DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101,
pages 7-14, filed 4/6/26, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 101 of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 4-13 and 15-20 have been fully
considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Patent No. US 4,865,073 (Kocher).
Under 35 USC § 101
Although claims 1, 12 and 20 include abstract ideas, claims 1, 12 and 20 also recite
additional elements such as “i) adjust at least one of a position of a valve or pump schedule of the system when the mass is below a first threshold and ii) disable the system when the mass is below a second threshold”. The inclusion of these additional elements integrates the identified judicial exception into a practical application that effects a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Therefore, claims 1-20 are considered to be eligible under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 11-13, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Winkes (Pub. No. US 2013/0173063) in view of Hauge et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0169982) (hereinafter Hauge) and further in view of Kocher (Patent No. US 4,865,073).
As per claims 1, 4, 11-12, 15 and 20, while Winkes teaches an apparatus including a control unit and a model unit configured to iteratively solve non-linear thermodynamic state equations based on measured pressure, temperature, and thermodynamic parameters using numeric optimization methods such as sequential quadratic programming (see ¶¶ [[0019]-[0020], [0023]-[0024]) and while Winkes further teaches thermodynamic relationships that include volume/volumetric flow terms together with pressure and temperature (see ¶¶ [[0047]-[0053]), Winkes fails to explicitly teach
Winkes fails to explicitly teach iteratively determine a volume of a chemical compound in a system of a turbine engine based on a pressure measurement, a temperature measurement, and a constant, but Winkes does provides equations in which volume is a state variable (see ¶¶ [0050]-[0051]). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to solve those same equations for volume when pressure, temperature, and thermodynamic constants are known. Re-arranging, or numerically solving a known state equation for a different unknown variable, particularly using the same non-linear solver framework, already disclosed in Winkes, is a predictable and routine application of numerical methods and therefore it is an obvious design choice.
Although Winkes does not teach determining the mass of the chemical compound based on the volume of the chemical compound and a volume of system, Winkes does compute mass flow and other density-dependent quantities from thermodynamic state variables (see ¶¶ [0047]-[0053]). Determining mass = density x volume once volume, pressure and temperature are known is a fundamental thermodynamic calculation well within the one having ordinary skill in the art and therefore would have been obvious.
Winkes further teaches optimization and control operations (see ¶¶ [0019] and [0021], i.e., “determination or calculation method and/or optimization algorithm” and "control loop"), but fails to teach “iteratively determine a mass loss of the chemical compound based on the mass of the chemical compound using a system of equations”.
However, Hauge teaches iterative mass-balance and leak/mass-loss determination in fluid networks using non-linear solvers, Newton-based updates, and equation-of-state (PVT) modeling (see ¶¶ [0070]-[0083] and [0176]-[0183], the examiner notes that mass-balance is determined based on “equations for flow into and out of a branch” (¶[0080]), Hauge further teaches that when a leak is detected, the leak rate may be calculated by subtracting model-calculated flow from measured flow at inlet or outlet nodes, and that a “lost volume” (i.e., cumulative mass/volume loss) may be computed by “integrating one or more differences with respect to time” (see ¶ [0191]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate this known mass-loss computation into the solver framework of Winkes because both Hauge and Winkes address iterative solution of thermodynamic and physical-system equations and using similar numerical methods and integrating mass-flow determination into the existing optimization loop of Winkes would provide a more accurate and complete analysis of the mass flow of the chemical compound within the system, thereby improving the reliability of the model-based control decisions.
Winkes teaches component control circuitry that adjusts compressor actuators, such as guide vanes, valves, and rotational speed, based on model-derived state variables (see ¶¶ [0044]-[0059]).
However, the combination of Winkes and Hauge fails to explicitly teach that component control circuitry to i) adjust at least one of a position of a valve or pump schedule of the system when the mass is below a first threshold and ii) disable the system when the mass is below a second threshold.
Kocher, however, discloses a refrigerator system where a liquid refrigerant level control operates a solenoid valve to maintain refrigerant level within a predetermined range defined by predetermined lower and upper liquid levels (see Abstract) and stops a pump when liquid refrigerant drops below a predetermined low level (col. 3, lines 24-30). The examiner notes that none having ordinary skill in the art would understand that in such a closed vessel of known geometry, the measured liquid level directly corresponds to the quantity (volume and thus mass) of refrigerant present, because liquid height is a function of the amount of fluid contained therein. Therefore, the level-based control of Kocher inherently reflects control based on the amount of refrigerant in the system). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply the multi-threshold valve/pump control of Kocher to the mass-loss monitoring system of the combination of Winkes and Hauge because Kocher teaches protecting a fluid-handling thermal system by regulating fluid admission and stopping pump operation when the working-fluid quantity becomes insufficient, thereby preventing malfunction or damage while maintaining controlled operation when fluid quantity remains within an acceptable range.
As per claims 2 and 13, the combination of Winkes and Hauge and Kocher teaches the system as stated above. Hauge further teaches alert generation circuitry to output an alert based on the mass loss of the chemical compound (see ¶ [0112], i.e., “responsive to model-based results, one or more notifications (e.g., instructions, commands, alarms, etc.) may be communicated” and ¶ [0131], i.e., “issue one or more commands, instructions, alarms, etc., based at least in part on execution of a leak detection method”).
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Winkes in view of Hauge and Kocher and further in view of Allen et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0195143) (hereinafter Allen).
As per claims 5 and 16, the combination of Winkes and Hauge and Kocher teaches the system as stated above except that the system of equations corresponds to a derivative of mass with respect to time, the temperature measurement, input thermal energy, thermal energy loss, and latent heat, the latent heat corresponding to the thermodynamic state.
Allen teaches applying the first law of thermodynamics using measured temperatures, input thermal energy, thermal energy losses, and enthalpy differences, and explains that the difference between HHV and LHV reflects latent heat inherent to thermodynamic state (¶¶ [0006]-[0007], i.e., “The higher heating value (HHV) is obtained when all the H.sub.2O formed as a result of combustion is in liquid form whereas the lower heating value (LHV) is obtained when all the H.sub.2O formed as a result of combustion takes the form of a gas. The higher heating value exceeds the lower heating value by amount commensurate with the magnitude of energy that would be released were all H.sub.2O in the products condensed into liquid, which is sometimes referred to as the latent heat. Note that the energy characterized by the latent heat is not recovered in the combustion process”).
Although none of the prior art alone explicitly recites writing the governing relations as a system of equations comprising a derivative of mass (dm/dt), temperature, input thermal energy, thermal losses, and latent heat, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the solver of Winkes with the energy-balance formulation of Allen and the mass-loss modeling of Hauge. Winkes and Allen collectively teach that mass change in a thermo-fluid system is dictated by coupled mass and energy-balance equations, where dm/dt follows directly from the net energy input relative to the latent heat associated with the fluid’s thermodynamic state. Thus, deriving the combined equation form (expressing dm/dt in terms of temperature, thermal input, thermal losses, and latent heat) would require only routine mathematical and algebraic manipulation of standard first law energy balance, as explicitly shown in Allen’s derivations and as routinely performed in thermodynamic modeling. Doing so would enable more accurate mass and mass loss estimation, thereby, it would improve control responsiveness.
Claims 6, 7, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Winkes in view of Hauge and Kocher and further in view of Ahmad (Pub. No. US 2008/0056946).
As per claims 6 and 17, the combination of Winkes and Hauge and Kocher teaches the system as stated above except that the optimization circuitry is to determine a thermal time constant based on the mass loss.
Ahmad teaches determining thermal time constants from transient thermal phenomena using mathematical modeling and signal interpretation to characterize system dynamics (see ¶¶ [0142]-[0143]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ahmad’s teaching into the combination of Winkes and Hauge and Kocher because it would characterize the system’s thermal behavior, thereby, the optimization of the system would be improved.
As per claims 7 and 18, the combination of Winkes and Hauge and Kocher teaches the system as stated above except that the component control circuitry is to adjust use of the system of the chemical compound based on a comparison of the thermal time constant to a threshold.
However, Ahmad teaches determining a thermal time constant as meaningful diagnostic parameter derived from system thermal/mass-transfer dynamics (see ¶¶ [0142]-[0144]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ahmad’s teaching into the combination of Winkes and Hauge and Kocher because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that thermal time constant is a diagnostic measure that indicate the system state and using the thermal time constant as a control trigger would enhance system responsiveness to thermally induced degradation or anomalies, thereby improving operational accuracy, safety, and efficiency of the system.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Winkes in view of Hauge and further in view of Raghavachari (Pub. No. US 2003/0086789).
As per claims 8 and 9, the combination of Winkes and Hauge and Kocher teaches the system as stated above except that the optimization circuitry is to determine a trend based on the mass loss and a previous mass loss.
Raghavachari teaches determining a dynamic rate-of-change of mass from sequential mass measurements and using it in compressor control logic (see ¶¶ [0013]-[0014] and [0063], the examiner notes that a dynamic rate-of-change of mass is a trend metric requiring both a current mass value and a prior mass value, mathematically Δm/Δt =(m(t)-m(t-Δt))/Δt, and function identically to “trend based on mass loss and previous mass loss). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Raghavachari’s teaching into the combination of Winkes and Hauge and Kocher’s teaching because trend-based mass mass-loss metrics indicate the system operation, thereby appropriate actions would be taken to prevent system anomalies/downtime.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkes in
view of Hauge and Kocher and further in view of de Bock et al. (Pub. No. US 2018/0354641) (hereinafter Bock).
the combination of Winkes and Hauge and Kocher teaches the system as stated above except that the component control circuitry is to adjust components of the turbine engine to reroute heat in the turbine engine based on the mass loss of the chemical compound.
Bock teaches a power-thermal management system (PTMS) having component control circuitry configured to reroute heat among multiple heat sinks or engine subsystems to optimize thermal performance (¶¶ [0007]-[0009] and [0027], i.e., redirection of heat-rejection paths). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Bock’s teaching into the combination of Winkes and Hauge and Kocher’s teaching because it would improve the thermal system robustness, thereby ensuring more accurate and proactive thermal load redistribution and engine protection.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkes in
view of Hauge and Kocher and further in view of Ladner (Pub. No. US 2014/0260622).
As per claim 19, the combination of Winkes and Hauge and Kocher teaches the system as stated above except that the instructions cause the processor circuitry to determine the mass of the chemical compound based on vibration data sensed by a sensor.
However, Ladner teaches mass determination based on sensed vibration data using resonant frequency modes detected by accelerometers or strain gauges (see abstract and ¶ [0023]). Ladner further teaches thermodynamic mass-determination techniques, describing the PVT method, the use of equilibrium thermodynamic relations, and using pressure, temperature, volume data to compute liquid mass (see ¶ [0005]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ladner’s teaching into the combination of Winkes and Hauge and Kocher’s teaching it would enhance the determination of fluid mass using the thermodynamic modeling techniques, thereby, enabling more accurate and responsive determination of the chemical compound’s mass and improve the precision of subsequent control actions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 and 4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim,
but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3 and 14 distinguish over the prior art of record. Although Hauge
repeatedly refers to “thresholds”, these disclosures relate to leak detection probability thresholds, alarm thresholds, or GUI-based indicator thresholds, not to numerical convergence thresholds for solving an equation of state to determine volume. None of the prior art of record teaches or suggests that the non-linear solver circuitry is to iteratively determine the volume of the chemical compound in the system by: selecting a volume estimate; applying the volume estimate, the pressure measurement, the temperature measurement, and the constant to the thermodynamic state model to generate a residual; if the residual does not satisfy a threshold: adjusting the volume estimate; and performing an additional iteration; and when the residual satisfies the threshold, outputting the volume estimate as the volume of the chemical compound, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the applicant.
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.
Contact information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MOHAMED CHARIOUI whose telephone number is (571)272-2213. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9 am to 6 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached on (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Mohamed Charioui
/MOHAMED CHARIOUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights