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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The Specification used both “look-up” and “lookup.” Please change one or the other to maintain consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 6 uses “look-up” while claim 17 uses “lookup.” Please change one or the other to maintain consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 15–23 are 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.
Claim 15: the limitation found in lines 3–8 is a method for use of an apparatus within an apparatus claim. This language is indefinite because it is unclear to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, as to when infringement occurs. Infringement could occur when “one creates a system that allows the user” to set up the design conditions to operate the flow splitter or “when the user actually uses the” flow splitter. MPEP §2173.05(p).
Claim 23: the limitation found in lines 3–8 is a method for use of an apparatus within an apparatus claim. This language is indefinite because it is unclear to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, as to when infringement occurs. Infringement could occur when “one creates a system that allows the user” to set up the design conditions to operate the flow splitter or “when the user actually uses the” flow splitter. MPEP §2173.05(p).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1–2, 5, 7–10, 13–15 and 18–23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yasuda et al. (US PGPub 20190204857 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Yasuda discloses a system for splitting inlet fluid flow into multiple outlet flows comprising: an inlet (ML) for receiving the inlet fluid flow; an inlet pressure sensor (MP) positioned in the inlet (ML), coupled to the fluid flow (GS), that measures the inlet pressure and generates inlet pressure signal (Paras. 60–61); two or more flow lines (BL) connected to the inlet (Fig. 1); a plurality of controllable valves (3), each positioned in one of the flow lines (Fig. 1) and each able to be controlled independently to a desired position (Para. 47); a controller (COM) receiving a ratio signal and the inlet pressure signal (Para. 41), and determining therefrom for each of the controllable valves (3) a required valve position for various combinations of fluid flows and inlet pressure (Para. 41), and sending a control signal to each of the controllable valves (3) to assume the required valve position (Para. 52).
Regarding Claim 2, Yasuda discloses a plurality of outlet pressure sensors (41/42), each positioned downstream of each of the controllable valves (3), that measures the downstream pressure and generates an outlet pressure signal (Para. 50, where the pressure signals are those signals associated with pressure sensors 41/42).
Regarding Claim 5, Yasuda discloses the controller (COM) includes a position reference (Para. 49, where the position sensor 34 provides the position reference) for each controllable valve (3), the position reference associates a valve position (Para. 49), an inlet pressure and a flow rate through the valve (Para. 60).
Regarding Claim 7, Yasuda discloses the fluid is a gas (Para. 10).
Regarding Claim 8, Yasuda discloses the fluid is a liquid (Para. 74).
Regarding Claim 9, Yasuda discloses the position of each valve (3) can be adjusted such that the flows in each of the flow lines (BL) are consistent with a setpoint (target) command delivered to the system defining the desired ratio or percentages of flows (Paras. 15, 41 and 52).
Regarding Claim 10, Yasuda discloses the position of a controllable valve (3) controlling the largest flow among the plurality of controllable valves (3) is set to a predetermined value (Paras. 11 and 58).
Regarding Claim 13, Yasuda discloses a system for splitting a fluid flow into multiple flows comprising: an inlet (ML) for receiving the inlet fluid flow; a pressure sensor (MP) in the inlet (Fig. 1), coupled to the fluid flow, that measures the inlet pressure (Paras. 60–61); two or more flow lines (BL) connected to the inlet (Fig. 1); a valve (3) in each of the flow lines (BL) able to be controlled to a desired position (Para. 47); a means to determine for each valve (3) the required valve positions for various combinations of fluid flow and inlet pressure (Paras. 41 and 52).
Regarding Claim 14, Yasuda discloses the position of each valve (3) can be adjusted such that the flows in each of the flow lines (BL) are consistent with a setpoint (target) command delivered to the system defining the desired ratio or percentages of flows (Para. 49, where the position sensor 34 provides the position reference and 60).
Regarding Claim 15, Yasuda discloses a flow splitter having an inlet and multiple flow channels (BL), each of the multiple flow channels (BL) having a valve (3), a method for splitting a fluid flow into multiple fluid flows, the method comprising: reading the pressure upstream (Para. 41, where the pressure upstream is determined by MP) and downstream (Para. 50, where the pressure downstream of the valve is determined by pressure sensors 41/42) of the valve (3) in each of the flow channels (BL); reading the setpoint (target) command (Para. 54, where the setpoint “target” command originates from a program) that specifies the ratio or percentage flow for each of the flow channels (BL), Paras. 54/56, where a target receiving unit 61 and a target flow rate calculating unit 62 read the read the setpoint (target) for the respective flow channels; and establishing the required valve position in each flow channel to establish the flow ratio or percentage specified by the setpoint (Paras. 58/59, where the required valve position is based upon the operation setting unit 63 which must adjust the valve position based upon the desired flow ratio target). See Paras. 15/41/52/54/56–59 for further detail.
Regarding Claim 18, Yasuda discloses the required valve position in each flow channel is determined from an equation (Para. 79, where the required valve position is calculated based upon an equation the uses the reference volume and the change of pressure sensor in reference to the value).
Regarding Claim 19, Yasuda discloses establishing the required valve position in each flow channel begins by setting the valve with the largest flow percentage to a predetermined position (Paras. 11 and 58).
Regarding Claim 20, Yasuda discloses establishing the required valve positions for the other valves is done by assuming a certain total inlet flow (Paras. 18 and 57).
Regarding Claim 21, Yasuda discloses sometime after the required valve position in each flow channel (BL) is established, the valves (3) are held at fixed positions for a period of time (Para. 15, where when the target flow rate has been reached the valve are held in the stabilized position “fixed position”).
Regarding Claim 22, Yasuda discloses wherein the period of time is until the setpoint changes (Para. 61, where the setpoint is the position to which the operator adjusts to reach the target).
Regarding Claim 23, Yasuda discloses a flow splitter having an inlet and multiple flow channels (BL), each of the multiple flow channels (BL) having a valve (3), a method for splitting a fluid flow into multiple fluid flows, the method comprising: reading the pressure upstream (Para. 41, where the pressure upstream is determined by MP) of the valve (3); reading the setpoint (target) command (Para. 54, where the setpoint “target” command originates from a program) that specifies the ratio or percentage flow for each of the flow channels (BL), Paras. 54/56, where a target receiving unit 61 and a target flow rate calculating unit 62 read the read the setpoint (target) for the respective flow channels; and establishing the required valve position in each flow channel to establish the flow percentage (where the percentage is the ratio in its reduced form) specified by the setpoint (Paras. 58/59, where the required valve position is based upon the operation setting unit 63 which must adjust the valve position based upon the desired flow ratio target). See Paras. 15/41/52/54/56–59 for further detail.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3–4 and 11–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda et al. (US PGPub 20190204857 A1).
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, Yasuda is silent as the whether the controllable valves are normally-open valves or normally-closed valves.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Yasuda’s control valves to be either normally-open valves or normally-closed valves since it has been held that “choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success”. MPEP §2143(I)(E). Here, there are only two options of the beginning state of a valve. As a result, it is obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would select normally-open valves or normally-closed valves as a matter of design choice.
Regarding Claim 11, Yasuda is silent as the whether the predetermined value is between 80% and 95% of the maximum valve position.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to use a “predetermined value is between 80% and 95% of the maximum valve position,” since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP §2144.05(I). Here, Yasuda discloses the manner in which a predetermined (targeted) valve position is calculated. Determining the optimal ratio is based upon the designed needs and therefore, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 12, Yasuda is silent as the whether the predetermined value is 50% of the maximum valve position or greater.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to use a “predetermined value is 50% of the maximum valve position or greater,” since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP §2144.05(I). Here, Yasuda discloses the manner in which a predetermined (targeted) valve position is calculated. Determining the optimal ratio is based upon the designed needs and therefore, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 6 and 16–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda et al. (US PGPub 20190204857 A1) in view of Hornung et al. (US PGPub 20160161951 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Yasuda is silent about basing the position reference using a look-up table.
Hornung teaches using a look-up table (LUT) to provide calibration data to ensure that the control valve is optimally located (Paras. 9–10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manner in which the position reference of the valves of Yasuda et al. is determined with a lookup table as taught by Hornung in order to provide calibration data to ensure that the control valve is optimally located.
Regarding Claim 16, Yasuda is silent about basing the required valve position in each flow channel is determined from a lookup table.
Hornung teaches using a look-up table (LUT) to provide calibration data to ensure that the control valve is optimally located (Paras. 9–10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manner in which the position reference of the valves of Yasuda et al. is determined with a lookup table as taught by Hornung in order to provide calibration data to ensure that the control valve is optimally located.
The Yasuda–Hornung combination teaches the required valve position in each flow channel (Yasuda BL) is determined from a lookup table (Hornung LUT).
Regarding Claim 17, the Yasuda–Hornung combination teaches the lookup table (Hornung LUT) is established by measuring the flow in each channel (Yasuda BL and Para. 41 discusses measuring flow in each channel) as a function of valve position (Yasuda BL and Para. 49, where the target flow rate in each channel uses the valve position to adjust so that the target flow for that branch is achieved), upstream pressure, and downstream pressure (Hornung Para. 49).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ding (US PGPub 20220390261 A1), McMillin et al. (USPN 6333272 B1) and Zvonar (USPN 6205409 B1) disclose a Mass Flow Ratio Control (MFC) that uses lookup tables.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Angelisa L. Hicks whose telephone number is 571-272-9552 and email is Angelisa.Hicks@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:30AM-5:00PM EST).
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/Angelisa L. Hicks/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3753