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 .
This action is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 8/10/2023
Claims 1-13 are pending
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN 202210962105.X, filed on 8/11/2022.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Par. [0016] the text “inlcudes" seems to be a mistype. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiu et al. USPGPUB 2023/0352318 A1 (hereinafter Chiu) in view of Ding et al. USPGPUB 2019/0339725 A1 (Hereinafter Ding).
Regarding claim 1, Chiu teaches a vacuum mass flow control apparatus (Fig. 1-3 and Par. [0028] “Chemical delivery system 10”), comprising:
a first flow channel (Fig. 3, Par. [0028] the pipe that leads to the first port 218 of the venturi pipe 210), and having a first starting point for being connected to a positive pressure gas source and a first terminating end (Fig. 3, Par. [0028] – the “gas interface 211” is the first starting point that connects a positive pressure gas sources to a first terminating end “first port 218“);
a second flow channel (Fig. 3, Par. [0028] “solution transport pipeline 220”), and having a second starting end (Fig. 1, Par. [0028] “liquid storage device 100”) for being connected to a peripheral device (Fig. 1, Par. [0028] “liquid flow meter 222”) and a second terminating end (Fig. 1, Par. [0028] “liquid inlet 223”);
a venturi tube (Fig. 3, Par. [0028] “venturi pipe 210”) having an inlet end (Fig. 3, Par. [0028] “first port 218”), an outlet end (Fig. 3, Par. [0028] “second port 219”) and a negative pressure suction port (Fig. 3, Par. [0028] “liquid inlet 223”), wherein when a positive pressure fluid flowing out of the first terminating end flows through the venturi tube via the inlet end it sucks a negative pressure fluid at the second terminating end into the venturi tube via the negative pressure suction port and then flows out with the negative pressure fluid via the outlet end (Par. [0042], “As the diameter of the venturi pipe 210 becomes smaller, the flow speed of the gas increases, and the pressure at the diameter-reducing part 212 decreases accordingly. Therefore, the pressure in the solution transport pipeline 220 is stronger than the pressure at the diameter reducing part 212. That is, compared to the solution transport pipeline 220, a negative gas pressure is formed at the diameter reducing part 212 relative to pipeline 220. Under the action of negative pressure, the aerosol generating solution in the liquid storage device 100 is sucked into the venturi 210”); and
a regulating valve for regulating a flow-through cross-sectional area of the first flow channel (Fig 3, Par. [0043] - a “pressure regulating valve 214” is located in the first flow channel and regulates a cross-sectional area of the channel).
Chiu does not explicitly teach a housing, a first sensor for collecting a signal of fluid in the first channel, a second sensor for collecting a vacuum flow rate in the second flow channel, or a controller electronically connected to the regulating valve, the first sensor, and the second sensor.
However, Ding teaches a housing (Par. [0065] “The fluid control systems can be integrated systems, that is, the elements of the systems are included within one housing or enclosure”), a first and second sensor that collect a signal of fluid and a vacuum flow rate (Fig 3, Par. [0052] “first sensor 340 and second sensor 360), and a controller electrically connected to a regulating valve, a first sensor, and a second sensor (Par. [0037] “The MFCS controller 170 communicates 171 with a host controller 105 (e.g., to receive a mass flow control setpoint) and receives upstream pressure signals 172 and downstream pressure signals 174 which provide the basis for calculating the mass flow 180 (Q1) through the integrated mass flow control system 110. On the basis of the calculated mass flow 180 and a desired mass flow set point, the MFCS controller 170 controls 190 valve 130 to regulate the mass flow 180 to the desired mass flow”).
Chiu and Ding are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to mass flow systems.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above mass flow system, as taught by Chiu, and incorporate controller electrically connected to the regulating valve, the first sensor, and the second sensor.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve space efficiency, flexibility, cost effectiveness, and simplicity of fluid control within a mass flow system, as suggested by Ding (Par. [0004]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Chiu and Ding teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Ding further teaches herein the controller is configured to:
receive a target vacuum flow rate value and compare the target vacuum flow rate value with a vacuum flow rate value detected by the second sensor (Par. [0037] “The MFCS controller 170 communicates 171 with a host controller 105 (e.g., to receive a mass flow control setpoint) and receives upstream pressure signals 172 and downstream pressure signals 174 which provide the basis for calculating the mass flow 180 (Q1) through the integrated mass flow control system 110.” - Where the downstream pressure signals come from Par. [0038] “downstream pressure sensor 174”);
regulate, when a difference between the target vacuum flow rate value and the detected vacuum flow rate value is greater than a preset difference, an opening degree of the regulating valve based on a current opening degree of the regulating valve, until the difference is within a preset difference range (Par. [0037] “On the basis of the calculated mass flow 180 and a desired mass flow set point, the MFCS controller 170 controls 190 valve 130 to regulate the mass flow 180 to the desired mass flow.” – Since a controller must know how much further to open or close the regulating valve in order to perform the adjustment taught in the prior art, the current opening degree is already inherently known, and using it in the control logic would have been an obvious design choice.).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Chiu and Ding teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Ding further teaches wherein a first connecting member is disposed in the housing (Par. [0065] “The fluid control systems can be integrated systems, that is, the elements of the systems are included within one housing or enclosure.” – a housing can be made of multiple connecting members), a hollow cavity is provided in the first connecting member to form the first flow channel (Par. [0065]), and a position detected by the first sensor is located upstream of the regulating valve in a fluid flowing direction (Fig. 5, Par. [0058] – an “upstream pressure sensor 560” is located upstream of the regulating “valve 530” in a fluid flowing direction).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Chiu and Ding teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Ding further teaches “The fluid control systems can be integrated systems, that is, the elements of the systems are included within one housing or enclosure” (Par. [0065]).
Ding does not explicitly teach the specifics of the housing or enclosure.
However, with multiple connected flow channels, sensors, restrictors, and controllers in the mass flow system, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to create separate compartments in the housing to support different areas of the system for the predictable result of overall stability.
Therefore, it would be obvious to have a branch flow channel in communication with the first flow channel (Fig. 4 – branch flow “shared flow channel 421” is in communication with the first “flow channel 420”) disposed in the first connecting member (Par. [0065]);
Having an open end of the branch flow channel in communication with the first flow channel (Fig. 4) and the other end thereof is a closed end (Par. [0065] - Having a closed end is merely design by choice of the housing);
And mounting a first sensor in the branch flow channel by means of sealing (Fig 4, Par. [0057] - “upstream pressure sensor 460” is located in the branch flow channel (Fig 4); Par. [0065] – Sealing the sensor is merely design by choice of the housing).
All housing modifications are merely design of choices with predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Chiu and Ding teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Ding further teaches wherein a second connecting member is disposed in the housing, and the first connecting member is in communication with the regulating valve through the second connecting member (Par. [0065] – having a second connecting member is merely design by choice).
Adding a second connecting member to route the flow path is a routine and predictable modification, well within ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Chiu and Ding teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Ding further teaches “The fluid control systems can be integrated systems, that is, the elements of the systems are included within one housing or enclosure” (Par. [0065]).
Ding does not explicitly teach the specifics of the housing or enclosure.
However, with multiple connected flow channels, sensors, restrictors, and controllers in the mass flow system, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to create separate compartments in the housing to support different areas of the system for the predictable result of overall stability.
Therefore, it would be obvious to have a third connecting member disposed in the housing (Par. [0065]), a hollow cavity provided in the third connecting member to form the second flow channel (Fig. 6, “flow channel 620”), and the second sensor disposed in the second flow channel (Fig. 6, “Pressure sensor 660” is disposed in a second “flow channel 621”).
Adding a third connecting member is a routine and predictable modification, well within ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Chiu and Ding teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Ding further teaches “The fluid control systems can be integrated systems, that is, the elements of the systems are included within one housing or enclosure” (Par. [0065]).
Ding does not explicitly teach the specifics of the housing or enclosure.
However, with multiple connected flow channels, sensors, restrictors, and controllers in the mass flow system, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to create separate compartments in the housing to support different areas of the system for the predictable result of overall stability.
Therefore, it would be obvious to include a fourth connecting member with cavities (Par [0065] – having fourth connecting member is merely design by choice) to hold the venturi tube and bypass cavity that connects the second terminating end of the second flow channel to the venturi tube taught by Chiu (Fig 3, Par. [0028]).
Adding a fourth connecting member is a routine and predictable modification, well within ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Chiu and Ding teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Chiu further teaches wherein the venturi tube comprises a first portion and a second portion which are sealingly disposed in the main cavity, with a converge gap formed therebetween and opposite to the bypass cavity (Fig. 3, Par. [0038] “The venturi pipe 210 has a first port 218 and a second port 219, a diameter reducing part 212 located between the first port 218 and the second port 219, and a liquid inlet connected to the diameter reducing part 212 to liquid inlet 223”).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Chiu and Ding teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Chiu further teaches wherein a flow-through cross-sectional area of the first terminating end is smaller than that of the bypass cavity and larger than a minimum flow-through cross-sectional area of the venturi tube (Fig. 3, Par. [0038] “from the first port 218 and the second port 219 to the diameter reducing part 212, the diameter of the venturi pipe 210 decreases step by step”).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Chiu and Ding teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Ding further teaches wherein the controller comprises a circuit board disposed close to one side of the housing, and the housing allows for input and output of signals (Fig. 3, Par. [0065] “the housing provides at least fluid input and outputs and allows for input and output of signals, which allows incorporation of the integrated system within larger systems.”).
Neither Chiu nor Ding explicitly mention Dip switches.
However, Ding teaches a controller that handles electronic signals, valve commands, and sensor inputs (Fig. 3, Par. [0037] - [0042]). A need for configurable signal interfaces for different pressure/flow modes or calibration setups is standard in mass flow controller devices.
It is standard practice in electronic control circuitry to include: DIP switches, or equivalent small hardware configuration switches, to select between analog vs. digital signals, voltage range settings, communication modes, input/output configurations, or calibration modes.
Thus, adding DIP switches to Ding’s controller is a routine electrical design modification, providing user-selectable I/O modes without redesigning firmware.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Chiu and Ding teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Ding further teaches receiving a target vacuum flow rate value and comparing the target vacuum flow rate value with a vacuum flow rate value detected by the second sensor; regulating, when a difference between the target vacuum flow rate value and the detected vacuum flow rate value is greater than a preset difference, an opening degree of the regulating valve based on the signal detected by the first sensor and a current opening degree of the regulating valve; and controlling, when the difference is within a preset difference range, the regulating valve to stop regulating the opening degree (Par. [0037] “The MFCS controller 170 communicates 171 with a host controller 105 (e.g., to receive a mass flow control setpoint) and receives upstream pressure signals 172 and downstream pressure signals 174 which provide the basis for calculating the mass flow 180 (Q1) through the integrated mass flow control system 110. On the basis of the calculated mass flow 180 and a desired mass flow set point, the MFCS controller 170 controls 190 valve 130 to regulate the mass flow 180 to the desired mass flow”; Since a controller must know how much further to open or close the regulating valve in order to perform the adjustment taught in the prior art, the current opening degree is already inherently known, and using it in the control logic would have been an obvious design choice).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiu in view of Ding, and further in view of Li et al. (Sensors and Actuators A, 2021) (hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Chiu and Ding teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Chiu does not explicitly teach that the regulating valve is a piezoelectric proportional valve, and the controller regulates the opening degree of the piezoelectric proportional valve by regulating a duty ratio of the piezoelectric proportional valve.
However, Li teaches that a regulating valve can be a piezoelectric proportional valve by regulating a duty ratio of a piezoelectric proportional valve (Page 1, Par. 1 “regulation valves are divided into thermal, electrostatic, electromagnetic, and piezoelectric types”).
Chiu, Ding, and Li are analogous art. They relate to mass flow systems.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above mass flow system, as taught by Chiu, and incorporate a piezoelectric proportional valve controlled by a controller as taught by Li.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve response time, space efficiency, power efficiency, and anti-electromagnetic interference within a mass flow system as suggested by Li (Page 1, Par. 1).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiu in view of Ding, and further in view of Li and Ace Pump Corporation (PWM Technical File, 2020) (hereinafter Ace).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Chiu, Ding, and Li teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Ding teaches sending valve control signals to regulating valves by a controller (Par. [0052]), but does not explicitly teach sending, by the controller, a PWM drive signal to the piezoelectric proportional valve.
However, Ace teaches that “pulse-width modulation (PWM) is an efficient technique to control current to a proportional electrical hydraulic valve.” (Page 1, Par. 2), and can regulate the opening degree of the piezoelectric proportional valve by regulating a duty ratio of the piezoelectric proportional valve (Page 1, Par. 2 “The duty cycle can be anywhere from 0 (signal always off) to 1 (signal always on)”.
Chiu, Ding, Li, and Ace are analogous art. They relate to mass flow systems.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above mass flow system, as taught by Chiu, and incorporate a PWM Signal to control a piezoelectric proportional valve as taught by Ace.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve “quick rate changes for constant or variable rate applications, minimizing power required to run, reducing heat, and preventing foaming due to high bypass flows” as taught by Ace (Page 2, Par. 1).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen et al. [CN 202311359858 A] teaches a flow rate control device and method based on venturi and electromagnetic valve duty ratio adjustment.
Donald et al. [EP 3190050 A1] teaches a matched venturi assembly that includes a venturi component configured to provide for fluid communication between an inlet and an outlet, sensors coupled to the venturi component and configured to generate readings of characteristics of fluid flows proceeding through the venturi component and a venturi controller, which is receptive of the readings from the sensors.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER XU whose telephone number is (571)272-0792. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (571) 272-4105. 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.
/PETER XU/Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights