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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to applicant’s argument that the prior art reference Ohmi et al. does not disclose the amended claim language, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant states that none of the disclosed embodiments teach positioning a flow restrictor immediately adjacent to the outlet, but does not argue how the embodiment of Figure 8 that was used in the prior rejection does not disclose such a feature. Examiner has provided a cited illustration of Figure 8 to clarify how the prior art reads on the claim language as is rejected below. Applicant’s arguments directed towards the other embodiments are considered moot since they were not used the prior rejection.
Since the following grounds of rejection are being maintained, the instant Office action has been made final.
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) 1-9, 11-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohmi et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,816,285).
Regarding claim 1, Ohmi et al. disclose a gas flow control system (Figs. 1-16) for delivering a gas at a predetermined flow rate (Column 1 line 63-Column 2 line 3), the gas flow control system (1) comprising: a base (12’, Fig. 8) comprising a gas flow path (Fig. 8) extending from a gas inlet (cited below) to a gas outlet (cited below); a proportional valve (2’, control valve functions as a proportional valve as is disclosed in Column 1 line 63-Column 2 line 3) operably coupled to the gas flow path (Fig. 8), the proportional valve (2’) coupled (Fig. 8) to the base (12’); a flow restrictor (5, cited below) having a flow impedance (Column located (Fig. 8) between the proportional valve (2’) and the gas outlet (cited below); and a pressure transducer (3) fluidly coupled to a volume (Fig. 8) of the gas flow path defined between (Fig. 8) the proportional valve (2’) and the flow restrictor (5); wherein the flow restrictor (5) is located within the gas flow path (Fig. 8) immediately adjacent (illustrated below) the gas outlet (cited below).
PNG
media_image1.png
1068
942
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Ohmi et al. disclose the gas flow control system (Figs. 1-16), wherein the proportional valve (2’) is the only valve (Fig. 8) coupled to the base (12’).
Regarding claim 3, Ohmi et al. disclose the gas flow control system (Figs. 1-16), wherein the pressure transducer (3) is configured to sense a pressure (Column 5 lines 41-45) within the volume (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 4, Ohmi et al. disclose the gas flow control system (Figs. 1-16), wherein the proportional valve (2’) further comprises an orifice (cited above) and a poppet (16) configured to obstruct the orifice (cited above), the pressure transducer (3) configured to measure a pressure between the orifice and the flow restrictor (5, cited above).
Regarding claim 5, Ohmi et al. disclose the gas flow control system (Figs. 1-16), wherein a passage (passage to mounting hole 12d, Fig. 8) fluidly connects the volume (Fig. 8) to the pressure transducer (3).
Regarding claim 6, Ohmi et al. disclose the gas flow control system (Figs. 1-16), wherein the passage (passage to mounting hole 12d, Fig. 8) extends immediately adjacent (Fig. 8) to an orifice (cited above) of the proportional valve (2’).
Regarding claim 7, Ohmi et al. disclose a flow control system (Figs. 1-16) for delivering a fluid at a predetermined flow rate (Column 1 line 63-Column 2 line 3), the flow control system (1) comprising: a base (12’) comprising a flow path (Fig. 8) extending from an inlet (cited above) to an outlet (cited above); a proportional valve (2’, control valve functions as a proportional valve as is disclosed in Column 1 line 63-Column 2 line 3) operably coupled (Fig. 8) to the base (12’) to control fluid flow through the flow path (Fig. 8), the proportional valve (2’) comprising an orifice (cited above) and a poppet (16); a flow restrictor (5, cited above) having a flow impedance located (Fig. 8) between the proportional valve (2’) and the outlet (cited above); and a pressure transducer (3) fluidly coupled to a volume (Fig. 8) of the flow path defined between the proportional valve (2’) and the flow restrictor (5, cited above); wherein the flow restrictor (5) is located within a bore (bore housing the restrictor cited above) formed in the base (12’), the bore (Fig. 8) forming a portion of the flow path (Fig. 8) and extending from the outlet (cited above).
Regarding claim 8, Ohmi et al. disclose the flow control system (Figs. 1-16), wherein the flow path (Fig. 8) comprises an inlet portion (Fig. 8) between the inlet (cited above) and the orifice (cited above) and an outlet portion (Fig. 8) between the orifice (cited above) and the outlet (cited above), the flow restrictor (5, cited above) located within the outlet portion (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 9, Ohmi et al. disclose the flow control system (Figs. 1-16), further comprising a passage (passage to mounting hole 12d, Fig. 8) fluidly connecting the volume (Fig. 8) to the pressure transducer (3).
Regarding claim 11, Ohmi et al. disclose the flow control system (Figs. 1-16), wherein the passage (passage to mounting hole 12d, Fig. 8) joins the volume immediately adjacent (Fig. 8) to the orifice (cited above).
Regarding claim 12, Ohmi et al. disclose the flow control system (Figs. 1-16), wherein the proportional valve (2’) is the only valve (Fig. 8) coupled to the base (12’).
Regarding claim 13, Ohmi et al. disclose the flow control system (Figs. 1-16), wherein flow restrictor (5, cited above) is inserted into an outlet portion (Column 7 lines 43-50) of the flow path (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 14, Ohmi et al. disclose a flow control system (Figs. 1-16) for delivering a fluid at a predetermined flow rate (Column 1 line 63-Column 2 line 3), the flow control system (1) comprising: a base (12’) comprising a flow path (Fig. 8) extending from an inlet (cited above) to an outlet (cited above); a proportional valve (2’, control valve functions as a proportional valve as is disclosed in Column 1 line 63-Column 2 line 3) operably coupled to the base (12’) to control fluid flow through the flow path (Fig. 8), the proportional valve (2’) comprising an orifice (cited above) and a poppet (16); a flow restrictor (5, cited above) having a flow impedance located between the proportional valve (2’) and the outlet (cited above); a pressure transducer (3) configured to measure a pressure (Column 5 lines 41-45) within a volume (Fig. 8) of the flow path (Fig. 8) defined between the proportional valve (2’) and the flow restrictor (5, cited above); and a passage (passage to mounting hole 12d, Fig. 8) fluidly connecting the volume (Fig. 8) to the pressure transducer (3); wherein the flow restrictor (5, cited above) is located within a portion (portion housing the restrictor cited above) of the flow path (Fig. 8) immediately adjacent (as illustrated above) the outlet (cited above), the portion (portion housing the restrictor cited above) of the flow path (Fig. 8) having a constant diameter (Fig. 8) extending from the outlet (cited above).
Regarding claim 15, Ohmi et al. disclose the flow control system (Figs. 1-16), wherein the flow path (Fig. 8) comprises an inlet portion (Fig. 8) between the inlet (cited above) and the orifice (cited above) and an outlet portion (Fig. 8) between the orifice (cited above) and the outlet (cited above), the flow restrictor (5, cited above) located within the outlet portion (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 17, Ohmi et al. disclose the flow control system (Figs. 1-16), wherein the proportional valve (2’) is the only valve (Fig. 8) coupled to the base (12’).
Regarding claim 18, Ohmi et al. disclose the flow control system (Figs. 1-16), wherein the passage (passage to mounting hole 12d, Fig. 8) joins the volume (Fig. 8) immediately adjacent (Fig. 8) to the orifice (cited above).
Regarding claim 19, Ohmi et al. disclose the flow control system (Figs. 1-16), wherein flow restrictor (5, cited above) is inserted into an outlet portion (Column 7 lines 43-50) of the flow path (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 20, Ohmi et al. disclose the flow control system (Figs. 1-16), wherein the pressure transducer (3) is configured to sense a pressure (Column 5 lines 41-45) within the volume (Fig. 8).
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.
Claim(s) 10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohmi et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,816,285).
Regarding claims 10 and 16, Ohmi et al. disclose the flow control system (Figs. 1-16), wherein the passage (passage to mounting hole 12d, Fig. 8) has a first length (Fig. 8) along the passage from the pressure transducer (3) to the orifice (cited above) and the volume (Fig. 8) has a second length (Fig. 8) from the orifice (cited above) to the flow restrictor (5), but lacks disclosure of the second length being less than the first length.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the second length of Ohmi et al. to be less than the first length, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentable distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, based on the general sizes shown in the drawings a certain albeit unknown first and second length dimension is present in Ohmi et al, the differences between the unknown length dimensions and that claimed would not have the system operate differently with the claimed length dimensions since a longer first length dimension of the passage would still determine the same fluid pressure and function in the same manner as the inventor’s disclosed pressure transducer. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A): Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.").
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 Reinaldo Sanchez-Medina, telephone number 571-270-5168, fax number 571-270-6168. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (7:30AM-4:00PM EST).
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 supervisors can be reached by phone. Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 or 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.
/REINALDO SANCHEZ-MEDINA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights