DETAILED ACTION
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 13-15, and 18-20 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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
U.S. Patent No. 5,875,109 (Federspiel) (cited by Applicant) in view of
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0353385 (Aucoin).
Claim 1:
The cited prior art describes in an environment control system including (Federspiel: “The present invention is related to an airflow control apparatus for an environmental control system. More particularly, the present invention is related to an adaptive control system for positioning damper systems or controlling air units utilized in an environment control system.” Col. 1, lines 22-26)
an air unit for providing air flow to an environment, the air unit being operatively associated with (Federspiel: see the VAV box 38 and the air flow 64 as illustrated in figure 2)
a controller and controlling an amount of the air flow in accordance with a flow setpoint signal from the controller, the controller comprising: (Federspiel: see the controller 20 as illustrated in figure 3)
a flow sensor exposed to the air flow provided by the air unit, the flow sensor generating a flow signal representative of the amount of the air flow provided to the environment; (Federspiel: see the air flow sensor 52 as illustrated in figure 2; “Air flow sensor 52 preferably provides an air flow parameter across conductor 58 to air flow input 56.” Col. 5, lines 36-38; “a flow sensor exposed to the air flow provided by the unit, the flow sensor generating a flow signal representative of an amount of the air flow provided to the environment;” col. 15, lines 34-37
a memory; and (Federspiel: see the memory 102 as illustrated in figure 3)
a processor coupled to the memory and the flow sensor, the processor configured to (Federspiel: see the processor 100 as illustrated in figure 3)
cyclically receive the flow signal and (Federspiel: “Air flow sensor 52 (FIG. 2) generates a continuous time measurement signal z(t).” col. 6, lines 56-57; “Sampler 130 converts the continuous time measurement signal z(t) to a discrete air flow signal z(k).” col. 7, lines 21-23; “the processor configured to cyclically receive the flow signal and generate a controller output signal in response to the flow signal and the flow setpoint signal” col. 15, lines 39-42)
generate a controller output signal in response to the flow signal and the flow setpoint signal, (Federspiel: “generate a controller output signal in response to the flow signal and the flow setpoint signal” col. 15, lines 41-42; “Summer 144 calculates a setpoint tracking error signal e.sub.sp (k) based on the difference between the discrete air flow signal z(k) and the flow setpoint signal f.sub.sp (k). The flow setpoint signal f.sub.sp (k) is related to the position to which actuator 72 should have been moved (the desired air flow rate) in the previous cycle and may be user input or calculated by the controller algorithm or other hardware or software components in system 10.” Col. 7, lines 27-34)
the controller output signal being provided to the air unit to cause the air unit to provide the amount of the air flow represented by the flow setpoint signal, (Federspiel: “the controller output signal being provided to the air unit to cause the air unit to provide the amount of the air flow represented by the flow setpoint signal” col. 15, lines 41-44; “Thus, in this alternative embodiment, controller 20 is programmed to operate as a flow controller circuit 125' which generates an actuator output signal u(t) to position damper 68 (FIG. 2).” Col. 12, lines 32-35)
Federspiel does not explicitly describe using pressure factor for valve control as described below. However, Aucoin teaches the using pressure factor for valve control as described below.
the processor calculating the controller output signal in accordance with a system gain factor calculated using a pressure factor, the pressure factor representing a pressure drop across a component associated with the air unit. (Aucoin: see the position signal 628 to the valve 630 calculated from the differential pressure measurement 636 and other settings as illustrated in figure 6; “Still referring to FIG. 6, block diagram 600 is further shown to include a differential pressure sensor 634 configured to measure the differential valve pressure 632 across valve 630 and output differential pressure measurement signal 636. In some embodiments, differential pressure sensor is identical or substantially similar to differential pressure sensor 506, described above with reference to FIG. 5. Once collected, the differential pressure measurement signal 636 may be provided to the flow estimation modeler 640. Using the differential pressure measurement signal 636, along with an actuator feedback position signal 638 from the valve actuator 626, the flow estimation modeler 640 is configured to generate a flow estimation signal 642 that is provided as an input to comparator 618.” Paragraph 0096) (Federspiel: see the gmax equation as illustrated in equation 5)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Federspiel, namely, an adaptive flow controller, with the known techniques of Aucoin, namely, flow control using differential pressure data, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. Accordingly, applying the teachings of Federspiel to control flow using a system gain with the teachings of Aucoin to use pressure differential across a valve to control flow would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved flow control system. In other words, the combination of references provides for a flow control system using a system gain and pressure differential across a valve based on the teachings of a flow control system using a system gain in Federspiel and the teachings of a flow control system using a pressure differential in Aucoin.
Claim 2:
The cited prior art describes the controller of claim 1, wherein a setpoint error signal is related to a difference between a previous flow setpoint signal and the flow signal is determined. (Federspiel: “wherein the setpoint error signal is related to the difference between a previous flow setpoint signal and the flow signal.” Col. 16, lines 8-10)
Claim 3:
The cited prior art describes the controller of claim 1, wherein the memory includes a software-based control algorithm and the processor generates the flow setpoint signal in accordance with the software-based control algorithm. (Federspiel: “a memory for storing a software-based control algorithm executed by the processor for generating the flow setpoint signal in accordance with the software-based control algorithm.” Col. 16, lines 11-14)
Claim 4:
The cited prior art describes the controller of claim 2, wherein the memory includes a software-based control algorithm and the processor cyclically generates the controller output signal in accordance with cyclical operation of the software-based control algorithm, and wherein the previous flow setpoint signal is from a most recent previous cycle of operation of the control algorithm. (Federspiel: “a memory for storing a software-based control algorithm and the processor cyclically generates the controller output signal in accordance with cyclical operation of the software-based control algorithm, and wherein the previous flow setpoint signal is from a most recent previous cycle of operation of the control algorithm.” Col. 16, lines 15-21)
Claim 5:
The cited prior art describes the controller of claim 1,
wherein the memory includes a software-based control algorithm and the processor cyclically generates the controller output signal in accordance with cyclical operation of the software-based control algorithm, and (Federspiel: “a memory for storing a software-based control algorithm and the processor cyclically generates the controller output signal in accordance with cyclical operation of the software-based control algorithm” col. 16, lines 15-19)
wherein the system gain factor is a maximum system gain. (Federspiel: see the gmax equation as illustrated in equation 5; “wherein g.sub.max represents the maximum system gain.” Col. 8, line 10)
Claim 8:
Claim 8 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected based on the same reasons and rationale as described above.
8. A controller for use in an environment control system, the controller comprising:
a circuit configured to provide a control signal in response to a flow value,
wherein the control signal is related to a desired rate of flow provided across a component,
the circuit configured to provide the control signal in accordance with a system gain factor calculated using a pressure factor, the pressure factor representing a pressure drop across the component associated with a unit of the environment control system.
Claim 9:
The cited prior art describes the controller of claim 8, wherein the control signal is provided in response to a setpoint error signal is related to a difference between a flow setpoint signal generated in a previous cycle of operation and the sensed flow signal received in a current cycle of operation. (Federspiel: “a memory for storing a software-based control algorithm executed by the processor for generating the flow setpoint signal in accordance with the software-based control algorithm.” Col. 16, lines 11-14; “a memory for storing a software-based control algorithm and the processor cyclically generates the controller output signal in accordance with cyclical operation of the software-based control algorithm, and wherein the previous flow setpoint signal is from a most recent previous cycle of operation of the control algorithm.” Col. 16, lines 15-21)
Claim 10:
Claim 10 is substantially similar to claim 4 and is rejected based on the same reasons and rationale as described above.
10. The controller of claim 8, wherein the circuit provides the control signal in accordance with a software-based control algorithm.
Claim 11:
Claim 11 is substantially similar to claim 4 and is rejected based on the same reasons and rationale as described above.
11. The controller of claim 9, wherein the circuit is configured to provide the control signal in accordance with cyclical operation of a software-based control algorithm.
Claim 12:
Claim 12 is substantially similar to claim 5 and is rejected based on the same reasons and rationale as described above.
12. The controller of claim 8, wherein the circuit is configured to provide the control signal in accordance with cyclical operation of a software-based control algorithm, and wherein the system gain factor is a maximum system gain.
Claim 16:
Claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected based on the same reasons and rationale as described above.
16. In a control system including a unit for providing a flow of a fluid,
a controller for providing a controller output signal, and
a flow sensor for providing an actual flow signal,
said controller including a memory and a processor, the unit being operatively associated with the controller and controlling an amount of the flow in accordance with the controller output signal from the controller, the flow sensor being exposed to the flow provided by the unit, the flow sensor providing a flow signal representative of the amount of the flow provided, a method of controlling the amount of the flow provided by the unit comprising steps of:
receiving the flow value;
provide a control signal in response to the flow signal, wherein the control signal is related to a desired rate of flow provided across a component, the control signal is provided in accordance with a system gain factor calculated using a pressure factor, the pressure factor representing a pressure drop across the component associated with the unit.
Claim 17:
Claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 5 and is rejected based on the same reasons and rationale as described above.
17. The controller of claim 16, wherein the control signal is provided in accordance with cyclical operation of a software-based control algorithm, and wherein the system gain factor is a maximum system gain.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0003150 describes a flow rate determination system using differential pressure measurements.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0250647 describes a flow sensor output compensation system.
U.S. Patent No. 9,605,856 describes an air pressure control system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E EVERETT whose telephone number is (571)272-2851. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am to 5:00 pm (Pacific).
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/Christopher E. Everett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights