.
• Both Moses patents are B1 utility patents in the LDAR/tooling space rather than valve-hardware patents; a patentee could argue they are not "reasonably pertinent" to a digital valve positioner. I find that argument weak because Moses expressly names control valves as the monitored components and the EPA-regulated leak sources.
• I have not performed a full independent prior-art search beyond the patent's own "Prior Art" section, as the task directed me to use that section. A broader search (e.g., WirelessHART time-stamping, sequence-of-events recorders) would likely strengthen the obviousness case for the time-stamping and data-unit claims.
• No litigation, IPR/PGR, or CAFC proceeding on this patent was found in the earlier-generated section; nothing in this § 103 analysis changes that.

9. Conclusion

On the prior art of record, claims 1–23 of US 9,625,349 are vulnerable to a § 103 challenge. The most defensible combination is:

US 2005/0028037 A1 (Junk) as the primary reference — teaching a field-device (digital valve positioner) that measures valve state and time-stamps triggered data on valve-position change/min/max events and transmits it to a host — in view of US 7,657,384 B1 (Moses) — teaching detection/management of fugitive-emission triggering events on control valves in an EPA regulatory context, with quantification — and, optionally, the EPA 1995 Protocol, Honeywell '841, or Fisher '853/Brown '225 for the leak-specific trigger and quantification.

The motivation is supplied by the references themselves and by the patent's own admitted problem (host-side time-of-arrival stamping and worst-case EPA penalty assumptions). The only limitation with real non-obviousness traction is claim 16's requirement that the field-side processor itself quantify the emission; every other element — including the position-sensor change/min/max trigger and field-side time-stamping — appears, expressly or by direct combination, in the cited art.