DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment dated 5/27/2026. Claim 22 is currently amended. Claims 2, 10, 18 and 21 have been canceled. No claims are newly added. Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, 19-20 and 22 are pending.
Applicant is notified that the response of 5/27/2026 was not been submitted in accordance with 37 CFR 1.121. Claim 22 was amended without properly underlining the amended claim limitations. As noted in the first full paragraph of the remarks on page 6 of the response dated 5/27/2026, claim 22 was amended to depend from claim 20.
For the purpose of this action only, the amended claims will be considered as being filed properly. Further amendments submitted in this manner will result in said amendment being deemed Non-Compliant.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Laverdiere et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2008/0221822 A1) on pages 6-7 of the response dated 5/27/2026.
Applicant argues that the Laverdiere et al. reference does not disclose controlling actuation of a control valve based on pressure as detected by a single pressure sensor and a pressure setpoint.
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., controlling actuation of a control valve based on pressure as detected by a single pressure sensor and a pressure setpoint) 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).
Claim 1 recites “control actuation of the control valve based on pressure detected by the distal pressure sensor and a pressure setpoint” in lines 9-10. Claim 9 recites “controlling actuation of a control valve based on pressure detected by a distal pressure sensor and a pressure setpoint” in lines 2-3. Claim 17 recites “control actuation of the control valve based on pressure as detected by one of the upstream and downstream pressure sensors and a pressure setpoint” in lines 9-10. However, the claims do not recite that only a single pressure sensor is used.
With respect to the Laverdiere et al. reference, a controller (42) is used to control actuation of the control valve based on pressure as detected by the distal pressure sensor and a pressure setpoint (see at least paragraph [0042] wherein the controller 42 can compare a differential pressure from the distal pressure sensor 40 and the proximal pressure sensor 38 to a set point to generate the valve control signal; see also paragraph [0071]).
It is considered that the distal / downstream pressure sensor (40) is utilized in control of the actuation of the control valve (44) in combination with the proximal / upstream pressure sensor (38) to determine a differential pressure that is compared with a pressure setpoint (see at least paragraph [0042]).
Therefore, it is considered that the Laverdiere et al. reference addresses the claim language of claims 1, 9 and 17 with respect to using the distal / downstream pressure sensor (40) and a pressure setpoint to control the actuation of a control valve.
Applicant argues the rejections of claims 5 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laverdiere in view of Yoshida et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0349735 A1) and the rejections of claims 6, 7, 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laverdiere in view of Hirata et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2021/0240208 A1) on pages 7-9 of the response filed 5/27/2026.
Applicant argues that the Laverdiere et al. reference in combination with either the Yoshida et al. reference or the Hirata et al. reference does not disclose controlling actuation of a control valve based on pressure as detected by a single pressure sensor and a pressure setpoint.
However, as noted above (see above for the arguments relating to how the Laverdiere et al. reference addresses the arguments related to controlling actuation of a control valve based on pressure as detected by a single pressure sensor and a pressure setpoint), it is considered that the Laverdiere et al. reference addresses the claim language relating to using the distal / downstream pressure sensor (40) and a pressure setpoint to control the actuation of a control valve.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Since the grounds of rejection were previously presented, the instant Office action is made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Laverdiere et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2008/0221822 A1).
Regarding claim 1, the Laverdiere et al. reference discloses a pressure controller (see figure 1) comprising:
a control valve (44) configured to control pressure of a fluid in a flow path (considered the flow path from the inlet 32 to the outlet 34);
a flow restrictor (36) disposed in the flow path (see figure 1);
a distal pressure sensor (40) that detects fluid pressure at the flow restrictor at a location distal from the control valve (it is considered that the pressure sensor 40 is located distal from the control valve 44 relative to the flow restrictor 36; see figure 1);
a proximal pressure sensor (38) that detects fluid pressure at the flow restrictor at a location proximal to the control valve (it is considered that the pressure sensor 38 is located proximal to the control valve 44 relative to the flow restrictor 36; see figure 1); and
a controller (42; see at least paragraph [0039]) configured to:
control actuation of the control valve based on pressure as detected by the distal pressure sensor and a pressure setpoint (see at least paragraph [0042] wherein the controller 42 can compare a differential pressure from the distal pressure sensor 40 and the proximal pressure sensor 38 to a set point to generate the valve control signal; see also paragraph [0071]), and
determine a mass flow rate based on pressure as detected by the distal and proximal pressure sensors (see at least paragraph [0071]).
In regards to claim 3, the Laverdiere et al. reference discloses wherein the proximal and distal locations are downstream of the control valve (see figure 1 for the pressure sensors 40 and 38 being located downstream of the control valve 44).
In regards to claim 4, the Laverdiere et al. reference discloses wherein the controller is configured to provide closed-loop feedback control of the control valve (see at least paragraph [0042]) based on the pressure as detected by the distal pressure sensor and the pressure setpoint (see at least paragraph [0042]).
In regards to claim 8, the Laverdiere et al. reference discloses wherein the fluid is a reactive gas (see at least paragraph [0003] wherein the flow controller can be used in the semiconductor manufacturing industry to accurately control the flow of gasses dispensed to a flow chamber).
Regarding claim 9, the Laverdiere et al. reference discloses the structure wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would perform the method of making and/or using a pressure controller (see figure 1) to control the pressure of a fluid, comprising:
controlling actuation of a control valve (44) based on pressure detected by a distal pressure sensor (40; it is considered that the pressure sensor 40 is located distal from the control valve 44 relative to the flow restrictor 36; see figure 1) and a pressure setpoint (see at least paragraph [0042] wherein the controller 42 can compare a differential pressure from the distal pressure sensor 40 and the proximal pressure sensor 38 to a set point to generate the valve control signal; see also paragraph [0071]), the control valve controlling pressure of a fluid in a flow path (considered the flow path between the inlet 32 and the outlet 34), the distal pressure sensor detecting fluid pressure at a flow restrictor (36) at a location distal from the control valve, the flow restrictor disposed in the flow path; and
determining a mass flow rate based on pressure as detected by the distal pressure sensor and a proximal pressure sensor (38; it is considered that the pressure sensor 38 is located proximal to the control valve 44 relative to the flow restrictor 36; see figure 1) that detects fluid pressure at the flow restrictor at a location proximal to the control valve (see at least paragraph [0042]).
In regards to claim 11, the Laverdiere et al. reference discloses wherein the proximal and distal locations are downstream of the control valve (see figure 1 for the pressure sensors 38 and 40 being located downstream of the control valve 44).
In regards to claim 12, the Laverdiere et al. reference discloses wherein the controller is configured to provide closed-loop feedback control of the control valve (see at least paragraph [0042]) based on the pressure as detected by the distal pressure sensor and the pressure setpoint (see at least paragraph [0042]).
In regards to claim 16, the Laverdiere et al. reference discloses wherein the fluid is a reactive gas (see at least paragraph [0003] wherein the flow controller can be used in the semiconductor manufacturing industry to accurately control the flow of gasses dispensed to a flow chamber).
Regarding claim 17, the Laverdiere et al. reference discloses a pressure controller (see figure 1) comprising:
a control valve (44) configured to control pressure of a fluid in a flow path (considered the flow path between the inlet 32 and the outlet 34);
a flow restrictor (36) disposed in the flow path;
an upstream pressure sensor (38) that detects fluid pressure at the flow restrictor upstream of the flow restrictor (it is considered that the pressure sensor 38 is located upstream of the flow restrictor 36; see figure 1);
a downstream pressure sensor (40) that detects fluid pressure at the flow restrictor downstream of the flow restrictor (36; it is considered that the pressure sensor 40 is located downstream from the flow restrictor 36; see figure 1); and
a controller (42; see at least paragraph [0039]) configured to:
control actuation of the control valve based on pressure as detected by one of the upstream and downstream pressure sensors and a pressure setpoint (see at least paragraph [0042] wherein the controller 42 can compare a differential pressure from the downstream pressure sensor 40 and the upstream pressure sensor 38 to a set point to generate the valve control signal; see also paragraph [0071]), and
determine a mass flow rate based on pressure as detected by the upstream and downstream pressure sensors (see at least paragraph [0071]).
In regards to claim 19, the Laverdiere et al. reference discloses wherein the flow restrictor (36), upstream pressure sensor (38), and downstream pressure sensor (40) are disposed downstream of the control valve (see figure 1).
It is considered that the downstream pressure sensor (40) is the downstream pressure sensor (40) wherein the downstream pressure sensor (40) is utilized within the determination of the pressure.
Regarding claim 20, the Laverdiere et al. reference discloses the structure wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would perform the method of making and/or using a pressure controller (see figure 1) to control the pressure of a fluid, comprising:
controlling actuation of a control valve (42) based on a pressure setpoint and pressure detected by one of an upstream pressure sensor (38) and a downstream pressure sensor (48), the upstream pressure sensor detecting fluid pressure at a flow restrictor (36) upstream of the flow restrictor (it is considered that the pressure sensor 38 is located upstream of the flow restrictor 36; see figure 1), the downstream pressure sensor detecting fluid pressure at the flow restrictor downstream of the flow restrictor (it is considered that the pressure sensor 40 is located downstream from the flow restrictor 36; see figure 1), the control valve controlling pressure of a fluid in a flow path (considered the flow path between the inlet 32 and the outlet 34), the flow restrictor disposed in the flow path; and
determining a mass flow rate based on pressure as detected by the upstream and downstream pressure sensors (see at least paragraph [0042] wherein the controller 42 can compare a differential pressure from the downstream pressure sensor 40 and the upstream pressure sensor 38 to a set point to generate the valve control signal; see also paragraph [0071]).
In regards to claim 22, the Laverdiere et al. reference discloses wherein the flow restrictor (36), upstream pressure sensor (38), and downstream pressure sensor (40) are disposed downstream of the control valve (see figure 1).
It is considered that the downstream pressure sensor (40) is the downstream pressure sensor wherein the downstream pressure sensor (40) is utilized within the determination of the pressure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laverdiere et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2008/0221822 A1) in view of Yoshida et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0349735 A1).
In regards to claim 5, the Laverdiere et al. reference does not expressly disclose determining the mass flow rate Q that includes a function wherein R is a characteristic of the flow restrictor, Pu is pressure upstream of the flow restrictor as detected by one of the distal and proximal pressure sensors, Pd is a pressure downstream of the flow restrictor as detected by the other of the distal and proximal pressure sensors, T is a temperature of the fluid, mw is a molecular weight of the fluid, μ is a viscosity of the fluid, and γ is a specific heat ratio of the fluid.
However, the Yoshida et al. reference teaches determining a flow rate of gas wherein the flow rate is calculated by using a variety of parameters including molecular weight, viscosity coefficient, specific heat ratio of the gas which are factors that affect the flow of the gas, the temperature of the gas, characteristics of the flow path of the gas such as the length and diameter of the hole, and the upstream and downstream pressures of the hole in order to permit the flow rate to be calculated without determining the state of the flow such as molecular flow, intermediate flow, laminar flow, turbulent flow, critical flow and subcritical flow (see paragraph [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to calculate the flow rate of the Laverdiere et al. reference by using the parameters including molecular weight, viscosity coefficient, specific heat ratio of the gas which are factors that affect the flow of the gas, the temperature of the gas, characteristics of the flow path of the gas such as the length and diameter of the hole, and the upstream and downstream pressures of the hole as taught by the Yoshida et al. reference in order to permit the flow rate to be calculated without determining the state of the flow such as molecular flow, intermediate flow, laminar flow, turbulent flow, critical flow and subcritical flow.
In regards to claim 13, the Laverdiere et al. reference does not expressly disclose determining the mass flow rate Q that includes a function wherein R is a characteristic of the flow restrictor, Pu is pressure upstream of the flow restrictor as detected by one of the distal and proximal pressure sensors, Pd is a pressure downstream of the flow restrictor as detected by the other of the distal and proximal pressure sensors, T is a temperature of the fluid, mw is a molecular weight of the fluid, μ is a viscosity of the fluid, and γ is a specific heat ratio of the fluid.
However, the Yoshida et al. reference teaches determining a flow rate of gas wherein the flow rate is calculated by using a variety of parameters including molecular weight, viscosity coefficient, specific heat ratio of the gas which are factors that affect the flow of the gas, the temperature of the gas, characteristics of the flow path of the gas such as the length and diameter of the hole, and the upstream and downstream pressures of the hole in order to permit the flow rate to be calculated without determining the state of the flow such as molecular flow, intermediate flow, laminar flow, turbulent flow, critical flow and subcritical flow (see paragraph [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to calculate the flow rate of the Laverdiere et al. reference by using the parameters including molecular weight, viscosity coefficient, specific heat ratio of the gas which are factors that affect the flow of the gas, the temperature of the gas, characteristics of the flow path of the gas such as the length and diameter of the hole, and the upstream and downstream pressures of the hole as taught by the Yoshida et al. reference in order to permit the flow rate to be calculated without determining the state of the flow such as molecular flow, intermediate flow, laminar flow, turbulent flow, critical flow and subcritical flow.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laverdiere et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2008/0221822 A1) in view of Hirata et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2021/0240208 A1).
In regards to claim 6, the Laverdiere et al. reference does not expressly disclose wherein the controller is configured to output the determined mass flow rate.
However, the Hirata et al. reference teaches a flow rate control device having a controller (7), a first pressure sensor (3), a second pressure sensor (4) and wherein the first pressure senor and the second pressure sensor are located on opposite sides of a flow restrictor (2) wherein the controller calculates a flow rate and displays the calculated flow rate on a display as a control flow rate output value (see paragraph [0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the controller of the pressure controller of the Laverdiere et al. reference as being configured to output the determined mass flow rate as taught by the Hirata et al. reference in order to provide and present the information of the determined mass flow rate to a user.
In regards to claim 7, the Laverdiere et al. reference does not disclose a temperature sensor that detects temperature of the fluid in the flow path.
However, the Hirata et al. reference teaches a flow rate control device having a controller (7), a first pressure sensor (3), a second pressure sensor (4), a temperature sensor (5) and wherein the first pressure senor and the second pressure sensor are located on opposite sides of a flow restrictor (2) wherein the temperature sensor permits the flow rate control device to perform the flow rate control with more improved accuracy (see at least paragraph [0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the flow rate control device of the Laverdiere et al. reference with a temperature sensor as taught by the Hirata et al. reference in order to improve the accuracy of the flow rate control.
In regards to claim 14, the Laverdiere et al. reference does not expressly disclose outputting the determined mass flow rate.
However, the Hirata et al. reference teaches a flow rate control device having a controller (7), a first pressure sensor (3), a second pressure sensor (4) and wherein the first pressure senor and the second pressure sensor are located on opposite sides of a flow restrictor (2) wherein the controller calculates a flow rate and displays the calculated flow rate on a display as a control flow rate output value (see paragraph [0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the controller of the pressure controller of the Laverdiere et al. reference as being configured to output the determined mass flow rate as taught by the Hirata et al. reference in order to provide and present the information of the determined mass flow rate to a user.
In regards to claim 15, the Laverdiere et al. reference does not disclose a temperature sensor that detects temperature of the fluid in the flow path.
However, the Hirata et al. reference teaches a flow rate control device having a controller (7), a first pressure sensor (3), a second pressure sensor (4), a temperature sensor (5) and wherein the first pressure senor and the second pressure sensor are located on opposite sides of a flow restrictor (2) wherein the temperature sensor permits the flow rate control device to perform the flow rate control with more improved accuracy (see at least paragraph [0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the flow rate control device of the Laverdiere et al. reference with a temperature sensor as taught by the Hirata et al. reference in order to improve the accuracy of the flow rate control.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takamoto et al. (US 6,012,474) discloses a mass flow control method and device having a controller (20) connected to a control valve (12), a proximal pressure sensor (14), a temperature sensor (15) and a distal pressure sensor (16) wherein a flow restriction (13) is located between the proximal pressure sensor (14) and the distal pressure sensor (16).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Andrew J. Rost whose telephone number is (571) 272-. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/ANDREW J ROST/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/MICHAEL R REID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights