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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 02 January 2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 9 & 17 have been amended, claims 8 & 16 have been cancelled, and no claims have been added. Claims 4, 12 & 18-20 were cancelled by previous amendments. Thus, claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 13-15, 17 & 21-22 are presently pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 & 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 8-9: “wherein the pressure control unit comprises: a pressure control pipe has a first end…” should read “wherein the pressure control unit comprises: a pressure control pipe having a first end…”;
Claim 1, lines 10-11: the phrase “flowing the gas to the damper or from the damper…” might be seen to suggest a required method step rather than an intended function. Compare to “for flowing the gas” or “configured to convey the gas”, etc.
Claim 9, lines 24-25: the phrase “flowing the third gas to the damper or from the damper…” might be seen to suggest a required method step rather than an intended function. Compare to “for flowing the third gas” or “configured to convey the third gas”, etc.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7 & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinh (US 5,348,270) in view of Zelczer (US 4,545,524) and Blair (US 4,322,598).
Regarding claim 1, Dinh discloses (fig. 5) a flow control system for controlling a flow rate of a gas (e.g., air) moving within a pipe (12), the flow control system comprising:
a damper (16; “bladder 16”) provided within the pipe for controlling an opening/closing rate of the pipe by a contraction or an expansion of the damper (see abstract), wherein the damper has a balloon shape (i.e. a flexible inflatable object) having an inlet (i.e., at 36); and
a pressure control unit (incl. 14, 104) for supplying a gas (e.g., air; see abstract: “[t]he bladder may be inflated by supplying pressurized air to the interior…”) into the damper or exhausting the gas from an inside of the damper (col. 7, lines 2-3: “…to control inflation and deflation of bladder 16”),
wherein the pressure control unit comprises:
a pressure control pipe (14) connected to the inlet of the damper and flowing the gas to the damper or from the damper through the inlet of the damper (i.e., controller 104 regulating air to / from pipe 14, in communication with the damper via openings 34; col. 4, lines 17-27 & col. 6, line 68 – col. 7, line 3; see also col. 6, lines 49-52 regarding related fig. 4 embodiment);
a pressure measuring device (100; see below) for measuring a pressure within the pipe at a front end of the damper (as shown);
a controller (104) connected to the pressure measuring device and configured to generate a control signal based on a pressure within the pipe measured at the pressure measuring device (see col. 6, line 68- col. 7, line 3; see below); and
a regulator connected to the controller (see below) and configured to adjust, in response to the control signal from the controller, a pressure of a gas flowing to/from within the damper (i.e., one of the functions of controller 104; see below),
wherein the pressure control pipe is attached to an inner wall of the pipe (see fig. 5; leg 30 of pipe 14 is disclosed as being attached to plate 26 of wall 20, and clearly extends to the inside thereof. Thus, the pressure control pipe is reasonably seen as attached to an inner wall of the pipe; see also col. 4, lines 19-22: “The first leg 30 is soldered, glued, or otherwise secured to plate 26 and extends through the plate 26 and thus of the side wall 20 of ventilation duct 12…”),
wherein the pipe has a hole (i.e. either the hole in plate 26, which may be considered a [removable] part of the pipe wall, or the larger hole in the pipe wall which is covered by the plate 26 in use).
Regarding the limitation wherein the system comprises “a pressure measuring device for measuring a pressure within the pipe at a front end of the damper”, as can be clearly seen from fig. 5, Dinh discloses a “detector” 100 for measuring a pressure within the pipe at a front end of the damper. Dinh discloses (col. 6, lines 65-67) that the detector “may comprise a venturi meter or any of a variety of known devices which are capable of detecting the airflow rate through an enclose space”. As would be recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art, a “venturi meter” is a type of measuring device which determines flow rate by measuring a pressure difference between two points in a conduit. Thus, a venturi meter is reasonably considered to be a pressure measuring device which measures pressure within the pipe.
Examination Note I: while not relied upon in the grounds of rejection in this action, to promote compact prosecution, it is noted that Dinh explicitly suggests that “any of a variety of known devices which are capable of detecting the airflow” may be used. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have readily understood that, e.g., static pressure sensors may also be employed here, as is the use of static pressure sensors to determine airflow in a duct is common and otherwise well-known in the art (e.g., see US 2019/0170375 A1 to Poerschke et al.; paras. 10 & 52).
Examination Note II: to further promote compact prosecution, it is noted that controlling a flow regulator based upon a pressure measurement from upstream of a control regulator / valve is otherwise known in the art: see, e.g. US 4,417,312 to Cronin et al. and US 9,169,939 to Lyabarger et al. Lyabarger, in particular, teaches that the pressure measured can be either upstream or downstream.
Regarding the limitations wherein the pressure control unit further comprises a controller connected to the pressure measuring device and configured to generate a control signal based on a pressure within the pipe measured at the pressure measuring device, and a regulator connected to the controller and configured to adjust, in response to the control signal from the controller, a pressure of a gas flowing to/from within the damper and, Dinh discloses that the “controller 104” receives an electrical signal (102) from the detector (measuring device), wherein “controller 104” combines the signal with a “signal 106” from “a suitable command device 108” to “control inflation and deflation of bladder 16”.
It is noted that, in context, the embodiment of fig. 5 is a modified form of the embodiment of fig. 4 and, as understood, differs from that embodiment only by the type of detector used (e.g., a venturi meter or other detector in fig. 5 vs a position sensor in fig. 4).
With respect to the related fig. 4 embodiment, Dinh describes the corresponding controller 90 as “an automatic pressure regulator or controller 90… Controller 90 includes an electrically operated valve or valves which selectively connect the support pipe 14 to a source of pressurized air (not shown) and to the atmosphere. The desired airflow rate… is supplied to controller 90 via a signal 94 from an input device 96 which may include a thermostat or any of a variety of known manually or automatically actuated command devices. The signals from devices 86 and 96 are combined so as to produce control signals for controller 90 via any of a variety of known feedback processes” (col. 6, lines 46-59).
As best understood in view of the above, the element indicated at “controller 104” includes both a controller (i.e., the portion of the controller 104 which receives the signals 102 and 106 and combines them to determine said control of inflation / deflation) and a regulator (i.e., the portion of the device which performs the actual control of inflation and deflation; e.g., electrically operated valve or valves) which adjusts the pressure of the gas flowing to/from the damper (i.e., providing an increased supply pressure for inflation and reducing / venting the pressure for deflation).
In this context, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood or otherwise readily inferred that, in order for the controller (i.e., the signal processing / determination portion) to control the regulator (i.e., the electrically operated valve or valves) as disclosed by Dinh, the controller would be configured to generate a control signal (i.e., based on the pressure measurement and other command signals) and the regulator would be electrically / communicatively connected to the regulator to receive such a control signal from the controller, whereby the regulator is configured to adjust the pressure of the gas flowing to/from within the damper in response to the control signal from the controller.
With respect to the limitation wherein the controller generates the control signal “based on a pressure within the pipe measured at the pressure measuring device”, as previously noted, a venturi meter is a pressure-based flow meter, so the controller, which generates the control signal based on the signal from the detector (measuring device), is reasonably seen as controlling the regulator “based on a pressure within the pipe measured at the pressure measuring device”.
Examination Note: to promote compact prosecution, it is noted that control systems wherein a controller generates a control signal based on a measured value from a sensor (e.g., a pressure measuring device) and a regulator adjusts a pilot pressure to a control valve based upon the control signal are well-known in the art. See, e.g., US 3,726,307 to Carman et al., US 6,338,358 to Watanabe et al., US 2015/0211552 A1 to Burgett et al., US 2002/0036013 A1 to Inayama et al., etc.
Dinh does not disclose the limitations wherein the pressure control pipe has a first end directly connected to the inlet of the damper, wherein the pressure control pipe has a second end attached to an inner wall of the pipe, or wherein an inside of the pressure control pipe is connected to the hole of the pipe.
Zelczer teaches (fig. 5; see also similar embodiment in figs. 3-4) a flow control system for controlling flow of a gas (63) moving within a pipe (61), comprising a damper (59) provided within the pipe for controlling an opening / closing rate of the pipe by a contraction or expansion of the damper, wherein the damper has a balloon shape (col. 8, lines 6-8: “…inflatable bladders, bags or balloons…”, col 8., lines 40-41: “…the bladder may be elastic (like a balloon)…”) having an inlet (at 58, “inlet fitting 58 of bladder 59”), and a pressure control unit (i.e., including air supply line 62; see figs. 1 & 2 showing such systems) for supplying gas into the damper or exhausting the gas from inside the damper (e.g., via devices 25 as in fig. 1; see col. 8, lines 4-16: “the bladder… may be selectively connected by means controlled by the cycle controller…to a source of pressurized air and to the atmosphere respectively to inflate and deflate the bladders”), wherein the pressure control unit includes a pressure control pipe (60) having a first end directly connected to the inlet (58) of the damper and flowing the gas to the damper or from the damper through the inlet of the damper.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flow control system of Dinh such that the pressure control pipe has a first end directly connected to the inlet of the damper, in view of the teachings of Zelczer, as the simple substitution of one known inflatable damper arrangement (i.e. an elongated balloon shape extending along an end portion of the pressure control pipe and in communication therewith by lateral openings of the pipe, as in Dinh) for another (i.e., the simple balloon arrangement of Zelczer, wherein the balloon inlet is directly attached to a first end of the pressure control pipe) to obtain predictable results (e.g., a simplified arrangement wherein the damper is attached to the pressure control pipe only at the end, eliminating the requirement for the damper to be sealed to the pipe at two locations, enabling the use of a less complex pressure control pipe [i.e., by eliminating the lateral holes], and otherwise reducing the cantilevered / axial length of the pressure control pipe required, which may also reduce the force on the pipe sidewall where the pressure control pipe passes through / is mounted thereto, etc.).
Regarding the remaining limitations wherein the pressure control pipe has a second end attached to an inner wall of the pipe, and wherein an inside of the pressure control pipe is connected to the hole of the pipe, in each of Dinh and Zelczer, the pressure control pipe passes through the inner wall of the pipe, but is otherwise secured to the inner wall thereof (i.e., in Dinh, the pressure control pipe is “soldered, glued, or otherwise secured to” the pipe wall; in Zelczer, the pressure control pipe is secured to the inner pipe wall via an unlabeled fitting, similar to the nut 54 used in figs. 3-4). However, neither explicitly teaches the pressure control pipe having a second end attached to the inner wall of the pipe, wherein an inside of the pressure control pipe is connected to the hole of the pipe.
Blair describes itself as “concerned with assembly techniques required when necessary to pass a liquid or gaseous flow passage through a wall… where the outer side of the tube or pipe through which the flow takes place must be sealed to the wall” (col. 1, lines 7-12).
Blair explains that a common prior art technique in these instances had been to drill a hole through the wall, pass the tube through the wall, and then “silver solder” a flange fitting to the housing wall and to the exterior of the pipe to establish the leak-tight joint. Such a prior-art arrangement is shown in figure 1, and Blair explains this technique as “time consuming and expensive in terms of labor and materials (col. 1, lines 13-25).
Blair then teaches (figs. 2 & 3) “a more efficient technique” for forming a flow passage through a wall, wherein ends of pipes (26) are directly attached (via welding) to respective sides of the wall (22), wherein the wall has a hole (24), and wherein the inside of each pipe is connected to the hole of the wall. In figure 4, Blair teaches a modified form for use when the wall is curved.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flow control system of Dinh such that the pressure control pipe has a second end attached to an inner wall of the pipe, wherein the pipe has a hole, and wherein an inside of the pressure control pipe is connected to the hole of the pipe, in view of the teachings of Blair, as the application of a known technique (i.e., providing a sealed arrangement for passing a flow passage through a wall wherein pipe segments are attached to either side of the wall, with the insides of the pipe segments in fluid communication with each other via the hole in the wall, as in Blair) to a known device ready for improvement (e.g., the system of Dinh, having a pressure control pipe which passes through a [pipe] wall and, in the original form disclosed by Dinh, may be soldered in the opening) to obtain predictable results (e.g., a more efficient arrangement whereby inner and outer pipe segments are directly attached to the pipe wall via welding, which does not require a separate connection hardware or soldering to obtain a sealed joint, etc., as suggested by Blair).
Regarding claim 2, Dinh discloses the additional limitation wherein the damper (16) is provided as an elastic body (see abstract: “[a] damper includes an elastic bladder…”; see also col. 4, lines 27-29: “[b]ladder 16 is formed from an elongated rubber, elastomeric, or other inflatable elastic element…”).
As noted for claim 1 above, Zelczer also teaches the damper to be provided as an elastic body (col 8., lines 40-41: “…the bladder may be elastic (like a balloon)…”).
Regarding claim 3, the system of Dinh, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation wherein the damper is provided in a spherical form (i.e., see damper 59 of Zelczer in fig. 5 which, when the pipe 61 is round in cross-section as in related embodiment shown in figs. 3-4, is reasonably seen to be “spherical in form”).
To promote compact prosecution, it is noted that the damper 51 of Zelczer in the embodiment of figs. 3 & 4 is shown in both transverse and longitudinal cross-section to be substantially spherical in form. If not already seen as such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flow control system of Dinh such that the damper is provided in spherical form, in view of the teachings of Zelczer, as the simple substitution of one known inflatable bladder damper shape (e.g., the elongated form as originally shown in Dinh) for another (i.e., the spherical shape taught by Zelczer) to obtain predictable results (e.g., predictable and even expansion / occlusion when utilized with a round pipe, etc.).
Examination Note: the use of spherical inflatable members to block the inside of a round pipe is otherwise well-known in the art (e.g., see US 2005/0229985 A1 to Saxenfelt, US 3,015,469 to Falk, US 2019/0009021 A1 to Nelson et al., etc.).
Regarding claim 5, the system of Dinh, as modified above, reads on the additional limitations wherein the pressure control pipe (14) comprises:
a fixing part (30) for fixing to the inner wall of the pipe; and
a bending part (32) extending and bending from the fixing part, and coupled to the inlet (i.e., the inlet of the damper 16, as shown in fig. 5; see also col. 4, lines 23-27).
It is noted that the pressure control pipe (60) of Zelczer also includes a corresponding fixing part (i.e., the vertical portion) and a corresponding bending part (i.e., the horizontal portion) coupled to the inlet.
Regarding claim 6, Dinh discloses the additional limitation wherein the bending part (32) and the pipe (12) are provided parallel to each other (as shown in fig. 5).
See col. 4, lines 23-27: ”The second leg 32 is positioned on or proximate the longitudinal center line of ventilation duct 12…”.
Regarding claim 7, the system of Dinh, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation wherein the system further comprises: a sealing member (i.e., 36 of Dinh; corresponding to inlet fitting 58 of Zelczer, etc.) for connecting and sealing the bending part (32 of Dinh; horizontal portion of 60 of Zelczer) and a top or a bottom of a central region of the damper (as shown).
See col. 4, lines 27-31 of Ding: “Bladder 16… has opposed ends which are sealed to the annular side surface of second leg 32 of pipe 14, e.g., by rubber O rings 36 and 38”.
Regarding claim 21, the system of Dinh reads on the additional limitations wherein the opening/closing rate of the pipe is a ratio of a diameter of pipe and a diameter of the damper (i.e., as shown in fig. 5, the portion of the pipe which is opened or closed is directly proportional to a ratio of the diameter of the pipe and the diameter of the damper; i.e., when the damper is 100% of the diameter of the pipe, the pipe is 100% closed, when the damper is 50% of the diameter of the pipe, the pipe may be considered 50% closed, etc.), and
wherein the diameter of the damper is determined according to a pressure of the gas within the damper (i.e., as the damper is an elastic bladder, the diameter of the damper would be “determined” according to a pressure of the gas within the damper, with greater inflation pressure corresponding to a larger diameter, etc.).
Claims 9-11, 13-15 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (JP 5280141 B2; hereafter Kato) in view of Dinh, Zelczer, and Blair.
Examination Note: references to the specification of Kato refer to the English translation previously provided in October 2024.
Regarding claim 9, Kato discloses (fig. 2; see pgs. 8 & 9 of the provided translation) a substrate treating apparatus comprising:
a plurality of process chambers (21-24; 31-34) having a treating space within and treating a substrate (W) within the treating space; and
a pipe unit for supplying a first gas (i.e., air; via pipes 51, 71 for chambers 21-24; via pipes 61 & 74 for chambers 31-34) to the treating space or exhausting a second gas (e.g., contaminated air; via pipes 52-55 for chambers 21-24; via pipes 62-65 for chambers 31-34) from the treating space,
wherein the pipe unit comprises:
a plurality of pipes directly connected to the treating space of the plurality of process chambers, respectively (e.g., the air supply pipes branching from 51 or 61 to each supply unit 41);
an integrated pipe connected to the plurality of pipes (i.e., pipe 51 being an integrated pipe connected to the plurality of branch pipes supplying air to chambers 21-24; pipe 61 being an integrated pipe connected to the plurality of branch pipes for air to chambers 31-34); and
a plurality of flow control systems (i.e., “flow rate adjustment dampers” at 46 for chambers 21-24 and at 48 for chambers 31-34) provided at the plurality of pipes, respectively, wherein each flow control system of the plurality of flow control systems controls a flow rate of a gas moving within a corresponding pipe of the plurality of pipes (“Each flow rate adjustment damper 46 adjusts the flow rate of air flowing from the flow pipe 51 to each air supply unit 41”; “Similarly, a flow rate adjusting damper 48 is provided at a connection portion between the circulation pipe 61 and each air supply unit 41”),
wherein each flow control system of the plurality of flow control systems comprises:
a damper (i.e., as above, 46 & 48 are referred to as “flow rate adjustment / adjusting dampers”) controlling an opening/closing rate of the corresponding pipe of the plurality of pipes (i.e., as is the function of a damper, generally).
Kato does not explicitly disclose the additional limitations wherein the damper is provided within the corresponding pipe of the plurality of pipes and controls an opening/closing rate of the corresponding pipe of the plurality of pipes by a volume change of the damper, wherein the damper has a balloon shape having an inlet; wherein each flow control system of the plurality of flow control systems further comprises: a pressure control unit for supplying a third gas into the damper or exhausting the third gas from an inside of the damper, and wherein the pressure control unit comprises: a pressure control pipe having a first end directly connected to the inlet of the damper and flowing the third gas to the damper or from the damper through the inlet of the damper; a pressure measuring device configured to measure a pressure within the corresponding pipe of the plurality of pipes at a front end of the damper; a regulator configured to adjust a pressure of a gas flowing to/from within the damper; and a controller configured to control the regulator based on a pressure within the corresponding pipe of the plurality of pipes measured at the pressure measuring device, wherein the pressure control pipe has a second end attached to an inner wall of the corresponding pipe of the plurality of pipes, wherein the corresponding pipe has a hole, and wherein an inside of the pressure control pipe is connected to the hole of the corresponding pipe.
Dinh teaches (fig. 5) flow control system comprising:
a damper (16; “bladder 16”) provided within a pipe and controlling an opening/closing rate of the pipe by a volume change of the damper (i.e., by inflating / deflating; see abstract), wherein the damper has a balloon shape (i.e. a flexible inflatable object) having an inlet (at 36);
a pressure control unit (incl. 14, 104) for supplying a gas (e.g., air; see abstract: “[t]he bladder may be inflated by supplying pressurized air to the interior…”) into the damper or exhausting the gas from an inside of the damper (col. 7, lines 2-3: “…to control inflation and deflation of bladder 16”), and
wherein the pressure control unit comprises:
a pressure control pipe (14) connected to the inlet of the damper and flowing the gas to the damper or from the damper through the inlet of the damper (i.e., controller 104 regulating air to / from pipe 14, in communication with the damper via openings 34; col. 4, lines 17-27 & col. 6, line 68 – col. 7, line 3; see also col. 6, lines 49-52 regarding related fig. 4 embodiment);
a pressure measuring device (i.e., 100) configured to measure a pressure within the pipe at a front end of the damper (as shown);
a regulator configured to adjust a pressure of a gas flowing to/from within the damper (one of the functions of controller 104); and
a controller (104) configured to control the regulator based on a pressure within the pipe as measured at the pressure measuring device (see col. 6, line 68- col. 7, line 3).
Regarding the pressure measuring device, regulator, and controller of Dinh, see extended discussion regarding these limitations provided for the grounds of rejection for claim 1 above, not repeated for brevity. In short, Dinh teaches a pressure measuring device which may be a venturi meter (i.e., a pressure-based flow meter), or any other known measuring device for determining flow rate; and further reasonably teaches that the “controller 104” may be “an automatic pressure regulator or controller” which may comprise “an electrically operated valve or valves which selectively connect the support pipe 14 to a source of pressurized air… and to the atmosphere”, thus adjusting a pressure of a gas flowing to/from within the damper, and may otherwise control the inflation or deflation via signals from the pressure measuring device (e.g., signals from the pressure-based flow meter), thus controlling the regulator based on a pressure within the corresponding pipe measured at the pressure measuring device.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kato such that each flow control system of the plurality of flow control systems comprises a damper provided within the corresponding pipe of the plurality of pipes and controlling an opening/closing rate of the corresponding pipe of the plurality of pipes by a volume change of the damper; wherein the damper has a balloon shape having an inlet, a pressure control unit for supplying a third gas into the damper or exhausting the third gas from an inside of the damper, wherein the pressure control unit comprises a pressure control pipe connected to an inlet of the damper and flowing the third gas to the damper or from the damper through the inlet of the damper, a pressure measuring device configured to measure a pressure within the corresponding pipe of the plurality of pipes at a front end of the damper; a regulator configured to adjust a pressure of a gas flowing to/from within the damper; and a controller configured to control the regulator based on a pressure within the corresponding pipe of the plurality of pipes measured at the pressure measuring device, in view of the teachings of Dinh, to provide for a simple, quiet, and reliable damper arrangement which can automatically control and/or adjust the flow rate of the gas in the respective pipe based on measurements in the pipe and/or based on signals received from a command unit (as otherwise taught by Dinh, etc.).
Zelczer teaches (fig. 5; see also similar embodiment in figs. 3-4) a flow control system for controlling flow of a gas (63) moving with a pipe (61), comprising a damper (59) provided within the pipe for controlling an opening / closing rate of the pipe by a volume change of the damper, wherein the damper has a balloon shape (col. 8, lines 6-8: “…inflatable bladders, bags or balloons…”, col 8., lines 40-41: “…the bladder may be elastic (like a balloon)…”) having an inlet (at 58, “inlet fitting 58 of bladder 59”), and a pressure control unit (i.e., including air supply line 62; see figs. 1 & 2 showing such systems) for supplying gas into the damper or exhausting the gas from inside the damper (e.g., via devices 25 as in fig. 1; see col. 8, lines 4-16: “the bladder… may be selectively connected by means controlled by the cycle controller…to a source of pressurized air and to the atmosphere respectively to inflate and deflate the bladders”), wherein the pressure control unit comprises a pressure control pipe (60) having a first end directly connected to the inlet (58) of the damper and flowing the gas to the damper or from the damper through the inlet of the damper.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kato (i.e., as modified above to include flow control systems of the type taught by Dinh) such that the pressure control pipe has a first end directly connected to the inlet of the damper and flowing the third gas to the damper or from the damper through the inlet of the damper, in view of the teachings of Zelczer, as the simple substitution of one known inflatable damper arrangement (i.e. an elongated balloon shape extending along an end portion of the pressure control pipe and in communication therewith by lateral openings of the pipe, as in Dinh) for another (i.e., the simple balloon arrangement of Zelczer, wherein the balloon inlet is directly attached to a first end of the pressure control pipe) to obtain predictable results (e.g., a simplified arrangement wherein the damper is attached to the pressure control pipe only at the end, eliminating the requirement for the damper to be sealed to the pipe at two locations, enabling the use of a less complex pressure control pipe [i.e., by eliminating the lateral holes], and otherwise reducing the cantilevered / axial length of the pressure control pipe required, which may also reduce the force on the pipe sidewall where the pressure control pipe passes through / is mounted thereto, etc.).
Regarding the remaining limitations wherein the pressure control pipe has a second end attached to an inner wall of the corresponding pipe of the plurality of pipes, wherein the corresponding pipe has a hole, and wherein an inside of the pressure control pipe is connected to the hole of the corresponding pipe, the pressure control unit taught by Dinh does include the pressure control pipe attached to an inner wall of the pipe (see fig. 5; i.e., leg 30 of pipe 14 is disclosed as being attached to plate 26 of wall 20, and clearly extends to the inside thereof. Thus, the pressure control pipe is reasonably seen as attached to an inner wall of the pipe; see also col. 4, lines 19-22: “The first leg 30 is soldered, glued, or otherwise secured to plate 26 and extends through the plate 26 and thus of the side wall 20 of ventilation duct 12…”.), and the corresponding pipe has a hole (i.e. either the hole in plate 26, which may be considered a [removable] part of the pipe wall, or the larger hole in the pipe wall which is covered by the plate 26 in use).
Similarly, in Zelczer, the pressure control pipe is secured to the inner pipe wall via an unlabeled fitting (similar to the nut 54 used in figs. 3-4), and the pipe has a hole.
However, neither explicitly teaches the pressure control pipe having a second end attached to the inner wall of the pipe, wherein an inside of the pressure control pipe is connected to the hole of the pipe.
Blair describes itself as “concerned with assembly techniques required when necessary to pass a liquid or gaseous flow passage through a wall… where the outer side of the tube or pipe through which the flow takes place must be sealed to the wall” (col. 1, lines 7-12).
Blair explains that a common prior art technique in these instances had been to drill a hole through the wall, pass the tube through the wall, and then “silver solder” a flange fitting to the housing wall and to the exterior of the pipe to establish the leak-tight joint. Such a prior-art arrangement is shown in figure 1, and Blair explains this technique as “time consuming and expensive in terms of labor and materials (col. 1, lines 13-25).
Blair then teaches (figs. 2 & 3) “a more efficient technique” for forming a flow passage through a wall, wherein ends of pipes (26) are directly attached (via welding) to respective sides of the wall (22), wherein the wall has a hole (24), and wherein the inside of each pipe is connected to the hole of the wall. In figure 4, Blair teaches a modified form for use when the wall is curved.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kato (i.e., as modified above to include flow control systems of the type taught by Dinh) such that the pressure control pipe has a second end attached to an inner wall of the corresponding pipe of the plurality of pipes, wherein the corresponding pipe has a hole, and wherein an inside of the pressure control pipe is connected to the hole of the corresponding pipe, in view of the teachings of Blair, as the application of a known technique (i.e., providing a sealed arrangement for passing a flow passage through a wall wherein pipe segments are attached to either side of the wall, with the insides of the pipe segments in fluid communication with each other via the hole in the wall, as in Blair) to a known device ready for improvement (e.g., the flow control system of Dinh or, otherwise, the apparatus of Kato modified to include such flow control systems as above, said systems having a pressure control pipe which passes through a [pipe] wall and, in the original form disclosed by Dinh, may be soldered in the opening) to obtain predictable results (e.g., a more efficient arrangement whereby inner and outer pipe segments are directly attached to the pipe wall via welding, which does not require a separate connection hardware or soldering to obtain a sealed joint, etc., as suggested by Blair).
Regarding claim 10, the apparatus of Kato, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation wherein the damper (i.e., 16 of Dinh) is provided as an elastic body (see abstract: “[a] damper includes an elastic bladder…”; see also col. 4, lines 27-29: “[b]ladder 16 is formed from an elongated rubber, elastomeric, or other inflatable elastic element…”).
As noted for claim 9 above, Zelczer also teaches the damper to be provided as an elastic body (col 8., lines 40-41: “…the bladder may be elastic (like a balloon)…”).
Regarding claim 11, the apparatus of Kato, as modified above, reads or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitation wherein the damper is provided in a spherical form (i.e., see damper 59 of Zelczer in fig. 5 which, when the pipe 61 is round in cross-section as in related embodiment shown in figs. 3-4, is reasonably seen to be “spherical in form”).
To promote compact prosecution, it is noted that the damper 51 of Zelczer in the embodiment of figs. 3 & 4 is shown in both transverse and longitudinal cross-section to be substantially spherical in form. If not already seen as such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kato (i.e., as modified above to include flow control systems of type taught by Dinh, and with the pressure control pipe / bladder arrangement of Zelczer) such that the damper is provided in spherical form, in view of the teachings of Zelczer, as the simple substitution of one known inflatable bladder damper shape (e.g., the elongated form as originally shown in Dinh) for another (i.e., the spherical shape taught by Zelczer) to obtain predictable results (e.g., predictable and even expansion / occlusion when utilized with a round pipe, etc.).
Examination Note: the use of spherical inflatable members to block the inside of a round pipe is otherwise well-known in the art (e.g., see US 2005/0229985 A1 to Saxenfelt, US 3,015,469 to Falk, US 2019/0009021 A1 to Nelson et al., etc.).
Regarding claim 13, the apparatus of Kato, as modified above, reads on the additional limitations wherein the pressure control pipe (i.e., 14 of Dinh) comprises:
a fixing part (30) for fixing to the inner wall of the corresponding pipe of the plurality of pipes; and
a bending part (32) extending and bending from the fixing part, and coupled to the inlet of the damper (i.e., the inlet of the damper 16, as shown in fig. 5; see also col. 4, lines 23-27).
It is noted that the pressure control pipe (60) of Zelczer also includes a corresponding fixing part (i.e., the vertical portion) and a corresponding bending part (i.e., the horizontal portion) coupled to the inlet.
Regarding claim 14, the apparatus of Kato, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation wherein the bending part (32 of Dinh) and the corresponding pipe of the plurality of pipes are provided parallel to each other (as shown in fig. 5 of Dinh).
See col. 4, lines 23-27: ”The second leg 32 is positioned on or proximate the longitudinal center line of ventilation duct 12…”.
Regarding claim 15, the apparatus of Kato, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation wherein the apparatus further comprises: a sealing member (i.e., 36 of Dinh; corresponding to inlet fitting 58 of Zelczer, etc.) for connecting and sealing the bending part (32 of Dinh; horizontal portion of 60 of Zelczer) and a top or a bottom of a central region of the damper (as shown in fig. 5 of Dinh; see col. 4, lines 27-31: “Bladder 16… has opposed ends which are sealed to the annular side surface of second leg 32 of pipe 14, e.g., by rubber O rings 36 and 38”).
Regarding claim 17, the apparatus of Kato, as modified above, reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitations wherein the controller controls the regulator to cause each pipe of the plurality of pipes to have substantially the same pressure, while the substrate is treated within a corresponding process chamber of the plurality of process chambers.
In particular, Kato discloses that “Each flow rate adjustment damper 46 adjusts the flow rate of air flowing from the flow pipe 51 to each air supply unit 41. In the present embodiment, the flow rate adjustment damper 46 is adjusted so that the air amounts flowing into the air supply units 41 are equal to each other.” (pg. 8), “thereby, the ventilation conditions in the coating treatment chambers 21 to 24 can be made equal to each other. As a result, uniform processing of the substrate W in the coating processing chambers 21 to 24 becomes possible” (pg. 9).
Similarly, Kato discloses that “each flow rate adjustment damper 48 is adjusted in advance so that the flow rates of the air flowing into the air supply units 41 from the flow pipes 61 are equal to each other”…. “Thereby, the ventilation conditions in the development processing chambers 31 to 34 can be made equal to each other. As a result, the substrate W can be uniformly processed in the development processing chambers 31 to 34” (pg. 9).
Correspondingly, Dinh discloses that the controller (104) may combine the detected signal with that of a “suitable command device”.
As would be recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art, the pressure in a pipe is correlated to the flow rate in the pipe, based on the pipe geometry (e.g., cross-sectional area, etc.) and the properties of the fluid (e.g., density, temperature, etc.). Thus, for corresponding pipes having the same fluid therein, the pipe pressure correlates to the flow rate in the pipe such that setting each of the pipes to have the same flow rate would be expected to cause the pipes to have substantially the same pressure therein, and vice versa.
In view of the above, if not already seen as such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the apparatus of Kato, as otherwise modified above, such that the controller controls the regulator to cause each pipe of the plurality of pipes to have substantially the same pressure, while the substrate is treated within a corresponding process chamber of the plurality of process chambers, in view of the combined teachings of Kato and Dinh, especially considering that Kato explicitly discloses that the flow rate adjustment dampers are to be adjusted so that the air amounts flowing into each corresponding process chamber are equal, so that the “ventilation conditions” in the corresponding set of process chambers can be equal, thus enabling “uniform processing of the substrate” in the process chambers.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinh in view of Zelczer and Blair as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saxenfelt (US 2005/0229985 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Dinh and Zelczer each disclose that the gas supplied into the damper or exhausted from the inside of the damper may be pressurized air. As best understood, “air” is not necessarily considered to be an “inert gas” in this context, due at least to the presence of oxygen, etc.
Thus, neither Dinh nor Zelczer explicitly discloses the additional limitation wherein the gas supplied into the damper or exhausted from the inside of the damper is an inert gas.
Saxenfelt teaches (e.g., figs. 3a & 3b) a system comprising a damper (12) provided within a pipe (30) for opening/closing the pipe by a contraction or an expansion of the damper (i.e., see fig. 3a vs 3b); and a pressure control unit (incl. at least 14 & 36) for supplying a gas into the damper or exhausting the gas from an inside of the damper, wherein the pressure control unit includes a pressure control pipe (i.e., 14) connected to an inlet of the damper (see fig 1) and flowing the gas to the damper or from the damper through the inlet of the damper.
Saxenfelt explains (para. 17) that the inflation gas “may be constituted by pressurized air or an inert gas or a substantial inert gas such as e.g., nitrogen”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dinh (as otherwise modified above) such that the gas supplied into the damper or exhausted from the inside of the damper is an inert gas, such as nitrogen, in view of the teachings of Saxenfelt, as the simple substitution of one known inflation gas (i.e., pressurized air, as in Dinh) for another (i.e., an inert gas, such as nitrogen, as suggested by Saxenfelt) to obtain predictable results (e.g., reduced risk of oxidation, moisture issues; improved safety in flammable environments, etc.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
With respect to applicant’s argument that Dinh “expressly characterizes its own structure as ‘simple’ and ‘reliable’, this argument is not found to be persuasive. While Dinh broadly suggests the disclosed invention (as a whole) is simple and reliable, in context, Dinh is not specifically and exclusively referring to the particular piping connections to the damper and the pipe wall, and Dinh does not explicitly criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.
Regarding applicant’s related argument that “the art did not perceive a need to alter the configuration or mounting of the pressure-control pipe”, this argument is not found to be persuasive for several reasons.
First, as set forth in MPEP § 2145(X)(A), there is no requirement that an "express, written motivation to combine must appear in prior art references before a finding of obviousness." Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 1276, 69 USPQ2d 1686, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See KSR, 550 U.S. at 402, 82 USPQ2d at 1389 ("The diversity of inventive pursuits and of modern technology counsels against confining the obviousness analysis by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasizing the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.").
Second, applicant’s position ignores the expected benefits of such a construction taught at least by Blair, and otherwise amounts to a piecemeal analysis of the references. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As set forth in MPEP § 2143.01, obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 in this action include respective reasoned explanations regarding such motivations for combining and/or modifying.
Applicant’s argument that removing the longitudinal distribution type and converting to an end-fed configuration would amount to “abandoning the core operating principle of Dinh” is not found to be persuasive. While Dinh suggests certain benefits associated with the use of a support element (e.g., permitting unobstructed flow in the deflated configuration), there is no indication that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected a damper without such a support element to be inoperable. Indeed, the use of bladder-type dampers which lack such a support element were otherwise known (e.g., as in Zelczer), and would reasonably have been expected to provide different benefits (e.g., a simplified arrangement wherein the damper is attached to the pressure control pipe only at the end, eliminating the requirement for the damper to be sealed to the pipe at two locations, enabling the use of a less complex pressure control pipe [i.e., by eliminating the lateral holes], and otherwise reducing the cantilevered / axial length of the pressure control pipe required, which may also reduce the force on the pipe sidewall where the pressure control pipe passes through / is mounted thereto, etc.).
As set forth in MPEP § 2143.01(V), ‘[a] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine’" [Allied Erecting v. Genesis Attachments, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381, 119 USPQ2d 1132, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016), quoting Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165, 77 USPQ2d 1865, 1870 (Fed. Cir. 2006)].
Even if Dinh were seen to suggest a superiority of balloon dampers having support elements vs a direct connection as in Zelczer, as set forth in MPEP § 2123(II): "a known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
See also MPEP § 2143.01(I): the disclosure of desirable alternatives does not necessarily negate a suggestion for modifying the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.
As set forth in the USPTO notice titled “Updated Guidance for Making a Proper Determination of Obviousness” at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 February 27, 2024 (notice), the Federal Circuit has held that a proposed reason to combine the teachings of prior art disclosures may be proper, even when the problem addressed by the combination might have been more advantageously addressed in another way. PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197–98 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (‘‘Our precedent, however, does not require that the motivation be the best option, only that it be a suitable option from which the prior art did not teach away.’’) (emphasis in original).
In response to applicant's argument that Blair is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
As set forth in MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I), when determining whether the "relevant field of endeavor" test is met, the examiner should consider "explanations of the invention’s subject matter in the patent application, including the embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention." Airbus S.A.S. v. Firepass Corp., 941 F.3d 1374, 1380, 2019 USPQ2d 430083 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212).
"The field of endeavor is ‘not limited to the specific point of novelty, the narrowest possible conception of the field, or the particular focus within a given field.’" [Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, 80 F.4th 1352, 1358-59, 2023 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2023),quoting Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 995, 1001, 120 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2016)].
As for the "reasonably pertinent" test, the examiner should consider the problem faced by the inventor, as reflected - either explicitly or implicitly - in the specification. In order for a reference to be "reasonably pertinent" to the problem, it must "logically [] have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem." In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656,658, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).
As set forth in MPEP § 2141.01(a)(IV), "In a simple mechanical invention a broad spectrum of prior art must be explored and it is reasonable to permit inquiry into other areas where one of ordinary skill in the art would be aware that similar problems exist."; Stevenson v. Int'l Trade Comm., 612 F.2d 546, 550, 204 USPQ 276, 280 (CCPA 1979).
In one aspect, applicant’s invention may be broadly seen as failing within the field of fluid control devices and fluid ducts / passages / connections, generally. Blair is directed to “assembly techniques required when it is necessary to pass a liquid or gaseous flow through a wall…where the outer side of the tube or pipe through which the flow takes place must be sealed to the wall” (col. 1, lines 8-12). In this context, Blair is reasonably seen as being within applicant’s field of endeavor.
However, even if the field of endeavor is interpreted more narrowly to include, as suggested by applicant, “inflatable dampers, pressure control sub-pipes, or dynamic actuation systems”, at least one problem faced by the inventor is the issue of connecting the inflatable bladder within the pipe to the pressure control unit / pressure source outside of the pipe, or otherwise how to pass a pressure control pipe through a pipe wall (similar wall penetration arrangements are also shown in Dinh, Zelczer, and Saxenfelt). As such, Blair, which teaches a method for forming a conduit connection through a wall, is reasonably pertinent as it would have logically have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering this problem and otherwise falls within the broad spectrum of prior art which would have been reasonable to explore as an area where one of ordinary skill in the art would be aware that similar problems exist.
It is noted that while applicant’s drawings broadly depict the pressure control pipe as terminating at the inner wall of the pipe, they are schematic in nature do not show any connection details. The corresponding portions of the specification also do not establish which particular methods or structures may be used to attach the pressure control pipe to the inner wall of the pipe. While a schematic drawing and a cursory description may be suitable for establishing possession of conventional features, if the connection between the pressure control pipe and the inner wall does not utilize conventional techniques or otherwise would not have been obvious or predictable to a person having ordinary skill in the art (as appears suggested by applicant), then further consideration may be required as to sufficiency of the written description for this subject matter.
Applicant is reminded that even an original claim may be found to lack written description support when the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved [MPEP § 2163.03(V)].
It is also noted that applicant’s specification does not appear to establish the particular connection between the fixing part of the pressure control pipe and the inner wall of the pipe as being critical to achieving some unexpected benefit. Rather, this attachment method (insofar as it is schematically depicted and broadly described) appears to be merely a preference.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the recited motivations (e.g., simplification, elimination of lateral openings, reducing cantilevered length”) do not appear in the cited references, obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
As previously stated, there is no requirement that an "express, written motivation to combine must appear in prior art references before a finding of obviousness." Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 1276, 69 USPQ2d 1686, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
As set forth in MPEP § 2143, in Ball Aerosol v. Ltd. Brands, 555 F.3d 984, 89 USPQ2d 1870 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Federal Circuit explained that the Supreme Court’s requirement for an explicit analysis does not require record evidence of an explicit teaching of a motivation to combine in the prior art. "[T]he analysis that "should be made explicit" refers not to the teachings in the prior art of a motivation to combine, but to the court’s analysis. . . . Under the flexible inquiry set forth by the Supreme Court, the district court therefore erred by failing to take account of ‘the inferences and creative steps,’ or even routine steps, that an inventor would employ and by failing to find a motivation to combine related pieces from the prior art." Ball Aerosol, 555 F.3d at 993, 89 USPQ2d at 1877.
Applicant’s argument regarding “new technical considerations” are not found to be persuasive as unsupported bladders of the type were already known, including by Zelczer.
As set forth in MPEP § 2141.03(I). "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the inventions (i.e., limitations of claims 8 & 16 now incorporated into claims 1 & 9, respectively), it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (e.g., the pipe pressure being measured “upstream”; a specific “feedback control loop”, etc.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In particular, the claims recite that the pressure measuring device measures a pressure “at a front end of the damper”. While applicant appears to equate “front end of the damper” with “upstream of the damper”, this is not actually recited in the claims. The claims do not appear to impose any particular requirement that the “front” of the damper is necessarily the upstream side. It may be, for example, merely a front end as inserted into the pipe, or the end opposing the connection to the pressure control pipe. To limit the term “front end” to mean “upstream” without such a requirement in the claims would amount to an improper importation of limitations from the specification.
Applicant’s argument that “Dinh’s disclosure is directed to structural bladder arrangements, not to a feedback control loop tied to pipe pressure conditions” is also not found to be persuasive. As stated in the corresponding grounds of rejection, Dinh discloses several control arrangements, including one with a pressure measuring device (e.g., a venturi meter; a differential pressure measurement device), and a controller configured to generate a control signal based on the measurement, with a regulation component configured to adjust the pressure of gas flowing to/from the damper, which would be a form of feedback control loop.
Applicant argues that the limitations from claim 8 (now in claim 1) define “a specific feedback relationship in which: the controlled variable is a pipe pressure at a defined location, and the manipulated variable is pressure inside the damper” but the claim limitations as currently presented do not actually require this specific feedback relationship.
The claims recite “a pressure measuring device for measuring a pressure within the pipe at a front end of the damper”, but does not specify the type of pressure measuring device, or that the pressure measurement is limited to single pressure value measurement (rather than, e.g., differential pressure measurements) and, as previously noted, the claim does not require the “front of the damper” to be upstream.
With respect to the “manipulated variable” being “pressure inside the damper”, the claims actually recite that the regulator adjusts the pressure of the gas flowing to/from the damper, not the pressure within the damper itself. In Dinh, the regulator would so adjust the pressure of the gas flowing to/from the damper, with a higher pressure flowing to the damper when inflation is required and a lower pressure flowing from the damper when deflation is required. The claims do not require setting the pressure to any particular value, so any adjustment of the pressure of the gas flowing to/from the damper would read on the claims.
Applicant appears to be interpretating the claims so as to require the pressure measurement device to generate a signal based on, e.g., a single pressure measurement value (rather than a differential pressure measurement value) and, based on this measured value, the controller is configured to generate a signal to cause the regulator to output a specific pilot / inflation pressure to adjust the interior of the damper to have the same specific pressure. However, the claims as currently presented are not so narrowly defined and, as set forth above, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
To promote compact prosecution, the PTO-892 provided with this action includes several references seen to be relevant to the more specific arrangements apparently intended by applicant. By way of example:
US 3,726,307 to Carman et al discloses a system for measuring and adjusting a pilot pressure supplied to a flow control device, including control methods to keep the pilot pressure in a range between a lower and upper limit for a given setpoint.
US 4,417,312 to Cronin et al. discloses feedback control loop arrangements including a sensor (11, 12) upstream from a damper / valve, a controller (e.g., 14 [fig.1] or 20 [fig.2]) configured to generate a control signal based on the measured value, and a regulator (e.g., actuator 18 and/or valve positioner 19) configured to adjust the damper / valve based on the control signal. Cronin explicitly discloses that the parameter sensed/controlled can be “fluid flow, fluid volume, temperature, level, pressure, concentration, conductivity, pH, or any other process variable whose value depends on or can be adjusted by the flow or variations in flow…” (col. 4).
US 9,169,939 to Lybarger et al. discloses a pressure control system and teaches that a control module can monitor pressure either upstream or downstream of a flow control device (see abstract; fig.1 vs fig. 2, etc.).
US 6,338,358 to Watanabe et al. and US 2002/0036013 A1 to Inayama et al. disclose flow control systems which regulate a pilot pressure provided to a valve/damper based on control signals generated by a controller in response to a pressure measurement.
US 2015/0211552 A1 to Burgett et al. discloses an electronic controller / regulator for controlling a pilot pressure based on a sensor measurement (feedback source) and a setpoint.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in the attached PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new or amended grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard K Durden whose telephone number is (571) 270-0538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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 supervisors can be reached by phone: Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881; Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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.
/Richard K. Durden/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights