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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of species II (figs.6, 8, and 12a-12b: entrained gas anomaly) in the reply filed on 10/08/2024 without traverse is acknowledged, wherein claims 1-6, 13-24, 31-37, 42, and 47-51 are elected.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) 1212a and 1202b mentioned in the description of page 43 of the instant specification, wherein a phase deviation 1212a and live phase measurement 1202b. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show 1214a and 1214b as “time” (instead of “sample number”) in figs.12a-12b because density shift and phase shift are varied over time.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Examiner suggests that applicant should double check instant drawings and future amendments to claims and/or drawings to eliminate similar minor informalities as pointed out above (see minor informalities as indicated above as an example).
Specification
The disclosure of page 43 of the instant specification is objected to because reference sign(s) 1212a and 1202b mentioned in the description of page 43 of the instant specification, wherein a phase deviation 1212a and live phase measurement 1202b are not shown in figs. 12a-12b
Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner suggests that applicant should double check instant drawings and future amendments to claims and/or drawings to eliminate similar minor informalities as pointed out above (see minor informalities as indicated above as an example).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 13-15, 18-24, 31-33, 36-37, 42, 47-48, and 49-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims recite mathematical concepts and/or mental processes, and fail to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or to recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as set forth below.
The following analysis is performed as set forth in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter 2019 PEG), as set forth in MPEP § 2106.
As to claims 1-6, 13-15, 18-, 37, 48, and 50:
Step 1
Step 1 of the 2019 PEG asks whether the claim is to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-6, 13-15, 18, 37, 48, and 50 are directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong One
Step 2A Prong One of the 2019 PEG analysis asks whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
Claim 1 recites: a method for determining a process anomaly in a fluid flow system, the system having a meter with immersed elements immersed in a fluid of a fluid flow,
the method comprising:
determining, using a data processing circuit, a measured density of the fluid in the fluid flow system; (this is routine data gather necessary for the abstract limitations, module 202 receives and stores data, such as density)
determining, using the data processing circuit, whether the fluid flow system is experiencing a density anomaly based on a relationship between the measured density and an expected density of the fluid in the fluid flow system; (this is directed to abstract limitations: the module 204 is merely making a comparison of the measured density and an expected threshold, which is directed to both math (comparing numbers) and a mental step (a comparison of numbers can be in human mind));
determining, using the data processing circuit, a measured phase difference of vibrations of the immersed elements of the meter (this is directed to abstract limitations: the module 202 (see spec, pg. 19 lines 23-30) is merely making a comparison of data, which is directed to both math (comparing numbers) and a mental step (a comparison of numbers can be in human mind));
determining, using the data processing circuit, whether the fluid flow system is experiencing a phase anomaly based on a relationship between the measured phase difference and a target phase difference of the vibrations of the immersed elements in the fluid flow; (this is directed to abstract limitations: the module 204 is merely making a comparison of the target phase difference and the measured phase difference (see spec pg. 22), which is directed to both math (comparing numbers) and a mental step (a comparison of numbers can be in human mind));
identifying, using the data processing circuit, an anomaly of the fluid flow system based on the determination of whether there is a density anomaly and the determination of whether there is a phase anomaly (this is directed to abstract limitations: the module 204 is merely making a comparison of the measured phase difference and a threshold (see spec pg. 23), which is directed to both math (comparing numbers) and a mental step (a comparison of numbers can be in human mind).
Thus, claim 1 recites limitations that fall into the mathematical concept and/or mental process groups of abstract ideas. Mathematical algorithms are not eligible for patent protection. Mathematical algorithms are found by courts to be abstract (see Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 U.S.P.Q. 1 (1981)). Claims 2-6, 13-15, 18, 37, 48, and 50 depend on claim 1. Claims 2-6, 13-15, 18, 37, 48, and 50, each recite at least all of the judicial exceptions of claim 1, and therefore also recite limitations that fall into the mathematical concept and/or mental process groups of abstract ideas. Additionally, each of claims 2-6, 13-15, 18, 37, 48, and 50 recite nothing more than additional abstract ideas of mathematical concepts (comparing numbers) and/or mental processes (a comparison of numbers can be in human mind).
Applicant should note, with respect to the limitations regarding the data recited in claims 1-6, 13-15, 18, 37, 48, and 50, that because the method merely recites abstract ideas of data generating and collecting (density and phase difference data) and mathematical concepts (comparing numbers) and/or mental processes (a comparison of numbers can be in human mind), and not any particular structure or steps for generating and obtaining the received/collected information, the examiner, under a broad, reasonable interpretation of the claims, does not consider any details about the data to be anything other than part of the abstract step of routine data generating and routine data collecting and mental processes.
Step 2A Prong Two
Step 2A Prong Two of the 2019 PEG analysis asks whether a claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 1-6, 13-15, 18, 37, 48, and 50 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because additional elements do not add to the mathematical algorithms/formula/concept something that in terms of patent law’s objectives had significance i.e. improvements to another technology or technical field, meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to particular technological environment.
Step 2B
Step 2B of the 2019 PEG analysis asks whether the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Regarding claims 1-6, 13-15, 18, 37, 48, and 50, as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., insignificant extra-solution activities of data generating and/or gathering and/or collecting and/or mental processes cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The claims 1-6, 13-15, 18, 37, 48, and 50 do not recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claims. For these reasons, there are no inventive concepts in claims 1-6, 13-15, 18, 37, 48, and 50, and claims 1-6, 13-15, 18, 37, 48, and 50 are therefore ineligible as being directed to judicial exceptions of abstract ideas.
As to claims 19-24, 31-33, 36, 42, 47, 49, and 51:
Step 1
Step 1 of the 2019 PEG asks whether the claim is to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 19-24, 31-33, 36, 42, 47, 49, and 51 are directed to a system.
Step 2A Prong One
Step 2A Prong One of the 2019 PEG analysis asks whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
Claim 19 recites: determine a measured density of a fluid in the fluid flow system (this is routine data gather necessary for the abstract limitations, module 202 receives and stores data, such as density);
determine whether the fluid flow system is experiencing a density anomaly based on a relationship between the measured density and an expected density of the fluid in the fluid flow system (this is directed to abstract limitations: the module 204 is merely making a comparison of the measured density and an expected threshold, which is directed to both math (comparing numbers) and a mental step (a comparison of numbers can be in human mind));
determine a measured phase difference of vibrations of the tines (112, 114) of the meter (this is directed to abstract limitations: the module 202 (see spec, pg. 19 lines 23-30) is merely making a comparison of data, which is directed to both math (comparing numbers) and a mental step (a comparison of numbers can be in human mind));
determine whether the fluid flow system is experiencing a phase anomaly based on a relationship between the measured phase difference and a target phase difference of the vibrations of the tines (112, 114) in the fluid flow (this is directed to abstract limitations: the module 204 is merely making a comparison of the target phase difference and the measured phase difference (see spec pg. 22), which is directed to both math (comparing numbers) and a mental step (a comparison of numbers can be in human mind)); and
identify an anomaly of the fluid flow system based on the determination of a density anomaly and the determination of a phase anomaly (this is directed to abstract limitations: the module 204 is merely making a comparison of the measured phase difference and a threshold (see spec pg. 23), which is directed to both math (comparing numbers) and a mental step (a comparison of numbers can be in human mind).
Thus, claim 19 recites limitations that fall into the mathematical concept and/or mental process groups of abstract ideas. Mathematical algorithms are not eligible for patent protection. Mathematical algorithms are found by courts to be abstract (see Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 U.S.P.Q. 1 (1981)). Claims 20-24, 31-33, 36, 42, 47, 49, and 51 depend on claim 19. Claims 20-24, 31-33, 36, 42, 47, 49, and 51, each recite at least all of the judicial exceptions of claim 19, and therefore also recite limitations that fall into the mathematical concept and/or mental process groups of abstract ideas. Additionally, each of claims 20-24, 31-33, 36, 42, 47, 49, and 51 recite nothing more than additional abstract ideas of mathematical concepts (comparing numbers) and/or mental processes (a comparison of numbers can be in human mind).
Applicant should note, with respect to the limitations regarding the data recited in claims 19-24, 31-33, 36, 42, 47, 49, and 51, that because the method merely recites abstract ideas of data generating and collecting (density and phase difference data) and mathematical concepts (comparing numbers) and/or mental processes (a comparison of numbers can be in human mind), and not any particular structure or steps for generating and obtaining the received/collected information, the examiner, under a broad, reasonable interpretation of the claims, does not consider any details about the data to be anything other than part of the abstract step of routine data generating and routine data collecting and mental processes.
Step 2A Prong Two
Step 2A Prong Two of the 2019 PEG analysis asks whether a claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 19-24, 31-33, 36, 42, 47, 49, and 51 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because additional elements do not add to the mathematical algorithms/formula/concept something that in terms of patent law’s objectives had significance i.e. improvements to another technology or technical field, meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to particular technological environment.
Claims 19-24, 31-33, 36, 42, 47, 49, and 51 recite “A data processing circuit (132) communicatively coupled to and/or integrated into a meter electronics (20) of a meter, the meter having a vibratory element (104) with tines (112, 114) a driver (122) for driving vibrations in the tines (112, 114), and at least one sensor (124) to measure vibrations of tines (112, 114), the meter electronics (20) configured to determine a measured phase difference and a measured density”, which represent nothing more than a generic/routine fork density sensor/meter performing generic/routine data generating and routine data collecting and mental processes. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a generic/routine fork density sensor/meter. Accordingly, the additional element of a fork density sensor/meter does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Whether considered individually or in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application, and claims 19-24, 31-33, 36, 42, 47, 49, and 51 are directed to the judicial exceptions.
Step 2B
Step 2B of the 2019 PEG analysis asks whether the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Regarding claims 19-24, 31-33, 36, 42, 47, 49, and 51, as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., insignificant extra-solution activities of data generating and/or gathering and/or collecting and/or mental processes cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The claims 19-24, 31-33, 36, 42, 47, 49, and 51 do not recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claims. For these reasons, there are no inventive concepts in claims 19-24, 31-33, 36, 42, 47, 49, and 51, and claims 19-24, 31-33, 36, 42, 47, 49, and 51 are therefore ineligible as being directed to judicial exceptions of abstract ideas.
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 1-6, 13-24, 31-37, 42, and 47-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
As to claims 1 and 19, phrase “identifying/identify an anomaly” renders the claim indefinite because term “an anomaly” could include two anomalies occurring simultaneously based on density anomaly and phase anomaly. Claims 1 and 19 technically cannot be done if two anomalies (i.e. gas entrainment and erosion) are present and cannot distinguish and/or identify the two anomalies unless a physical inspection is performed to determine and identify the anomaly. The claims are based on measurements to identify anomaly, not inspection. Hence, it is unclear.
As to claim 2, phrase “a density anomaly indicative of a gas entrainment anomaly” render the claim indefinite. Is “a density anomaly” same as “density anomaly” recited in claim 1? Is “a density anomaly” different as “density anomaly” recited in claim 1?
If “a density anomaly” is same as “density anomaly” recited in claim 1, it is unclear because if density anomaly indicative of a gas entrainment anomaly, what type of an anomaly of the fluid flow system?
If an anomaly of the fluid flow system is “gas entrainment anomaly” and if density anomaly indicative of a gas entrainment anomaly, phrase “identifying, using the data processing circuit, an anomaly of the fluid flow system based on the determination of whether there is a density anomaly and the determination of whether there is a phase anomaly” would be interpreted as “identifying, using the data processing circuit, gas entrainment anomaly of the fluid flow system based on the determination of whether there is gas entrainment anomaly and the determination of whether there is a phase anomaly”, which is unclear.
As to claim 20, phrase “a density anomaly indicative of a gas entrainment anomaly” render the claim indefinite. Is “a density anomaly” same as “density anomaly” recited in claim 19? Is “a density anomaly” different as “density anomaly” recited in claim 19?
If “a density anomaly” is same as “density anomaly” recited in claim 19, it is unclear because if density anomaly indicative of a gas entrainment anomaly, what type of an anomaly of the fluid flow system?
If an anomaly of the fluid flow system is “gas entrainment anomaly” and if density anomaly indicative of a gas entrainment anomaly, phrase “identify an anomaly of the fluid flow system based on the determination of a density anomaly and the determination of a phase anomaly” would be interpreted as “identify gas entrainment anomaly of the fluid flow system based on the determination of gas entrainment anomaly and the determination of a phase anomaly”, which is unclear.
Claims (2-6, 13-18, 37, 48, and 50) and (20-24, 31-36, 42, 47, 49, and 51) are also rejected because they are dependent on the rejected claims 1 and 19 respectively as set forth above.
Claims (3-6 and 13-15) and (21-24 and 32-33) are also rejected because they are dependent on the rejected claims 2 and 20 respectively as set forth above.
As to claims 6 and 24, the phrase "may be" of claims 6 and 24 render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 13-24, 31-37, 42, and 47-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling.
As to claims 1 and 19, the disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without the means or explanation to how a single/only one anomaly is determined based on density anomaly and phase anomaly (if two anomalies i.e. gas entrainment anomaly and erosion anomaly occur at once). Page 26 of the instant specification states that: “the anomaly detection module 204 may indicate one or both of an erosion anomaly and an air entrainment anomaly. This may require physical inspection to determine and identify the anomaly”. However, page 26 of the instant specification did not particularly identify what types of physical inspection and how physical inspection being used to determine and identify and/or distinguish the anomaly i.e. gas entrainment anomaly and/or erosion anomaly.
An adequate disclosure may require details of types of physical inspection and how types of physical inspection being used to determine and identify and/or distinguish the anomaly i.e. gas entrainment anomaly and/or erosion anomaly. See In re Scarbrough, 500 F.2d 560, 182 USPQ 298 (CCPA 1974).
The Examiner concluded that (the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure) there was not an enabling disclosure because the specification did not describe types of physical inspection and how types of physical inspection being used to determine and identify and/or distinguish the anomaly i.e. gas entrainment anomaly and/or erosion anomaly, with only a reasonable amount of experimentation and that "an unreasonable amount of work would be required to arrive at the detailed relationships applicant says that he has solved." See In re Scarbrough, 500 F.2d at 566, 182 USPQ at 302. See also MPEP 2164.06 and 2164.06(a).
Thus, the instant specification fails to fully enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and/or use the instant claimed invention.
As to claims 6 and 24, the disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without the means or explanation to what data and how data is analyzed to determine whether one or more of the fluid and elements entrained in the fluid are likely to erode/erosion the immersed elements i.e. tines. Page 26 of the instant specification states that: “the anomaly detection module 204 may indicate one or both of an erosion anomaly and an air entrainment anomaly. This may require physical inspection to determine and identify the anomaly”. However, page 26 of the instant specification did not particularly identify what types of physical inspection and how physical inspection being used to determine and identify and/or distinguish the anomaly i.e. erosion anomaly.
An adequate disclosure may require details of types of physical inspection and how types of physical inspection being used to determine and identify and/or distinguish the anomaly i.e. erosion anomaly. See In re Scarbrough, 500 F.2d 560, 182 USPQ 298 (CCPA 1974).
The Examiner concluded that (the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure) there was not an enabling disclosure because the specification did not describe types of physical inspection and how types of physical inspection being used to determine and identify and/or distinguish the anomaly i.e. erosion anomaly, with only a reasonable amount of experimentation and that "an unreasonable amount of work would be required to arrive at the detailed relationships applicant says that he has solved." See In re Scarbrough, 500 F.2d at 566, 182 USPQ at 302. See also MPEP 2164.06 and 2164.06(a).
Thus, the instant specification fails to fully enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and/or use the instant claimed invention.
Claims (2-6, 13-18, 37, 48, and 50) and (20-24, 31-36, 42, 47, 49, and 51) are also rejected because they are dependent on the rejected claims 1 and 19 respectively as set forth above.
As to claims 48-49, the disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without the means or explanation to how at least one threshold or range is determined for determining the anomaly based on an initially measured density of the fluid when the immersed elements are first immersed in the fluid (as recited in claim 48); and how at least one threshold or range is determined for determining the anomaly based on an initially measured density of the fluid when the tines are first immersed in the fluid (as recited in claim 49).
An adequate disclosure may require details of how at least one threshold or range is determined for determining the anomaly based on an initially measured density of the fluid when the immersed elements i.e. tines are first immersed in the fluid. See In re Scarbrough, 500 F.2d 560, 182 USPQ 298 (CCPA 1974).
The Examiner concluded that (the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure) there was not an enabling disclosure because the specification did not describe how at least one threshold or range is determined for determining the anomaly based on an initially measured density of the fluid when the immersed elements i.e. tines are first immersed in the fluid, with only a reasonable amount of experimentation and that "an unreasonable amount of work would be required to arrive at the detailed relationships applicant says that he has solved." See In re Scarbrough, 500 F.2d at 566, 182 USPQ at 302. See also MPEP 2164.06 and 2164.06(a).
Thus, the instant specification fails to fully enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and/or use the instant claimed invention.
Conclusion
Due to 112 issues presenting in claims 1-6, 13-24, 31-37, 42, and 47-51, a rejection under prior art could not reasonably be made, and that once the 112 issues are absolved/corrected, another comparison with the prior art will again be made, based upon the Examiner's clearer understanding of the claimed invention.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is invited to review PTO form 892 accompanying this Office Action listing Prior Art relevant to the instant invention cited by the Examiner.
Applicant is invited to review US 2017343458, which teaches A method of controlling a vibration of a vibratory element based on a phase error is provided. The method includes vibrating the vibratory element with a drive signal, receiving a vibration signal from the vibratory element, measuring a phase difference between the drive signal and the vibration signal, determining a phase error between a target phase difference and the measured phase difference, and calculating one or more vibration control terms with the determined phase error (abstract); A data processing circuit communicatively coupled to and/or integrated into a meter electronics (20) of a meter, the meter having a vibratory element (104) with tines (112, 114) a driver (122) for driving vibrations in the tines (112, 114), and at least one sensor (124) to measure vibrations of tines (112, 114), the meter electronics (20) configured to determine a measured phase difference and a measured density (figs.3-4 and [0044, 0051]).
Applicant is invited to review CA2608205A1, which teaches meter electronics (20) and methods for detecting a flow anomaly in a flow material flowing through a flow meter (5) are provided. The meter electronics (20) includes an interface (201) for receiving a vibrational response of the flow material, with the vibrational response including at least a first sensor signal and a second sensor signal, and a processing system (203) in communication with the interface (201). The processing system (203) is configured to receive the vibrational response from the interface (201), generate a ninety degree phase shift from the first sensor signal and generate at least one flow characteristic using at least the first sensor signal and the ninety degree phase shift, compare the at least one flow characteristic to at least one anomaly profile, detect a shift in the vibrational response if the at least one flow characteristic falls within the anomaly profile, and indicate an anomaly condition as a result of the detecting (abstract); The anomaly can include entrained gas/air and/or bubbles in the flow material (see page 9).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRUONG D PHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, John Breene can be reached on 571-272-4107. 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.
/TRUONG D PHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN FITZGERALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855