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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8-13, 17, 18, 20-25, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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The rejection of claims 2, 3, 14, 15, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is withdrawn in view of their cancellation in the amendment filed 8 October 2025.
The term “substantial” in claims 1, 13, and 25, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantial” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification does not provide an amount of deviation from a nominal value that Applicant considers to be “substantial” but merely provides that “the electrical properties may remain substantially repeatable (e.g., may remain within a specified range of the nominal value)” (Published Application, ¶ [0064]) and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of a “substantial deviation.”
Claims 27 and 29 are indefinite because they recite “a first terminal…electrically coupled to the end of the conductive wire” (ll. 2-3) and “a second terminal… electrically coupled to the end of the conductive wire” (ll. 3-5). It is not understood how a single end of the conductive wire is which is coupled to both first and second terminals and for the purpose of applying prior art in the rejection below, the language is treated as first and second terminals being coupled to different ends of the conductive wire.
Claims 5, 6, 8-12, 17, 18, 20-24, and 27-29 are also indefinite because of their dependence from claims 1, 13, and 25, respectively.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 8-13, 17, 18, 20-25, and 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Schwenter et al. (US 2020/0251265 A1) in view of Ito (US 2017/0278620 A1), and further, in view of Campbell et al. (US 5,987,998).
Regarding claim 1, Schwenter et al. discloses a coil transducer (fig. 1) for elevated temperatures, the coil transducer comprising: a coil portion (1) including a coil (14), the coil (14) being comprised of: a conductive wire (wire 14; ¶ [0044]); and an electrical insulator (14a) coating the conductive wire (wire 14 is jacketed by ceramic insulating layer 14a; ¶ [0044]); and a bobbin (11, 12), the coil (14) being disposed about the bobbin (coil 14 is wound around coil carrier 12; fig. 3); wherein the coil (14) is configured to have a repeatable conductivity without a substantial deviation from a nominal value over a plurality of temperature cycles including at least a temperature range that is greater than 350° C (coil 14 is a coil wire of an electrically conductive material and is electrically conductively connected to connection lines 111 and 112 to operate in a measuring transducer at temperatures above 350° C and any change in temperatures is a “temperature cycle,” therefore, coil 14 must have a conductivity that is repeatable, to some degree, without some degree of substantial deviation from some nominal value, over a plurality of temperature changes, including a temperature range greater than 350 °C; ¶¶ [0010, 0012, 0048]), comprising at least one of the conductive wire (14) and the electrical insulator (14A) being thermal-expansion compatibles of each other over the temperature range (coil 14 and insulating layer 14a must be thermal-expansion compatibles of each other, to some degree), and the electrical insulator coating (14a) being substantially non-conductive over the plurality of temperature cycles including the temperature range (for coil transducer 1 to operate above 350° C, ceramic insulating layer 14a must function as an insulator and be substantially non-conductive, to some degree, over the plurality of temperature cycles including above 350° C; ¶ [0012]).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Schwenter et al. discloses wherein each of the plurality of temperature cycles includes the temperature range (temperature cycles of the operation of coil transducer 1 includes temperatures above 350° C; ¶ [0012]); wherein the electrical insulator (14a) comprises a ceramic coating on the conductive wire (insulating layer 14a is a ceramic layer disposed on coil wire 14; ¶ [0044]).
Regarding claim 8, Schwenter et al. discloses wherein the conductive wire (14) and at least one of the bobbin (11, 12) and the ceramic coating (14a) are thermal-expansion compatibles of each other (coil 14, base 11, coil carrier 12, and ceramic layer 14a have coefficients of thermal expansion that are compatible to each other to some degree).
Regarding claims 9-12, Schwenter et al. discloses wherein the conductive wire (14) comprises a magnetic material (silver alloy such as AgNiO includes nickel which is magnetic; [0044]); wherein the conductive wire (14) comprises a material that includes one of nickel, a nickel alloy, a platinum-rhodium alloy, a platinum-iridium alloy, and a niobium-tantalum-tungsten alloy (AgNiO is an alloy that includes nickel; ¶ [0044]); wherein the temperature range is one of from 350° C to 500° C, from 350° C to 427° C (coil transducer 1 operates above 350° C, and above 400° C; ¶ [0012]), from 410° C to 500 ° C, and from 410° C to 427 ° C; further comprising a magnet portion (2; fig. 5), the magnet portion (2) being configured to spatially displace relative to the coil portion (magnet 2 is spatially displaced relative to coil transducer 1; fig. 5).
Regarding claim 27, Schwenter et al. discloses wherein the conductive wire (14; fig. 1) has an end (14+, 14#), wherein the bobbin (11, 12) comprises a body (11), a first terminal (111) disposed in an interior of the body (11) and electrically coupled to the end of the conductive wire (connection line 111 extends through base 11 of the bobbin and is electrically coupled to end 14+ of coil wire 14; fig. 1), and a second terminal (112) disposed in the interior of the body (11) and electrically coupled to the end of the conductive wire (connection line 112 extends through base 11 of the bobbin and is electrically coupled to end 14# of coil wire 14; fig. 1), and wherein the coil transducer (fig. 5) further comprises a mounting bracket coupled to the bobbin (11, 12) in order to couple the coil portion (1) to a conduit (102) of a meter assembly (screw 13 mounts coil carrier 12 and base 11 to an unnumbered bracket to couple coil 1 to measuring tube 102; fig. 5).
Regarding claim 28, Schwenter et al. discloses further comprising a magnet portion (2; fig. 5) comprising a magnet (center portion of permanent magnet 2; fig. 5), wherein the bobbin (11, 12) further has a magnet receiving portion (12A; fig. 2) configured to receive the magnet (passageway 12A receives a center portion of permanent magnet 2; fig. 5), and an end face disposed opposite the magnet receiving portion (a leftmost face of base 11 is an end face; figs. 3 and 5), and wherein the first and second terminals (111, 112) are each disposed between the magnet receiving portion (12A) and the end face (connecting lines 111 and 112 are disposed between passageway 12A and a leftmost
face of base 11; fig. 5).
Schwenter et al. is silent as to explicit values for the coefficients of thermal expansion of the conductive wire and the insulator.
Ito teaches a coil (30) comprised of conductive wire (32; ¶ [0050]); and an electrical insulator (33) coating the conductive wire (insulating layer 33 is disposed on copper foil 32; ¶ [0050]); wherein the conductive wire (32) and the electrical insulator coating (33) being thermal-expansion compatibles of each other comprises the conductive wire (32) and the electrical insulator coating (33) having substantially equal coefficients of thermal expansion thereby allowing the electrical insulator to expand at substantially the same rate as the conductive wire (copper foil 32 and insulating layer 33 have approximately equal thermal expansion coefficients in that copper foil 32 has a thermal expansion coefficient of 17 ppm/°C and insulating layer 33 has a thermal expansion coefficient of 10 to 24 ppm/°C which allows them to expand at substantially the same rate when exposed to heat; ¶ [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Schwenter et al. with the thermal-expansion coefficients of Ito to prevent a difference in expansion causing separation between a conductor and insulator during heating of a coil (Ito, ¶ [0013]).
Although Ito teaches the conductive wire and electrical insulator have substantially the same coefficients of thermal expansion, Ito is silent on the coefficients of thermal expansion being equal.
Campbell et al. teaches selecting materials for components of a coil transducer (104) that have equal coefficients of thermal expansion, thereby allowing the components to expand at the same rate at high temperatures (all components of magnet assembly 201 and coil assembly 202 of driver 104 are made of materials having matching coefficients of thermal expansion to allow the materials to expand and contract at the same rate at high temperatures; c. 2, ll. 36-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to further modify the apparatus of Schwenter et al. in view of Ito with the equal coefficients of thermal expansion as taught in Campbell et al. to prevent damage to the coil by allowing the coil materials to expand and contract at the same rate (Campbell et al., c. 2, ll. 37-41). In modifying the apparatus of Schwenter et al. in view of Ito, with that of Campbell et al., one of ordinary skill would have known that the resulting coil components would expand at the same rate at temperatures greater than 350° C.
Regarding method claims 13, 17, 18, and 20-24, the method steps therein are met by the operation of the apparatus of Schwenter et al. in view of Ito, and further, in view of Campbell et al. as set forth above with regard to claims 1, 5, 6, and 8-12.
Regarding claim 25, Schwenter et al. discloses a vibratory meter (Coriolis mass flow measuring device; ¶ [0050]) for elevated temperatures, the vibratory meter comprising: a meter electronics (measuring and operating electronics including a microprocessor; ¶ [0050]); a meter assembly (fig. 5) communicatively coupled to the meter electronics (measuring transducer, including coils, are electrically connected to measuring and operating electronics; ¶ [0050]), the meter assembly (fig. 5) comprising: at least one conduit (101, 102); a driver (oscillation exciter) coupled to the at least one conduit (101, 102; ¶ [0050]); and at least one pickoff (oscillation sensor 1 and 2) coupled to the at least one conduit (101, 102); wherein at least one of the driver (oscillation exciter) and the at least one pickoff (1, 2) comprise a coil transducer (at least coil 1 and magnet 2 are a coil transducer), the coil transducer (1, 2) comprising: a coil portion (1) including a coil (14), the coil (14) being comprised of a conductive wire (wire 14; ¶ [0044]); and an electrical insulator (14a; fig. 3) coating the conductive wire (wire 14 is jacketed by ceramic insulating layer 14a; ¶ [0044]); and a bobbin (11, 12), the coil (14) being disposed about the bobbin (coil 14 is wound around coil carrier 12; fig. 3); wherein the coil (14) is configured to have a repeatable conductivity without a substantial deviation from a nominal value over a plurality of temperature cycles including at least a temperature range that is greater than 350° C (coil 14 is a coil wire of an electrically conductive material and is electrically conductively connected to connection lines 111 and 112 to operate in a measuring transducer at temperatures above 350° C and any change in temperatures is a “temperature cycle,” therefore, coil 14 must have a conductivity that is repeatable, to some degree, without some degree of substantial deviation from some nominal value, over a plurality of temperature changes, including a temperature range greater than 350 °C ; ¶¶ [0010, 0012, 0048]), comprising at least one of the conductive wire (14) and the electrical insulator (14A) being thermal-expansion compatibles of each other over the temperature range (coil 14 and insulating layer 14a must be thermal-expansion compatibles of each other, to some degree), and the electrical insulator coating (14a) being substantially non-conductive over the plurality of temperature cycles including the temperature range (for coil transducer 1 to operate above 350° C, ceramic insulating layer 14a must function as an insulator and be substantially non-conductive, to some degree, over the plurality of temperature cycles including above 350° C; ¶ [0012]).
Regarding claim 29, Schwenter et al. discloses wherein the conductive wire (14; fig. 1) has an end (14+, 14#), wherein the bobbin (11, 12) comprises a body (11), a first terminal (111) disposed in an interior of the body (11) and electrically coupled to the end of the conductive wire (connection line 111 extends through base 11 of the bobbin and is electrically coupled to end 14+ of coil wire 14; fig. 1), and a second terminal (112) disposed in the interior of the body (11) and electrically coupled to the end of the conductive wire (connection line 112 extends through base 11 of the bobbin and is electrically coupled to end 14# of coil wire 14; fig. 1), and wherein the coil transducer (fig. 5) further comprises a mounting bracket coupled to the bobbin (11, 12) in order to couple the coil portion (1) to a conduit (102) of a meter assembly (screw 13 mounts coil carrier 12 and base 11 to an unnumbered bracket to couple coil 1 to measuring tube 102; fig. 5).
Schwenter et al. is silent as to explicit values for the coefficients of thermal expansion of the conductive wire and the insulator.
Ito teaches a coil (30) comprised of conductive wire (32; ¶ [0050]); and an electrical insulator (33) coating the conductive wire (insulating layer 33 is disposed on copper foil 32; ¶ [0050]); wherein the conductive wire (32) and the electrical insulator coating (33) being thermal-expansion compatibles of each other comprises the conductive wire (32) and the electrical insulator coating (33) having substantially equal coefficients of thermal expansion thereby allowing the electrical insulator to expand at substantially the same rate as the conductive wire (copper foil 32 and insulating layer 33 have approximately equal thermal expansion coefficients in that copper foil 32 has a thermal expansion coefficient of 17 ppm/°C and insulating layer 33 has a thermal expansion coefficient of 10 to 24 ppm/°C which allows them to expand at substantially the same rate when exposed to heat; ¶ [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Schwenter et al. with the thermal-expansion coefficients of Ito to prevent a difference in expansion causing separation between a conductor and insulator during heating of a coil (Ito, ¶ [0013]).
Although Ito teaches the conductive wire and electrical insulator have substantially the same coefficients of thermal expansion, Ito is silent on the coefficients of thermal expansion being equal.
Campbell et al. teaches selecting materials for components of a coil transducer (104) that have equal coefficients of thermal expansion, thereby allowing the components to expand at the same rate at high temperatures (all components of magnet assembly 201 and coil assembly 202 of driver 104 are made of materials having matching coefficients of thermal expansion to allow the materials to expand and contract at the same rate at high temperatures; c. 2, ll. 36-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to further modify the apparatus of Schwenter et al. in view of Ito with the equal coefficients of thermal expansion as taught in Campbell et al. to prevent damage to the coil by allowing the coil materials to expand and contract at the same rate (Campbell et al., c. 2, ll. 37-41). In modifying the apparatus of Schwenter et al. in view of Ito with that of Campbell et al., the resulting coil components would expand at the same rate at temperatures greater than 350° C.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 October 2025 have been fully considered.
With regard to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive. Applicant argues that the terms “‘substantial’ and ‘substantially’ are defensible in the instant case based on Applicant’s intrinsic record (e.g., examples, figures, or descriptions in the specification) or common understanding in the field which supplies a standard measurement.” Response, page 10. However, Applicant’s intrinsic record does not provide a standard for ascertaining the metes and bounds of what is considered a “substantial deviation” and there is no standard meaning for the term “substantial” in the art of measuring and testing devices.
With regard to the rejection of independent claims 1, 13, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erika J. Villaluna whose telephone number is (571)272-8348. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached on (571) 272-3555. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIKA J. VILLALUNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights