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
Applicant has submitted amendments to the claims on 01/20/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al (US PAT. 6155283, herein Hansen) in further view of Klassen et al (US PUB. 20200309167, herein Klassen).
Regarding claim 1, Hansen teaches An automation device for industrial automation, for closed-loop controlling and/or diagnosing a pneumatic actuator having an actuator member (4:50-60 “model is identified using an open-loop test (step 310). Additional models may be identified for each actuator piston motion direction at representative valve stem positions and supply pressures. First, the pneumatic actuator 110 is made to move in the desired direction and stop (step 312) so that the Coulomb friction force does not reverse when the next position change occurs. Then the pneumatic actuator 110 is caused to move in the same direction in response to a step, pulse, or doublet-pulse change, called a pretune signal, supplied by the valve position controller 210 while operating in its manual mode to manipulate the i/p transducer current”),
the automation device having a model of the pneumatic actuator, which model has at least one model parameter via which the model can be adapted to different variants of the pneumatic actuator (4:50-60 “Additional models may be identified for each actuator piston motion direction at representative valve stem positions and supply pressures.”),
and wherein the automation device is configured to carry out closed-loop control and/or diagnosis of the pneumatic actuator using the model (2:15-20 “method may include operating the valve position controller in a closed-loop mode that processes the set point signal of valve stem position in conjunction with the valve position feedback signal”, 9:65-70 “Equating corresponding coefficients (to fourth order in s) from the closed-loop model”, 11:30-35 “and closed-loop performance measures (mean delay time .tau..sub.CL and a measure of rise time n) to be calculated directly from a polynomial model (including terms up to third order in s) of the open-loop process”).
The cited prior art do not teach wherein the model defines a relationship between state variables and a first aeration variable, wherein the first aeration variable is the current mass flow with which a first pressure chamber of the pneumatic actuator is aerated or de-aerated, wherein the relationship between the state variables and the first aeration variable in the model is adaptable via the at least one model parameter.
Klassen teaches wherein the model defines a relationship between state variables and a first aeration variable (0104 “conversion and/or control unit 82 is in particular adapted to use the detected output openings for a forward simulation of the valve model, in particular of a model of the valve device 21. The valve model is expediently part of the system model. As an example, the setpoint mass flow is compared with the calculated actual mass flow and fed back in a weighted manner.”), wherein the first aeration variable is the current mass flow with which a first pressure chamber of the pneumatic actuator is aerated or de-aerated, wherein the relationship between the state variables and the first aeration variable in the model is adaptable via the at least one model parameter (0045 “valve device 21 has the two pressure outputs 23, 24 with which two separate pressurized fluid pressures and/or two separate pressurized fluid mass flows can be provided. The valve device 21 further has a de-aeration port 26 connected to a de-aeration line and an aeration port 27 connected to an aeration line. Expediently, a supply pressure is applied to the aeration port 27 and/or the atmospheric pressure is applied to the de-aeration port”, 0079 “calculation pressure corresponds in particular to the pressure of the pressurized fluid at the other end of hose 51, 52, which other end is attached to the fluidic actuator 2. The hose model expediently represents a pressure drop and/or a time delay, such as a dead time that may occur between the two ends of the hose 51, 52. Based on the hose model, the calculation pressure is calculated so that the calculation pressure has the pressure drop and/or the time delay compared to the measuring pressure. Expediently, the hose model, especially the pressure drop and/or the time delay, is determined based on the hose parameter, especially by the position controller”, 0082).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings of Hansen with the teachings of Klassen since Klassen teaches a means for providing a more flexible system (0005).
Regarding claim 5, the cited prior art teach The automation device according to claim 1.
Klassen teaches wherein the at least one model parameter comprises a position term coefficient, and the model defines a relationship between a current acceleration of the actuator member and a difference of a pressure term and a product of the position term coefficient and a position term (0084 “pressurized fluid provision device 4, preferably the state determination unit 77, is in particular adapted to provide the acceleration signal on the basis of a twice differentiated position signal and on the basis of a pressure signal”, 0087 “the pressurized fluid provision device 4, in particular the state determination unit 77, is adapted to weight, when providing the acceleration signal, the twice differentiated position signal and the pressure signal as a function of frequency, so that in a first frequency range the twice differentiated position signal is dominant and in a second frequency range the pressure signal is dominant, the second frequency range being higher than the first frequency range” 0094).
Regarding claim 7, the cited prior art teach The automation device according to claim 1.
Klassen teaches wherein the at least one model parameter comprises a dead volume parameter representing a dead volume of the pneumatic actuator (0102 “the feedforward control unit 71 is adapted to take into account, for providing the feedforward control signal VS, a hose volume of a hose 51, 52 and/or a dead volume of the actuator 2, in particular of the drive cylinder. As an example, the feedforward control unit 71 is adapted to add the hose volume to the dead volume as a system parameter and to take the resulting volume into account when providing the feedforward control signal VS”).
Regarding claim 8, the cited prior art teach The automation device according to a claim 1.
Klassen teaches wherein the at least one model parameter comprises a volume change rate parameter representing a ratio of a volume change of a first pressure chamber of the actuator to a position change of the actuator member (0096 “a total volume and/or a total length (of an oscillation volume comprising the hose volume and the pressure chamber volume) is calculated on the basis of the hose model, in particular the hose volume and/or the hose length, the actuator model, in particular the pressure chamber volume and/or the pressure chamber length, and the reduction of the pressure chamber volume and/or the pressure chamber length due to the current position of the actuator member 3. Based on the total volume and/or the total length, the frequency to be suppressed can then be calculated and/or the frequency filter 79 can be configured”).
Regarding claim 9, the cited prior art teach The automation device according to claim 1.
Klassen teaches wherein the at least one model parameter comprises a pressure term coefficient, and the model defines a relationship between an acceleration of the actuator member and a difference of a first pressure term and a product of the pressure term coefficient and a second pressure term (0084 “pressurized fluid provision device 4, preferably the state determination unit 77, is in particular adapted to provide the acceleration signal on the basis of a twice differentiated position signal and on the basis of a pressure signal”, 0087 “the pressurized fluid provision device 4, in particular the state determination unit 77, is adapted to weight, when providing the acceleration signal, the twice differentiated position signal and the pressure signal as a function of frequency, so that in a first frequency range the twice differentiated position signal is dominant and in a second frequency range the pressure signal is dominant, the second frequency range being higher than the first frequency range” 0094).
Regarding claim 10, the cited prior art teach A process valve assembly, comprising an automation device according to claim 1.
Hansen teaches and the pneumatic actuator, wherein the pneumatic actuator is designed as a process valve (3:10-15).
Regarding claim 11, the cited prior art teach A method of operating an automation device according to claim 1.
Hansen teaches comprising the step of: performing closed-loop control and/or diagnostics of the pneumatic actuator using the model (2:15-20).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al (US PAT. 6155283, herein Hansen) Hansen et al (US PAT. 6155283, herein Hansen) in further view of Klassen et al (US PUB. 20200309167, herein Klassen) in view of Friman et al (US PUB. 20190390691, herein Friman).
Regarding claim 2, the cited prior art teach The automation device according to claim 1.
The cited prior art do not teach wherein the model is a nonlinear model.
Friman teaches wherein the model is a nonlinear model (0061 “wherein also the time varying behaviour of a system is modeled. The simulation may incorporate real-world constraints, such as a valve backlash or valve speed, meaning that a simulation model becomes nonlinear”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings of Hansen and Klassen and the teachings of Friman since Friman teaches a more accurate and stable position control can be achieved (0061).
Claim(s) 3, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al (US PAT. 6155283, herein Hansen) in view of Klassen et al (US PUB. 20200309167, herein Klassen) in further view of Fiebiger et al (US PUB. 20240052948, herein Fiebiger).
Regarding claim 3, the cited prior art teach The automation device according to claim 1.
Hansen teaches wherein the automation device is configured to perform a parameter adjustment procedure with a pneumatic actuation of the pneumatic actuator (1-2:65-10 “valve position controller tuning method accounts for friction in valve motion by building a dynamic model of position response of a valve stem attached to a valve flow modulating member and controlled by a valve positioner. To this end, a model form is selected and the valve position controller is operated in an open-loop mode. The method includes activating a valve position controller output signal that causes the valve stem to move monotonically from one stuck position to another stuck position immediately after a motion in that same direction”).
The cited prior art do not teach and to adjust, within the parameter adjustment procedure, the at least one model parameter to a present variant of the pneumatic actuator.
Fiebiger teaches and to adjust, within the parameter adjustment procedure, the at least one model parameter to a present variant of the pneumatic actuator (0062 “The second calculation module comprises configuration data 406 for defining a controller model for a particular controller. The configuration data 406 for adapting the model are used to adapt the controller model to a specific controller, for example to the master process controller of the valve control device”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings of Hansen and the teachings of Klassen with the teachings of Fiebiger since Fiebiger provides “a valve control device and/or a diagnostic method which, on the basis of the limited quantity of process signals available locally in the valve control device, renders possible a statement regarding the causes of faults both inside and outside the valve control device” (0009).
Regarding claim 12, the cited prior art teach The method of claim 11.
Hansen teaches further comprising the step of: performing a parameter adjustment procedure (1-2:65-10 “valve position controller tuning method accounts for friction in valve motion by building a dynamic model of position response of a valve stem attached to a valve flow modulating member and controlled by a valve positioner. To this end, a model form is selected and the valve position controller is operated in an open-loop mode. The method includes activating a valve position controller output signal that causes the valve stem to move monotonically from one stuck position to another stuck position immediately after a motion in that same direction”).
The cited prior art do not teach and within the parameter adjustment procedure, adjusting the at least one model parameter to a present variant of the pneumatic actuator.
Fiebiger teaches and within the parameter adjustment procedure, adjusting the at least one model parameter to a present variant of the pneumatic actuator (0062 “The second calculation module comprises configuration data 406 for defining a controller model for a particular controller. The configuration data 406 for adapting the model are used to adapt the controller model to a specific controller, for example to the master process controller of the valve control device”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings of Hansen with the teachings of Fiebiger since Fiebiger provides “a valve control device and/or a diagnostic method which, on the basis of the limited quantity of process signals available locally in the valve control device, renders possible a statement regarding the causes of faults both inside and outside the valve control device” (0009).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al (US PAT. 6155283, herein Hansen) in view of Klassen et al (US PUB. 20200309167, herein Klassen) in further view of Delmege et al (US PAT. 4581699, herein Delmege).
Regarding claim 4, the cited prior art teach The automation device according to claim 1.
The cited prior art do not teach wherein the model comprises, as a state variable, a current position of the actuator member, wherein the current position is defined as a relative quantity in the model.
Delmege teaches wherein the model comprises, as a state variable, a current position of the actuator member, wherein the current position is defined as a relative quantity in the model (abstract “An actuator control system includes sensors coupled to the actuator for providing indications of X measured state variables, such as actuator position”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings of Hansen and Klassen with the teachings of Delmege since Delmege teaches a means for a system that is more simple and more reliable than previous deficiencies in the art (1:25-30).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al (US PAT. 6155283, herein Hansen) in further view of Klassen et al (US PUB. 20200309167, herein Klassen) in view of Cherubini et al (US PAT. 8094407, herein Cherubini).
Regarding claim 6, the cited prior art teach The automation device according to claim 1.
The cited prior art do not teach wherein the at least one model parameter comprises a spring bias travel parameter representing a spring bias travel of a spring element of the pneumatic actuator, wherein the model defines a relationship between an acceleration of the actuator member and a difference of a position of the actuator member and the spring bias travel parameter.
Cherubini teaches wherein the at least one model parameter comprises a spring bias travel parameter representing a spring bias travel of a spring element of the pneumatic actuator, wherein the model defines a relationship between an acceleration of the actuator member and a difference of a position of the actuator member and the spring bias travel parameter (10:15-25 “the mechanical behavior of the actuator may be approximated by a simple spring-damper-mass model. Accordingly, the actuator can be represented by the second-order differential equation: m{umlaut over (x)}(t)+b{dot over (x)}(t)+kx(t)=externally applied force+disturbances =gu(t)+d(t) (1) wherein x(t) represents the position of the actuator, the first derivative {dot over (x)}(t) of the position indicates the actuator's velocity, the second derivative {umlaut over (x)}(t) of the position indicates the actuator's acceleration, m represents the mass of the actuator, b represents a damping coefficient, and k represents a spring constant”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings of Hansen and Klassen with the teachings of Cherubini since Cherubini teaches a means for being able to estimate and modify control signals sent to actuators based on received data (abstract).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al (US PAT. 6155283, herein Hansen) ) in further view of Klassen et al (US PUB. 20200309167, herein Klassen) in view of Fiebiger et al (US PUB. 20240052948, herein Fiebiger) in further view of Medvedev et al (NPL, Mathematical model of the pneumatic actuator follower system, herein Medvedev).
Regarding claim 13, Hansen teaches [A method of operating a system comprising a plurality of arrangements which each comprise a respective automation device and a respective pneumatic actuator associated with the respective automation device], wherein each automation device is implemented according to the automation device of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1),
and has a respective model, for performing diagnosis and/or closed-loop control of the respective associated pneumatic actuator (2:15-20 “method may include operating the valve position controller in a closed-loop mode that processes the set point signal of valve stem position in conjunction with the valve position feedback signal”, 9:65-70 “Equating corresponding coefficients (to fourth order in s) from the closed-loop model”, 11:30-35 “and closed-loop performance measures (mean delay time .tau..sub.CL and a measure of rise time n) to be calculated directly from a polynomial model (including terms up to third order in s) of the open-loop process”).
The cited prior art do not teach A method of operating a system comprising a plurality of arrangements which each comprise a respective automation device and a respective pneumatic actuator associated with the respective automation device, wherein the models of the automation devices do not differ from each other, and wherein at least two of the pneumatic actuators differ from each other in their variant, the method comprising the step of: adjusting at least one model parameter of each model in order to adapt the respective model to a present variant of the respectively associated pneumatic actuator.
Fiebiger teaches A method of operating a system comprising a plurality of arrangements which each comprise a respective automation device and a respective pneumatic actuator associated with the respective automation device (0002 “Valve control devices are commonly employed in process plants in a cascaded process control, as illustrated schematically, for example, in FIG. 5. In a cascaded process control or cascade control, a plurality of controllers are cascaded while the associated control circuits are nested inside each other. At least one process controller (120) is master of a control device”, 0004 “process control difference (p.sub.d) formed as the difference between a process setpoint signal (p.sub.g) and an actual value process signal (p.sub.i) is fed to the process controller (120) in the master, figuratively outer, control loop in the form of an input signal. The process control method of the process controller (120) can be configured to compensate interference variables that influence the process”, 0005 “the positioner (31) of the valve control device (1) determines a control signal (g) for controlling an actuator (33), which can be, for example, a pneumatic or electric actuating drive of a control valve”)
wherein the models of the automation devices do not differ from each other (0005 “The valve control device (1) additionally captures a signal (i) representing the actual position of the control valve. From these signals, the positioner (31) of the valve control device (1) determines a control signal (g) for controlling an actuator”, 0002 “Valve control devices are commonly employed in process plants in a cascaded process control, as illustrated schematically, for example, in FIG. 5. In a cascaded process control or cascade control, a plurality of controllers are cascaded while the associated control circuits are nested inside each other. At least one process controller (120) is master of a control device (1). The output variable (p.sub.g) of the process controller (120) acts as a command variable for the valve control device”, 0003 “Typical process control applications employ valve control devices with a control valve in order to influence a downstream process towards a predetermined steady-state or dynamic target via changes in the passing volume flows or mass flows”),
and wherein at least two of the pneumatic actuators differ from each other in their variant (0005 “The valve control device (1) additionally captures a signal (i) representing the actual position of the control valve. From these signals, the positioner (31) of the valve control device (1) determines a control signal (g) for controlling an actuator (33), which can be, for example, a pneumatic or electric actuating drive of a control valve”, the individual valve control device has its own variant controls of the actuator), the method comprising the step of: adjusting at least one model parameter of each model in order to adapt the respective model to a present variant of the respectively associated pneumatic actuator (0062 “The second calculation module comprises configuration data 406 for defining a controller model for a particular controller. The configuration data 406 for adapting the model are used to adapt the controller model to a specific controller, for example to the master process controller of the valve control device”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings of Hansen and Klassen with the teachings of Fiebiger since Fiebiger provides “a valve control device and/or a diagnostic method which, on the basis of the limited quantity of process signals available locally in the valve control device, renders possible a statement regarding the causes of faults both inside and outside the valve control device” (0009).
The cited prior art do not teach wherein the at least one model parameter comprises a pressure term coefficient, and the model defines a relationship between an acceleration of the actuator member and a difference of a first pressure term and a product of the pressure term coefficient and a second pressure term.
Medvedev teaches wherein the at least one model parameter comprises a pressure term coefficient, and the model defines a relationship between an acceleration of the actuator member and a difference of a first pressure term and a product of the pressure term coefficient and a second pressure term (page 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings of Hansen, Klassen and Fiebiger with the teachings of Medvedev since Medvedev teaches a means for reducing energy consumed by actuator system by 30% (abstract).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klassen et al (US PUB. 20200309167, herein Klassen) in view of Medvedev et al (NPL, Mathematical model of the pneumatic actuator follower system, herein Medvedev).
Regarding claim 14, Klassen teaches An automation device for industrial automation, for closed-loop controlling and/or diagnosing a pneumatic actuator having an actuator member (0004), the automation device having a model of the pneumatic actuator, which model has at least one model parameter via which the model can be adapted to different variants of the pneumatic actuator (0008 “system model, in particular by taking into account system parameters that describe the hose of the hose arrangement, it is possible, for example, to provide position control even when using a longer hose between the pressurized fluid provision device, for example the valve terminal, and the actuator, without having to provide pressure sensors on the actuator itself. Via the system model, in particular via a hose model of the system model, an actuator pressure can be calculated, for example, from a measurement pressure detected at the pressurized fluid provision device, which actuator pressure corresponds to the pressure at the actuator, for example the pressure in a pressure chamber of the actuator. The hose model describes physical properties of the hose, such as the length, diameter and/or volume of the hose. The calculated actuator pressure can also be called calculated chamber pressure.”).
The cited prior art do not teach and wherein the automation device is configured to carry out closed-loop control and/or diagnosis of the pneumatic actuator using the model, wherein the at least one model parameter comprises a position term coefficient, and the model defines a relationship between a current acceleration of the actuator member and a difference of a pressure term and a product of the position term coefficient and a position term.
Medvedev teaches and wherein the automation device is configured to carry out closed-loop control and/or diagnosis of the pneumatic actuator using the model, wherein the at least one model parameter comprises a position term coefficient, and the model defines a relationship between a current acceleration of the actuator member and a difference of a pressure term and a product of the position term coefficient and a position term (page 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings of Klassen and Fiebiger with the teachings of Medvedev since Medvedev teaches a means for reducing energy consumed by actuator system by 30% (abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hansen et al (US PAT. 6155283, herein Hansen) ) in further view of Klassen et al (US PUB. 20200309167, herein Klassen).
Applicant argues on page 6 that Hansen does not teach use of internal fluid dynamics to model as is claimed and thus does not teach a model that defines relationship between the claimed variables. Examiner agrees. As a result of further search and consideration, Klassen has been introduced to claim 1. Klassen teaches a model where the claimed variables are modelled in relation to each other as claimed (0104, 0045 0079, 0082).
Therefore, claim 1 is rejected along with its respective dependent claims.
Applicant then argues on page 9 that the cited prior art do not teach model parameter comprises a position term coefficient, and the model defines a relationship between a current acceleration of the actuator member and a difference of a pressure term and a product of the position term coefficient and a position term. This argument was deemed persuasive. However, as a result of further search or consideration, Medvedev has been introduced. Medvedev teaches the claimed model parameters and the claimed relationship in the form of an equation (page 2-3).
Therefore, claim 14 is rejected.
Conclusion
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 TAMEEM SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1627. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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.
/TAMEEM D SIDDIQUEE/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights