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 8 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the 112, first paragraph rejection, applicant points to two paragraphs that mention “learning logic” in passing and makes the unsubstantiated argument that the ordinary practioner would know what goes into the black boxes shown in the drawings. Applicant has not defined what “learning logic” means, nor has provided any evidence to support his conclusionary statement that the ordinary practioner would just know what that term means, or how to do it.
Regarding the rejection under section 103, applicant argues that the examiner provided no motivational statement as to why the ordinary practioner would combine the teachings of the references. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation to combine was clearly stated in the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 8-10, 12-14, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1. first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The written description makes a passing reference in paragraph # 0021 that some type of "learning logic" controller could be used as some type of backup logic, but exactly what is inside of the black box 238 is not elaborated upon; there is no explanation of what, specifically, the "learning logic" was, or how it was implemented, or even what it actually does. What does "learning logic" even mean? There is no definition given.
Claims 8-10, 12-14, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2. second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The term "learning logic" is undefined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 8-10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebhardt et al. (U.S. 20200408580/03/08/18) [hereinafter Gebhardt] in view of Dutcher et al. (U.S. 6158886) (hereinafter Dutcher], McCoy et al. (U.S. 20110225950/ U.S. 8495868) [hereinafter McCoy] And WU (US 2013/0226460) [hereinafter Wu]. Gebhardt discloses in Fig. 2 a device for determining/estimation temperature of a process fluid (entire disclosure) comprising obtaining a reference/ ambient temperature (electronics temperature sensor 17) at a distance from a fluid 12, determining a heat transfer behavior (based on a property of the pipe section, see claim 4 of Gebhardt), determining the temperature (temperature sensor 18/ pipe/ conduit surface temperature, the sensor is positioned externally to the pipe, thus, sensing the external surface of the pipe related to the fluid temperature by thermal conductivity/ thermal resistance, [0059]) of the fluid 12 based on the heat transfer, temperature of the pipe and reference temperature. The device also has an evaluation unit/controller 19 coupled to the measurement circuitry (at least electrical conductors) that is coupled to the sensors. Gebhardt teaches a wireless communication from sensors to connection electronics. Gebhardt states that an input variable could be also a thermal conductivity of the pipe wall/ fluid conduit [0063]. Gebhardt does not explicitly teach a particular sensor capsule having at least one temperature sensing element disposed therein, as stated in claims stated above. Dutcher discloses in Figs. 2, 3 a pipe skin/wall temperature sensor/ thermocouple having a temperature sensing element/junction 22 and an encapsulation/capsule (via opening 31) to sense at least a skin temperature of a pipe. The capsule has an endcap to thermally couple to the temperature sensing element. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time before the effective filing date to have the temperature sensing element enclosed in a capsule/ encapsulated, so as to protect it from a harsh environment, as very well known in the art. Gebhardt does not explicitly teach the particular backup logic, as stated in claims above. McCoy teaches [0028] a temperature sensing routine that include (backup) logic or software that can check for possible errors or failure of a (tank) temperature sensor 144 and ambient temperature sensor 146. The predetermined temperatures may be input to a controller and a control strategy can be adjustable, thus, temperature is corrected based on ambient temperature fluctuation or ambient (electronics) temperature sensor failure. Gebhardt does not expressly state that "learning logic" could be used as part of the controller 19 coupled to the measurement circuitry to learn about a correlation between the conduit skin temperature and the terminal temperature measurement. However, the Wu reference discloses that it was known to use neural (learning) networks to help model complex, nonlinear correlations between a sensed temperature, and an actual temperature of a fluid remote from the temperature sensor, as suggested by Wu (para. # 0013-0025), and therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner to incorporate "learning logic" as part of the controller of Gebhardt motivated by its art recognized suitability for its intended purpose. For claims 8-9: McCoy teaches measuring a representative (first) ambient temperature (Abstract, [0028]) and a predetermined (second) ambient temperature (selectively provided) that are compared [0029], and a control logic/ software (backup logic) for checking if the tank temperature sensor and ambient temperature are in error (see at least claim 10 of McCoy). The predetermined (second) temperature could be input in the controller (stored) at the time of programming (logic or software/backup logic) the control strategy configured to detect an error if they are not equal [0028]. It is considered that the (second) predetermined/ reference ambient temperature would be provided automatically. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, to have a backup logic to compensate the measurement error due to the ambient temperature/ ambient temperature sensor failure/fluctuation, to achieve more accurate results of measurements.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebhardt, 4. Dutcher, McCoy and Wu, as applied to claims above, and further in view of Zielinski et al. (U.S. 7426452) [hereinafter Zielinski]. Gebhardt, Dutcher, McCoy and Wu disclose the device as stated above. They do not explicitly teach the limitations of claims 12 & 13. Zielinski teaches to use a process communication loop protocol to wirelessly control tools (at least claim 1 of Zielinski). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time before the effective filing date to use a process communication loop to wirelessly control the device, so as to enable the operator to control a plurality of devices in different locations and communicate signals and instructions to all of them according to a particular protocol, as very well known in the art. The method steps will be met during the normal operation of the device stated above.
Claims 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebhardt, 5. Dutcher, McCoy and Wu, as applied to claims above, and further in view of Kozlow et al. (U.S. 20140356971) [hereinafter Kozlow]. Gebhardt, Dutcher, McCoy and Wu disclose the device as stated above. They do not explicitly teach a process communication, as claimed in claims 19 & 21. Kozlow teaches obtaining an ambient/ reference temperature and providing indication of it by a process communication [0028]. It is considered that a controller/ processor/ computer would be responsible for process communication, as very well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time before the effective filing date to modify the controller of Gebhardt, Dutcher and McCoy, so as to employ a process communication to obtain a reference temperature and provide its indication, so as to compare the measured temperature data to the reference, to calculate a correct temperature of interest, in order to obtain more accurate results using a known method.
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 RANDY W GIBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2103. The examiner can normally be reached Tue-Friday 10AM-6PM.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
RANDY W. GIBSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2856
/RANDY W GIBSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights