DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Claim(s) 1-18 are pending.
Claim(s) 1-18 are rejected.
Priority
Foreign priority:
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY on 12/15/2021. The certified copy has been received.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 10/01/2025.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 12 and 17 are amended. Claims 19-20 are new. Accordingly, the amended claims and new claims are being fully considered by the examiner.
In response to applicant’s amendments to claim 12, all the claim objections as set forth in the previous office action has been withdrawn.
In response to applicant’s amendments to claim 7, all the 35 USC § 112 rejections set forth in the previous office action has been withdrawn.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims recite, “an opening voltage value” in line 4 (introduced by the current amendments) and then later in the claims seems to refer it to as “the control opening voltage value.” The first recited “an opening voltage value” seems to be a typographical error.
For the examination purpose, the limitation “an opening voltage value” is construed as a control opening voltage value.
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 filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7-9 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. (US20170045482A1) [hereinafter Goto], and further in view of Klenk (US20020011762A1) [hereinafter Klenk].
Regarding claim 1 (amended):
Goto discloses, A method for closed-loop controlling a piezo valve device, having at least one piezo valve, [¶37: “FIG. 1. A BPR 2 controls a degree of opening of a valve 6 (degree of opening of the valve, specifically an opening area) installed in a flow channel 4,” “A pressure signal value from a pressure gauge 8” “is defined as a monitor pressure Pmonitor, and when the monitor pressure Pmonitor is lower than a set pressure Pset, which is a target value, a control apparatus 12 pushes the valve 6 with a piezoelectric element 10, which is an actuator,”];
calculating a control error integral signal representing a time integral of a control error of the closed-loop control of the piezo valve device; [¶46: “FIG. 4” “control functions necessary for the PI control.” “an integrating circuit for the I control (s3),”… ¶12: “a feedback control apparatus” “an I control unit configured to output an I control component VI by integrating a deviation of the detection value from the target value by digital processing; and a driver element configured to be driven based on the P control component VP from the P control circuit and the I control component VI from the I control unit to control the controlled object.”
Examiner notes that Goto discloses; fig. 4.; S3 integrator; calculating VI that is calculated by integrating a deviation/error of the detection value from the target value];
adjusting, based on the control error integral signal, the control opening voltage value [¶12: “a feedback control apparatus” “an I control unit configured to output an I control component VI by integrating a deviation of the detection value from the target value by digital processing; and a driver element configured to be driven based on the P control component VP from the P control circuit and the I control component VI from the I control unit to control the controlled object.”… ¶37: “A BPR 2 controls a degree of opening of a valve 6 (degree of opening of the valve, specifically an opening area) installed in a flow channel 4,”… ¶42: “The PI control is obtained by adding an integral term to Equation (1), and performs control expressed by Equation (2). V PZT =K P(V P _ set −V P _ mon)+K I∫(V P _ set −V P _ mon)dt”
Examiner notes that Goto discloses the opening voltage is based on VI and obtaining output voltage V PZT in order to control the valve to open];
using the adjusted control opening voltage value, providing at least one drive voltage for driving the piezo valve within the closed-loop control. [¶12: “a feedback control apparatus” “an I control unit configured to output an I control component VI by integrating a deviation of the detection value from the target value by digital processing; and a driver element configured to be driven based on the P control component VP from the P control circuit and the I control component VI from the I control unit to control the controlled object.”… ¶37: “A BPR 2 controls a degree of opening of a valve 6 (degree of opening of the valve, specifically an opening area) installed in a flow channel 4,”… ¶42: “The PI control is obtained by adding an integral term to Equation (1), and performs control expressed by Equation (2). V PZT =K P(V P _ set −V P _ mon)+K I∫(V P _ set −V P _ mon)dt”];
wherein, within the closed-loop control, an opening voltage value is used to follow changes in…initial…opening voltage value [¶12: “the monitoring pressure Pmonitor=19.96 MPa (VP _ mon=19.96 V) is obtained by feedback control of gain KP=100 when the set pressure Pset=20.00 MPa (VP _ set=20.00 V). At this time, an output voltage to the piezoelectric element becomes 100×(20.00−19.96)=4 V by Equation (1).”
Examiner notes the claim objections of the limitation “an opening voltage value” that is construed as a control opening voltage value as described in the claim objections section.
Examiner notes that even though Goto doesn’t explicitly disclose, “real opening voltage value” that is a voltage value that energizes the piezo valve enough such that it starts to open, but Goto does teach actuating/opening the piezo valve and following that controlling the openness to maintain desired fluid pressure, therefore, one of the ordinary skilled in the art will understand that, the piezo valve of Goto must be initially actuated with a voltage that it starts to open and then following that an openness of the valve is controlled via feedback loop as described above], but doesn’t explicitly disclose, and
Klenk discloses, wherein the piezo valve has a real opening voltage value which is the voltage value with which the piezo valve must at least be driven so that it begins to open, [¶29: “FIG. 6 shows the profile of the voltage at the piezo- actuator 8 over time in order to control the stroke of an injection valve in an injection process,”… ¶30: “FIG. 6 shows the voltage at the piezo- actuator 8 with the characteristic curve, which is represented by an unbroken line, and an ideal voltage profile represented by a dotted line. A dot-dashed line characterizes, as in FIGS. 4 and 6, a maximum voltage level for the piezo-actuator 8.” “two energizing” “curves L3, L4” “represent the time profile of the charging” “voltage” “In order to move the injection valve” “the piezo-actuator 8 is energized under time control for a time period of the length t1+” “where a positive high voltage is made available.”]
wherein, within the closed-loop control, an opening voltage value is used to follow changes in the real opening voltage value [¶30: “FIG. 6” “In order to move the injection valve” “the piezo-actuator 8 is energized under time control for a time period of the length t1+” “where a positive high voltage is made available. After the time period t1 has elapsed, the engine controller 9 commands the switch-over control unit 11 to set the main injection setting b of the injection valve, after which the piezo-actuator 8 is energized to the necessary voltage again with a constant energizing current for the time period t2 +. As soon as the voltage has been reached, the energizing process is aborted, as in section a.”… ¶28: “FIG. 5” “in the device 15 a voltage monitoring unit 17 with A/D converter for the piezo-actuator 8 is provided which monitors the voltage set under time control at the piezo-actuator 8 by means of the switch-over control unit 11 as in the example in FIG. 3 and makes available a correction signal to the switch-over control unit 11. The voltage monitoring unit 17 makes it possible to correct the charging and discharging time calculation, which can become imprecise when there are fluctuations in the operating parameters of the injection valve, such as the capacitance of the piezo-actuator 8, because of aging or because of parameter variations between different valves.”
Examiner notes the claim objections of the limitation “an opening voltage value” that is construed as a control opening voltage value as described in the claim objections section.
Examiner notes that, Klenk discloses, within the time t1+ a real opening voltage is applied in response to which the piezo valve starts to open, followed by application of further opening voltage (opening voltage value that follows real opening voltage value) value to control further opening (stage b opening) as shown in fig. 6 via calculated control signal (closed loop control) as described above and in fig. 5.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the technique of start opening a piezo valve using a real opening voltage value followed by further controlling further opening using further opening voltage value via closed loop control in order to adaptively and precisely adjust opening voltage value of the piezo valve taking into consideration fluctuations in the properties of various injection valves and valve aging phenomena thereby enabling precise control of the piezo valve opening and eliminating any erroneous valve opening due to valve degradation due to the valve aging phenomena taught by Klenk with the method taught by Goto as discussed above in order to have a reasonable expectation of success such as to adaptively and precisely adjust opening voltage value of the piezo valve taking into consideration fluctuations in the properties of various injection valves and valve aging phenomena thereby enabling precise control of the piezo valve opening and eliminating any erroneous valve opening due to valve degradation due to the valve aging phenomena [Klenk, ¶12: “This permits the voltage levels to be adjusted adaptively, for example, as a function of fluctuations in the properties of various injection valves and as a function of valve aging phenomena.”].
Regarding claim 5 (amended):
Goto and Klenk disclose all the elements of claim(s) 1, and
Goto Further discloses, wherein the at least one control opening voltage value is adjusted such that an actual amplitude of the control error integral signal is equal to a setpoint amplitude. [¶44: “When the certain target pressure value Pset is provided at time t=0, a pressure value Pe in equilibrium has a certain steady-state deviation (offset) with respect to Pset in the P control, whereas Pset agrees with Pe in the PI control.”… ¶46: “FIG. 4 illustrates an example of control functions necessary for the PI control. A comparison circuit for comparing a size of a set value VP _ set with a size of a monitor value VP _ mon (s1) is provided, and a proportional amplifier circuit which amplifies a comparison result for the P control (s2), an integrating circuit for the I control (s3), and a circuit for adding a P control component to the I control component (s4) are required first.”… ¶49: “The I control unit 18 performs the I control on the voltage value VP _ mon and the set voltage value VP _ set by digital processing to output the I control component VI.”… ¶58: “performs feedback control so that the voltage value VP _ mon from the pressure gauge and the voltage value VP _ set corresponding to the set pressure may become identical to each other”… ¶60: “from a viewpoint that a piezoelectric voltage continues to increase or decrease until VP _ set and VP _ mon become identical to each other,”].
Regarding claim 7 (amended):
Goto and Klenk disclose all the elements of claim(s) 1, and
Goto Further discloses, the calculating of the control error integral signal takes place during the closed-loop control of the piezo valve device. [¶12: “a feedback control apparatus according to the present invention includes:” “an I control unit configured to output an I control component VI by integrating a deviation of the detection value from the target value by digital processing; and a driver element configured to be driven based on the P control component VP from the P control circuit and the I control component VI from the I control unit to control the controlled object.”… ¶37: “when the monitor pressure Pmonitor is higher than the set pressure Pset, the control apparatus 12 decreases the pressure by pulling the piezoelectric element 10 and enlarging the flow channel cross section.” (¶37)… ¶60: “The PI control is obtained by adding an integral term to Equation (1), and performs control expressed by Equation (2). V PZT =K P(V P _ set −V P _ mon)+K I∫(V P _ set −V P _ mon)dt” (¶42)… “from a viewpoint that a piezoelectric voltage continues to increase or decrease until VP _ set and VP _ mon become identical to each other,”].
Regarding claim 8:
Goto and Klenk disclose all the elements of claim(s) 1, and
Goto Further discloses, checking whether a safety criterion for performing the adjusting is satisfied, wherein the adjusting is performed in response to the safety criterion being satisfied. [¶33: “the I control unit further includes an upper limit holding unit that holds an upper limit VI _ MAX of an absolute value |VI| of the I control component VI, and a second comparison unit that compares the I control component VI with the upper limit held in the upper limit holding unit and performs control so that the absolute value |VI| of an I control component VI output value does not exceed the upper limit.” (¶33)
Examiner notes that applicant’s specification ¶63 describes safety criteria as, the safety criterion is satisfied if the control error RF indicates a steady state of the closed-loop control, for example, if the control error RF is smaller than a predetermined threshold value.
Accordingly Goto discloses, performs adjustment to the driving voltage based on when the safety criteria is satisfied such that control error signal VI is less than VImax; doesn’t exceed upper limit VImax].
Regarding claim 9:
Goto and Klenk disclose all the elements of claim(s) 1, and
Goto Further discloses, the closed-loop control comprises a PI control or a PID control, and the control error integral signal is an I-component of the PI control or the PID control [Examiner notes that claim requires only one of the elements separated by the or statement, and only one of them is given the patentable weight.
Accordingly Goto teaches PI control and the control error integral signal is an I-component as described below:
¶12: “a feedback control apparatus according to the present invention includes:” “an I control unit configured to output an I control component VI by integrating a deviation of the detection value from the target value by digital processing; and a driver element configured to be driven based on the P control component VP from the P control circuit and the I control component VI from the I control unit to control the controlled object.”… ¶49: “The I control unit 18 performs the I control on the voltage value VP _ mon and the set voltage value VP _ set by digital processing to output the I control component VI.”… ¶42: “The PI control is obtained by adding an integral term to Equation (1), and performs control expressed by Equation (2). V PZT =K P(V P _ set −V P _ mon)+K I∫(V P _ set −V P _ mon)dt”… ¶60:”].
Regarding claim 16:
Goto and Klenk disclose all the elements of claim(s) 1, and
Goto Further discloses, wherein the closed-loop control of the piezo valve device is a closed-loop pressure control. [¶44: “When the certain target pressure value Pset is provided at time t=0, a pressure value Pe in equilibrium has a certain steady-state deviation (offset) with respect to Pset in the P control, whereas Pset agrees with Pe in the PI control.” (¶44)].
Regarding claim 17 (amended):
Goto discloses, A controller device for closed-loop pressure controlling a piezo valve device, having at least one piezo valve, [¶37: “FIG. 1. A BPR 2 controls a degree of opening of a valve 6 (degree of opening of the valve, specifically an opening area) installed in a flow channel 4,” “A pressure signal value from a pressure gauge 8” “is defined as a monitor pressure Pmonitor, and when the monitor pressure Pmonitor is lower than a set pressure Pset, which is a target value, a control apparatus 12 pushes the valve 6 with a piezoelectric element 10, which is an actuator,”];
the controller device being configured to calculate a control error integral signal which represents a time integral of a control error of the closed-loop control of the piezo valve device, ; [¶46: “FIG. 4” “control functions necessary for the PI control.” “an integrating circuit for the I control (s3),”… ¶12: “a feedback control apparatus” “an I control unit configured to output an I control component VI by integrating a deviation of the detection value from the target value by digital processing; and a driver element configured to be driven based on the P control component VP from the P control circuit and the I control component VI from the I control unit to control the controlled object.”
Examiner notes that Goto discloses; fig. 4.; S3 integrator; calculating VI that is calculated by integrating a deviation/error of the detection value from the target value];
to adapt the control opening voltage value, which defines an opening voltage value of based on the control error signal, [¶12: “a feedback control apparatus” “an I control unit configured to output an I control component VI by integrating a deviation of the detection value from the target value by digital processing; and a driver element configured to be driven based on the P control component VP from the P control circuit and the I control component VI from the I control unit to control the controlled object.”… ¶37: “A BPR 2 controls a degree of opening of a valve 6 (degree of opening of the valve, specifically an opening area) installed in a flow channel 4,”… ¶42: “The PI control is obtained by adding an integral term to Equation (1), and performs control expressed by Equation (2). V PZT =K P(V P _ set −V P _ mon)+K I∫(V P _ set −V P _ mon)dt”
Examiner notes that Goto discloses the opening voltage is based on VI and obtaining output voltage V PZT in order to control the valve to open];
using the is adapted control opening voltage value, to provide at least one drive voltage for driving the piezo valve within the closed-loop control. [¶12: “a feedback control apparatus” “an I control unit configured to output an I control component VI by integrating a deviation of the detection value from the target value by digital processing; and a driver element configured to be driven based on the P control component VP from the P control circuit and the I control component VI from the I control unit to control the controlled object.”… ¶37: “A BPR 2 controls a degree of opening of a valve 6 (degree of opening of the valve, specifically an opening area) installed in a flow channel 4,”… ¶42: “The PI control is obtained by adding an integral term to Equation (1), and performs control expressed by Equation (2). V PZT =K P(V P _ set −V P _ mon)+K I∫(V P _ set −V P _ mon)dt”];
wherein, within the closed-loop control, an opening voltage value is used to follow changes in…initial…opening voltage value [¶12: “the monitoring pressure Pmonitor=19.96 MPa (VP _ mon=19.96 V) is obtained by feedback control of gain KP=100 when the set pressure Pset=20.00 MPa (VP _ set=20.00 V). At this time, an output voltage to the piezoelectric element becomes 100×(20.00−19.96)=4 V by Equation (1).”
Examiner notes the claim objections of the limitation “an opening voltage value” that is construed as a control opening voltage value as described in the claim objections section.
Examiner notes that even though Goto doesn’t explicitly disclose, “real opening voltage value” that is a voltage value that energizes the piezo valve enough such that it starts to open, but Goto does teach actuating/opening the piezo valve and following that controlling the openness to maintain desired fluid pressure, therefore, one of the ordinary skilled in the art will understand that, the piezo valve of Goto must be initially actuated with a voltage that it starts to open and then following that an openness of the valve is controlled via feedback loop as described above], but doesn’t explicitly disclose, and
Klenk discloses, wherein the piezo valve has a real opening voltage value which is the voltage value with which the piezo valve must at least be driven so that it begins to open, [¶29: “FIG. 6 shows the profile of the voltage at the piezo- actuator 8 over time in order to control the stroke of an injection valve in an injection process,”… ¶30: “FIG. 6 shows the voltage at the piezo- actuator 8 with the characteristic curve, which is represented by an unbroken line, and an ideal voltage profile represented by a dotted line. A dot-dashed line characterizes, as in FIGS. 4 and 6, a maximum voltage level for the piezo-actuator 8.” “two energizing” “curves L3, L4” “represent the time profile of the charging” “voltage” “In order to move the injection valve” “the piezo-actuator 8 is energized under time control for a time period of the length t1+” “where a positive high voltage is made available.”]
wherein, within the closed-loop control, an opening voltage value is used to follow changes in the real opening voltage value [¶30: “FIG. 6” “In order to move the injection valve” “the piezo-actuator 8 is energized under time control for a time period of the length t1+” “where a positive high voltage is made available. After the time period t1 has elapsed, the engine controller 9 commands the switch-over control unit 11 to set the main injection setting b of the injection valve, after which the piezo-actuator 8 is energized to the necessary voltage again with a constant energizing current for the time period t2 +. As soon as the voltage has been reached, the energizing process is aborted, as in section a.”… ¶28: “FIG. 5” “in the device 15 a voltage monitoring unit 17 with A/D converter for the piezo-actuator 8 is provided which monitors the voltage set under time control at the piezo-actuator 8 by means of the switch-over control unit 11 as in the example in FIG. 3 and makes available a correction signal to the switch-over control unit 11. The voltage monitoring unit 17 makes it possible to correct the charging and discharging time calculation, which can become imprecise when there are fluctuations in the operating parameters of the injection valve, such as the capacitance of the piezo-actuator 8, because of aging or because of parameter variations between different valves.”
Examiner notes the claim objections of the limitation “an opening voltage value” that is construed as a control opening voltage value as described in the claim objections section.
Examiner notes that, Klenk discloses, within the time t1+ a real opening voltage is applied in response to which the piezo valve starts to open, followed by application of further opening voltage (opening voltage value that follows real opening voltage value) value to control further opening (stage b opening) as shown in fig. 6 via calculated control signal (closed loop control) as described above and in fig. 5].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the above described teachings of Klenk with the controller device taught by Goto as discussed above for similar reasons as described above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 18:
Goto and Klenk disclose all the elements of claim(s) 17, and
Goto Further discloses, A fluidic system comprising a controller device according to claim 17 and the piezo valve device. [¶44: “When the certain target pressure value Pset is provided at time t=0, a pressure value Pe in equilibrium has a certain steady-state deviation (offset) with respect to Pset in the P control, whereas Pset agrees with Pe in the PI control.”… ¶54: “Pushing and pulling a back surface of the cover 25 (opposite surface viewed from the hole) by a piezoelectric element 28 via a pressure bar 27 makes it possible to control an area of the flow channel of the valve seat 33, and to control pressure of the inlet pipe.”
Examiner notes that Goto discloses system is a fluidic pressure control system as shown in fig. 1; where a controller controls the push pull of piezo valve to control the fluidic pressure].
Regarding claim 19 (new):
Goto and Klenk disclose all the elements of claim(s) 1, and
Goto Further discloses, the adjusting of the control opening voltage value takes place during the closed-loop control of the piezo valve device. [¶37: “A BPR 2 controls a degree of opening of a valve 6 (degree of opening of the valve, specifically an opening area) installed in a flow channel 4, and controls pressure of a passing fluid. A pressure signal value from a pressure gauge 8 installed in the flow channel upstream of the BPR 2 is defined as a monitor pressure Pmonitor, and when the monitor pressure Pmonitor is lower than a set pressure Pset, which is a target value, a control apparatus 12 pushes the valve 6 with a piezoelectric element 10, which is an actuator, reduces a flow channel cross section, and enhances pressure. Conversely, when the monitor pressure Pmonitor is higher than the set pressure Pset, the control apparatus 12 decreases the pressure by pulling the piezoelectric element 10 and enlarging the flow channel cross section.”].
Regarding claim 20 (new):
Goto and Klenk disclose all the elements of claim(s) 1, and
Goto Further discloses, the pressurized fluid supply signal being calculated based on a proportional signal and the control error integral signal. [¶46: “FIG. 4 illustrates an example of control functions necessary for the PI control. A comparison circuit for comparing a size of a set value VP _ set with a size of a monitor value VP _ mon (s1) is provided, and a proportional amplifier circuit which amplifies a comparison result for the P control (s2), an integrating circuit for the I control (s3), and a circuit for adding a P control component to the I control component (s4) are required first.”], but doesn’t explicitly disclose, and
Klenk discloses, wherein the control opening voltage value is an offset value which is added to a pressurized fluid supply signal to obtain a drive voltage for driving the piezo valve device, [¶30: “In order to move the injection valve into the medium opening position a, the piezo-actuator 8 is energized under time control for a time period of the length t1 +” “the energizing being carried out via the terminal 14 of the high voltage source 12 where a positive high voltage is made available. After the time period t1 has elapsed, the engine controller 9 commands the switch-over control unit 11 to set the main injection setting b of the injection valve, after which the piezo-actuator 8 is energized to the necessary voltage again” “for the time period t2 +.”
Examiner notes that, Klenk discloses, as shown in figure 6, offset voltage is added to the control signal to obtain the further voltage to control opening of the valve from stage a to stage b].
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto and Klenk, and further in view of Hasegawa (US6255760B1) [hereinafter Hasegawa].
Regarding claim 2 (amended):
Goto and Klenk disclose all the elements of claim(s) 1, but they do not explicitly disclose, and
Hasegawa discloses, the control opening voltage value is adjusted such that the control error integral signal assumes a predetermined oscillation signal shape. [col. 9, lines 30-34 and 39-41: “A signal like a rectangular wave obtained by adding the digital outputs D1 and D2 in an analog manner is inputted to an inverse terminal (minus terminal) of the integrator 31B. The inputted signal is converted into an output like a triangular wave (triangular wave output) K0 by the integrator 31B.” “generates the reference signal Dref (digital signal) having the H-level signal and the L-level signal,”…
col. 12, lines 11-13: “The reference signal Dref is transmitted to the phase differential comparing means 50”
Examiner notes that Hasegawa discloses, adjusted driving voltage Vout obtained such that triangular waveform is considered; fig. 1; processing triangular waveform by 31b to obtain dref that is input to 50 in order to obtain driving voltage Vout].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the capability of considering a triangular waveform the control error integral signal for adjustment of a driving voltage in order to increase stability of a feedback control system taught by Hasegawa with the method taught by Goto and Klenk as discussed above in order to have a reasonable expectation of success such as to increase stability of a feedback control system [Hasegawa, (col. 5, lines 44-45): “increase stability of a feedback control system”].
Regarding claim 3:
Goto, Klenk and Hasegawa disclose all the elements of claim(s) 1-2, and
Hasegawa further discloses, the predetermined oscillation signal shape is a oscillation signal shape of a triangular oscillation [col. 9, lines 30-34 and 39-41: “A signal like a rectangular wave obtained by adding the digital outputs D1 and D2 in an analog manner is inputted to an inverse terminal (minus terminal) of the integrator 31B. The inputted signal is converted into an output like a triangular wave (triangular wave output) K0 by the integrator 31B.” “generates the reference signal Dref (digital signal) having the H-level signal and the L-level signal…
col. 12, lines 11-13: “The reference signal Dref is transmitted to the phase differential comparing means 50”];
Regarding claim 4:
Goto, Klenk and Hasegawa disclose all the elements of claim(s) 1-2, and
Hasegawa further discloses, the predetermined oscillation signal shape is an oscillation signal shape of a symmetrical triangular oscillation. [col. 9, lines 30-34 and 39-41: “A signal like a rectangular wave obtained by adding the digital outputs D1 and D2 in an analog manner is inputted to an inverse terminal (minus terminal) of the integrator 31B. The inputted signal is converted into an output like a triangular wave (triangular wave output) K0 by the integrator 31B.” “generates the reference signal Dref (digital signal) having the H-level signal and the L-level signal,” …
col. 12, lines 11-13: “generates the reference signal Dref (digital signal) having the H-level signal and the L-level signal, with reference to the threshold level Vcc/2 from the triangular wave output K0 outputted from the integrator 31B.”
Examiner notes that Hasegawa discloses, symmetrical triangular wave such that as shown in fig. 4C; wave repeats itself in a regular, predictable pattern such that time taken in completing the positive half cycle is equal to the time taken in completing the negative half cycle; and reference Vcc/2; Vpeak = positive amplitude = |Vcc-Vcc/2| = Vcc/2 that is equal to the negative amplitude = negative Vpeak = |0- Vcc/2| = |-Vcc/2| = Vcc/2)].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto and Klenk, and further in view of Matsukawa (US20230064061A1) [hereinafter Matsukawa].
Regarding claim 6 (amended):
Goto and Klenk disclose all the elements of claim(s) 1, and
Goto further discloses, the at least one control opening voltage value is adjusted….of the respective piezo valve. [¶12: “a feedback control apparatus according to the present invention includes:” “an I control unit configured to output an I control component VI by integrating a deviation of the detection value from the target value by digital processing; and a driver element configured to be driven based on the P control component VP from the P control circuit and the I control component VI from the I control unit to control the controlled object.”
Examiner notes that, in broadest reasonable interpretation, control opening voltage value belongs to a respective piezo valve as described in claim 1.], but doesn’t explicitly disclose, and
Matsukawa discloses, the at least one control opening voltage value is adjusted to be smaller than an actual opening voltage value of the respective…valve. [¶16: “compare the voltage to a voltage threshold, and control the electronic lock off valve such that the electronic lock off valve is (i) closed to prevent the supplemental fuel from being provided to the air supply system in response to the voltage being less than the voltage threshold and”
Examiner notes that Matsukawa discloses, keeping the valve drive voltage less than threshold will not open the valve and keep the valve closed):].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the capability of adjusting the drive voltage to be less than a threshold voltage in order to achieve desired system performance taught by Hasegawa with the method taught by Goto and Klenk as discussed above. A person of ordinary skill in the machine monitoring and optimization control field would have been motivated to make such combination in order to have a reasonable expectation of success such as to achieve desired system performance [Hasegawa, ¶93: “the fuel flow valve 260 is adjustable to achieve a threshold engine performance”].
Claim(s) 10-11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto and Klenk, and further in view of Moler et al. (US20040200349A1) [hereinafter Moler].
Regarding claim 10:
Goto and Klenk disclose all the elements of claim(s) 1, but doesn’t explicitly disclose, and
Moler discloses, wherein the adjusting comprises adjusting a first control opening voltage value of a first piezo valve of the piezo valve device and adjusting a second control opening voltage value of a second piezo valve of the piezo valve device, and [¶33: “The system 10 can include at least two electrically actuated proportional flow valves 26, 28, 30, 32 connected…of the fluid operated cylinder 12 to be controlled.” “A central processing unit 44” “operably connected to the at least two valves 26, 28, 30, 32,” “for controlling actuation of the at least two valves 26, 28, 30, 32 in response to pressure measured by the at least one pressure sensor, 38, 40 and location measured by the at least one position sensor 42.”… ¶37: “the proportional control valves 26, 28, 30, 32 can be piezo-electric actuated control valves” “the piezo-electric actuator is controlled for proportional valve operation by direct control of the voltage applied to the piezo,”
Examiner notes that Moler discloses; as shown in fig. 1; first valve 26 connected to inlet and second valve 28 connected to outlet/exhaust; controller 44 controls drive voltage of the individual valves 26 and 28; separate control connection between controller 44 and valves 26 and 28 for providing the separate drive voltages; drive voltages adjusted in response to feedback];
wherein the providing of the drive voltage comprises providing, using the first control opening voltage value, a first drive voltage for driving the first piezo valve within the closed-loop control, and providing, using the second control opening voltage value, a second drive voltage for driving the second piezo valve within the closed-loop control [¶33: “The system 10 can include at least two electrically actuated proportional flow valves 26, 28, 30, 32 connected…of the fluid operated cylinder 12 to be controlled.” “A central processing unit 44 includes a control program and is operably connected to the at least two valves 26, 28, 30, 32, the at least one pressure sensor 38, 40, and the at least one position sensor 42 for controlling actuation of the at least two valves 26, 28, 30, 32 in response to pressure measured by the at least one pressure sensor, 38, 40 and location measured by the at least one position sensor 42.”… ¶37: “the proportional control valves 26, 28, 30, 32 can be piezo-electric actuated control valves” “the piezo-electric actuator is controlled for proportional valve operation by direct control of the voltage applied to the piezo,”
Examiner notes that Moler discloses as shown in fig. 1; first drive voltage from controller 44 to drive piezo valve 26 and second drive voltage from controller 44 to drive piezo valve 28; closed loop control where controller 44 controls the valves in response to feedback].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the capability of adjusting a first control opening voltage value of a first piezo valve of the piezo valve device and adjusting a second control opening voltage value of a second piezo valve of the piezo valve device, and providing, using the first control opening voltage value, a first drive voltage for driving the first piezo valve within the closed-loop control, and providing, using the second control opening voltage value, a second drive voltage for driving the second piezo valve within the closed-loop control in order to provide cost effective and efficient fluid flow control system taught by Moler with the method taught by Goto and Klenk as discussed above in order to have a reasonable expectation of success such as to provide cost effective and efficient fluid flow control system [Moler, ¶4: “provide an inexpensive and accurate fluid operated cylinder positioning system.” “The present invention uses standard, inexpensive components and techniques to achieve control with accuracy approaching that of an expensive system, but with a cost comparable to a simple system.”].
Regarding claim 11:
Goto, Klenk and Moler disclose all the elements of claim(s) 1 and 10, and
Moler further discloses, within the closed-loop control, the first piezo valve is used to supply pressurized fluid to a pressure chamber and the second piezo valve is used to discharge pressurized fluid from the pressure chamber. [¶34: “The at least two electrically actuated proportional flow valves 26, 28, 30, 32 can include a first valve 26 associated with the first expandable fluid chamber 14 for selectively and proportionally controlling fluid flow into the first expandable fluid chamber 14 and a second valve 28 associated with the first expandable fluid chamber 14 for selectively and proportionally controlling fluid flow out of the first expandable fluid chamber 14.”].
Regarding claim 15:
Goto and Klenk disclose all the elements of claim(s) 1, and
Moler discloses, wherein the piezo valve is part of a bridge circuit of the piezo valve device. [¶33: “The system 10 can include at least two electrically actuated proportional flow valves 26, 28, 30, 32 connected…of the fluid operated cylinder 12 to be controlled.” “A central processing unit 44 includes a control program and is operably connected to the at least two valves 26, 28, 30, 32, the at least one pressure sensor 38, 40, and the at least one position sensor 42 for controlling actuation of the at least two valves 26, 28, 30, 32 in response to pressure measured by the at least one pressure sensor, 38, 40 and location measured by the at least one position sensor 42.”
Examiner notes that Moler discloses the bridge circuit in fig. 1; piezo valve 26 or 28 are part of the bridge circuit].
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto, Klenk and Moler, and further in view of Yasuda’72 et al. (US20190017172A1) [hereinafter Yasuda’72].
Regarding claim 12:
Goto, Klenk and Moler disclose all the elements of claim(s) 1 and 10, but they do not explicitly disclose, and
Yasuda’72 discloses, wherein, in the adjusting, the first control opening voltage value is adjusted first, while the second control opening voltage value is not adjusted, and only after adjusting the first control opening voltage value, the second control opening voltage value is adjusted. [¶13: “the first pressure feedback controller controls the first valve so that the first pressure measured by the first pressure sensor reaches target burst pressure. Further, when and after the first pressure reaches the target burst pressure and the second valve is opened, the control mechanism is configured to control the first valve so that the flow rate of fluid flowing through the flow path reaches a target constant flow rate.”… ¶23: “controller is configured to open the second valve when and after the first pressure feedback controller controls the first valve and thereby the first pressure reaches the target burst pressure.”
Examiner notes that Yasuda’72 discloses first valve driving voltage is adjusted to control the first valve such that desired target pressure is achieved, and after adjusting the first valve driving voltage when the desired target pressure is achieved, then the second valve driving voltage is adjusted to open the second valve].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the capability of first adjusting the first control opening voltage value, and then after adjusting the first control opening voltage value, adjusting the second control opening voltage value in order to reduce deviation between target pressure and actual pressure to achieve desired pressure taught by Yasuda’72 with the method taught by Goto, Klenk and Moler as discussed above in order have reasonable expectation of success such as to reduce deviation between target pressure and actual pressure to achieve desired pressure [Yasuda’72, ¶57: “so as to decrease the deviation between setting target pressure and the first pressure”].
Regarding claim 13:
Goto, Klenk, Moler and Yasuda’72 disclose all the elements of claim(s) 1, 10, and 12, and
Yasuda’72 further discloses, wherein after adjusting the first control opening voltage value, adjusting the second control opening voltage value is performed together with a further adjusting of the first control opening voltage value. [¶13: “the first pressure feedback controller controls the first valve so that the first pressure measured by the first pressure sensor reaches target burst pressure. Further, when and after the first pressure reaches the target burst pressure and the second valve is opened, the control mechanism is configured to control the first valve so that the flow rate of fluid flowing through the flow path reaches a target constant flow rate.”… ¶23: “controller is configured to open the second valve when and after the first pressure feedback controller controls the first valve and thereby the first pressure reaches the target burst pressure.”
Examiner notes that Yasuda’72 discloses first valve driving voltage is adjusted to control the first valve such that desired target pressure is achieved, and after adjusting the first valve driving voltage when the desired target pressure is achieved, then the second valve driving voltage is adjusted to open the second valve), and after adjusting the second valve driving voltage to open the second valve, the first valve driving voltage is further adjusted so that the flow rate of fluid flowing through the flow path reaches a target constant flow rate].
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto, Klenk and Moler, and further in view of Yasuda’45 et al. (US20180356845A1) [hereinafter Yasuda’45].
Regarding claim 14:
Goto, Klenk and Moler disclose all the elements of claim(s) 1 and 10, and
Goto further discloses, wherein the first control opening voltage value is adjusted based on a positive actual amplitude of the control error integral signal [¶12: “an I control unit configured to output an I control component VI by integrating a deviation of the detection value from the target value by digital processing; and a driver element configured to be driven based on the P control component VP from the P control circuit and the I control component VI from the I control unit to control the controlled object.”… ¶¶42: “The PI control is obtained by adding an integral term to Equation (1), and performs control expressed by Equation (2). V PZT =K P(V P _ set −V P _ mon)+K I∫(V P _ set −V P _ mon)dt”], but doesn’t explicitly disclose, and
Yasuda’45 discloses, wherein the second control opening voltage value is adjusted based on a negative amplitude of the control error integral signal. [¶18: “the voltage control part outputs the voltage command signal so as to apply negative voltage to the piezo actuator”… ¶52: “the voltage control part 22 outputs the voltage command signal so that negative voltage is applied to the piezo actuator 19.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the capability of adjusting driving voltage of piezo actuator controlled valve such that driving the piezo valve with negative voltage in order to reduce damage due to impact load generated between the valve seat surface and the valve body during operation of the valve taught by Yasuda’45 with the method taught by Goto, Klenk and Moler as discussed above in order to have a reasonable expectation of success such as to reduce damage due to impact load generated between the valve seat surface and the valve body during operation of the valve [Yasuda’45, ¶12: “impact load generated between the valve seat surface and the valve body can be reduced”].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant responds
(a) Response to the Section 102 Rejection
Rather, the "control opening voltage value" of amended Claims 1 and 17 is an internal parameter of the closed-loop control and serves to represent the "real opening voltage value" which is the voltage value with which the piezo valve must at least be driven so that it begins to open.
The cited Goto publication does not relate to the use of a "control opening voltage value" which is used, within the closed-loop control, to track the "real opening voltage value" at which the piezo valve begins to open, nor does it relate to the problem of how this "control opening voltage" can be adjusted so that it follows the "real opening voltage value."
(Page(s): 8-9)
With respect to (a) above, Examiner appreciates the interpretative description given by Applicant in response.
In response to applicant’s amendments to the claims, a new grounds of rejections in view of Klenk has been introduced.
Combination of Goto and Klenk teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 17 as described in the current office action. Thus claims 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto and Klenk as described in the current office action.
Applicant’s arguments are fully considered, but for the above described reasons, the arguments are moot; therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of the references as presented in the current office action.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant responds
(b) Response to the Section 102 Rejection
In rejecting former Claims 1 and 17, the Examiner considers the control voltage VPZT disclosed in the Goto publication the same as "control opening voltage value" of the present claims. However, Applicant points out that, in accordance with the present invention, the "control opening voltage value" is not a control voltage with which the piezo valve is to be driven.
Rather, the "control opening voltage value" of amended Claims 1 and 17 is an internal parameter of the closed-loop control and serves to represent the "real opening voltage value" which is the voltage value with which the piezo valve must at least be driven so that it begins to open.
As mentioned above, the independent Claims 1 and 17 have been amended to emphasize the aspect that the "control opening voltage value" of the closed-loop control serves to follow the "real opening voltage value." Thus, the "control opening voltage value" of Claims1 and 17 cannot be identified with the control voltage VPZT of Goto.
The cited Goto publication does not relate to the use of a "control opening voltage value" which is used, within the closed-loop control, to track the "real opening voltage value" at which the piezo valve begins to open, nor does it relate to the problem of how this "control opening voltage" can be adjusted so that it follows the "real opening voltage value."
(Page(s): 8-9)
With respect to (b) above, Examiner appreciates the interpretative description given by Applicant in response.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “"control opening voltage value" serves to represent the "real opening voltage value"”) 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 broadest reasonable interpretation, amended claims 1 and 17 describe a real opening voltage value that is voltage value with which when the piezo valve is driven it begins to open, and further describe an opening voltage value (that applicant refers here as control opening voltage value, please see claim objections) that follows changes in the real opening voltages. However there is no additional clarifying description of how this control opening voltage value follows changes in the real opening voltage value and what kind of changes, and there is no description of how control opening voltage value represents real opening voltage value. Also, it arises the question if control opening voltage value represents real opening voltage value then they are essentially the same elements. Thus, these relationships are not claimed and further explanation wasn’t given.
Regarding the arguments, the "control opening voltage value" of Claims1 and 17 cannot be identified with the control voltage VPZT of Goto, as described in the 35 U.S.C. 103 claim rejections section, even though Goto doesn’t explicitly disclose, “real opening voltage value” that is a voltage value that energizes the piezo valve enough such that it starts to open, but Goto does teach actuating/opening the piezo valve and following that controlling the openness to maintain desired fluid pressure, therefore, one of the ordinary skilled in the art will understand that, the piezo valve of Goto must be initially actuated with a voltage that it starts to open and then following that an openness of the valve is controlled via feedback loop as described above.
Combination of Goto and Klenk teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 17 as described in the current office action.
Applicant’s arguments are fully considered, but for the above described reasons, the arguments are not persuasive; therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of the references as presented in the current office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed in the PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited document mailed on 06/02/2025.
Kondo et al. (US20200278033A1) - Valve apparatus, flow rate adjusting method, fluid control apparatus, flow rate control method, semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, and semiconductor manufacturing method:
¶14: A control unit for controlling the adjusting actuator so that the opening degree of the flow path by the valve body becomes a target opening degree based on an electric signal related to the strain amount of the piezoelectric element.
KANBARA et al. (US20160115896A1) - Fuel injection device:
¶18: The fuel injection device of the present disclosure includes a fuel injection quantity determining section, a determining section, and a setting section
¶19: According to this fuel injection device, when the command value of the injection quantity is determined to be greater than a predetermined value, as the valve opening starting timing when the charging amount to the layered piezoelectric element reaches the valve opening starting value, a first timing is set.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 MOHAMMED SHAFAYET whose telephone number is (571)272-8239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/M.S./
Patent Examiner,
Art Unit 2116
/KENNETH M LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116