DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-18 (filed 07/09/2026) have been considered in this action. Claims 1-2, 7-8 and 13-14 have been amended. Claims 3-6, 9-12 and 15-18 have been presented in the same format as previously presented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9 paragraph 3, filed 07/09/2026, with respect to objection to the title have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the title has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9 paragraph 5, filed 07/09/2026, with respect to rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for lack of antecedent basis of “the flow control element” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9 paragraph 6, filed 07/09/2026, with respect to rejection of claims 2, 8 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for lack of antecedent basis of “the plurality of different calibration positions” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 2, 8 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10 paragraph 4, filed 07/09/2026, with respect to rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The examiner concedes that based on the provided argument that control must actually be performed for the scope of the claim to be fully realized, it incorporates a practical application. The rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see page 12 paragraph 1, filed 07/09/2026 with regards to rejection of claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Monkowski et al. (US 20240385632, hereinafter Monkowski) in view of Kabrich (US 20200256713, hereinafter Kabrich) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has alleged that Monkowski fails to teach the use of two separate and distinct plurality of calibrations to control the flow. Applicant alleges that because Monkowski only has one look up table, it cannot be considered that Monkowski uses two distinct calibrations, one on the basis of pressure drops and the other on the basis of flow for an operational position of the flow control element. However, just because Monkowski teaches a single look-up table it does not mean that Monkowski does not teach the use of two separate and distinct calibrations because it requires the use of both calibrated flow values, and calibrated pressure values (inlet and downstream pressure) to determine the position that achieves the desired flow at the pressure drop (see Monkowski Fig. 2 and [0017]-[0020]). Based upon the BRI of the claim, what is required to be shown by prior art references is a plurality of first calibrations of flow, a plurality of second calibrations of pressure drop, and corresponding calibration positions to the first and second calibrations. Based upon the BRI, a table having multiple values of positions, pressures and flows all associated through a lookup table which is considered a calibration when created for a particular valve as taught by Monkowski reads on this claim language.
As noted by Monkowski “[0017] a lookup table, which is contained in the memory of the controller, that specifies the required valve position for a given combination of upstream pressure, downstream pressure, and required flow”. PHOSITA would understand that the key to operation in Monkowski is to having both of these elements (pressure drop across valve, and flow) because otherwise the system would not operate. For example, take the lookup table shown in Fig. 2 of Monkowski and reproduced below to contain exemplary values:
Position
Pin
P1
Flow
1
100
50
5
2
100
50
10
3
50
25
5
PHOSITA would understand that the system of Monkowski is nonfunctional when only using one calibration pressure without the use of a calibration flow. When looking to the entry for position 1 vs. position 2, when the differential pressure/pressure drop (difference between Pin and P1) is 50, without knowing what the desired flow is the system would not differentiate between position 1 and position 2 as they have the same pressure drop across the valve. Likewise, when looking at position 1 vs. position 3, if the system only knew the desired flow but not the pressure, it would not be able to distinguish between these two positions as they both are associated with the same flow value. In other words, PHOSITA would understand that the argument made by the applicant of how Monkowski operates using only one of calibration pressure drop or calibration flow for the positioning control of the valve is capricious and arbitrary and would make the system nonfunctional. Just because the applicant has claimed a controller comprising “first plurality of calibrations” and “second plurality of calibrations” does not mean that a single table having multiple calibrated values used in the control of a valve would not read on this claimed language. Monkowski requires the use of each the calibrated pressure values and the calibrated flow values to fully operate, and thus on a functional level, Monkowski has the features of a first calibration and a second calibration as argued by the applicant. Accordingly, the examiner does not find these arguments convincing and maintains the rejection of claims 1, 7 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 under Monkowski in view of Kabrich.
Applicant's arguments, see page 13 paragraph 1, filed 07/09/2026 with regards to rejection of claims 2, 8 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Monkowski et al. (US 20240385632, hereinafter Monkowski) in view of Kabrich (US 20200256713, hereinafter Kabrich) and Raasch (US 20220275963) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that Raasch fails to teach a “calibration nominal”, because the recited “flow coefficient” of Raasch which the applicant has alleged are distinct concepts. However, based upon the provided claim language and under the BRI, a “calibration nominal” is merely a parameter utilized in which the first plurality of calibrations are “based” on. The claim fails to articulate any particular relationship between the calibration nominal and the plurality of calibrations aside from the being “based” upon one another, which is a broad and unspecific relationship that requires under the BRI only its usage in any direct or indirect manner. As noted by Raasch and shown in Fig. 11 and described in [0123], the flow coefficient varies on a non-linear basis as a percentage of maximum (i.e. fully open) flow. PHOSITA would understand that a ball-valve such as that of Raasch would consider a fully-open position to be where maximum flow occurs, and thus by establishing the flow coefficient as a percentage of maximum flow, it would be “based” on a fully/maximal open position. Raasch further teaches in the recited portions of the previous office action that this flow coefficient is used in collaboration with differential pressure (pressure drop), flow rates, and position values, thus when considered under the BRI, Raasch’s described flow coefficient reads on each and every element of the claimed “calibration nominal” because it includes each and every claimed feature. Just because Raasch uses a different name to call “calibration nominal” as “flow coeffiecient” with the same features, on a technical basis, does not differentiate those concepts. Accordingly, the examiner maintains their rejection of claims 2, 8 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant's arguments, see page 13 paragraph 2, filed 07/09/2026 with regards to rejection of claims 4, 10 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Monkowski et al. (US 20240385632, hereinafter Monkowski) in view of Kabrich (US 20200256713, hereinafter Kabrich) and Raasch (US 20220275963) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that Raasch fails to teach determining a “dynamic pressure drop at full open based on the operational pressure drop”. Raasch teaches at [0110] a formula for determining a dynamic pressure drop on the basis of sensor data that includes linear displacement of a valve body’s diaphragm (i.e. position range that includes its operational range from fully open to fully closed) and differential pressure (operational pressure drop). Raasch described in [0111] that it uses these calculations of dynamic pressure to determine the pressure so it can further be used in a determination of flow through the valve, so a lookup table of corresponding flow coefficient values can be queried to control the valve. Accordingly, each and every feature of the claim is taught by the combination of Monkowski, Kabrich and Raasch. Accordingly, the examiner maintains their rejection of claims 4, 10 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant's arguments, see page 13 paragraph 3, filed 07/09/2026 with regards to rejection of claims 6, 12 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Monkowski et al. (US 20240385632, hereinafter Monkowski) in view of Kabrich (US 20200256713, hereinafter Kabrich) and Raasch (US 20220275963, hereinafter Raasch) and Karamanos et al. (US 20220137649 , hereinafter Karamanos) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that Karamanos fails to teach the use of a dynamic nominal because the provided equation that is used for determining flow rate using a calculated flow coefficient of Karamanos does not particularly recite the use of a dynamic pressure drop at full open. Karamanos teaches that a flow rate is determined from taking a square root of a pressure drop. When taken in light of Raasch that teaches determining a dynamic pressure drop at full open, the determining of a dynamic nominal on the basis taking the square root of a dynamic pressure drop at fully open of Raasch becomes obvious because this is merely a simple substitution of one value (pressure drop) with another value (dynamic pressure drop) that operates in a known way with predictable results. Accordingly, the examiner maintains their rejection of claims 6, 12 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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.
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, 3, 7, 9, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monkowski et al. (US 20240385632, hereinafter Monkowski) in view of Kabrich et al. (US 20200256713, hereinafter Kabrich).
In regards to Claim 1, Monkowski teaches “A controller for managing a flow unit comprising:” ([0017] FIG. 2 is a simplified view of an embodiment of an apparatus in accordance with the present invention. This is an example of a three-channel flow splitter. The flow splitter controller 212 is continually reading the pressure signals of pressure sensors 208, 209, 210, and 211. The controller also commands the required positions for valves 201, 202, and 203.) “an input component configured to detect a plurality of calibration pressure drops of the flow unit, a plurality of calibration flows of the flow unit, and a plurality of calibration positions of a flow control element of the flow unit corresponding to the plurality of calibration pressure drops and the plurality of calibration flows” (Fig.2 and [0017] The controller also commands the required positions for valves 201, 202, and 203. As exemplified by the solid-line callout in FIG. 2, each of the valves has its own position reference, e.g., a lookup table, which is contained in the memory of the controller, that specifies the required valve position for a given combination of upstream pressure, downstream pressure, and required flow [0018] For a typical flow splitter used for semiconductor wafer processing, the operating range of inlet pressures and downstream pressures will be specified. Construction of the lookup table for each individual valve then involves measuring the flows for various inlet and downstream pressures within the operating range while the valve is moved to different positions within its operating range. The number of points to measure for each of these variables will depend on the desired accuracy; wherein the construction of the lookup table used for control is considered a calibration as it is from measurements that correlate flow, pressure and position) “the input component being further configured to detect an operation pressure drop and an operation position of the flow control element;” ([0017] The controller also commands the required positions for valves 201, 202, and 203. As exemplified by the solid-line callout in FIG. 2, each of the valves has its own position reference, e.g., a lookup table, which is contained in the memory of the controller, that specifies the required valve position for a given combination of upstream pressure, downstream pressure, and required flow. Since the total flow is not known when the ratio or percentage setpoint command is first sent by the process tool, determining the required valve positions for the commanded ratios can require an iterative process, but compared to the situation with the prior art, in this case, both the valve position and the pressure reading are established within milliseconds, providing information on actual flow much faster than in prior art devices; wherein a valve position and pressure readings are considered operational pressure and operation position detection;) “a processor configured to establish a first plurality of calibrations of the flow unit based on the plurality of calibration pressure drops and a second plurality of calibrations of the flow unit based on the plurality of calibration flows;” (Fig. 2 shows 2 different calibrations for a single valve corresponding to 2 different points, but suggests more are possible to increase accuracy; and [0018] For a typical flow splitter used for semiconductor wafer processing, the operating range of inlet pressures and downstream pressures will be specified. Construction of the lookup table for each individual valve then involves measuring the flows for various inlet and downstream pressures within the operating range while the valve is moved to different positions within its operating range. The number of points to measure for each of these variables will depend on the desired accuracy) “and an output component configured to control the operation position of the flow control element based on the operation pressure drop, a first calibration of the first plurality of calibrations corresponding to the operation position, and a second calibration of the second plurality of calibrations corresponding to the operation position” (Fig. 2 shows 2 calibrations for a valve which each have a position reference which can be to different operation position references; [0031] If the required ratio changes, the valves will need to be moved accordingly, but this change can be very fast since the total flow is already known, and the required positions can be determined directly from the lookup tables. [0032] Thus, a method for splitting a fluid flow in a flow splitter is provided, comprising: constructing a position reference for each valve in the flow splitter by measuring inlet pressure and fluid flow through the valve for multiple valve positions, and storing the position reference in a controller; receiving at the controller a signal indicative of desired flow ratio of fluid flow in multiple channels of the flow splitter; measuring pressure at an inlet of the flow splitter; using the pressure at the inlet and the position reference for each valve to send signal from the controller to drive each valve to a position according to the desired flow ratio; wherein the sending of a signal from a controller implies output).
Monkowski fails to teach the use of ‘pressure drop’ which would be understood by PHOSITA as a pressure differential or difference between two pressures or the amount a pressure changes at a particular sensor location at two points in time, and instead only shows the use of pressure readings before and after the valves, which are typically used for reading a pressure drop/differential.
Kabrich teaches “an input component configured to detect a plurality of calibration pressure drops of the flow unit, a plurality of calibration flows of the flow unit, and a plurality of calibration positions of the flow control element corresponding to the plurality of calibration pressure drops and the plurality of calibration flows” ([0022] controller 202 may be configured to access (or incorporate therein) a mapping module 204 configured to store data for use by controller 202 for controlling operation of multi-position fluid shut-off valve 110, as explained herein. In some examples, mapping module 204 may incorporate therein or be in communication with data 120, which may include one or more look-up tables 206 and/or other data 208 related to operation of fluid system 100 and/or multi-position fluid shut-off valve 110. … In some examples, controller 202 may be in communication with one or more sensor(s) 118. One or more components of system 200 may be in communication with one another via wired connections, wireless connections, or a combination of wired and wireless connections; [0035] In some examples, controller 202 may be configured to determine a flow rate of fluid flowing through multi-position fluid shut-off valve 300 based at least in part on the valve body signal and the pressure differential signal. For example, referring to FIG. 2, controller 202 may access data 120 and calculate the flow rate based at least in part on the valve body signal indicative of the valve body position and/or orientation relative to valve body chamber 316 and/or the pressure differential signal. In some examples, accessing the data 120 may include accessing one or more look-up table(s) 206 (FIG. 2) providing correlations between the valve body position and/or orientation, the pressure differential, and a flow coefficient corresponding to the valve body position and/or orientation and the pressure differential. For example, controller 202 may be configured to identify the flow coefficient from one or more of the look-up table(s) 206 that corresponds to the valve body position and/or orientation and the pressure differential, and calculate the fluid flow rate through multi-position fluid shut-off valve 300 using the flow coefficient, the valve body position and/or orientation, and/or the pressure differential, according to known fluid flow dynamics formulas.…. The flow coefficients in the look-up table(s) 206 may be empirically and/or theoretically derived, for example, though experimentation and/or known fluid dynamics formulas. In some examples, flow coefficients may be unique to each multi-position fluid shut-off valve 300 or group of multi-position fluid shut-off valves; wherein the empirical testing that establishes the lookup tables for a valve are the detected calibration values for flow, position, and differential pressure (pressure drop)) “the input component being further configured to detect an operation pressure drop and an operation position of the flow control element;” ([0035] controller 202 may access data 120 and calculate the flow rate based at least in part on the valve body signal indicative of the valve body position and/or orientation relative to valve body chamber 316 and/or the pressure differential signal) “a processor configured to establish a first plurality of calibrations of the flow unit based on the plurality of calibration pressure drops and a second plurality of calibrations of the flow unit based on the plurality of calibration flows” ([0035] controller 202 may access data 120 and calculate the flow rate based at least in part on the valve body signal indicative of the valve body position and/or orientation relative to valve body chamber 316 and/or the pressure differential signal. In some examples, accessing the data 120 may include accessing one or more look-up table(s) 206 (FIG. 2) providing correlations between the valve body position and/or orientation, the pressure differential, and a flow coefficient corresponding to the valve body position and/or orientation and the pressure differential. For example, controller 202 may be configured to identify the flow coefficient from one or more of the look-up table(s) 206 that corresponds to the valve body position and/or orientation and the pressure differential, and calculate the fluid flow rate through multi-position fluid shut-off valve 300 using the flow coefficient; wherein each lookup table would have its own values for flow, position and differential pressure, and thus each table entry in a table, or the multiple tables per valve correspond with plurality of calibrations) “and an output component configured to control the operation position of the flow control element based on the operation pressure drop, a first calibration of the first plurality of calibrations corresponding to the operation position, and a second calibration of the second plurality of calibrations corresponding to the operation position” ([0007] The system may further include a controller configured to determine a first flow rate through the housing based at least in part on a first pressure differential signal, the first flow rate being within a first range of flow rates. The controller may also be configured to cause the actuator to at least one of (1) reposition the valve body from a first position to a second position or (2) re-orient the valve body from a first orientation to a second orientation. The controller may also be configured to determine a second flow rate through the housing based at least in part on a second pressure differential signal. The second flow rate may be within a second range of flow rates, and the second range of flow rates may be different than the first range of flow rates. [0027] Engine control module 116 and/or controller 202 may execute the instructions to perform various control functions and processes to control multi-position fluid shut-off valve 110 and/or second multi-position fluid shut-off valve 114, and, as such, to automatically control a flow rate of fuel through fuel system 100 and/or through various components of fuel system 100. [0035] For example, controller 202 may be configured to identify the flow coefficient from one or more of the look-up table(s) 206 that corresponds to the valve body position and/or orientation and the pressure differential, and calculate the fluid flow rate through multi-position fluid shut-off valve 300 using the flow coefficient, the valve body position and/or orientation, and/or the pressure differential, according to known fluid flow dynamics formulas. In some examples, one or more of the look-up table(s) 206 may also include data or information related to the effective flow area associated with the valve body position and/or orientation; wherein the use of a lookup table means that based upon the real-time measured pressure and position, a position is controlled in accordance with those table values that are mapped to the real-time, and because it includes differential pressure and position values, those correspond with first and second calibrations).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Monkowski that determines a calibration for establishing a lookup table on the basis of past measured/detected pressures, flows and positions of a valve so that when a desired output flow is required, the lookup table values for different combinations of pressure, flow and position are realized, with the use of a similar system of Kabrich that establishes a lookup table from past measurements ([0035] empirical test data) that includes differential pressure, because it can be considered a simple substitute of one elements (inlet and outlet pressure) with another (differential pressure, i.e. inlet minus outlet pressure) as the basis for establishing the calibrations for controlling a valve in a known way that achieves predictable results.
In regards to Claim 7 and 13, it is noted that while in different statutory categories of invention, they recite similar subject matter as from claim 1. Accordingly, claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Monkowski and Kabrich using similar analysis as applied to the corresponding limitations from claim 1.
In regards to Claim 3, the combination of Monkowski and Kabrich teaches the controller for managing a flow unit as incorporated by claim 1 above. Monkowski further teaches “The controller as described in claim 1, wherein the input component detects the operation pressure drop and the operation position of the flow control element subsequent to the processor establishing the first and second pluralities of calibrations” ([0017] The controller also commands the required positions for valves 201, 202, and 203. As exemplified by the solid-line callout in FIG. 2, each of the valves has its own position reference, e.g., a lookup table, which is contained in the memory of the controller, that specifies the required valve position for a given combination of upstream pressure, downstream pressure, and required flow...in this case, both the valve position and the pressure reading are established within milliseconds, providing information on actual flow much faster than in prior art devices, allowing the entire stabilization to the new total flow to occur in one second or less [0018] For a typical flow splitter used for semiconductor wafer processing, the operating range of inlet pressures and downstream pressures will be specified. Construction of the lookup table for each individual valve then involves measuring the flows for various inlet and downstream pressures within the operating range while the valve is moved to different positions within its operating range. The number of points to measure for each of these variables will depend on the desired accuracy; wherein the lookup table is constructed before the readings for control, and thus the readings are subsequent to the establishment of the lookup/calibration table).
In regards to Claim 9 and 15, it is noted that while in different statutory categories of invention, they recite similar subject matter as from claim 3. Accordingly, claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Monkowski and Kabrich using similar analysis as applied to the corresponding limitations from claim 3.
Claim(s) 2, 4-5, 8, 10-11, 14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monkowski and Kabrich as applied to claims 1, 7 and 13 above, and further in view of Raasch et al. (US 20220275963, hereinafter Raasch).
In regards to Claim 2, the combination of Monkowski and Kabrich teaches the controller for managing a flow unit as incorporated by claim 1 above.
Monkowski further teaches “The controller as described in claim 1, wherein: the processor establishes the first plurality of calibrations based on … the plurality of calibration pressure drops corresponding to the plurality of calibration positions of the flow control element… and the processor establishes the second plurality of calibrations based on …the plurality of calibration flows corresponding to the plurality of calibration positions of the flow control element...” (Fig. 2 and [0018] For a typical flow splitter used for semiconductor wafer processing, the operating range of inlet pressures and downstream pressures will be specified. Construction of the lookup table for each individual valve then involves measuring the flows for various inlet and downstream pressures within the operating range while the valve is moved to different positions within its operating range. The number of points to measure for each of these variables will depend on the desired accuracy).
The combination of Monkowski and Kabrich fail to teach “the processor establishes the first plurality of calibrations based on a first calibration nominal… the first calibration nominal being based on a measured pressure drop across the flow control element at a maximum open position; and the processor establishes the second plurality of calibrations based on a second calibration nominal… the second calibration nominal being based on a measured flow across the flow control element at the maximum open position”.
Raasch teaches “the processor establishes the first plurality of calibrations based on a first calibration nominal… the first calibration nominal being based on a measured pressure drop across the flow control element at a maximum open position; and the processor establishes the second plurality of calibrations based on a second calibration nominal… the second calibration nominal being based on a measured flow across the flow control element at the maximum open position” ([0110] Pressure calculator 810 may be configured to receive sensor data and calculate a pressure based on the received sensor data. For example, pressure calculator 810 uses the following equation: [00001]ΔP=KTOT*ΔXAEFF Where ΔP is the calculated pressure differential, K.sub.TOT is the total proportional constant of the system, ΔX is the measured linear displacement of the diaphragm (e.g., away from home position, etc.); [0112] Flow calculator 814 may be configured to receive the calculated pressure and other parameters and determine a calculated flow flowing though valve 500. For example, flow calculator 814 may use the following equation: Where f.sub.valve is the flow through valve 500, C.sub.ν is the flow coefficient for valve 500, ΔP is the calculated pressure differential,[0118] Process 900 is shown to include calculating pressure estimation based on received data (step 904). In some embodiments, pressure calculator 810 calculates the pressure differential between the path at inlet 504 and outlet 506, as described above. Process 900 is shown to include estimating flowrate based on calculated pressure and received valve position data (step 906). In some embodiments, this step includes querying a lookup table to compare at least one of the measurements from the first sensor and the measurements from the second sensor to determine an estimated flowrate[0124] In some embodiments, ball valves (e.g., valve 500, etc.) exhibit an exponential or “equal percentage” relationship between valve opening and flowrate (at a given pressure differential). Valve 500 and/or valve 550 may have a dead band (i.e., no flow) range (e.g., of approximately 15%, etc.). Additionally, may also include a short pseudo-linear section which connects the dead band section to the exponential section (e.g., line 1106 after 13%, etc.). As long as the valve's rated (i.e. fully open) C.sub.ν value and valve position is known, then the C.sub.ν of the valve at said position can be determined. Determination of the C.sub.ν value in the systems disclosed herein could be equation-based or could utilized pre-programmed lookup tables; wherein the C.sub.v at rated value is a fully open value that is determined from lookup table with differential pressures, flow rates, and position values).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the system that utilizes a lookup table for referencing measured values of flow, position and differential pressure so that different flows can be controlled on the basis of calibrated/measured values previously established as taught by Monkowski and Kabrich, with the controller that establishes lookup table values to determine an estimated flow and which further utilizes a coefficient for establishing control of the valve which is centered on a rated at full open valve position as taught by Raasch because Monkowski suggests that other forms of graphical equations that establish a model between the flow, pressure and position such as shown in Fig. 2 and [0019], which when using the rated flow at full open as suggested by Raasch. Furthermore, both Monkowski, Kabrich and Raasch are in the related fields of flow control using a valve with lookup tables utilized for controlling flow through the valve, thus making their combination more obvious. By combining these elements, it can be considered taking the known use of full open coefficients for determining lookup tables that correlate flow with differential pressure and position feedbacks and use them to improve the flow controller of Monkowski in a known way that achieves predictable results.
In regards to Claim 8 and 14, it is noted that while in different statutory categories of invention, they recite similar subject matter as from claim 2. Accordingly, claims 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Monkowski, Kabrich and Raasch using similar analysis as applied to the corresponding limitations from claim 2.
In regards to Claim 4, the combination of Monkowski and Kabrich teaches the controller for managing a flow unit as incorporated by claim 1 above.
The combination of Monkowski and Kabrich fail to teach “The controller as described in claim 1, wherein the processor determines a dynamic pressure drop at full open based on the operation pressure drop and a particular calibration pressure drop of the first plurality of calibrations corresponding to the operation position of the flow control element”.
Raasch teaches “The controller as described in claim 1, wherein the processor determines a dynamic pressure drop at full open based on the operation pressure drop and a particular calibration pressure drop of the first plurality of calibrations corresponding to the operation position of the flow control element” ([0096] In some embodiments, linear potentiometer 536 is configured to monitor the displacement of actuator valve stem 516 to determine a representative value of how much the valve has been opened. In some embodiments, this value can be used as a reference to determine a flowrate value throughout valve 500. For example, a controller receives a voltage signal from linear potentiometer 536 of 4.5V. Based on a prior calibration between linear potentiometer 536 and valve 500, the controller knows that a 4.5V signal correlates to 85% open for valve 500. The controller can then determine that when valve 500 is open at 85%, the valve outputs 1.2 liters per second at a standard (e.g., known, typical, average, etc.) pressure. The relationship between the valve positioning and the flowrate may be determined by a lookup table, an external reference (e.g., the manual for the valve, etc.), an algorithm (as described below), or any combination thereof.[0110] Pressure calculator 810 may be configured to receive sensor data and calculate a pressure based on the received sensor data. For example, pressure calculator 810 uses the following equation: [00001] ΔP=KTOT*ΔXAEFF Where ΔP is the calculated pressure differential, K.sub.TOT is the total proportional constant of the system, ΔX is the measured linear displacement of the diaphragm (e.g., away from home position, etc.), and A.sub.EFF is the effective hydraulic area of the diaphragm. [0112] [0112] Flow calculator 814 may be configured to receive the calculated pressure and other parameters and determine a calculated flow flowing though valve 500. For example, flow calculator 814 may use the following equation: [00002] Where f.sub.valve is the flow through valve 500, C.sub.ν is the flow coefficient for valve 500, ΔP is the calculated pressure differential, and S. G. is the specific gravity (e.g., 1 for water, etc.) of the fluid flowing through valve 500 (e.g., heated water, air, etc.). In some embodiments, C.sub.ν and S. G. are received by flow database 812. [0124] As long as the valve's rated (i.e. fully open) C.sub.ν value and valve position is known, then the C.sub.ν of the valve at said position can be determined; wherein the corresponding pressure value in the lookup table that corresponds with the determined calculated dynamic pressure drop is the particular calibration pressure drop).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the system that utilizes a lookup table for referencing measured values of flow, position and differential pressure so that different flows can be controlled on the basis of calibrated/measured values previously established as taught by Monkowski and Kabrich, with the controller that establishes lookup table values to determine an estimated flow and which further utilizes a coefficient for establishing control of the valve which is centered on a rated at full open valve position as taught by Raasch because Monkowski suggests that other forms of graphical equations that establish a model between the flow, pressure and position such as shown in Fig. 2 and [0019], which when using the rated flow at full open as suggested by Raasch. Furthermore, both Monkowski, Kabrich and Raasch are in the related fields of flow control using a valve with lookup tables utilized for controlling flow through the valve, thus making their combination more obvious. By combining these elements, it can be considered taking the known use of full open coefficients for determining lookup tables that correlate flow with differential pressure and position feedbacks and use them to improve the flow controller of Monkowski in a known way that achieves predictable results.
In regards to Claim 10 and 16, it is noted that while in different statutory categories of invention, they recite similar subject matter as from claim 4. Accordingly, claims 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Monkowski, Kabrich and Raasch using similar analysis as applied to the corresponding limitations from claim 4.
In regards to Claim 5, the combination of Monkowski, Kabrich and Raasch teaches the controller for managing a flow unit as incorporated by claim 4 above. Monkowski further teaches “The controller as described in claim 4, wherein the processor determines a flow of the flow unit based on the first calibration, the second calibration, and a dynamic nominal” ([0019] As an alternative to a lookup table, an equation or multidimensional graph could be used to determine the required valve position, as exemplified by the dash-line callout in FIG. 2. Most likely, this equation or graph will be empirically determined from data gathered in a manner similar to that described above for the lookup table; wherein the equation or multidimensional graph is a dynamic nominal).
In regards to Claim 11 and 17, it is noted that while in different statutory categories of invention, they recite similar subject matter as from claim 5. Accordingly, claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Monkowski, Kabrich and Raasch using similar analysis as applied to the corresponding limitations from claim 5.
Claim(s) 6, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monkowski, Kabrich and Raasch as applied to claims 5, 11 and 17 above, and further in view of Karamanos et al. (US 20220137649, hereinafter Karamanos).
In regards to Claim 6, the combination of Monkowski, Kabrich and Raasch teaches the controller for managing a flow unit as incorporated by claim 5 above.
The combination of Monkowski, Kabrich and Raasch fail to teach “The controller as described in claim 5, wherein the processor determines the dynamic nominal based on a square root of the dynamic pressure drop at full open”.
Karamanos teaches “The controller as described in claim 5, wherein the processor determines the dynamic nominal based on a square root of the dynamic pressure drop at full open” ([0023] when executed by the processor, cause the processor to determine at least one of the following: 1) a pressure differential based on a first pressure sensed upstream of the damper assembly and a second pressure sensed downstream of the damper assembly, wherein the damper assembly is disposed in the flow pathway; 2) a variable opening area defined by the damper assembly, wherein the variable opening area receives the fluid flow there through; 3) a flow coefficient MF based on a function of a ratio of the variable opening area to a flow pathway area, wherein the flow coefficient M.sub.F is 0≥M.sub.F≤1; and 4) a flow rate based on the pressure differential and the flow coefficient. [0026] the controller automatically calculates the flow coefficient M.sub.F based on the variable opening area. The flow coefficient M.sub.F calculation is performed with a turndown ratio of 10:1 or greater. In other aspects, the controller determines the flow rate based on multiplying the flow coefficient M.sub.F with a square root of the determined pressure differential and then scaling to read mass fluid flows in desirable engineering units. [0037] a flow coefficient M.sub.F based on square of a ratio of the variable opening area to a flow pathway area at each of the plurality of flow devices, wherein the flow coefficient M.sub.F is a non-constant coefficient and 0≤M.sub.F≤1, and/or a flow rate based on the pressure differential and the flow coefficient. The central controller may adjust fan parameters such that 1) all remote controllers are satisfied and 2) at least one remote control device is wide open, thus optimizing energy consumption; wherein wide open and full open are considered corresponding).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the system that uses a dynamical nominal with the use of a dynamic nominal that is based on a square root of a dynamic pressure drop at full open as taught by Karamanos because it can be considered taking a known technique in the similar field of flow control on the basis of pressure, flow and position of a valve, and using it to improve a similar system in the same way using the dynamical nominal of Karamanos.
In regards to Claim 12 and 18, it is noted that while in different statutory categories of invention, they recite similar subject matter as from claim 6. Accordingly, claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Monkowski, Kabrich, Raasch and Karamanos using similar analysis as applied to the corresponding limitations from claim 6.
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 JONATHAN M SKRZYCKI whose telephone number is (571)272-0933. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-3:30.
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, Ken Lo can be reached at 571-272-9774. 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.
/JONATHAN MICHAEL SKRZYCKI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights