DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-15 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over applicant cited Schulz (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0142759, hereinafter Schulz) in view of applicant cited EP2056177, hereinafter EP.
With respect to Claim 1, Schulz discloses [see fig 1 unless otherwise noted] a dynamic testing system comprising:
a test station [8] including:
a hydraulic actuator [15] configured to drive an actuation of a test subject [18] using a hydraulic fluid flow [para 12]; and
a control valve [25] comprising:
a housing [outer surface of 25].
Schulz doesn’t disclose details of the actuator or how the control valve controls the actuator, including not showing a valve body contained within the housing having a position that controls a flow rate and direction of the hydraulic fluid flow; a valve body driver configured to adjust the position of the valve body based on a reference signal; and a valve position sensor configured to output a position signal that is indicative of the position of the valve body; and at least one controller configured to: obtain a current position of the valve body using the position signal; obtain a diagnostic reference; detect a diagnostic condition based on a difference between the current position and the diagnostic reference; and generate a diagnostic signal indicating the detected diagnostic condition.
EP discloses [see fig 9 unless otherwise noted] a control valve [2] controlling a hydraulic actuator [60] including that the control valve comprises:
a valve body [6] contained within the housing having a position that controls a flow rate and direction of the hydraulic fluid flow [para 277 and 278 indicate “adjusting the flow” and figs 4-6 show how closing portions are moved to change the flow direction];
a valve body driver [magnetic driver 35, 35a and 35b are better seen in figure 4. Abstract describes 35 driving 6] configured to adjust the position of the valve body based on a reference signal [see para 5]; and
a valve position sensor [57; fig 8] configured to output a position signal that is indicative of the position [para 183] of the valve body [6]; and
at least one controller [3] configured to: obtain a current position of the valve body using the position signal; obtain a diagnostic reference; detect a diagnostic condition based on a difference between the current position and the diagnostic reference; and generate a diagnostic signal indicating the detected diagnostic condition [para 277 and 278 show comparing the position to a reference signal and para 282 shows that fault is indicated to the operator].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use EP’s control valve and hydraulic actuator in Schulz for the benefit of accurate actuation and fault reporting when the system isn’t properly functioning.
With respect to Claim 2, EP discloses that the hydraulic actuator includes: a cylinder [66]; and an actuator rod [69] including a piston [65] contained within the cylinder [66]; wherein movement of the piston and the actuator rod relative to the cylinder drives the actuation; the housing of the control valve includes: an inlet port [7; see para 48 for pressurized fluid; ports are labeled in fig 3] coupled to a supply of high pressure hydraulic fluid; an outlet port [8; fig 1 shows all ports connected to pipes 91] coupled to a low pressure return reservoir [the pipe 91 corresponding port 8; and note the discharge must be lower pressure than inlet for flow to move in the desired direction]; a first port [9] coupled to a first working volume [61] formed by an interior of the cylinder [66] and the piston [65]; and a second port [10] coupled to a second working volume [63] formed by the interior of the cylinder [66] and the piston [65]; and the position of the valve body directs the hydraulic fluid flow received at the inlet port to one of the first and second ports or neither of the first and second ports and controls a flow rate of the hydraulic fluid flow [figs 4-6 shows how 6 is moved to push blocking portions 36 and 37 to block certain paths to direct the flow path; fig 3 shows the ports labeled more clearly and figure 9 shows how the ports connect to the fluid channels in 2 and the working spaces of actuator 60].
With respect to Claim 3, EP discloses that the test station includes an actuation sensor [57] configured to generate a feedback signal that is indicative of a parameter [position] of the actuation; the at least one controller [3] is configured to: generate a control reference signal [para 277] corresponding to a desired actuation based on a test program [whatever means that is used to generate the reference signal in para 277 can be considered a test program]; and generate an actuator command signal based on a difference between the control reference signal and the feedback signal; and the actuator command signal directs the valve body driver to adjust the position of the valve body [para 7 and 8 describe using a feedback loop to compare the actual position and desired position; para 276-277 show the reference signal is based on the desired position; para 278 shows making adjustments based on the difference between the desired and actual position of valve body 6].
With respect to Claim 5, EP discloses that the diagnostic reference includes an actuation parameter relating to the feedback signal [para 7 and 8 describe using a feedback loop to compare the actual position and desired position; para 276-277 show the reference signal is based on the desired position; the actuation parameter is the actual position that is input into the feedback loop].
With respect to Claim 6, EP discloses that the actuation sensor comprises a displacement sensor [57]; the feedback signal indicates a direction of movement of the actuator rod relative to the cylinder; and the actuation parameter relates to the direction of movement indicated by the feedback signal [para 84 shows the feedback monitors the position of 6; figs 4-6 show 6 moving in different directions; tracking the position of 6 over time gives the direction].
With respect to Claim 7, Schulz discloses using an actuation sensor that is a load cell [para 13; displacement of load cell]; the feedback signal indicates a force applied by the actuator; and the actuation parameter relates to the force indicated by the feedback signal [para 13].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the combination of Schulz and EP by having both the load cell actuation sensor to accurately track the force from the load cell and the displacement sensor of EP to accurately track the position of the valve body.
With respect to Claim 8, Schulz discloses that the diagnostic condition comprises a malfunction of a displacement sensor [para 282].
With respect to Claim 9, EP discloses that the current position of the valve body [6] is obtained by the at least one controller [3; fig 8; para 185] during a performance of a test program by the test station [“programmed operation” para 195] and the diagnostic reference includes an expected position of the valve body [para 189].
While neither Schulz nor EP explicitly disclose that and the diagnostic reference includes an expected position of the valve body that is based on at least one prior performance of the test program, it would have been to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that determining an expected position would be accurately determined by being calculated by a prior performance of the test program.
With respect to Claim 11, Schulz discloses that the valve body driver comprises a servo [servo controller 14] and EP uses magnetic means, although not necessarily a solenoid and the valve body comprises a piston [EP’s 65].
With respect to Claim 12, EP discloses that the at least one controller is configured to perform a safety measure when the difference meets a threshold condition; and the safety measure includes: issuing an audible and/or visible alarm or signal [para 199-200 detail the hazard signal; para 116 shows that the signal is visual or acoustic].
With respect to Claim 13, Schulz discloses a method of controlling a dynamic testing system, which comprises: a test station [8] including: a hydraulic actuator [15] configured to drive an actuation of a test subject [18] using a hydraulic fluid flow [para 12]; and a control valve [25] comprising: a housing [outer surface].
Schulz doesn’t disclose details of the actuator or how the control valve controls the actuator, including not showing a valve body contained within the housing having a position that controls a flow rate and direction of the hydraulic fluid flow; a valve body driver configured to adjust the position of the valve body based on a reference signal; and a valve position sensor configured to output a position signal that is indicative of the position of the valve body; and at least one controller configured to: obtain a current position of the valve body using the position signal; obtain a diagnostic reference; detect a diagnostic condition based on a difference between the current position and the diagnostic reference; and generate a diagnostic signal indicating the detected diagnostic condition.
EP discloses [see fig 9 unless otherwise noted] a control valve [2] controlling a hydraulic actuator [60] including that the control valve comprises:
a valve body [6] contained within the housing having a position that controls a flow rate and direction of the hydraulic fluid flow [para 277 and 278 indicate “adjusting the flow” and figs 4-6 show how closing portions are moved to change the flow direction];
a valve body driver [magnetic driver 35, 35a and 35b are better seen in figure 4. Abstract describes 35 driving 6] configured to adjust the position of the valve body based on a reference signal [see para 5]; and
a valve position sensor [57] configured to output a position signal that is indicative of the position [para 183] of the valve body [6]; and
at least one controller [3] configured to: obtain a current position of the valve body using the position signal; obtain a diagnostic reference; detect a diagnostic condition based on a difference between the current position and the diagnostic reference; and generate a diagnostic signal indicating the detected diagnostic condition [para 277 and 278 show comparing the position to a reference signal and para 282 shows that fault is indicated to the operator].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use EP’s control valve and hydraulic actuator in Schulz for the benefit of accurate actuation and fault reporting when the system isn’t properly functioning.
With respect to Claim 14, EP discloses that the hydraulic actuator includes: a cylinder [66]; and an actuator rod [69] including a piston [65] contained within the cylinder [66]; wherein movement of the piston and the actuator rod relative to the cylinder drives the actuation; the housing of the control valve includes: an inlet port [7] coupled to a supply of high pressure hydraulic fluid [para 48]; an outlet port [8] coupled to a low pressure return reservoir [pipe 91 connected to 8; best seen in fig 3]; a first port [9] coupled to a first working volume [61] formed by an interior of the cylinder [66] and the piston [65]; and a second port [10] coupled to a second working volume [63] formed by the interior of the cylinder [66] and the piston [65]; and the position of the valve body directs the hydraulic fluid flow received at the inlet port to one of the first and second ports or neither of the first and second ports and controls a flow rate of the hydraulic fluid flow [figs 4-6 shows how 6 is moved to push blocking portions 36 and 37 to block certain paths to direct the flow path; fig 3 shows the ports labeled more clearly and figure 9 shows how the ports connect to the fluid channels in 2 and the working spaces of actuator 60].
With respect to Claim 15, EP discloses that the test station includes an actuation sensor [57; fig 8] configured to generate a feedback signal that is indicative of a parameter of the actuation [para 184]; and the method includes: generating a control reference signal corresponding to a desired actuation based on a test program; and generating an actuator command signal based on a difference between the control reference signal and the feedback signal, wherein the actuator command signal is used to direct the valve body driver to adjust the position of the valve body [para 7 and 8 describe using a feedback loop to compare the actual position and desired position; para 276-277 show the reference signal is based on the desired position; para 278 shows making adjustments based on the difference between the desired and actual position of valve body 6].
With respect to Claim 17, EP discloses that the diagnostic reference includes an actuation parameter relating to the feedback signal [para 7 and 8 describe using a feedback loop to compare the actual position and desired position; para 276-277 show the reference signal is based on the desired position; the actuation parameter is the actual position that is input into the feedback loop].
With respect to Claim 18, EP discloses that the actuation sensor comprises a displacement sensor [57]; the feedback signal indicates a direction of movement of the actuator rod relative to the cylinder; and the actuation parameter relates to the direction of movement indicated by the feedback signal [para 84 shows the feedback monitors the position of 6; figs 4-6 show 6 moving in different directions; tracking the position of 6 over time gives the direction].
With respect to Claim 19, Schulz discloses using an actuation sensor that is a load cell [para 13; displacement of load cell]; the feedback signal indicates a force applied by the actuator; and the actuation parameter relates to the force indicated by the feedback signal [para 13 ].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the combination of Schulz and EP by having both the load cell actuation sensor to accurately track the force from the load cell and the displacement sensor of EP to accurately track the position of the valve body.
With respect to Claim 20, EP discloses that the current position of the valve body [6] is obtained by the at least one controller [3; fig 8; para 185] during a performance of a test program by the test station [“programmed operation” para 195] and the diagnostic reference includes an expected position of the valve body [para 189].
While neither Schulz nor EP explicitly disclose that and the diagnostic reference includes an expected position of the valve body that is based on at least one prior performance of the test program, it would have been to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that determining an expected position would be accurately determined by being calculated by a prior performance of the test program.
With respect to Claim 21, EP discloses that the method includes: performing a safety measure when the difference meets a threshold condition; and the safety measure includes: issuing an audible and/or visible alarm or signal [para 199-200 detail the hazard signal; para 116 shows that the signal is visual or acoustic].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz and EP in further view of JP2003289682, hereinafter JP.
With respect to Claim 10, neither Schulz nor EP disclose that the expected position of the valve body is obtained based on a mapping of positions of the valve body over time during the at least one prior performance of the test program stored in a computer-readable medium.
JP discloses using reference position information that was stored in advanced when comparing position information from a position sensing means and reference position information. See page 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add to the combination of Schulz and EP that the expected position of the valve body is obtained based on a mapping of positions of the valve body over time during the at least one prior performance of the test program stored in a computer-readable medium to have an accurate comparison between expected and measured positions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-27 are allowed.
Claims 4 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to Claims 4 and 6, no prior art uses a maximum speed of the actuator rod as the diagnostic reference as claimed.
With respect to Claim 22, most of the limitations are taught in a manner similar to claim 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to merely duplicate parts. Without a specific teaching from a prior art, at best it would’ve been obvious to generate a diagnostic signal for each of the plurality of actuators and control valves. However, estimating total flow rates, expected total flow rates and detecting the diagnostic condition based on the difference therebetween is not obvious.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX T DEVITO whose telephone number is (571)270-7551. The examiner can normally be reached 12pm- 8 pm EST M-S.
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, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. 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.
/ALEX T DEVITO/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/SUMAN K NATH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights