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 .
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schmidt et al. (US 2024/0329014, hereafter “Schmidt”).
Regarding claim 1, Schmidt discloses a gas flow regulation system (Fig. 1), comprising: a solenoid valve (24) configured to transition between an open position and a closed position, the solenoid valve comprising a solenoid (26); a power source (the source of power in 100; para. [0029] and [0048]); a switch configured to connect or disconnect the power source to the solenoid valve depending on a duty cycle of the system (as mentioned in para. [0048]); and a controller (40) comprising a memory storing: a mathematical model of an electrical circuit comprising the solenoid valve, the power source and the switch (para. [0038]); and instructions to execute the following steps: determine a required value of current through the solenoid; measure a response of the electrical circuit to a testing signal; calculate, based on the required value of current through the solenoid, the response of the electrical circuit to the testing signal and the mathematical model of the electrical circuit, a compensation value to a duty cycle of the system; adjust the duty cycle of the system based on the compensation value (each of these steps are necessarily disclosed in the method claimed in claim 35).
Regarding claim 2, Schmidt further discloses the gas flow regulation system of claim 1, wherein the compensation value is dependent on a switch-on time of the switch. (this is necessarily disclosed in claim 35)
Regarding claim 3, Schmidt further discloses the gas flow regulation system of claim 1, wherein the compensation value is dependent on a switch-off time of the switch. (this is necessarily disclosed in claim 35)
Regarding claim 4, Schmidt further discloses the gas flow regulation system of claim 1, wherein the compensation value is dependent on a difference between a switch-on time and a switch-off time of the switch. (this is necessarily disclosed in claim 35)
Regarding claim 5, Schmidt further discloses the gas flow regulation system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further comprise the following steps: create the mathematical model; store the mathematical model in the memory. (para. [0038])
Regarding claim 6, Schmidt further discloses the gas flow regulation system of claim 1, further comprising at least one of: the following components: an integrator, a diode, or a shunt resistor. (para. [0017] discloses diodes)
Regarding claim 8, Schmidt further discloses a method of controlling a gas flow regulation system (Fig. 1), the system comprising a solenoid valve (24) configured to move between an open position and a closed position, the solenoid valve comprising a solenoid (26); a power source (the source of power in 100; para. [0029] and [0048]); a switch configured to connect or disconnect the power source to the solenoid valve depending on a duty cycle of the system (as mentioned in para. [0048]); and a controller (40) comprising a memory storing: a mathematical model of an electrical circuit comprising the solenoid valve, the power source and the switch (para. [0038]); the method comprising: determining, by the controller, a required value of current through the solenoid; measuring, by the controller, a response of the electrical circuit to a testing signal; calculating, by the controller, based on the required value of current through the solenoid, the response of the electrical circuit to the testing signal and the mathematical model of the electrical circuit, a compensation value to a duty cycle of the system; adjusting, by the controller, the duty cycle of the system based on the compensation value (each of these steps are necessarily disclosed in the method claimed in claim 35).
Regarding claim 9, Schmidt further discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the method further comprises: measuring dependency of a difference between the duty cycle instructed by the controller and the duty cycle of the system on a switch-on time of the switch; and determining the compensation value based on the measured dependency. (this is necessarily disclosed in claim 35)
Regarding claim 10, Schmidt further discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the method further comprises: measuring dependency of a difference between the duty cycle instructed by the controller and the duty cycle of the system on a switch-off time of the switch; and determining the compensation value based on the measured dependency. (this is necessarily disclosed in claim 35)
Regarding claim 11, Schmidt further discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the method further comprises: measuring dependency of a difference between the duty cycle instructed by the controller and the duty cycle of the system on a difference between a switch-on time and a switch-off time of the switch; and determining the compensation value based on the measured dependency. (this is necessarily disclosed in claim 35)
Regarding claim 12, Schmidt further discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the method further comprises: creating, by the controller, the mathematical model; storing, by the controller, the mathematical method in the memory. (para. [0038])
Regarding claim 13, Schmidt further discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the system further comprises at least one of: the following components: an integrator, a diode, or a shunt resistor. (para. [0017] discloses diodes)
Regarding claim 15, Schmidt further discloses the gas flow regulation system of claim 2, wherein the instructions further comprise the following steps: create the mathematical model; store the mathematical model in the memory. (para. [0038])
Regarding claim 16, Schmidt further discloses the gas flow regulation system of claim 2, further comprising at least one of: an integrator, a diode, or a shunt resistor. (para. [0017] discloses diodes)
Regarding claim 17, Schmidt further discloses the gas flow regulation system of claim 3, further comprising at least one of: an integrator, a diode, or a shunt resistor. (para. [0017] discloses diodes)
Regarding claim 18, Schmidt further discloses the gas flow regulation system of claim 4, further comprising at least one of: an integrator, a diode, or a shunt resistor. (para. [0017] discloses diodes)
Regarding claim 19, Schmidt further discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the method further comprises: measuring dependency of a difference between the duty cycle instructed by the controller and the duty cycle of the system on a switch-off time of the switch; and determining the compensation value based on the measured dependency.
Regarding claim 20, Schmidt further discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the method further comprises: measuring dependency of a difference between the duty cycle instructed by the controller and the duty cycle of the system on a difference between a switch-on time and a switch-off time of the switch; and determining the compensation value based on the measured dependency. (this is necessarily disclosed in claim 35)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 14 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL J GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-0544. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, 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.
/PAUL J GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights