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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 12/23/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
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 32-40, 42-45, 27, 48 and 52-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 32 recites that the controller is configured to perform actions comprising: “calculating a differential pressure based on the first pressure measurement signal and the second pressure measurement signal, and actuating the actuator to reposition the slidable element within the cavity to maintain a selected differential pressure based on the calculated differential pressure” in lines 20-24. However, the original disclosure does not disclose that the controller calculates a differential pressure or performs any actions based on a calculated differential pressure. Therefore, the original disclosure does not support that the inventor possessed the claim invention. The examiner notes that a differential pressure can be calculated by hand or by a device (such as a calculator) that that does not receive the first and second pressure measurement signals; therefore the description in the specification that a differential pressure is (somehow) calculated does not provide convincing proof that the differential pressure was calculated by the claimed controller. The examiner notes that the actuator can be operated by hand or another device to maintain a targeted differential pressure; therefore the description in the specification that an actuator is (somehow) operated to maintain a targeted differential pressure does not provide convincing proof that the actuator was controlled by the claimed controller.
Claim 32 recites that the controller is configured to perform actions comprising: “varying a control setting of the unit under test” in line 25. Although the examiner acknowledges that a control setting of the unit under test is varied, the original disclosure does not disclose that the controller is the structure that performs this function. Therefore, the original disclosure does not support that the inventor possessed the claim invention.
Claims 33-40 and 52 depend on claim 32 and are rejected for inheriting the same problem.
Claim 42 recites that the controller is configured to perform actions comprising: “calculating a differential pressure based on the first signal and the second signal” in lines 18-19. However, the original disclosure does not disclose that the controller calculates a differential pressure. Therefore, the original disclosure does not support that the inventor possessed the claim invention. The examiner notes that a differential pressure can be calculated by hand or by a device that that does not receive the first and second pressure measurement signals; therefore the description in the specification that a differential pressure is (somehow) calculated does not provide convincing proof that the differential pressure was calculated by the claimed controller.
Claim 42 recites that the controller is configured to perform actions comprising: “varying a control setting of the unit under test” in line 29. Although the examiner acknowledges that a control setting of the unit under test is varied, the original disclosure does not disclose that the controller is the structure that performs this function. Therefore, the original disclosure does not support that the inventor possessed the claim invention.
Claims 43-45, 47, 48 and 53-56 depend on claim 42 and are rejected for inheriting the same problem.
Claim 54 recites that the controller is further configured to: continuously monitor the first signal and the second signal during piston movement; dynamically adjust the actuator position to maintain the selected differential pressure; and calculate the volumetric flowrate only when the differential pressure is maintained within a predetermined tolerance of the selected differential pressure. However, the original disclosure does not disclose that the controller continuously monitors, dynamically adjusts and calculates the volumetric flow rate only when the differential pressure is maintained as recited. Therefore, the original disclosure does not support that the inventor possessed the claim invention.
Claim 56 recites that the controller is further configured to: store the first absolute pressure, second absolute pressure, differential pressure, distance traveled, time of travel, and calculated volumetric flowrate; verify the selected differential pressure was maintained during the measurement; and flag the calculated volumetric flowrate as invalid if the differential pressure deviated from the selected differential pressure by more than a predetermined amount. However, the original disclosure does not disclose that the controller stores the recited quantities, verifies that the selected differential pressure was maintained and flags the calculated volumetric flowrate as invalid. Therefore, the original disclosure does not support that the inventor possessed the claim invention.
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 32, 33, 35-37 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0217346 by Nagarkatti et al. (“Nagarkatti’) in view of U.S. Patent 6,427,517 issued to McMillan (“McMillan”), U.S. Patent 2,892,346 issued to Sargent (“Sargent”), WO 2017-125499 by Leberre et al. (“Leberre”), DE 10-2018-219230 by Wahl et al. (“Wahl”) NL 1015995 by Van Der Beek (“Van Der Beek”) and U.S. Patent 4,996,869 issued to Cohrs et al. (“Cohrs ‘869”).
As for claim 32, Nagarkatti discloses a flow reference (Fig. 2) comprising:
an enclosure (130) including an interior surface that defines a cavity (inside 130), the cavity having a flow inlet (132);
a first pressure sensor (135) in fluid communication with the cavity;
a slidable element (120) located within the cavity;
an actuator (140) mechanically coupled (via 145) to the slidable element and arranged to move the slidable element within the cavity (paragraph [0026]); and
a controller (controller; paragraphs [0023] and [0029]) electrically coupled to the actuator and the first pressure sensor, the controller configured to perform actions comprising:
receiving a first pressure measurement signal from the first pressure sensor, the first signal corresponding to a pressure within the cavity (paragraph [0026]), and
actuating the actuator to reposition the slidable element within the cavity to maintain a selected pressure based on the first signal (paragraph [0026]).
Nagarkatti does not disclose that the first signal corresponds to a first absolute pressure within the cavity because Nagarkatti does not disclose that the first pressure sensor is an absolute pressure sensor.
However, McMillan discloses a pressure sensor (150) that is an absolute pressure sensor (col. 4, lines 31-34).
Because Nagarkatti and McMillan both disclose first pressure sensors, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the first pressure sensor of Nagarkatti for the absolute first pressure sensor of McMillan to achieve the predictable result of measuring an absolute pressure of a cavity.
Nagarkatti does not disclose a second pressure sensor in fluid communication with the flow inlet and external to the cavity, in part, because Nagarkatti does not disclose measuring a differential pressure. Instead, Nagarkatti discloses measuring a pressure so that the pressure in the cavity, when compared to a reference, can be used to adjust the position of the piston (Nagarkatti: paragraph [0024] and [0026]).
However, Sargent discloses measuring a differential pressure using a differential pressure sensor in fluid communication with the flow inlet and external to a cavity (see the Figure and col. 2, lines 25-32). Sargent discloses measuring a differential pressure so that the differential pressure, which compares the pressure in the cavity and a reference pressure at the flow inlet, can be used to adjust a position of a piston (col. 2, lines 25-32 and col. 2, lines 60-68). Furthermore, Leberre discloses (see the paragraph beginning “Fig. 2 is a variant of the system …”) a second pressure sensor (21) along with a first pressure sensor (20), and that two pressure sensors can be used to measure a differential pressure (see the paragraph beginning “Fig. 2 is a variant of the system …”). Wahl also discloses (see the paragraph beginning “In the exhaust are 45 downstream …”) a second pressure sensor (101) along with a first pressure sensor (100), and that two pressure sensors can be used to measure a differential pressure (see the paragraph beginning “In the exhaust are 45 downstream …”). Wahl discloses that the differential pressure can be calculated and used to generate a control signal based on the differential pressure (see the paragraph beginning “In the exhaust are 45 downstream …”).
Because Sargent and Nagarkatti both disclose methods of using a pressure to adjust a position of a piston, and Leberre and Wahl both disclose that a second pressure sensor can be used along with a first pressure sensor to measure a differential pressure, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the method of Sargent which uses a differential pressure measurement, and to include the second pressure sensor of Leberre and Wahl to make the differential pressure measurement, for the method of Nagarkatti which uses a single pressure sensor to achieve the predictable result of providing a pressure measurement so that the position of the piston can be adjusted.
Nagarkatti as modified by McMillan, Sargent, Leberre and Wahl discloses:
an actuator (Nagarkatti: 140 and Sargent:11) mechanically coupled (Nagarkatti: via 145) to the slidable element and arranged to move the slidable element within the cavity (Nagarkatti: paragraph [0026]), the actuator at least partially to apply a force to the slidable element that substantially equals the amount of friction between the slidable element and the cavity (inherent; to maintain a differential pressure of about zero while the slidable element moves; Nagarkatti: paragraphs [0025] and [0026] and Sargent: col. 2, line 60 - col. 3, line 5); and
a controller (Nagarkatti: controller; paragraphs [0023] and [0029]) electrically coupled to the actuator (Nagarkatti: 140) and the first pressure sensor (Nagarkatti:135 and Leberre: 20 and Wahl: 100) and the second pressure sensor (Leberre: 21 and Wahl: 101), the controller configured to perform actions comprising:
receiving a first signal from the first pressure sensor (Nagarkatti: 135 and Leberre: 20 and Wahl: 100), the first signal corresponding to an absolute pressure (McMillan: col. 4, lines 31-34) within the cavity (Nagarkatti: paragraph [0026]),
receiving a second pressure measurement signal from the second pressure sensor (Leberre: 21 and Wahl: 101), the second signal corresponding to a second absolute pressure (McMillan: col. 4, lines 31-34) external to the cavity (Nagarkatti: paragraph [0026] and Sargent: col. 2, lines 25-32 and col. 2, lines 60-68),
calculating a differentia pressure based on the first pressure measurement signal and the second pressure measurement signal (Leberre: see the paragraph beginning “Fig. 2 is a variant of the system …” and Wahl: see the paragraph beginning “In the exhaust are 45 downstream …”), and
actuating the actuator to reposition the slidable element within the cavity to maintain a selected differential pressure based on the calculated differential pressure (Nagarkatti: paragraph [0026] and Sargent: col. 2, lines 25-32 and col. 2, lines 60-68 and Wahl: see the paragraph beginning “In the exhaust are 45 downstream …”).
In the case that Nagarkatti as modified by McMillan, Sargent, Leberre and Wahl does not inherently disclose that the actuator applies a force that substantially equals the amount of friction between the slidable element and the cavity, Van Der Beek discloses that frictional forces are compensated by the drive device (see the paragraph beginning: “Based on these insights, the present invention …”).
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 actuator of Nagarkatti, McMillan, Sargent, Leberre and Wahl to apply a force equal to friction as disclosed by Van Der Beek in order to ensure that the flow rate is measured with very little uncertainty (Beek: see the paragraphs beginning “Secondly, the measuring piston must be arranged …” and “In the foregoing, the advantages of the invention …”).
Nagarkatti as modified by McMillan, Sargent, Leberre, Wahl and Van Der Beek does not disclose varying a control setting of the unit under test; and determining a volumetric flowrate for each control setting.
However, Cohrs ‘869 discloses varying a control setting (col. 1, lines 47-52 and col. 4, lines 59-61) of a unit under test (22); and
determining a volumetric flowrate for each control setting (col. 4, lines 11-46).
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 controller of Nagarkatti, McMillan, Sargent, Leberre, Wahl and Van Der Beek to include the steps as disclosed by Cohrs ‘869 in order to obtain accurate readings from a flowmeter for different flow conditions (Cohrs: col. 1, lines 18-24 and col. 1, lines 47-52).
As for claim 33, Nagarkatti as modified by McMillan, Sargent, Leberre, Wahl, Van Der Beek and Cohrs ’869 discloses a seal (Nagarkatti: 38) located between a perimeter surface of the slidable element and the interior surface of the enclosure (Nagarkatti: paragraphs [0015] and [0040]).
As for claim 35, Nagarkatti as modified by McMillan, Sargent, Leberre, Wahl, Van Der Beek and Cohrs ‘869 discloses that the actuator is a stepper motor or a linear actuator (Nagarkatti: paragraph [0024]).
As for claim 36, Nagarkatti as modified by McMillan, Sargent, Leberre, Wahl, Van Der Beek and Cohrs ‘869 discloses an encoder (Nagarkatti: 133) electrically coupled to the controller, the encoder configured to transmit an encoder signal to the controller corresponding to a position of the slidable element (Nagarkatti: paragraphs [0029] and [0030]).
As for claim 37, Nagarkatti as modified by McMillan, Sargent, Leberre, Wahl, Van Der Beek and Cohrs ‘869 discloses that the actions further comprise calculating a volumetric flowrate of a unit under test based at least on actuation of the actuator (Nagarkatti: paragraphs [0028] and [0029]).
As for claim 40, Nagarkatti as modified by McMillan, Sargent, Leberre, Wahl, Van Der Beek and Cohrs ‘869 discloses the flow reference of claim 32 (see the rejection of claim 32).
Nagarkatti as modified by McMillan, Sargent, Leberre, Wahl, Van Der Beek and Cohrs ‘869 does not disclose a timer electrically coupled to the controller. Instead, Nagarkatti discloses using a velocity sensor to determine when the volume of the enclosure has been changed by the piston (Nagarkatti: paragraph [0029]).
However, Van Der Beek disclose a timer (59) electrically coupled to a controller (50). Van Der Beek discloses that the timer, along with an optical ruler, is used to determine when a volume of an enclosure has been changed by a piston (page 7 of the provided English translation).
Because Nagarkatti and Van Der Beek both disclose structures for determining when a volume of an enclosure has been changed by a piston, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the timer and optical ruler of Van Der Beek for the velocity sensor of Nagarkatti to achieve the predictable result of providing a structure that determines when the volume of the enclosure has been changed by the piston.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0217346 by Nagarkatti et al. (“Nagarkatti’) in view of U.S. Patent 6,427,517 issued to McMillan (“McMillan”), U.S. Patent 2,892,346 issued to Sargent (“Sargent”), WO 2017-125499 by Leberre et al. (“Leberre”), DE 10-2018-219230 by Wahl et al. (“Wahl”) NL 1015995 by Van Der Beek (“Van Der Beek”) and U.S. Patent 4,996,869 issued to Cohrs et al. (“Cohrs ‘869”) as applied to claim 33, further in view of U.S. Patent 4,766,759 issued to Cohrs et al. (“Cohrs”).
As for claim 34, Nagarkatti as modified by McMillan, Sargent, Leberre, Wahl, Van Der Beek and Cohrs ‘869 discloses the flow reference of claim 33 (see the rejection of claim 33).
Nagarkatti as modified by McMillan, Sargent, Leberre, Wahl, Van Der Beek and Cohrs ‘869 does not disclose that the seal includes an O-ring or a mercury seal. Instead, Nagarkatti discloses a seal of unspecified structure to seal the piston (paragraph [0040]).
However, Cohrs discloses a seal that includes an O-ring (104, 106, 112, 114, 116, 118) or a mercury seal. Cohrs discloses that the O-ring seals a piston (col. 5, lines 30-63).
Because Nagarkatti and Cohrs both disclose seals for sealing a piston, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the O-ring seal of Cohrs for the seal of Nagarkatti to achieve the predictable result of sealing the piston.
Claims 38 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0217346 by Nagarkatti et al. (“Nagarkatti’) in view of U.S. Patent 6,427,517 issued to McMillan (“McMillan”), U.S. Patent 2,892,346 issued to Sargent (“Sargent”), WO 2017-125499 by Leberre et al. (“Leberre”), DE 10-2018-219230 by Wahl et al. (“Wahl”) NL 1015995 by Van Der Beek (“Van Der Beek”) and U.S. Patent 4,996,869 issued to Cohrs et al. (“Cohrs ‘869”) as applied to claim 37, further in view of U.S. Patent 11,112,294 issued to Ahmad et al. (“Ahmad”).
As for claim 38, Nagarkatti as modified by McMillan, Sargent, Leberre, Wahl, Van Der Beek and Cohrs ‘869 discloses the flow reference of claim 37 (see the rejection of claim 37 above) and a temperature sensor (Nagarkatti: 137) electrically coupled to the controller, wherein the actions further comprise:
receiving a temperature signal from the temperature sensor, the temperature signal corresponding to a temperature of a fluid within the cavity (paragraph [0027])
Nagarkatti as modified by McMillan, Sargent, Leberre, Wahl, Van Der Beek and Cohrs ‘869does not disclose that the actions further comprise calculating a mass flowrate based at least on the temperature of the fluid and the pressure within the cavity,.
However, Ahmad discloses calculating a mass flowrate based at least on a temperature of a fluid and a pressure (col. 13, lines 2-4).
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 actions of Nagarkatti, McMillan, Sargent, Leberre, Wahl, Van Der Beek and Cohrs ‘869 to include calculating a mass flowrate as disclosed by Ahmad in order to allow a user to know the mass flow rate if desired, especially because Nagarkatti discloses a mass flow measurement system (paragraph [0013]).
Nagarkatti as modified by McMillan, Sargent, Leberre, Wahl, Van Der Beek, Cohrs ‘869 and Ahmad discloses that the actions further comprise calculating a mass flowrate based at least on the temperature of the fluid (Ahmad: col. 13, lines 2-4) and the pressure (Ahmad: col. 13, lines 2-4) within the cavity (Nagarkatti: detected by 235).
As for claim 39, Nagarkatti as modified by McMillan, Sargent, Leberre, Wahl, Van Der Beek and Cohrs ‘869 discloses the flow reference of claim 32 (see the rejection of claim 32 above) and a temperature sensor (Nagarkatti: 137) electrically coupled to the controller, wherein the actions further comprise:
receiving a temperature signal from the temperature sensor, the temperature signal corresponding to a temperature of a fluid within the cavity (paragraph [0027])
Nagarkatti as modified by McMillan, Sargent, Leberre, Wahl, Van Der Beek and Cohrs ‘869 does not disclose that the actions further comprise calculating a mass flowrate based at least on the temperature of the fluid and the pressure within the cavity,.
However, Ahmad discloses calculating a mass flowrate based at least on a temperature of a fluid and a pressure (col. 13, lines 2-4).
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 actions of Nagarkatti, McMillan, Sargent, Leberre, Wahl, Van Der Beek and Cohrs ‘869 to include calculating a mass flowrate as disclosed by Ahmad in order to allow a user to know the mass flow rate if desired, especially because Nagarkatti discloses a mass flow measurement system (paragraph [0013]).
Nagarkatti as modified by McMillan, Sargent, Leberre, Wahl, Van Der Beek, Cohrs ‘869 and Ahmad discloses that the actions further comprise calculating a mass flowrate based at least on the temperature of the fluid (Ahmad: col. 13, lines 2-4), the pressure (Ahmad: col. 13, lines 2-4) within the cavity (Nagarkatti: detected by 235), and the distance traveled by the piston (Nagarkatti: paragraphs [0028] and [0029]).
Claims 42, 43, 45, 48, 49, 51-53 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0217346 by Nagarkatti et al. (“Nagarkatti’) in view of U.S. Patent 6,427,517 issued to McMillan (“McMillan”), NL 1015995 by Van Der Beek (“Van Der Beek”), U.S. Patent 2,892,346 issued to Sargent (“Sargent”), WO 2017-125499 by Leberre et al. (“Leberre”) and DE 10-2018-219230 by Wahl et al. (“Wahl”) and U.S. Patent 4,996,869 issued to Cohrs et al. (“Cohrs ‘869”).
As for claims 42 and 49, Nagarkatti discloses a flow reference (Fig. 2) comprising:
a cylinder (130) including an interior surface that defines a cavity and a flow inlet;
a first pressure sensor (135) in fluid communication with the cavity,
a piston (120) located within the cavity;
an actuator (140) mechanically coupled (via 145) to the piston and arranged to move the piston in a linear direction within the cavity; and
a controller (controller; paragraphs [0023] and [0029]) electrically coupled to the actuator and the first pressure sensor, the controller configured to perform actions comprising:
receiving a first signal from the first pressure sensor, the first signal corresponding to a pressure within the cavity (paragraph [0026]),
actuating the actuator to reposition the piston within the cavity to maintain a selected pressure (paragraph [0026]),
determining a distance traveled by the piston due to actuation of the actuator (paragraph [0029]).
Nagarkatti does not disclose that the first signal corresponds to a first absolute pressure within the cavity because Nagarkatti does not disclose that the first pressure sensor is an absolute pressure sensor.
However, McMillan discloses a pressure sensor (150) that is an absolute pressure sensor (col. 4, lines 31-34).
Because Nagarkatti and McMillan both disclose first pressure sensors, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the first pressure sensor of Nagarkatti for the absolute first pressure sensor of McMillan to achieve the predictable result of measuring an absolute pressure of a cavity.
Nagarkatti as modified by McMillan does not explicitly disclose determining a time for the piston to travel the distance. Instead, Nagarkatti discloses using a velocity sensor to determine when the volume of the enclosure has been changed by the piston (Nagarkatti: paragraph [0029]).
However, Van Der Beek discloses determining a time for the piston to travel the distance (page 7 of the provided English translation). Van Der Beek discloses that a timer, along with an optical ruler, is used to determine when a volume of an enclosure has been changed by a piston (page 7).
Because Nagarkatti and Van Der Beek both disclose methods for determining when a volume of an enclosure has been changed by a piston, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the method and structures of Van Der Beek for the method and structures of Nagarkatti to achieve the predictable result of determining when the volume of the enclosure has been changed by the piston.
Nagarkatti as presently modified by McMillan and Van Der Beek does not explicitly disclose determining a volumetric flowrate of a fluid entering the flow inlet based on a cross-sectional area of the piston in contact with the fluid. Instead, Nagarkatti discloses determining a volumetric flowrate of a fluid entering the flow inlet based on the change of position of the piston (Nagarkatti: paragraph [0029]).
However, McMillan further discloses determining a volumetric flowrate of a fluid entering a flow inlet based on a cross-sectional area of a piston in contact with the fluid (col. 1, lines 20-37). McMillan discloses that the cross-sectional area of the piston is used with the change of position of the piston to determine the volumetric flowrate (col. 1, lines 20-37).
Because Nagarkatti and McMillan both disclose methods of using the change of piston to determine a volumetric flowrate, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the method of McMillan, which explicitly uses the cross-sectional area of the piston, for the method of Nagarkatti to achieve the predictable result of determining the volumetric flowrate.
Nagarkatti as modified by McMillan and Van Der Beek discloses determining a volumetric flowrate of a fluid entering the flow inlet based on the distance traveled by the piston, a cross-sectional area of the piston in contact with the fluid, and the time for the piston to travel the distance (McMillan: col. 1, lines 20-37).
Nagarkatti as modified by McMillan and Van Der Beek does not disclose a second pressure sensor in fluid communication with the flow inlet and external to the cavity, in part, because Nagarkatti does not disclose measuring a differential pressure. Instead, Nagarkatti discloses measuring a pressure so that the pressure in the cavity, when compared to a reference, can be used to adjust the position of the piston (Nagarkatti: paragraph [0024] and [0026]).
However, Sargent discloses measuring a differential pressure using a differential pressure sensor in fluid communication with the flow inlet and external to a cavity (see the Figure and col. 2, lines 25-32). Sargent discloses measuring a differential pressure so that the differential pressure, which compares the pressure in the cavity and a reference pressure at the flow inlet, can be used to adjust a position of a piston (col. 2, lines 25-32 and col. 2, lines 60-68). Furthermore, Leberre discloses (see the paragraph beginning “Fig. 2 is a variant of the system …”) a second pressure sensor (21) along with a first pressure sensor (20), and that two pressure sensors can be used to measure a differential pressure (see the paragraph beginning “Fig. 2 is a variant of the system …”). Wahl also discloses (see the paragraph beginning “In the exhaust are 45 downstream …”) a second pressure sensor (101) along with a first pressure sensor (100), and that two pressure sensors can be used to measure a differential pressure (see the paragraph beginning “In the exhaust are 45 downstream …”). Wahl discloses that the differential pressure can be calculated and used to generate a control signal based on the differential pressure (see the paragraph beginning “In the exhaust are 45 downstream …”).
Because Sargent and Nagarkatti both disclose methods of using a pressure to adjust a position of a piston, and Leberre and Wahl both disclose that a second pressure sensor can be used along with a first pressure sensor to measure a differential pressure, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the method of Sargent which uses a differential pressure measurement, and to include the second pressure sensor of Leberre and Wahl to make the differential pressure measurement, for the method of Nagarkatti which uses a single pressure sensor to achieve the predictable result of providing a pressure measurement so that the position of the piston can be adjusted.
Nagarkatti as modified by McMillan, Van Der Beek, Sargent, Leberre and Wahl discloses:
an actuator (Nagarkatti: 140 and Sargent:11) mechanically coupled (Nagarkatti: via 145) to the slidable element and arranged to move the slidable element within the cavity (Nagarkatti: paragraph [0026]), the actuator at least partially to apply a force to the slidable element that substantially equals the amount of friction between the slidable element and the cavity (inherent; to maintain a differential pressure of about zero while the slidable element moves; Nagarkatti: paragraphs [0025] and [0026] and Sargent: col. 2, line 60 - col. 3, line 5); and
a controller (Nagarkatti: controller; paragraphs [0023] and [0029]) electrically coupled to the actuator (Nagarkatti: 140) and the first pressure sensor (Nagarkatti:135 and Leberre: 20 and Wahl: 100), the controller configured to perform actions comprising:
receiving a first signal from the first pressure sensor (Nagarkatti: 135 and Leberre: 20 and Wahl: 100), the first signal corresponding to an absolute pressure (McMillan: col. 4, lines 31-34) within the cavity (Nagarkatti: paragraph [0026]),
receiving a second pressure measurement signal from the second pressure sensor (Leberre: 21 and Wahl: 101), the second signal corresponding to a second absolute pressure (McMillan: col. 4, lines 31-34) external to the cavity (Nagarkatti: paragraph [0026] and Sargent: col. 2, lines 25-32 and col. 2, lines 60-68),
calculating a differential pressure based on the first pressure measurement signal and the second pressure measurement signal (Leberre: see the paragraph beginning “Fig. 2 is a variant of the system …” and Wahl: see the paragraph beginning “In the exhaust are 45 downstream …”),
actuating the actuator to reposition the slidable element within the cavity to maintain a selected differential pressure (Nagarkatti: paragraph [0026] and Sargent: col. 2, lines 25-32 and col. 2, lines 60-68).
In the case that Nagarkatti as modified by McMillan, Van Der Beek, Sargent, Leberre and Wahl does not inherently disclose that the actuator applies a force that substantially equals the amount of friction between the slidable element and the cavity, Van Der Beek discloses that frictional forces are compensated by the drive device (see the paragraph beginning: “Based on these insights, the present invention …”).
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 actuator of Nagarkatti, McMillan, Sargent, Leberre and Wahl to apply a force equal to friction as disclosed by Van Der Beek in order to ensure that the flow rate is measured with very little uncertainty (Beek: see the paragraphs beginning “Secondly, the measuring piston must be arranged …” and “In the foregoing, the advantages of the invention …”).
Nagarkatti as modified by McMillan, Sargent, Leberre, Wahl and Van Der Beek does not disclose varying a control setting of the unit under test; and determining a volumetric flowrate for each control setting.
However, Cohrs ‘869 discloses varying a control setting (col. 1, lines 47-52 and col. 4, lines 59-61) of a unit under test (22); and
determining a volumetric flowrate for each control setting (col. 4, lines 11-46).
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 controller of Nagarkatti, McMillan, Sargent, Leberre, Wahl and Van Der Beek to include the steps as disclosed by Cohrs ‘869 in order to obtain accurate readings from a flowmeter for different flow conditions (Cohrs: col. 1, lines 18-24 and col. 1, lines 47-52).
As for claim 49, Nagarkatti as modified by McMillan, Van Der Beek, Sargent, Leberre and Wahl and Cohrs ‘869 discloses an apparatus (see above) that performs the claimed method.
As for claim 43, Nagarkatti as modified by McMillan, Van Der Beek, Sargent, Leberre, Wahl and Cohrs ‘869 discloses an encoder (Van Der Beek: optical ruler; page 7) electrically coupled to the controller, the encoder configured to transmit an encoder signal to the controller corresponding to a position of the slidable element (Van Der Beek: page 7),
wherein the actuator is a linear actuator (Nagarkatti: paragraph [0124]), and
wherein determining the distance traveled by the piston includes utilizing the encoder signal to determine the distance traveled (Van Der Beek: page 7).
As for claim 45, Nagarkatti as modified by McMillan, Van Der Beek, Sargent, Leberre, Wahl and Cohrs ‘869 discloses a timer (Van Der Beek: 59) electrically coupled to the controller, the timer used for determining the time for the piston to travel the distance (Van Der Beek: page 7).
As for claim 48, Nagarkatti as modified by McMillan, Van Der Beek, Sargent, Leberre, Wahl and Cohrs ‘869 discloses a seal (Nagarkatti: 38) located between a perimeter surface of the piston and the interior surface of the enclosure (paragraphs [0015] and [0040]).
As for claim 51, Nagarkatti as modified by McMillan, Van Der Beek, Sargent, Leberre, Wahl and Cohrs ‘869 discloses creating a calibration factor (Cohrs ‘869: k-factor) for the unit under test as a function of the control setting (Cohrs ‘869: col. 4, lines 11-46).
As for claim 52, Nagarkatti as modified by McMillan, Van Der Beek, Sargent, Leberre, Wahl and Cohrs ‘869 discloses that the controller is configured to calculate a volumetric flowrate based on a maintained differential pressure and a parameter including a piston movement parameter (Sargent: col. 2, lines 25-32 and col. 2, lines 60-68 and McMillan: col. 1, lines 20-37).
As for claim 53, Nagarkatti as modified by McMillan, Van Der Beek, Sargent, Leberre, Wahl and Cohrs ‘869 discloses:
maintaining the selected differential pressure at a substantially constant value during measurement (Sargent: col. 2, lines 60-68);
calculating an enclosed volume based on the cross-sectional area of the piston multiplied by the distance travelled (McMillan: col. 1, lines 28-31); and
dividing the enclosed volume by the time for the piston to travel the distance (McMillan: col. 1, lines 31-34).
As for claim 55, Nagarkatti as modified by McMillan, Van Der Beek, Sargent, Leberre, Wahl and Cohrs ‘869 discloses:
measuring the distance traveled by the piston using an encoder electrically coupled to the controller (Nagarkatti: paragraphs [0029] and [0030] and McMillan: col. 1, lines 20-37);
measuring the time using a timer electrically coupled to the controller (Van Der Beek: page 7); and
calculating the volumetric flowrate as a product of:
cross-sectional area of the piston,
the measured distance traveled by the piston, and
the inverse of the measured time (McMillan: col. 1, lines 20-37).
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0217346 by Nagarkatti et al. (“Nagarkatti’) in view of U.S. Patent 6,427,517 issued to McMillan (“McMillan”), NL 1015995 by Van Der Beek (“Van Der Beek”), U.S. Patent 2,892,346 issued to Sargent (“Sargent”), WO 2017-125499 by Leberre et al. (“Leberre”) and DE 10-2018-219230 by Wahl et al. (“Wahl”) and U.S. Patent 4,996,869 issued to Cohrs et al. (“Cohrs ‘869”) as applied to claim 42, further in view of U.S. Patent 4,823,598 issued to Carpenter et al. (“Carpenter”).
As for claim 44, Nagarkatti as modified by McMillan, Van Der Beek, Sargent, Leberre, Wahl and Cohrs ‘869 l discloses the flow reference of claim 42 (see the rejection of claim 42 above).
Nagarkatti as modified by McMillan, Van Der Beek, Sargent, Leberre, Wahl and Cohrs ‘869 does not disclose that the actuator is driven by a stepper motor and determining the distance traveled by the piston includes counting a number of steps taken by the stepper motor. Instead, Nagarkatti discloses using a linear motor to drive the piston (paragraph [0024]).
However, Carpenter discloses an actuator (26) that is driven by a stepper motor (15) and determining a distance traveled by a piston includes counting a number of steps taken by the stepper motor (col. 2, line 45 - col. 3, line 4). Carpenter discloses that the stepper motor drives a piston (see Fig. 2).
Because Nagarkatti and Carpenter both disclose structures for driving a piston, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the stepper motor of Carpenter for the linear motor of Nagarkatti to achieve the predictable result of providing a structure that can drive the piston.
Claims 47 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0217346 by Nagarkatti et al. (“Nagarkatti’) in view of U.S. Patent 6,427,517 issued to McMillan (“McMillan”), NL 1015995 by Van Der Beek (“Van Der Beek”), U.S. Patent 2,892,346 issued to Sargent (“Sargent”), WO 2017-125499 by Leberre et al. (“Leberre”) and DE 10-2018-219230 by Wahl et al. (“Wahl”) and U.S. Patent 4,996,869 issued to Cohrs et al. (“Cohrs ‘869”) as applied to claims 42 and 49, further in view of U.S. Patent 11,112,294 issued to Ahmad et al. (“Ahmad”).
As for claims 47 and 50, Nagarkatti as modified by McMillan, Van Der Beek, Sargent, Leberre, Wahl and Cohrs ‘869 discloses the flow reference of claim 42 (see the rejection of claim 42 above) and a temperature sensor (Nagarkatti: 137) electrically coupled to the computing device, wherein the actions further comprise:
receiving a temperature signal from the temperature sensor, the temperature signal corresponding to a temperature of a fluid within the cavity (Nagarkatti: paragraph [0027]).
Nagarkatti as modified by McMillan, Van Der Beek, Sargent, Leberre, Wahl and Cohrs ‘869 does not disclose that the temperature sensor is located within the cavity. Instead, Nagarkatti discloses a temperature sensor (Nagarkatti: 137) near the entrance to the cavity (Nagarkatti: see Fig. 2). Nagarkatti discloses that the temperature sensor monitors the temperature of the fluid in the cavity (Nagarkatti: paragraph [0024]).
However, McMillan discloses a temperature sensor (McMillan: 160) that is located with a cavity (see Fig. 2).
Nagarkatti as modified by McMillan, Van Der Beek, Sargent, Leberre, Wahl and Cohrs ‘869 does not disclose that the actions further comprise calculating a mass flowrate based at least on the temperature and the volumetric flow rate.
However, Ahmad discloses calculating a mass flowrate based at least on a temperature and a volumetric flow rate (col. 13, lines 2-4).
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 actions of Nagarkatti, McMillan, Van Der Beek, Sargent, Leberre , Wahl and Cohrs ‘869 to include calculating a mass flowrate as disclosed by Ahmad in order to allow a user to know the mass flow rate if desired, especially because Nagarkatti discloses a mass flow measurement system (paragraph [0013]).
As for claim 50, Nagarkatti as modified by McMillan, Van Der Beek, Sargent, Leberre, Wahl, Cohrs ‘869 and Ahmad discloses a flow reference (see the rejection of claim 47 above) that performs the claimed method.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 11-12 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that the application supports that the inventors possessed a controller that calculates a differential pressure. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that a differential pressure can be calculated by hand (i.e. in the mind of a human) or by a device (e.g. an external hand calculator used by a human) that that does not receive the first and second pressure measurement signals. The examiner also notes that, although the specification discloses that software performs processes for calculating flowrates, the specification only discloses flowrate calculations (see equations 1-3 on page 9) that do not include calculating a differential pressure. Therefore, the suggestion in the specification that a differential pressure is (somehow) calculated does not provide convincing proof that the differential pressure was calculated by the claimed controller rather than by a human.
On pages 12-13 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that the specification supports that the inventors possessed the invention of claim 54. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The specification does not describe or suggest a controller that continuously monitors, dynamically adjusts, and calculates the volumetric flow rate only when the differential pressure is maintained within a predetermined tolerance. Similar to the previous arguments, these claimed functions can be performed by a human rather than a controller; therefore the specification does not provide convincing proof that these functions were performed by the claimed calculator rather than a human (who would perform these functions manually).
On pages 13-14 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that the specification supports that the inventors possessed the invention of claim 56. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The specification does not describe or suggest a controller that is further configured to: store the first absolute pressure, second absolute pressure, differential pressure, distance traveled, time of travel, and calculated volumetric flowrate; verify the selected differential pressure was maintained during the measurement; and flag the calculated volumetric flowrate as invalid if the differential pressure deviated from the selected differential pressure by more than a predetermined amount. Similar to the previous arguments, these claimed functions can be performed by a human rather than a controller; therefore the specification does not provide convincing proof that these functions were performed by the claimed calculator rather than a human (who would perform these functions manually).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
On pages 20-21 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Cohrs ‘869 does not disclose varying a control setting of a unit under test; and determining a volumetric flowrate for each control setting. Applicant argues that Cohrs’ 869 discloses varying conditions of the calibrator 10 and not the unit under test (flowmeter under test 22 of Cohrs’ 869). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Although examiner agrees that Cohrs ‘869 discloses varying conditions of the calibrator, the examiner notes that the calibrator and unit under test are arranged in series such that the temperature, pressure and nominal flow rate of the unit under test is varied at the same time that the calibrator conditions are varied; i.e. one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the control setting of the unit under test is varied. Cohrs ‘869 suggests varying conditions of a unit under test in at least col. 1, lines 47-52 and col. 4, lines 59-61. Applicant further argues that Cohrs ‘869 statement that “many test runs of the calibrator or prover must be made to derive the K-factor” fails to support the speculation of the examiner. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner’s position is that this statement supports the idea that control settings (such as flow rate, temperature and pressure) must be varied over many test runs so that calibration factors can be determined for each control setting.
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 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