DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 28 July 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagarajan (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0348702) in view of Somani (U.S. Patent 10,054,959) in further view of Isobe (U.S. Patent 8,356,623).
Regarding claim 1, Nagarajan discloses a mass flow controller (FIG. 1) comprising:
a first flow path (See Annotated Image below) connected to an inflow path (See Annotated Image below) configured to allow fluid to flow into the mass flow controller;
a second flow path (See Annotated Image below) connected to an outflow path (See Annotated Image below) configured to allow the fluid to flow out of the mass flow controller;
a bypass flow path (14/15/16) connected to the first flow path and the second flow path;
a pressure sensor 24 configured to measure pressure of a first space comprising a portion of the bypass flow path and the first flow path; and
a control unit 28 configured to control the internal valve (FIG. 1; Paragraph 19-21, 34).
Annotated Image (From Nagarajan FIG. 1)
PNG
media_image1.png
503
868
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nagarajan is silent regarding an internal valve in the bypass flow path;
a flow rate sensor configured to measure a flow rate of fluid flowing through the bypass flow path;
wherein the control unit is configured to calculate a pressure-flow rate correlation coefficient, based on: a difference between a first pressure value of the first space measured by the pressure sensor at a first time at which or after flow of the fluid stops and a second pressure value of the first space measured by the pressure sensor at a second time after the first time; and a first amount of leakage of fluid measured by the flow rate sensor from the first time up to the second time,
wherein the control unit is configured to calculate a delay time, based on the pressure-flow rate correlation coefficient and a difference between the first pressure value of the first space measured by the pressure sensor at the first time and a third pressure value measured by the pressure sensor at a third time after the second time, and
wherein the control unit is configured to delay opening of the internal valve for an amount of time corresponding to the delay time.
However, Somani teaches a mass flow controller 5 comprising:
a first flow path connected to an inflow path 10 configured to allow fluid to flow into the mass flow controller;
a second flow path connected to an outflow path 41 configured to allow the fluid to flow out of the mass flow controller;
a bypass flow path (between 20 and 42) connected to the first flow path and the second flow path;
an internal valve 136 in the bypass flow path;
a pressure sensor 124 (FIG. 1-4; Col. 14 ln 14-64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, to modify Nagarajan by adding an internal valve in the bypass flow path, as taught by Somani, for the purpose of controlling the fluid flow through the bypass line.
Furthermore, Isobe teaches a flow rate sensor 411/412 configured to measure a flow rate of fluid flowing through the bypass flow path (FIG. 1; Col. 4 ln 35-39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, to modify Nagarajan by adding a flow rate sensor configured to measure a flow rate of fluid flowing through the bypass flow path, as taught by Isobe, for the purpose of calculating the rate of flow through the mass flow controller.
MPEP 2114 II clearly states “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does" and “A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Therefore, regarding the control unit is configured to calculate a pressure-flow rate correlation coefficient, based on: a difference between a first pressure value of the first space measured by the pressure sensor at a first time at which or after flow of the fluid stops and a second pressure value of the first space measured by the pressure sensor at a second time after the first time; and a first amount of leakage of fluid measured by the flow rate sensor from the first time up to the second time,
wherein the control unit is configured to calculate a delay time, based on the pressure-flow rate correlation coefficient and a difference between the first pressure value of the first space measured by the pressure sensor at the first time and a third pressure value measured by the pressure sensor at a third time after the second time, and
wherein the control unit is configured to delay opening of the internal valve for an amount of time corresponding to the delay time, the invention as taught by the combined teachings of Nagarajan, Somani, and Isobe are deemed fully capable of performing such function. Nagarajan comprises controller 28 which is capable of calculating a pressure-flow rate correlation coefficient, based on: a difference between a first pressure value of the first space measured by the pressure sensor at a first time at which or after flow of the fluid stops and a second pressure value of the first space measured by the pressure sensor at a second time after the first time; and a first amount of leakage of fluid measured by the flow rate sensor from the first time up to the second time, calculating a delay time, based on the pressure-flow rate correlation coefficient and a difference between the first pressure value of the first space measured by the pressure sensor at the first time and a third pressure value measured by the pressure sensor at a third time after the second time, and delaying opening of the internal valve for an amount of time corresponding to the delay time. Therefore, the claim limitations are met by the combination of the references put forth in this action.
Regarding claim 2, Nagarajan, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above in claim 1.
Nagarajan is silent regarding the control unit is configured to calculate the pressure-flow rate correlation coefficient by dividing the first amount of leakage of fluid from the first time up to the second time by the difference between the first pressure value of the first space at the first time and the second pressure value of the first space at the second time.
However, MPEP 2114 II clearly states “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does" and “A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Because Claim 2 fails to further limit the apparatus in terms of structure, but rather only recite further functional limitations, regarding the control unit being configured to calculate the pressure-flow rate correlation coefficient by dividing the first amount of leakage of fluid from the first time up to the second time by the difference between the first pressure value of the first space at the first time and the second pressure value of the first space at the second time, the invention as taught by the combined teachings of Nagarajan, Somani, and Isobe are deemed fully capable of performing such function. Nagarajan comprises the controller unit 28 which is capable of being calculating the pressure-flow rate correlation coefficient by dividing the first amount of leakage of fluid from the first time up to the second time by the difference between the first pressure value of the first space at the first time and the second pressure value of the first space at the second time. Therefore, the claim limitations are met by the combination of the references put forth in this action.
Regarding claim 3, Nagarajan, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above in claim 1.
Nagarajan is silent regarding the control unit is configured to calculate a second amount of leakage of fluid from the first time up to the third time by multiplying the pressure-flow rate correlation coefficient by the difference between the first pressure value of the first space measured by the pressure sensor at the first time and the third pressure value measured by the pressure sensor at the third time, and the control unit is configured to calculate the delay time by dividing the second amount of leakage of fluid from the first time up to the third time by a value of a set fluid flow rate.
However, MPEP 2114 II clearly states “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does" and “A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Because Claim 3 fails to further limit the apparatus in terms of structure, but rather only recite further functional limitations, regarding calculating a second amount of leakage of fluid from the first time up to the third time by multiplying the pressure-flow rate correlation coefficient by the difference between the first pressure value of the first space measured by the pressure sensor at the first time and the third pressure value measured by the pressure sensor at the third time, and the control unit is configured to calculate the delay time by dividing the second amount of leakage of fluid from the first time up to the third time by a value of a set fluid flow rate, the invention as taught by the combined teachings of Nagarajan, Somani, and Isobe are deemed fully capable of performing such function. Nagarajan comprises the controller unit 28 which is capable of calculating a second amount of leakage of fluid from the first time up to the third time by multiplying the pressure-flow rate correlation coefficient by the difference between the first pressure value of the first space measured by the pressure sensor at the first time and the third pressure value measured by the pressure sensor at the third time, and the control unit is configured to calculate the delay time by dividing the second amount of leakage of fluid from the first time up to the third time by a value of a set fluid flow rate. Therefore, the claim limitations are met by the combination of the references put forth in this action.
Regarding claim 4, Nagarajan, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above in claim 1.
Nagarajan/Somani further teaches the internal valve is a solenoid valve or a piezoelectric valve (Somani Col. 4 ln 58-64).
Regarding claim 5, Nagarajan, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above in claim 1.
Nagarajan further discloses a first valve 20 between the inflow path and the first flow path, and a second valve 22 between the outflow path and the second flow path; and
a control device 28 configured to control the first valve and the second valve (FIG. 1; Paragraph 19-21).
Regarding claim 6, Nagarajan, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above in claim 5.
Nagarajan further discloses each of the first valve and the second valve is a shut-off valve (FIG. 1; Paragraph 19-21).
Regarding claim 7, Nagarajan, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above in claim 5.
Nagarajan is silent regarding at the third time, the control device is configured to restart fluid flow and open each of the first valve and the second valve, and wherein control unit is configured to open the internal valve after the delay time has elapsed from the third time.
However, MPEP 2114 II clearly states “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does" and “A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Because Claim 7 fails to further limit the apparatus in terms of structure, but rather only recite further functional limitations, regarding at the third time, the control device is configured to restart fluid flow and open each of the first valve and the second valve, and wherein control unit is configured to open the internal valve after the delay time has elapsed from the third time, the invention as taught by the combined teachings of Nagarajan, Somani, and Isobe are deemed fully capable of performing such function. Nagarajan comprises the controller unit 28 which is capable of at the third time, the control device is configured to restart fluid flow and open each of the first valve and the second valve, and wherein control unit is configured to open the internal valve after the delay time has elapsed from the third time. Therefore, the claim limitations are met by the combination of the references put forth in this action.
Regarding claim 8, Nagarajan, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above in claim 7.
Nagarajan is silent regarding after restart of the fluid flow, the control unit is configured to re-calculate the pressure-flow rate correlation coefficient based on a second amount of leakage of fluid from the first space measured by the flow rate sensor, and based on a difference between a fourth pressure value of the first space measured by the pressure sensor at a fourth time at which the flow of the fluid stops and a fifth pressure value of the first space measured by the pressure sensor at a fifth time after the fourth time.
However, MPEP 2114 II clearly states “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does" and “A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Because Claim 8 fails to further limit the apparatus in terms of structure, but rather only recite further functional limitations, regarding after restart of the fluid flow, the control unit is configured to re-calculate the pressure-flow rate correlation coefficient based on a second amount of leakage of fluid from the first space measured by the flow rate sensor, and based on a difference between a fourth pressure value of the first space measured by the pressure sensor at a fourth time at which the flow of the fluid stops and a fifth pressure value of the first space measured by the pressure sensor at a fifth time after the fourth time, the invention as taught by the combined teachings of Nagarajan, Somani, and Isobe are deemed fully capable of performing such function. Nagarajan comprises the controller unit 28 which is capable of after restart of the fluid flow, the control unit is configured to re-calculate the pressure-flow rate correlation coefficient based on a second amount of leakage of fluid from the first space measured by the flow rate sensor, and based on a difference between a fourth pressure value of the first space measured by the pressure sensor at a fourth time at which the flow of the fluid stops and a fifth pressure value of the first space measured by the pressure sensor at a fifth time after the fourth time. Therefore, the claim limitations are met by the combination of the references put forth in this action.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the closest prior art fails to anticipate or make obvious calculating a pressure-flow rate correlation coefficient based on the difference between the first and second pressure values and the amount of leakage of fluid; measuring a difference between the first pressure value of the first space at the first time and a third pressure value of the first space at the third time, and calculating a delay time based on the difference between the first and third pressure values and on the pressure-flow rate correlation coefficient; and delaying opening of an internal valve of the mass flow controller, for the delay time from the third time, along with the other limitations of the claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER D BALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9984. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00-3:00.
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, Craig M Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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 D BALLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/MICHAEL R REID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
