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 .
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: The term "HVAC" should read "Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning (HVAC)". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: The term “A control device for controlling a flow control system in an HVAC system, which flow control system comprises an actuated valve for adjusting a flow of fluid in a fluid transport circuit of the HVAC system, the control device comprising an electronic circuit configured to perform the method of claim 1” should read “A control device for controlling the flow control system in the HVAC system, in which the flow control system comprises the actuated valve for adjusting the flow of fluid in the fluid transport circuit of the HVAC system, the control device comprising the electronic circuit configured to perform the method of claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 4, 8-10, 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nose, European Patent Num EP3483690A1 (hereinafter Nose).
Claim 1
Nose discloses a method of controlling a flow control system in an HVAC system (Nose, para 7 - The fluid flow system may be a heating, cooling, or process system.), which flow control system comprises an actuated valve for adjusting a flow of fluid in a fluid transport circuit of the HVAC system (Nose, para 5 – Controlling a fluid flow through a valve arranged in a fluid flow system), the method comprising an electronic circuit (Nose, para 5-6 – A system/”electronic circuit” which determines a desired flow through the system.) performing: receiving and storing, during operation of the flow control system, a plurality of flow values measured in the fluid transport circuit by a flow sensor for respective valve positions of the actuated valve (Nose, para 5, 22, 29 - Measuring a flow rate by a flow sensor with the measured flow rate having a corresponding opening degree/”valve position” of the valve and establishing a relationship between actual flow rate and opening degree of the valve, based on the measurements of the flow rate during change of the opening degree. The information is stored in a look up table used to determine correction values.); determining, during the operation of the flow control system, installed valve characteristics of the actuated valve as installed in the HVAC system, using the plurality of flow values for the respective valve positions (Nose, para 18-22, 42 – Calibrating/”determining valve characteristics of the actuate valve” occurs during operation of the fluid flow system using the measurements made by the flow rate sensor to determine correction values.); and controlling the actuated valve to adjust the flow of the fluid in the fluid transport circuit, using the installed valve characteristics. (Nose, para 20-21 - The fluid flow through the valve is controlled on the basis of measured flow rate in the fluid flow system using the correction values determined by the calibration.)
This rejection also applies to claim 16.
Claim 4
Nose discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Nose further discloses determining a feedback control value from a flow setpoint, using a current flow value measured in the fluid transport circuit by the flow sensor and the installed valve characteristics, and using the feedback control value to control the actuated valve to adjust the flow of the fluid in the fluid transport circuit. (Nose, para 36-37 – Using a feedback control loop with a flow set point value and measured current flow rate to adjust the flow rate of the fluid by adjusting the valve and determining if calibration is needed.)
Claim 8
Nose discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Nose further discloses determining the installed valve characteristics for a complete operating range of the actuated valve, from a minimum valve position to a maximum valve position. (Nose, para 29-30, 53 – Measuring flow rates for a range of valve positions from a starting opening/”minimum position” thru increased opening sizes until finished/”maximum position”.)
Claim 9
Nose discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Nose further discloses determining the installed valve characteristics by iteratively adjusting parameters of a mathematical approximation function which defines the installed valve characteristics, using the plurality of flow values for the respective valve positions. (Nose, para 27-28, claims 6-7 - establishing a relationship is based on a valve characteristic function, where the valve characteristic function defines a linear relation between the flow rate, Q, and opening degree ϕ of the valve.)
Claim 10
Nose discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Nose further discloses determining the installed valve characteristics by fitting a mathematical approximation function to at least one of: the plurality of flow values for the respective valve positions over a complete operating range of the actuated valve or over a partial operating range of the actuated valve around a current operating point. (Nose, para 27-28, claims 6-7 - Establishing a relationship based on a valve characteristic function, where the valve characteristic function defines a linear relation between the flow rate, Q, and opening degree ϕ of the valve over the range of valve openings.)
Claim 13
Nose discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Nose further discloses receiving a temperature value, and using the temperature value for determining a flow setpoint for the flow control system providing, through the fluid transport circuit, the flow of the fluid to a thermal energy exchanger. (Nose, para 46 - The fluid flow supplied to each of the secondary heat exchangers is controlled by means of a valve , which may advantageously be temperature controlled. Furthermore, the fluid flow from the primary heat exchanger towards the secondary heat exchangers is controlled by means of a valve being controlled on the basis of measurements of the temperature of the cold side of the primary heat exchanger.)
Claim 14
Nose discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Nose further discloses determining the installed valve characteristics using inherent valve characteristics of the actuated valve. (Nose, para 26, 29 – The characteristic function determined upon manufacturing of the valve to describe behavior of the valve within the system. The look-up table may be established either at the installation of the valve, or may represent manufacturing settings.)
Claim 15
Nose discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Nose further discloses a control device for controlling the flow control system in the HVAC system. (Nose, para 15 – A controller for the fluid flow system.)
Claim 18
Nose discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Nose further discloses non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon computer program code which, when executed by a processor of a flow control system in an HVAC system, which flow control system comprises an actuated valve for adjusting a flow of fluid in a fluid transport circuit of the HVAC system. (Nose, para 2-3 – System controllers as part of a building management system would use generic computers with processors and memory to perform program code.)
Claim 19
Nose discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Nose further discloses the minimum valve position is a fully closed valve position, and the maximum valve position is a fully open valve position. (Nose, para 5, 11 – Valve positions range from a closed position through different opening degrees that allow different rates of flow, in which a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, for a valve with a movable element as described, would include the range of opening from fully closed to fully open.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 2-3, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nose, European Patent Num EP3483690A1 (hereinafter Nose)as applied to claims 1, 4, 8-10, 13-19 above, in view of Ahmed et al, US Patent Num US 5579993 A (hereinafter Ahmed).
Claim 2
Nose discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Nose fails to specify receiving a flow setpoint, determining a feedforward control value from the flow setpoint and the installed valve characteristics, and using the feedforward control value to control the actuated valve to adjust the flow of the fluid in the fluid transport circuit.
However Ahmed teaches receiving a flow setpoint, determining a feedforward control value from the flow setpoint and the installed valve characteristics, and using the feedforward control value to control the actuated valve to adjust the flow of the fluid in the fluid transport circuit. (Ahmed, Col 3 lines 60-67 - the controller includes a feedforward means for generating a feedforward control signal based on the identified characteristics of the component and calculated system variables and then controls the component based on the feedforward control signal.)
Nose and Ahmed are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to HVAC systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above HVAC system, as taught by Nose, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Ahmed.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to generate an improved control signal to control components within the HVAC distribution system by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Ahmed (abstract).
This rejection also applies to claim 17.
Claim 3
The combination of Nose and Ahmed teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Nose and Ahmed further teaches determining a feedback control value from the flow setpoint and a current flow value measured in the fluid transport circuit by the flow sensor, and further using the feedback control value to control the actuated valve to adjust the flow of the fluid in the fluid transport circuit. (Nose, para 36 – Using a feedback control loop with a flow set point value and measured current flow rate to adjust the flow rate of the fluid by adjusting the valve.)
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nose, European Patent Num EP3483690A1 (hereinafter Nose)as applied to claims 1, 4, 8-10, 13-19 above, in view of Ahmed et al, US Patent Num US 5579993 A (hereinafter Ahmed) as applied to claims 2-3, 17 above, and in view of Thuillard et al, US Patent Pub US 20160054741 A1 (hereinafter Thuillard)
Claim 5
The combination of Nose and Ahmed teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Nose and Ahmed fails to specify adjusting control parameters to determine the feedback control value with reduced responsiveness in a lower operating range of the actuated valve.
However Thuillard teaches adjusting control parameters to determine the feedback control value with reduced responsiveness in a lower operating range of the actuated valve. (Thuillard, para 80 - Reducing the control signal/responsiveness Z by a defined decrement by reducing the opening/”lower operation range” of the valve.)
Nose, Ahmed, and Thuillard are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to HVAC systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above HVAC system, as taught by Nose and Ahmed, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Thuillard.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to regulate the flow of a fluid through a thermal energy exchanger for efficient operation of the thermal exchanger by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Thuillard (para 5).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nose, European Patent Num EP3483690A1 (hereinafter Nose)as applied to claims 1, 4, 8-10, 13-19 above, in view of Ahmed et al, US Patent Num US 5579993 A (hereinafter Ahmed) as applied to claims 2-3, 17 above, and in view of Miura et al, US Patent Pub US 20140358299 A1 (hereinafter Miura)
Claim 6
The combination of Nose and Ahmed teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Nose and Ahmed fails to specify adjusting control parameters to determine the feedback control value depending on a rate of change of the flow setpoint.
However Miura teaches adjusting control parameters to determine the feedback control value depending on a rate of change of the flow setpoint. (Miura, para 8. 115-117 – Adjusting control actions of an actuator in a feedback control system based on a set point change rate.)
Nose, Ahmed, and Miura are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to HVAC systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above HVAC system, as taught by Nose and Ahmed, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Miura.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to maintain stability in control responsiveness by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Miura (para 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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: Applicant’s claim defines over the prior art of record because the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, does not teach determining the installed valve characteristics to indicate for any particular valve position, in an operating range of the actuated valve, the flow of the fluid at the particular valve position of the actuated valve for at least one of: at a particular differential pressure over the fluid transport circuit or normalized for any differential pressure over the fluid transport circuit.
Claim 11 is 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: Applicant’s claim defines over the prior art of record because the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, does not teach determining an estimated current differential pressure over the fluid transport circuit, using the installed valve characteristics and temporal changes of the flow of the fluid in the fluid transport circuit; and generating an output signal indicative of the estimated current differential pressure.
Claim 12 is 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: Applicant’s claim defines over the prior art of record because the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, does not teach storing a first set of the plurality of flow values and respective valve positions of the actuated valve, measured when the respective valve positions are attained by the actuated valve in a process of reducing the flow of the fluid in the fluid transport circuit; storing a second set of the plurality of flow values and respective valve positions of the actuated valve, measured when the respective valve positions are attained by the actuated valve in a process of increasing the flow of the fluid in the fluid transport circuit; determining, during the operation of the flow control system, at least one of: first installed valve characteristics, using the first set of the plurality of flow values,
second installed valve characteristics, using the second set of the plurality of flow values, or
intermediate installed valve characteristics, using the first set of the plurality of flow values and the second set of the plurality of flow values; and controlling the actuated valve to adjust the flow of the fluid in the fluid transport circuit, using the at least one of: the first installed valve characteristics, the second installed valve characteristics, or the intermediate installed valve characteristics.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Reider et al, US Patent Pub US 20190264947 A1 relates to claims regarding valve control using feedforward and feedback values.
Noboa, US Patent Pub US 20210172777 A1 relates to claims regarding system for controlling a flow rate of a fluid through a valve using feedback control based on valve positions.
Pierson et al, US Patent Pub US 20210341165 A1 relates to claims regarding an HVAC device with a valve assembly for controlling a flow of a fluid.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E OGG whose telephone number is (469) 295-9163. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Thurs 7:30 am - 5:00 pm CT.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. 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.
/DAVID EARL OGG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights