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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The following NON-FINAL Office Action is in response to application 18/263,099 filed on 07/26/2023. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/18/2023, 12/15/2023, 01/31/2024, 05/28/2024, 10/29/2024, 02/04/2025, 05/12/2025, and 09/08/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 09/18/2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19-21 and 23-25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 19-21 recite a method, yet depend from claim 16, which is directed to a device. Similarly, claims 23-25 recite a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, yet depend from claim 21, which is directed to a method. Because a dependent claim incorporates all limitations of the claim from which it depends, it is unclear how the limitations of the parent claim of a different statutory class are incorporated into the dependent claims. Accordingly, the scope of claims 19-21 and 23-25 is unclear and the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Specifically, representative Claim 18 recites:
A method, comprising:
interfacing, by a device comprising a processor, with a calibration fluid flow device (CFFD) configured to determine a fluid flow profile for a product fluid flow device (PFFD) according to a first installation arrangement of the PFFD;
receiving, by the device, arrangement data that indicates the PFFD was installed at a customer site according to a second installation arrangement that differs from the first installation arrangement;
instructing, by the device, the CFFD to determine an updated flow profile for the PFFD according to the different installation arrangement; and
transmitting, by the device, the updated flow profile to the PFFD at the customer site.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Similar limitations comprise the abstract idea of non-transitory computer-readable storage medium Claim 22 which performs the method of claim 18.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 18 belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a method claim. Likewise, claim 22 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim.
Under Step 2A, prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
In the instant case, claim 18 is found to recite at least one judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea), that being a Mental Process and a Mathematical Concept. This can be seen in the claim limitations of “interfacing, by a device comprising a processor, with a calibration fluid flow device (CFFD) configured to determine a fluid flow profile for a product fluid flow device (PFFD) according to a first installation arrangement of the PFFD”, “receiving, by the device, arrangement data that indicates the PFFD was installed at a customer site according to a second installation arrangement that differs from the first installation arrangement”, “instructing, by the device, the CFFD to determine an updated flow profile for the PFFD according to the different installation arrangement”, and “transmitting, by the device, the updated flow profile to the PFFD at the customer site” which is the judicial exception of a mental process because these limitations are merely data observations, evaluations, and/or judgements in order to determine an updated fluid flow profile according to the different installation arrangements and is capable of being performed mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, the aforementioned limitations recite mathematical calculations, e.g. see Spec. [0017]-[0029] describing the use of a mathematical compensation calculation, such as a least-squares calculation, to determine a flow coefficient based on pressure differential measurements and a variable opening area.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 22.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
The generic data gathering, processing, and output steps, are recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, nothing is done with the result of calculating and transmitting the updated fluid flow profile that would amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or another technology.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely performs insignificant extra-solution activit(ies) (claims 18 and 22). Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document).
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that claim 18, as well as claim 22, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 19-21 and 23-25, merely further expand upon the algorithm/abstract idea and do not set forth further additional elements that integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Therefore, these claims are found ineligible for the reasons described for claims 18 and 22. Specifically:
With respect to dependent claims 19 and 20 specifically, the claims further recite determining a suggested modification to the different installation arrangement when an updated flow profile cannot be determined and instructing the calibration fluid flow device to determine the updated flow profile according to the different installation arrangement and the suggested medication. These limitations merely expand upon the abstract idea by reciting additional evaluation, decision making, and recalculation steps. Such limitations amount to abstract mental processes and mathematical concepts performed on received data and do not impose any meaningful limits on the judicial exception. Accordingly, these limitation amount to insignificant extra solution activity and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
With respect to dependent claims 21 and 23 specifically, the claims further recite that the fluid flow profile comprises a surface equation that describes fluid flow as a function of multiple variables and that the surface equation is a joint polynomial in the variables. These limitations merely define the abstract idea using mathematical relationships and equations. The recitation of surface equations and joint polynomials constitutes a mathematical concept and does not improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Instead, these limitations merely describe how the abstract idea is mathematically represented and therefore do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
With respect to dependent claims 24 and 25 specifically, the claims further recite that the surface equation is realized using multiple join polynomials representing different ranges of variables, including overlapping ranges. These limitation merely refine or further specify the mathematical modeling of the abstract idea by subdividing variable ranges and defining overlap between mathematical representations. Such limitations amount to further mathematical detail and do not add any additional element that effects a technological improvement or practical application. Accordingly, these limitations merely expand upon the abstract idea and amount insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above with respect to representative claims 18 and 22, dependent claims 19-21 and 23-25 merely further expand upon the abstract idea and do not set forth additional elements sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claims are found ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons as claims 18 and 22.
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 1-4, 7-11, 16-18 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20080221822 A1, Marc et al. (hereinafter Marc) in view of US 20110264275 A1, Adrienne et al. (hereinafter Adrienne).
Regarding Claim 1, 18, and 22, Marc discloses A remote calibration device (Marc, [0056] System 200 can further include a calibration computer 202 (e.g., laptop, desktop, PDA or other computing device known in the art) connected to flow controller 30 via a data transport medium (e.g., a bus, a connector, a network or other data transport medium known in the art). The controller (e.g., controller 42) of flow control device 30 can communicate data to and receive data from calibration computer 202 via the data transport medium), comprising:
a processor (Marc, [0012] Yet another embodiment of the present invention includes a flow device having a controller comprising a computer readable medium storing a calibration program and a processor to access and execute the calibration program); and
a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, facilitate performance of operations (Marc, [0046] Processor 54 can generate the digital control signal by executing a control program that can include a control program 56 on a computer readable memory 58 (e.g., EEPROM, RAM, ROM, flash memory, magnetic storage, optical storage or other computer readable memory known in the art), accessible by processor 54), comprising:
interfacing with a calibration fluid flow device (CFFD) (Marc, [0008] It should be noted that computer instructions can be executed by the controller of a flow device and/or a calibration computer in communication with the flow device or other computing device) configured to determine a fluid flow profile for a product fluid flow device (PFFD) (Marc, [0032] Flow devices, such as flow meters and flow controllers, typically include a microprocessor based controller that processes readings from one or more sensors to determine the flow rate of a fluid through the device. The controller will apply a flow curve to some variable indicative of flow (e.g., pressure differential, pressure, temperature differential, etc.), usually in the form of an n.sup.th degree polynomial, to determine the flow rate. To ensure that the measured flow rate is accurate, the flow curve must account for the process fluid being used and the system in which the flow device is installed)
instructing the CFFD to determine an updated flow profile for the PFFD according to the different installation arrangement (Marc, [0116] Embodiments of the present invention allow a flow controller to be quickly recalibrated if the upstream and downstream process components change, the flow controller is reconfigured, tubing is changed or other changes to the process system or flow controller are made. This allows a process system to be easily reconfigured to accommodate various flow ranges); and
remotely recalibrating the PFFD with the updated flow profile (Marc, [0056] System 200 can further include a calibration computer 202 (e.g., laptop, desktop, PDA or other computing device known in the art) connected to flow controller 30 via a data transport medium (e.g., a bus, a connector, a network or other data transport medium known in the art). The controller (e.g., controller 42) of flow control device 30 can communicate data to and receive data from calibration computer 202 via the data transport medium).
Marc does not disclose according to a first installation arrangement of the PFFD;
in response to receiving arrangement data that indicates the PFFD was installed according to a second installation arrangement that differs from the first installation arrangement.
However, Adrienne teaches according to a first installation arrangement of the PFFD (Adrienne, [0036] The calibration/commissioning process may include calibrating minimum (Va) and maximum (Vbz) damper position settings based on desired minimum and maximum ventilation rates. These damper settings are sometimes called out in the HVAC system design documents for the building supplied by an engineering firm that designed the system, and may be expressed as a percentage of ventilation (or percentage of fresh air in the mixed air stream));
in response to receiving arrangement data that indicates the PFFD was installed according to a second installation arrangement that differs from the first installation arrangement (Adrienne, [0033] The remote monitoring device 318 may be further configured to allow a user to input various parameters such as CO.sub.2 threshold setpoints, temperature setpoints, percent of ventilation at high/low fan speeds, minimum and maximum calibration ventilation flow rates at one or more calibration damper positions--sometimes at various fan speeds, etc., to be provided to the DCV and/or economizer controller 302).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Marc and Adrienne because both references address recalibration and configuration of flow systems based on installation conditions. Marc teaches recalculating and updating a flow profile when system components or configurations change. Adrienne teaches receiving installation arrangement data and adjusting system parameters based on the installation conditions. Combining Adrienne’s installation arrangement input with Marc’s recalibration logic would have resulted in determining whether an updated flow profile can be generated under a different arrangement. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings to maintain accurate flow determination when installation condition changes.
Regarding Claim 2, Marc in view of Adrienne discloses the remote calibration device of claim 1, wherein the CFFD comprises a test stand device (Marc, [0033] Prior to the present invention, either the flow device manufacturer would have to develop a flow curve for the intended process fluid using a test rig similar to the system in which flow device was to be installed, or the customer would have to install the flow device and run tests to develop the curve. In either case, developing the flow curve for a particular fluid and system set up involved taking multiple sets of data and applying curve fitting algorithms to the data to develop the nth degree polynomial. This is inefficient as a new flow curve must be developed for each installation of a flow control device).
Regarding Claim 3, Marc in view of Adrienne discloses the remote calibration device of claim 1, wherein the CFFD comprises a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation device (Marc, [0056] FIG. 5 is a diagrammatic representation of one embodiment of a system 200 for calibrating flow device 30. In system 200, flow device 30 can be installed in the system in which it will operate or a test system simulating the system under which it will operate, [0061] It is assumed, for purposes of FIG. 6, that the flow controller is installed in the system in which it will operate or a substantially similar system (e.g., a test rig that simulates the system in which it will operate).
Regarding Claim 4, Marc in view of Adrienne discloses the remote calibration device of claim 1, wherein the fluid flow profile describes a flow of a fluid, within the PFFD (Marc, [0039] FIG. 1 is a flow control device 30, according to one embodiment of the present invention. Flow control device 30 can include an inlet 32 for receiving a flow, an outlet 34 for directing a flow to other components of a flow system, a constricted area 36 (e.g., an orifice plate, small diameter tube or other constriction known in the art), a pressure sensor 38 upstream of constricted area 36 (referred to as the "upstream pressure sensor") configured to measure an upstream pressure, a pressure sensor 40 downstream of constricted area 36 (referred to as the "downstream pressure sensor") configured to measure a downstream pressure, a controller 42, which can include processors, memories and software instructions for determining a fluid flow rate and/or for generating a valve control signal, and a valve 44 (e.g., a throttling gate valve, a poppet valve, a butterfly valve, a pneumatically driven valve or other valve known in the art) responsive to the valve control signal to regulate fluid flow), through one or more apertures having an area, Ao, that is adjustable by operation of the PFFD (Marc, [0054] At step 122, the controller can determine a valve gain. The valve gain adjusts the gain of the signal that will be applied to the valve proportionally to the current position. The gain can be determined from, for example, a gain curve stored in memory. The gain curve allows the system to correct for variations from valve to valve. In addition to correcting for variations in a particular valve, the valve gain curve can also compensate for overshoot, undershoot, and response time. According to one embodiment of the present invention, a sensitivity factor can be applied to the valve gain curve to slow or speed up the valve response).
Regarding Claim 7, 8, 11, 21 and 23, Marc discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the fluid flow profile comprises a surface equation that describes fluid flow through the PFFD as a function of two input variables (Marc, [0032] Flow devices, such as flow meters and flow controllers, typically include a microprocessor based controller that processes readings from one or more sensors to determine the flow rate of a fluid through the device. The controller will apply a flow curve to some variable indicative of flow (e.g., pressure differential, pressure, temperature differential, etc.), usually in the form of an n.sup.th degree polynomial, to determine the flow rate) comprising a second variable indicative of a differential pressure measurement across the damper (Marc, [0044] Controller 42 can determine a differential between the measured pressures, by for example, generating a difference signal and/or calculating a pressure difference. Controller 42 can generate a valve control signal based on the differential or based on the pressure signal received from the upstream and/or downstream pressure sensor. Valve 44 can open or close responsive to the received valve control signal).
Marc does not disclose comprising a first variable indicative of an orientation of a damper of the PFFD.
However, Adrienne teaches comprising a first variable indicative of an orientation of a damper of the PFFD (Adrienne, [0032] When DCV and/or Economizer controller 302 is so provided, DCV and/or Economizer controller 302 may communicate with damper actuator 308 to selectively open and close dampers based on the amount of ventilation needed, [0033] The remote monitoring device 318 may be further configured to allow a user to input various parameters such as CO.sub.2 threshold setpoints, temperature setpoints, percent of ventilation at high/low fan speeds, minimum and maximum calibration ventilation flow rates at one or more calibration damper positions--sometimes at various fan speeds, etc., to be provided to the DCV and/or economizer controller 302).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Marc and Adrienne because Marc already determines flow rate using a polynomial based flow curve as a function of sensed variables, including differential pressure and Adrienne teaches determining and controlling damper position to the controller. Integrating Adrienne’s damper orientation variable into Marc’s polynomial flow determination would have resulted in a surface equation based on two input variables, including damper orientation and differential pressure. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings to improve flow accuracy by accounting for flow accuracy, rate, and overall system performance.
Regarding Claim 9, Marc in view of Adrienne teaches the remote calibration device of claim 7, wherein the orientation of the damper of the PFFD is determined by position feedback device associated with the PFFD (Adrienne, [0032] When DCV and/or Economizer controller 302 is so provided, DCV and/or Economizer controller 302 may communicate with damper actuator 308 to selectively open and close dampers based on the amount of ventilation needed, [0033] The remote monitoring device 318 may be further configured to allow a user to input various parameters such as CO.sub.2 threshold setpoints, temperature setpoints, percent of ventilation at high/low fan speeds, minimum and maximum calibration ventilation flow rates at one or more calibration damper positions--sometimes at various fan speeds, etc., to be provided to the DCV and/or economizer controller 302, [0042] The controller 302 may be further configured to store data and settings compiled during the commissioning of the stem, for verification of proper commissioning of the system. For example, in some instances, the controller 302 may be configured to store current set and reset damper positions, a maximum and/or minimum damper position, air flow parameter).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Marc and Adrienne because Marc already determines flow rate using a polynomial flow curve as a function of sensed variables, including differential pressure and Adrienne teaches determining and controlling damper orientation and providing damper position information to the controller. Integrating Adrienne’s damper orientation variable into Marc’s polynomial based flow determination would have resulted in a surface equation based on two input variables, including damper position and differential pressure. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings to improve flow accuracy by accounting for damper position in the flow calculations.
Regarding Claim 10, Marc in view of Adrienne discloses the remote calibration device of claim 7, wherein the differential pressure across the PFFD is determined by a transducer device associated with the PFFD (Marc, [0044] Controller 42 can determine a differential between the measured pressures, by for example, generating a difference signal and/or calculating a pressure difference. Controller 42 can generate a valve control signal based on the differential or based on the pressure signal received from the upstream and/or downstream pressure sensor. Valve 44 can open or close responsive to the received valve control signal).
Regarding Claim 16, Marc in view of Adrienne discloses the remote calibration device of claim 1, further comprising receiving operation data indicative of the operation of a system in which the PFFD was installed (Marc, [0045] FIG. 3 is a diagrammatic representation of one embodiment of controller 42. Controller 42 can include an analog to digital (A/D) converter 52 to receive signals from the upstream pressure sensor and downstream pressure sensor and convert the received signals to a digital format. Processor 54 (e.g., CPU, such as an 8051 processor by Intel Corporation of Santa Clara, Calif., an ASIC, a RISC processor, such as a PIC 18c452 processor by Microchip Technologies of Chandler, Ariz., or other processor) can receive digital values from A/D converter 52, representing the measured pressures, and calculate a differential. Based on the differential or the measured pressure from either the upstream or downstream sensor, processor 54 can generate a digital control signal that represents how much a valve should open or close to regulate fluid flow. A/D converter 52 can convert the digital value to an analog valve control signal and send the analog control valve signal to the valve [0046] Processor 54 can generate the digital control signal by executing a control program that can include a control program 56 on a computer readable memory 58 (e.g., EEPROM, RAM, ROM, flash memory, magnetic storage, optical storage or other computer readable memory known in the art), accessible by processor 54. In one mode of operation, the control algorithm can calculate a differential pressure set point based on a flow rate set point input and a calibration data 60 stored on computer readable medium 58).
Regarding Claim 17, Marc in view of Adrienne teaches the remote calibration device of claim 16, further comprising, based on the operation data, updating the flow profile in a manner that is determined to increase an efficiency metric of the system in which the PFFD was installed (Adrienne, [0030] Controller 210 may be programmed to control ventilation to the building 104 based on a ventilation schedule, or a combination of actual occupancy and a ventilation schedule. In either case, it contemplated that controller 210 may allow the ventilation rate to vary based on actual or scheduled occupancy, rather than requiring a maximum ventilation rate at all occupied times. Because buildings are rarely, if ever, at maximum occupancy at all times, Controller 210 may, if desired, provide substantial energy and/or cost savings by not requiring the ventilation rate to be at the maximum ventilation rate during all occupied time periods, [0044] Based on the parameters, the controller 302 may calculate the ventilation percentages 404 for Vbz and Va. The controller 302 may then monitor the signals from outdoor temperature sensor 314 and return air temperature sensor 316 for suitable conditions for calibration, as shown at block 406).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Marc and Adrienne teachings because Marc teaches updating and recalibrating a flow profile based on operational data, and Adrienne teaches adjusting ventilation control parameters to improve system efficiency and reduce energy usage. Integrating Adrienne’s control considerations with efficiency control into Marc’s flow profile updating would have predictably resulted in updating the flow profile in a manner determined to increase efficiency of the installed system. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings to optimize system performance and achieve improved energy efficiency while maintain proper flow control.
Claims 5-6, 12-15, 19-20, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20080221822 A1, Marc et al. (hereinafter Marc) in view of US 20110264275 A1, Adrienne et al. (hereinafter Adrienne), in further view of US 20050284236 A1, John et al (hereinafter John).
Regarding Claim 5, 6, 19, and 20, Marc in view of Adrienne teaches the remote calibration device of claim 1, determining a suggested modification to the different installation arrangement (Marc, [0116] Embodiments of the present invention allow a flow controller to be quickly recalibrated if the upstream and downstream process components change, the flow controller is reconfigured, tubing is changed or other changes to the process system or flow controller are made. This allows a process system to be easily reconfigured to accommodate various flow ranges, [0072] One embodiment of the calibration program can also suggest a sensitivity factor. The sensitivity factor can be applied to the valve gain curves used by the control loop to cause the response time of the flow controller to increase or decrease. The response time is the time from when a signal is sent to the flow device to when the flow controller reaches set point. The sensitivity factor is a gain value for the valve to which the response time is dependent. The higher the sensitivity factor, the faster the response time. The controller can be configured to have a baseline sensitivity factor (SC.sub.base). If the response time (t.sub.resp) of the flow controller is shorter than a first response time (e.g., 0.4 seconds or other arbitrarily defined response time) or longer than a second response time (e.g., 0.8 seconds or other arbitrarily defined response time), the calibration program can suggest a new sensitivity factor (SC.sub.sug) that brings the response time of the flow controller to within the first and second response times. It should be noted that a sensitivity factor can be used to adjust a single parameter or various parameters of the control algorithm to increase or decrease sensitivity).
Marc in view of Adrienne does not disclose wherein in response to an indication by the CFFD that the updated flow profile cannot be determined according to the different installation arrangement.
However, John teaches wherein in response to an indication by the CFFD that the updated flow profile cannot be determined according to the different installation arrangement (John, [0091] The analog and digital output variables can then be updated using the fluid flow and sensor readings. If there are no changes in the orifice position or any interrupts to service of the flow device, the cycle repeats with a new pressure reading. If there are interrupts to service or a change in the position sensor, the cycle repeats from the beginning, [0092] The two dimensional array of discharge coefficient values shown in FIG. 10 may also be determined by the microprocessor 102 using a polynomial that inputs the orifice opening size and the differential pressure as variables. An example polynomial is listed below as Equation 5).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Marc in view of Adrienne and John’s teaching because Marc teaches recalibration and updating of flow profiles based on system changes, Adrienne teaches adjusting control parameters to improve system performance and efficiency, and John teaches updating flow related outputs and coefficients when installation conditions or sensor states change. Combining these two teachings would have resulted in updating the flow profile when it cannot be properly determined under a different installation arrangements. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings to maintain accuracy flow determination and stable system despite changes in configuration.
Regarding Claim 12 and 24, Marc in view of Adrienne in further view of John teaches the remote calibration device of claim 7, wherein the surface equation defines a surface realized as multiple joint polynomials (John, [0130] Bivariate Polynomials--In order to obtain a fit within the desired error bounds, high order polynomials were required. These polynomials were usually ill-behaved outside the bounds of the measured data set and often were ill-behaved between data points within the data set. High order polynomials were also computationally intensive and the time required to evaluate them would not allow other desirable features to be implemented) representing multiple different ranges of the two variables (John, [0135] The flattening or unrolling of the curved surface is done by fitting a polynomial surface to the measured data using a least-squares algorithm. The surface to be triangulated is then defined by the residual values (the differences between the data points and the polynomial surface). [0140] The triangulated surface is then defined by the differences between the original data and the polynomial. Some example residual values are shown in FIG. 23).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Marc in view of Adrienne and John’s teaching because Marc teaches determining and updating a flow profile using polynomial relationships and John teaches fitting measured data to bivariate polynomial surfaces and defining surfaces across multiple ranges of variables. Applying John multi-range polynomial surface techniques within Marc’s recalibration would have resulted in a surface equation realized as multiple joint polynomials representing different ranges of the two variables. A person of ordinary skill in the art would been motivated to combine these teachings to improve model accuracy across varying operating ranges
Regarding Claim 13, Marc in view of Adrienne in further view of John teaches the remote calibration device of claim 7, wherein the surface equation defines a surface realized as a combination of multiple tiles indicative of different portions of the surface (John, [0147] The data points may only be scattered in the R.sub.e/K axis: the H.sub.o values will be limited to a set of discrete values. In other words, the data will be "semi-gridded" where points lie on grid lines in one axis (the grid lines may be irregularly spaced), but are scattered in the other axis. FIGS. 24A and 24B illustrate the difference between scattered and semi-gridded data).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Marc in view of Adrienne and John’s teaching because Marc teaches generating and updating flow profile surfaces, and John teaches defining a surface using segmented or semi-gridded data that results in multiple surface portions or tiles corresponding to different regions of the dataset. Integrating John’s tiled surface modeling approach into Marc’s recalibration framework would have resulted in a surface with multiple tiles or different portions of the surface. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply this approach to improve surface modeling accuracy across operating ranges.
Regarding Claim 14, 15 and 25, Marc in view of Adrienne in further view of John teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 21, wherein at least one of the multiple different ranges (John, Fig. 27, [0147] The data points may only be scattered in the R.sub.e/K axis: the H.sub.o values will be limited to a set of discrete values. In other words, the data will be "semi-gridded" where points lie on grid lines in one axis (the grid lines may be irregularly spaced), but are scattered in the other axis. FIGS. 24A and 24B illustrate the difference between scattered and semi-gridded data [0152] The process for triangulating the region includes creating the first rung using the bottom two points on each of the two parallels (see FIG. 27)) comprise at least one value that overlaps with another range of the multiple different ranges (John, [0151] Finding the triangle containing a given point consists of two parts. First, find the values of H.sub.o in the data set (the vertical "grid lines" seen in FIGS. 25A and 25B) that surround the H.sub.o value where the surface is to be evaluated. This gives two sets of data points that lie on two parallel lines. Second, find the triangle that contains the point (H.sub.o, R.sub.e/K) in the triangulation of the region between the two parallels lines).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Marc in view of Adrienne and John’s teaching because Marc teaches storing and using flow profile data within a recalibration framework and Adrienne teaches adjusting system parameters based on installation and operational conditions, and John teaches defining multiple ranges including overlapping values between adjacent ranges. Applying John’s overlapping range and triangulation techniques within Marc’s stored flow profile implementation would have resulted in at least one value overlapping between adjacent ranges to ensure continuity across surface portions. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings to improve modeling continuity and accuracy across segmented operating ranges while maintaining stable recalibration performance.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclose:
-US 20140277773 A1, describing systems and methods for diagnosing damper conditions in a flow control unit. The reference discloses using pressure measurements and control signals to evaluate damper performance, including damper diagnostic, predictive failure diagnostics, improper sizing diagnostic and leakage diagnostics.
-US 20250123528 A1, describing systems and methods for monitoring and controlling thermal comfort within an enclosure using temperature measurements and environmental characterizes.
-US 20110264273 A1, describing systems and methods for remotely monitoring and controlling a demand control ventilation (DCV) system. The reference discloses a damper and controller configured to regulate outside air introduced into a building, including remote monitoring of damper position and ventilation parameters.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM NAGI SHOHATEE whose telephone number is (571)272-6612. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/IBRAHIM NAGI SHOHATEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857