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 Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the phase fraction" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 18-20 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 11,635,322 issued to Steven (“Steven”) in view of U.S. Patent 11,994,018 issued to Toussaint et al. (“Toussaint”), PI 0403183-0 A by Silva (“Silva”) and U.S. Patent 8,548,753 issued to Rogers et al. (“Rogers”).
As for claims 1 and 24, Steven discloses a wet gas flow meter (Fig. 1a), comprising:
an input pipe section (see Fig. 1a) comprising an input constant-diameter section (“input constant-diameter section” in annotated Fig. 1a below), a first joint section (“first joint section” in annotated Fig. 1a below) and a first pressure tap (at the upstream side of DPPPL at P1);
a vibration measurement pipe (“vibration measurement pipe” in annotated Fig. 1a below);
an output pipe section (see Fig. 1a) comprising an output constant-diameter section (“output constant-diameter section” in annotated Fig. 1a below), a second joint section (“second joint section” in annotated Fig. 1a below) and a second pressure tap (at the downstream side of DPPPL);
a differential pressure sensor (implicitly recited to measure DPPPL in Fig. 1a);
a pressure sensor (implicitly recited to measure P1);
wherein:
the input pipe section, the vibration measurement pipe, and the output pipe section are connected sequentially one by one (see Fig. 1a);
the differential pressure sensor communicates with the input pipe section and the output pipe section via the first pressure tap and the second pressure tap, respectively (see Fig. 1a), whereby the differential pressure sensor is adapted to measure the differential pressure between the input pipe section and the output pipe section (see Fig. 1a);
the pressure sensor communicates with the input pipe section (see Fig. 1a) and/or the output pipe section via the first pressure tap and/or the second pressure tap, respectively;
a diameter of the input constant-diameter section is constant along the longitudinal axis of the input constant-diameter section (see annotated Fig. 1a below);
a diameter of the output constant-diameter section is constant along the longitudinal axis of the output constant-diameter section (see annotated Fig. 1a below);
a diameter of the vibration measurement pipe is constant along the longitudinal axis of the vibration measurement pipe (see annotated Fig. 1a below);
the input constant-diameter section is connected to the vibration measurement pipe via the first joint section (see annotated Fig. 1a below);
the output constant-diameter section is connected to the vibration measurement pipe via the second joint section (see annotated Fig. 1a below);
the first pressure tap is disposed on the input constant-diameter section, and the second pressure tap is disposed on the output constant-diameter section (see annotated Fig. 1a below);
a diameter of the first joint section decreases in a direction from the input pipe section to the vibration measurement pipe (see annotated Fig. 1a below); and
a diameter of the second joint section increases in a direction from the vibration measurement pipe to the output pipe section (see annotated Fig. 1a below).
Steven does not disclose a temperature sensor.
However, Toussaint discloses a temperature sensor (210 to measure TLine);
wherein the temperature sensor is disposed on a vibration measurement pipe and/or an input pipe section (see Fig. 2) and/or an output pipe section.
Toussaint and Steven disclosed each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the temperature sensor of Toussaint with the wet gas flow meter of Steven by placing the temperature sensor upstream the narrowed portion of the pipe of Steven, as suggested by Fig. 2 of Toussaint, and that in combination, the temperature sensor of Toussaint and the other components of the wet gas flow meter of Steven merely perform the same functions as each does separately. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the wet gas flow meter of Steven to include the temperature sensor of Toussaint in order to achieve the predictable result of providing a structure that measures the temperature of fluid in the flowmeter (Toussaint: see Fig. 2).
Steven as presently modified by Toussaint does not explicitly disclose an electro-mechanical energy transducer or a flow computer as recited.
However, Silva discloses an electro-mechanical energy transducer (Silva: 6, 7). Silva discloses that the electro-mechanical energy transducer is a phase fraction sensor that measures the phase fraction of a mixed phase fluid (Silva: Abstract and claim 6). Toussaint discloses that phase fraction sensors (Toussaint: 212) of many types can be placed on a vibration measurement pipe (Toussaint: see Fig. 2 and col. 8, lines 21-25 and lines 37-43).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the wet gas flow meter of Steven and Toussaint to include the electro-mechanical energy transducer of Silva in the location suggested by Toussaint in order to allow the density and phase fraction of a mixed-phase fluid in the flow meter to be determined (Silva: claim 6 and Toussaint: block 302).
Steven as modified by Silva and Toussaint discloses that the electro-mechanical transducer (Silva: 6, 7 and Toussaint: 212) is disposed on the vibration measurement pipe (Silva: implied by claim 6; and Toussaint: see Fig. 2) and that the vibration measurement pipe is adapted to generate vibration (Silva: because the manifold has a resonant frequency that is measured by the ultrasonic transducers); the electro-mechanical energy transducer (Silva: 6, 7) is adapted to excite vibration of the vibration measurement pipe and to receive the vibration of the vibration measurement pipe (Silva: see the paragraph beginning “The receptor eletrodinamico (7) detects and measures the frequency resonance of mixture …”, and claim 6); and the electro-mechanical energy transducer is adapted to generate resonance in a vibration measurement pipe (Silva: see the paragraph beginning “The receptor eletrodinamico (7) detects and measures the frequency resonance of mixture …” and claim 6).
Although Steven as presently modified by Toussaint and Silva discloses measuring a phase fraction (see above), Steven as presently modified by Toussaint and Silva does not disclose a flow computer as recited.
However, Toussaint discloses a flow computer (108) and Silva discloses a flow computer (11).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the wet-gas flow meter of Steven, Toussaint and Silva to include the flow computer of Toussaint and Silva in order to automatically calculate the flow of a mixed-phase fluid (Toussaint: block 308 and Silva: see the three paragraphs beginning with “The microcomputer (11) , receives data of the temperature and the pressure …”).
Steven as modified by Toussaint and Silva discloses that the flow computer (Silva: 11) is adapted to calculate a mixture density of a wet-gas flow in the vibration measurement pipe based on a resonance frequency of the vibration measurement pipe (Silva: see the three paragraphs beginning with “The microcomputer (11) , receives data of the temperature and the pressure …” and claim 6), and
the flow computer is adapted to calculate the total flow of the wet-gas flow based on the differential pressure and the mixture density (Steven: col. 65, lines 41-43 and col. 65, lines 50-51 and Toussaint: block 308 and paragraph [0016]).
Steven as modified by Toussaint and Silva does not disclose that a wall thickness of the input pipe section and a wall thickness of the output pipe section are greater than a wall thickness of the vibration measurement pipe. Instead, Steven discloses that a wall thickness of the input pipe section and a wall thickness of the output pipe section are the same as a wall thickness of the vibration measurement pipe (see Fig. 1a). Steven does not disclose that the wall thickness of the vibration measurement pipe has been reduced at the transducer.
However, Rogers discloses (Fig. 3) a wall thickness of an input pipe section (54) and a wall thickness of an output pipe section (66) that are greater than a wall thickness of a vibration measurement pipe (along 62).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the wall thickness of the input pipe section, the output pipe section and the vibration measurement pipe of Steven, Toussaint and Silva to have the thicknesses as disclosed by Rogers in order to allow the wet gas flow meter to be connected to larger diameter pipes via flanges (Rogers: col. 3, lines 49-50).
Steven as modified by Toussaint, Silva and Rogers discloses that the input pipe section and the output pipe section are prevented from vibration during the vibration of the vibration measurement pipe (the input pipe section and output pipe section of the prior art have the same structure as the claimed input pipe section and output pipe section; therefore the input pipe section and output pipe section of the prior art have the same function).
Regarding claim 24, the wet gas flow meter of claim 1 performs the method recited in claim 24.
PNG
media_image1.png
720
1280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for claim 3, Steven as modified by Toussaint and Silva discloses that the first joint section comprises a first inclined plane formed by an outer wall of the input pipe section contracting inwards and towards the vibration measurement pipe (Steven: see Fig. 1a).
As for claim 5, Steven as modified by Toussaint and Silva discloses that the second joint comprises a second inclined plane which is inclined upwards from an inner wall to an outer wall of the output pipe section (Steven: see Fig. 1a).
As for claims 6-8, Steven as modified by Toussaint and Silva discloses that a pipe diameter of the input pipe section and a pipe diameter of the pipe diameter of the output pipe section are both larger than a pipe diameter of the vibration measurement pipe (Steven: see Fig. 1a).
As for claims 18-20, Steven as modified by Toussaint and Silva discloses that the differential pressure sensor (Steven: to measure DPPPL) communicates with the first pressure tap and the second pressure tap through a pressure transmission pipe (Steven: see Fig. 1a).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 11,635,322 issued to Steven (“Steven”) in view of U.S. Patent 11,994,018 issued to Toussaint et al. (“Toussaint”), PI 0403183-0 A by Silva (“Silva”) and U.S. Patent 8,548,753 issued to Rogers et al. (“Rogers”) as applied to claim 24, further in view of WO 2019-157132 by Idris et al. (“Idris”).
As for claim 25, Steven as modified by Toussaint, Silva and Rogers discloses the method of claim 24 (see the rejection of claim 24 above) including measuring a pressure in the wet-gas flow using the pressure sensor (Steven: to measure P1); and measuring a temperature in the wet-gas flow using the temperature sensor (Toussaint: using 210 to measure TLine).
Steven as modified by Toussaint, Silva and Rogers does not disclose calculating a gas density in the wet-gas flow based on the pressure and the temperature using the flow computer.
However, Idris discloses calculating a gas density in a wet-gas flow (paragraph [00021]) based on a pressure and a temperature using a flow computer (24).
Idris and the Steven-Toussaint-Silva-Rogers combination disclosed each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the gas density calculation of Idris with the method of the Steven-Toussaint-Silva-Rogers combination by configuring the flow computer of the Steven-Toussaint-Silva-Rogers combination to perform the calculation as suggested by paragraph [00021] of Idris, and that in combination, the gas density calculation of Idris and the method of the Steven-Toussaint-Silva-Rogers combination are performed the same in combination as when each is done separately. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of the Steven-Toussaint-Silva-Rogers combination to include the gas density calculation of Idris in order to achieve the predictable result of providing the gas density of the wet-gas flow.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 11,635,322 issued to Steven (“Steven”) in view of U.S. Patent 11,994,018 issued to Toussaint et al. (“Toussaint”), PI 0403183-0 A by Silva (“Silva”), U.S. Patent 8,548,753 issued to Rogers et al. (“Rogers”) and WO 2019-157132 by Idris et al. (“Idris”) as applied to claim 24, further in view of U.S. Patent 11,441,988 issued to Hollingsworth (“Hollingsworth”).
As for claim 26, Steven as modified by Toussaint, Silva, Rogers and Idris discloses the method of claim 25 (see the rejection of claim 25 above).
Steven as modified by Toussaint, Silva, Rogers and Idris does not disclose calculating a phase fraction in the wet-gas flow based on the gas density and the mixture density using the flow computer.
However, Hollingsworth discloses calculating a phase fraction in a wet-gas flow based on a gas density and a mixture density (col. 12, lines 59-65) using a flow computer (20).
Hollingsworth and the Steven-Toussaint-Silva-Rogers-Idris combination disclosed each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the phase fraction calculation of Hollingsworth with the method of the Steven-Toussaint-Silva-Rogers-Idris combination by configuring the flow computer of the Steven-Toussaint-Silva-Rogers-Idris combination to perform the calculation as suggested by col. 12, lines 59-65 of Hollingsworth, and that in combination, the phase fraction calculation of Hollingsworth and the method of the Steven-Toussaint-Silva-Rogers-Idris combination are performed the same in combination as when each is done separately. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of the Steven-Toussaint-Silva-Rogers-Idris combination to include the phase fraction calculation of Hollingsworth in order to achieve the predictable result of providing the phase fraction of the wet-gas flow.
Response to Arguments
On pages 11-14 of the Remarks, Applicant argues against the references individually. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
On page 14 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Silva does not disclose generating vibration and resonance in a constriction pipe section while preventing vibrations of input and output sections. However, examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
On page 14 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that none of the references discloses calculating the mixture density based on a resonance frequency of a pipe section. However, the examiner notes that the combination of the prior art discloses calculating the mixture density based on a resonance frequency of a pipe section.
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 10/17/2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claim 1 based upon 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in the last Office action because the declaration fails to set forth facts that demonstrate that the claims are nonobvious over the prior art.
The declaration states typical characteristics of a Venturi pipe (point 7). However, declaration does not provide objective evidence that characteristics describe the combination used in the rejection. Furthermore, the claim does not structurally distinguish over these characteristics.
The declaration states that a section of pipe with length equal to its diameter cannot generate resonance (point 8). However, the declaration does not provide objective evidence that that a section of pipe with length equal to its diameter cannot generate resonance. Furthermore, the declaration does not provide objective evidence that the section of pipe in the rejection has a length equal to its diameter.
The declaration states that one having ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to detect a pressure differential between the inlet and the outlet for calculating a total flow rate (point 9). However, Steven already discloses detecting a pressure differential between the inlet and the outlet for calculating a total flow rate (col. 65, lines 41-43 and 50-51).
The declaration states that the cited prior art does not disclose generating resonance while also preventing vibration (point 10). However, examiner notes that these arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
The declaration states that the cited prior art does not disclose calculating the mixture density based on a resonance frequency (point 11). The declaration describes how Toussaint discloses a different method of determining a phase fraction. However Silva discloses calculating the mixture density based on a resonance frequency (Silva: see the three paragraphs beginning with “The microcomputer (11) , receives data of the temperature and the pressure …” and claim 6).
The declaration states that the cited prior art does not disclose calculating the total flow rate based on the total flow rate and the mixture density (point 12). However,
the examiner notes that the prior art discloses a flow computer that is adapted to calculate the total flow of the wet-gas flow based on the differential pressure and the mixture density (Steven: col. 65, lines 41-43 and col. 65, lines 50-51 and Toussaint: block 308 and paragraph [0016]).
The declaration states that there was no technical guidance, teaching or rationale to lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the cited combinations (point 13). The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner has determined that the claims were obvious over the prior art using the rationales described in the rejections above.
In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN N OLAMIT whose telephone number is (571)270-1969. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am - 5 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JUSTIN N OLAMIT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853