DETAILED ACTION
This final rejection is responsive to the amendment filed 14 January 2026. Claims 1-21 are pending. Claims 1 and 12 are independent claims. No amendments have been filed. No claims were cancelled. No new claims.
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 Remarks
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s prior art arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pgs. 5-6) that Mendelson does not teach calibrating the second flow sensor based on the determined set of mass flow rates of the first flow sensor and the second set of fluid flow parameters. Specifically, Mendelson describes calculating a calibration factor for a single pressure sensor and does not teach cross-sensor calibration involving heterogenous sensor types.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Mendelson expressly teaches (¶[0235]) a calibration factor determined from both the thermal sensor based mass flow rate and the pressure sensor based mass flow rate. ¶[0234] further teaches that this calibration factor is used to modify the pressure based mass flow rate to generate a calibrated pressure sensor based mass flow rate that accurately reflects the true flow rate of the fluid. The foregoing teaches the limitation in questions which specifies the calibration of one sensor, i.e. the second flow sensor, based on the mass flow rates of the first flow sensor and the second set of fluid flow parameters, which are determined from the second flow sensor.
Accordingly, the rejection is reasserted.
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, 3-12, and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding (US 2014/0190579 A1) hereinafter known as Ding in view of Mendelson (US 2010/0286931 A1) hereinafter known as Mendelson.
Regarding independent claim 1, Ding teaches:
a control valve configured to control flow of a fluid in a flow path; (Ding: Fig. 1 and ¶[0043]; Ding teaches a control valve 18.)
a first flow sensor that detects a first set of fluid flow parameters; (Ding: Fig. 1 and ¶[0043]; Ding teaches a flow meter 12.)
a second flow sensor that detects a second set of fluid flow parameters, the first and second flow sensors being of distinct flow measurement types; and (Ding: Fig. 1 and ¶[0043]; Ding teaches a flow meter 14.)
a controller configured to: determine a set of first mass flow rates based on the first set of fluid flow parameters detected by the first flow sensor; and (Ding: Fig. 1 and ¶[0043]; Ding teaches a system controller 16, which processes the signals from the two flow meters.)
...
Mendelson further teaches:
calibrate the second flow sensor based on the determined set of mass flow rates of the first flow sensor and the second set of fluid flow parameters. (Mendelson: Fig. 1 and ¶[0233]-¶[0235]; Mendelson teaches calculating and generating calibration factor for the pressure sensor that modifies the pressure sensor flow rate. ¶[0185]-¶[0193] further teach that the flow rate formula are simplified forms of the pressure drop formula, which is used in the calibration factor calculation.)
Ding and Mendelson are in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, as the references are directed to mass flow controller. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine controlling flow through flow sensors and calibrating the mass flow controller as taught in Ding with further calibrating the second flow sensor based on flow parameters as taught in Mendelson. Ding also teaches performing self-calibration based on measured flow values. (Ding: ¶[0029]) However, Ding does not explicitly teach calibration the second flow sensor. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Ding to include teachings of Mendelson because the combination would allow modifying the mass flow rate, as suggested by Mendelson: ¶[0007].
Regarding claim 3, Ding in view of Mendelson further teaches the mass flow controller of claim 1.
Ding further teaches:
The mass flow controller of claim 1, wherein the first flow sensor is a rate of pressure decay flow sensor. (Ding: ¶[0047]; Ding teaches the flow meters being differential pressure flow meters.)
Regarding claim 4, Ding in view of Mendelson further teaches the mass flow controller of claim 3.
Ding further teaches:
wherein the second flow sensor comprises a pressure sensor adjacent to a flow restrictor disposed in the flow path. (Ding: ¶[0045]; Ding teaches the second flow meter including a flow restrictor.)
Regarding claim 5, Ding in view of Mendelson further teaches the mass flow controller of claim 1.
Ding further teaches:
wherein one of the first and second flow sensors is a thermal flow sensor and the other of the first and second flow sensors comprises a pressure sensor adjacent to a flow restrictor disposed in the flow path. (Ding: Fig. 2 and ¶[0045]-¶[0047]; Ding teaches the first flow meter is a thermal mass flow meter and the other is a differential pressure flow meter with a flow restrictor.)
Regarding claim 6, Ding in view of Mendelson further teaches the mass flow controller of claim 1.
Ding further teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to calibrate the second flow sensor by: a) controlling flow with either the first flow sensor or the second flow sensor to a set of calibration flow setpoints; and b) collecting calibration data of the first flow sensor and the second flow sensor at the set of calibration flow setpoints; the controller being configured to subsequently control mass flow with the second flow sensor calibrated with the calibration data. (Ding: Fig. 3 and ¶[0064]-¶[0065]; Ding teaches calibrating the mass flow controller based on measured values of Qv and Qt. The flow set point is set to zero, the controller is configured to immediately close the downstream flow control valve 112.
Regarding claim 7, Ding in view of Mendelson further teaches the mass flow controller of claim 6.
Ding further teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to calibrate the second flow sensor in response to a command from a host processor. (Ding: Fig. 3 and ¶[0017] and ¶[0064]-¶[0065]; Ding teaches the processor/controller configured to perform self-calibration.)
Regarding claim 8, Ding in view of Mendelson further teaches the mass flow controller of claim 1.
Mendelson further teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to calibrate the second flow sensor by determining coefficients or constructing a look-up table for a flow rate function associated with the second flow sensor. (Mendelson: ¶[0233]-¶[0235]; Mendelson teaches calculating and generating calibration factor for the pressure sensor.)
Regarding claim 9, Ding in view of Mendelson further teaches the mass flow controller of claim 8.
Mendelson further teaches:
wherein the function comprises a critical flow function, a thermal flow function, or a rate of pressure decay function. (Mendelson: ¶[0185]-¶[0193]; Mendelson teaches that the flow rate formula are simplified forms of the pressure drop formula, which is used in the calibration factor calculation.)
Regarding claim 10, Ding in view of Mendelson further teaches the mass flow controller of claim 1.
Ding further teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to control actuation of the control valve based on the calibrated second flow sensor. (Ding: Fig. 3 and ¶[0064]-¶[0065]; Ding teaches calibrating the mass flow controller based on measured values of Qv and Qt. The flow set point is set to zero, the controller is configured to immediately close the downstream flow control valve 112.)
Regarding claim 11, Ding in view of Mendelson further teaches the mass flow controller of claim 1.
Mendelson further teaches:
further comprising a flow body or housing, wherein the control valve and the first and second mass flow sensors are disposed within the flow body or housing. (Mendelson: Figs. 2-3; Mendelson teaches housing for the mass flow controller.)
Regarding claims 12 and 14-21, these claims recite a method that is performed by the mass flow controller of claims 1 and 3-10; therefore, the same rationale for rejection applies.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding in view of Mendelson in view of Shipps (US 2022/0196455 A1) hereinafter known as Shipps.
Regarding claim 2, Ding in view of Mendelson further teaches the mass flow controller of claim 1.
Shipps further teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to detect each parameter of the first and second sets of fluid flow parameters during stable fluid flow. (Shipps: ¶[0007]; Shipps teaches establishing a steady state flow for calibration.)
Ding and Shipps are in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, as the references are directed to mass flow controller. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine controlling flow through flow sensors and detecting the fluid flow parameters as taught in Ding with further establishing a steady state flow as taught in Shipps. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Ding to include teachings of Shipps because the combination would allow calibrating the device, as suggested by Shipps: ¶[0007].
Regarding claim 13, this claim recites a method that is performed by the mass flow controller of claim 2; therefore, the same rationale for rejection applies.
Conclusion
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 ALEX OLSHANNIKOV whose telephone number is (571)270-0667. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ALEKSEY OLSHANNIKOV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118