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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/11/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, page 9, that Musiak fails to teach detecting phase shift, therefore it cannot accurately detect oscillation state of the system. Applicant states that the phase shift “allows use of the full complex admittance”. Further, that Musiak does not describe any step or feather that would allow for the oscillations state of the system to be derived from the phase angle.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. It is not clear what is means to “use the full complex admittance”. The specification nor arguments make clear what the “full complex admittance” is or how it differs from the teaching of Musiak.
Further, the arguments with respect to the phase shift are directed toward a new limitation which was not previously required by claims 1 or 9. Feldkamp teaches a device for determining conductance of an object. Feldkamp teaches “In a suitable embodiment, the phase detector module 312 detects a phase angle of the sensor 104 (e.g., of the current flowing through the sensor) based on the current measurement signal and the voltage measurement signal received from the signal processing circuit 106. Specifically, the phase detector module 312 detects a phase shift or phase angle between the current measurement signal and the voltage measurement signal, and generates a signal or value (hereinafter referred to as a “sensor phase angle”) representative of the detected phase shift or phase angle between the voltage measurement signal and the current measurement signal.” Col. 5, line 58- col. 6, line 4. Therefore, the phase angle and phase shift are art recognized equivalents.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to dependent claims have been fully considered. These arguments are directed to the rejection of claims 1 and 9 and are believed to have been addressed above.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 9-11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musiak et al. (US20210123038) in view of Feldkamp (US9687169).
Claim 1: Musiak teaches an apparatus for processing and analyzing a measurement fluid for measurement, comprising: a fluid chamber (acoustic chamber 12, Fig. 2), which is filled by the measurement fluid (mixture 10 of a host fluid and a secondary phase [0037] including particles 21) or through which the measurement fluid flows during operation, an electrically driven ultrasonic driver (ultrasonic transducer 17) which causes the measurement fluid to oscillate during operation by applying an electrical operating voltage, wherein the measurement fluid, the ultrasonic driver (transducer 17), and a reflector (reflector 18), are parts of a resonator and of a common mechanical oscillation system during operation, characterized in that a measuring device (controller 120, fig. 11) is provided which determines the oscillation state of the mechanical oscillation system during operation by detecting current (current sense 124) and voltage (voltage sense 122) and phase angle(phase angle [0074]) at the ultrasonic driver operated under operating voltage ([0072-0075]).
Musiak fails to teach detecting phase shift.
However, Feldkamp teaches “In a suitable embodiment, the phase detector module 312 detects a phase angle of the sensor 104 (e.g., of the current flowing through the sensor) based on the current measurement signal and the voltage measurement signal received from the signal processing circuit 106. Specifically, the phase detector module 312 detects a phase shift or phase angle between the current measurement signal and the voltage measurement signal, and generates a signal or value (hereinafter referred to as a “sensor phase angle”) representative of the detected phase shift or phase angle between the voltage measurement signal and the current measurement signal.” Col. 5, line 58- col. 6, line 4.
Therefore, the phase angle and phase shift are art recognized equivalents. A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to use either the phase angle or the phase shift from the measured current and voltage in order to non-invasively determine the conductance of an object in a cost-effective, accurate, and efficient manner (Col. 1, lines 48-50).
Claim 2: Musiak in view of Feldkamp teaches the apparatus according to claim 1. Musiak teaches that the measuring device (controller 120) calculates the complex impedance or the complex admittance from the variables current, voltage and phase shift (phase angle) in order to determine the oscillation state of the mechanical oscillation system ([0078, 0082-0083] the controller calculates the PZT impedance from the voltage and current).
Claim 3: Musiak in view of Feldkamp teaches the apparatus according to claim 1. Musiak teaches that the measuring device detects the current and/or the voltage and/or the phase shift on electrodes of the resonator ([0053] electrodes 90, 92 of the PZT crystal 86, Fig. 3).
Claim 5: Musiak in view of Feldkamp teaches the apparatus according to claim 1. Musiak teaches in that the measuring device (controller 120) is configured for indirect measurement of the acousto-mechanical state via the measurement of the electromechanically coupled signal parameters of the electrical excitation in operation (the controller 120 detects current, voltage to determine characteristics of the impedance curves [0075]).
Claim 9: Musiak teaches a method for processing and analyzing a measurement fluid for measurement in a measuring device, wherein the measurement fluid (mixture 10 of a host fluid and a secondary phase [0037] including particles 21) is arranged in a fluid chamber (acoustic chamber 12, Fig. 2) or flows through the fluid chamber during operation, wherein the measurement fluid is set in oscillation by applying an operating current to an electrically driven ultrasonic driver (ultrasonic transducer 17), wherein the measurement fluid, the ultrasonic driver (transducer 17) and a reflector (reflector 18) are parts of a resonator and of a common mechanical oscillation system during operation, characterized in that the oscillation state of the mechanical oscillation system during operation is determined by detecting the current (current sense 124, fig. 11) and the voltage (voltage sense 122) and the phase angle (phase angle [0074]) at the ultrasonic driver operated under operating voltage ([0072-0075]).
Musiak fails to teach detecting phase shift.
However, Feldkamp teaches “In a suitable embodiment, the phase detector module 312 detects a phase angle of the sensor 104 (e.g., of the current flowing through the sensor) based on the current measurement signal and the voltage measurement signal received from the signal processing circuit 106. Specifically, the phase detector module 312 detects a phase shift or phase angle between the current measurement signal and the voltage measurement signal, and generates a signal or value (hereinafter referred to as a “sensor phase angle”) representative of the detected phase shift or phase angle between the voltage measurement signal and the current measurement signal.” Col. 5, line 58- col. 6, line 4. Therefore, the phase angle and phase shift are art recognized equivalents and a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to use either the phase angle or the phase shift from the measured current and voltage in order to non-invasively determine the conductance of an object in a cost-effective, accurate, and efficient manner (Col. 1, lines 48-50).
Claim 10: Musiak in view of Feldkamp teaches the method of claim 9. Musiak teaches that the complex impedance (PZT impedance) or the complex admittance is calculated from the variables current, voltage and phase shift in order to determine the oscillation state of the mechanical oscillation system ([0078, 0082-0083] the controller calculates the PZT impedance from the voltage and current).
Claim 11: Musiak in view of Feldkamp teaches the method of claim 9. Musiak teaches wherein the current and/or the voltage and/or the phase shift is or are detected on the electrodes of the resonator, in particular on the electrodes of the ultrasonic driver ([0053] electrodes 90, 92 of the PZT crystal 86, Fig. 3).
Claim 13: Musiak in view of Feldkamp teaches the method of claim 9. Musiak teaches that the acousto-mechanical state is indirectly measured via a measurement of the electromechanically coupled signal parameters of the electrical excitation in operation (the controller 120 detects current, voltage to determine characteristics of the impedance curves [0075])
Claims 4, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musiak in view of Feldkamp further in view of Jakoby (US6765392).
Claim 4: Musiak in view of Feldkamp teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein a shunt is provided for detecting the current and/or the voltage and/or the phase shift, wherein the shunt is arranged according to a first circuit configuration between an electrical signal amplification for the ultrasonic driver and an electrode of the ultrasonic driver, or wherein the shunt is arranged according to a second circuit configuration between an electrode of the ultrasonic driver and a ground line.
However, Jakoby teaches the detection of voltage at a resonator R, Fig. 1, 2, including a shunt Rm. The shunt Rm is connected between the resonator (therefore an electric contact/electrode thereof) and ground (See Figs. 1, 2; claim 2). Therefore, it is known to measure resonator current using a shunt connected between the resonator and ground.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use a shunt to detect current at the resonator, as taught by Jakoby, with the device of Musiak in view of Feldkamp in order to have a circuit which is suitable for measuring highly viscous liquids (Jakoby, col. 2, lines 21-22).
Claim 12: Musiak in view of Feldkamp teaches the method of claim 9, but fails to teach that the current and/or the voltage and/or the phase shift is or are detected according to a first circuit configuration via a shunt (10) arranged between the output of the electrical signal amplification and an electrode of the ultrasonic driver (11), or in that the current and/or the voltage and/or the phase shift is or are detected according to a second circuit configuration via a shunt (10) arranged between the output of the electrical signal amplification and an electrode of the ultrasonic driver (11).
However, Jakoby teaches the detection of voltage at a resonator R, Fig. 1, 2, including a shunt Rm. The shunt Rm is connected between the resonator (therefore an electric contact/electrode thereof) and ground (See Figs. 1, 2; claim 2). Therefore, it is known to measure resonator current using a shunt connected between the resonator and ground.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use a shunt to detect current at the resonator, as taught by Jakoby, with the method of Musiak in view of Feldkamp in order to have a circuit which is suitable for measuring highly viscous liquids (Jakoby, col. 2, lines 21-22).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musiak in view of Feldkamp further in view of Funck et al. (US7319934).
Claim 6: Musiak in view of Feldkamp teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach that the ultrasonic driver comprises one or more ultrasonic driver units, and/or in that the ultrasonic driver comprises one or more piezoelectric ultrasonic drivers, and/or that the ultrasonic driver is formed by one or more piezoelectric ultrasonic drivers.
However, Funck teaches a first and second ultrasonic drivers (transducer 6, Fig. 3, 4, 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a first and second transducer in order to use a first transducer to measure the amplitude and frequency of the liquid resonance (Funck, col. 9, lines 1-11).
Claims 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musiak in view of Feldkamp further in view of Core et al. (US2021/0262989).
Claim 7: Musiak in view of Feldkamp teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach that the operating voltage of the operating current of the ultrasonic driver is greater than 5 V.sub.SS, wherein the voltage specifications are the voltage difference between the voltage peak value and the voltage valley value of the AC voltage.
However, Core teaches an ultrasound transducer which is operated at various voltages including peak-to-peak voltages of 2V, 4V, 6V, and 8V [0200].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a peak-to-peak voltage greater than 5V in order to cover more frequencies (Core [0232]).
Claims 14, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musiak in view of Feldkamp further in view of Itoh et al. (US20040150428).
Claim 14: Musiak in view of Feldkamp teaches the method of claim 14, but fails to teach that one or more of the following parameters are detected: Particle presence in the measurement fluid, change in particle presence in the measurement fluid, particle concentration in the measurement fluid, change in particle concentration in the measurement fluid, total mass of the particles (14) located in the fluid chamber (12), change in total mass of the particles (14) located in the fluid chamber (12), temperature of the measurement fluid, change in the temperature of the measurement fluid, density of the measurement fluid, change in the density of the measurement fluid, attenuation by the measurement fluid, change in the attenuation by the measurement fluid, contamination of the ultrasonic driver (11) and/or the reflector.
However, Itoh teaches an apparatus (Figs. 4a, 5) for processing and analyzing a measurement fluid (liquid 7) for measurement in a measuring device including contamination of the ultrasonic driver (Itoh teaches detecting the mass change of the piezoelectric resonator [0057, 0085-0088], claims 1-3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teachings of Itoh with the method of Musiak in view of Feldkamp in order to distinguish a viscosity effect from a mass effect and improve the accuracy of the measurement (Itoh [0004-0005]).
Claim 17: Musiak in view of Feldkamp teaches the method of claim 9 but fails to teach that one or more parameters for determining the resonance state are detected by determining a conductance value, an admittance value or a susceptance value.
However, Itoh teaches teach that one or more parameters for determining the resonance state are detected by determining a conductance value, an admittance value or a susceptance value ([0125] Using the above-described apparatus, the frequency is changed within a predetermined range including the resonance frequency f.sub.s, and if the relation between the frequency and the conductance G is measured, then the conductance G takes on an extremum at the resonance frequency. In particular, the extremum value of the conductance G is a maximum in the resonance state of h=1, so that it can be easily seen that the frequency at which the maximum conductance G.sub.max during the measurement is the resonance frequency f.sub.s).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teachings of Itoh with the method of Musiak in view of Feldkamp in order to analyze materials in liquids with precision (Itoh [0001]).
Claim 19: Musiak in view of Feldkamp teaches the method of claim 9, but fails to teach that a resonance state is set by roughly setting the resonance frequency in a first step, and by precisely setting this frequency in a second step by changing it until a specific conductance value, a specific admittance value, a specific susceptance value are determined through the measurement of current, voltage and phase shift.
Itoh teaches that a resonance state is set by roughly setting the resonance frequency in a first step, and by precisely setting this frequency in a second step by changing it until a specific conductance value, a specific admittance value, a specific susceptance value are determined through the measurement of current, voltage and phase shift ([0122] The cell 2 is connected to the analytical device 4, which outputs alternating current signal of the desired frequency to the cell 2, and the conductance G of the cell 2 at this frequency can be measured. [0125] Using the above-described apparatus, the frequency is changed within a predetermined range including the resonance frequency f.sub.s, and if the relation between the frequency and the conductance G is measured, then the conductance G takes on an extremum at the resonance frequency. In particular, the extremum value of the conductance G is a maximum in the resonance state of h=1, so that it can be easily seen that the frequency at which the maximum conductance G.sub.max during the measurement is the resonance frequency f.sub.s).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teachings of Itoh with the method of Musiak in view of Feldkamp in order to analyze trace materials contained in liquids with high precision (Itoh [0001]).
Claims 8, 15-16, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musiak in view of Feldkamp further in view of House et al. (US4834884).
Claim 8: Musiak in view of Feldkamp teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach an additional sensor arrangement which is configured to analyze the measurement fluid arranged or flowing in the fluid chamber and set in oscillation.
However, House teaches temperature compensation for ultrasonic wave propagation (col. 18, line 32- col. 20, line 33) including time of flight for the ultrasound signal. This includes compensation for a change in speed of sound caused by a change in temperature (col. 20, lines 18-25; figs. 12, 13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teachings of House with the device of Musiak in view of Feldkamp for the obvious benefit of improved accuracy of the ultrasound measurements and therefore the acoustic parameters.
Claim 15: Musiak in view of Feldkamp teaches the method according to claim 9, but fails to teach that one or more parameters for regulating compensation of a change in speed of sound in the measurement fluid are acquired.
However, House teaches temperature compensation for ultrasonic wave propagation (col. 18, line 32- col. 20, line 33) including time of flight for the ultrasound signal. This includes compensation for a change in speed of sound caused by a change in temperature (col. 20, lines 18-25; figs. 12, 13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teachings of House with the method of Musiak in view of Feldkamp for the obvious benefit of improved accuracy of the ultrasound measurements and therefore the acoustic parameters.
Claim 16: Musiak in view of Feldkamp teaches the method according to claim 9, but fails to teach that one or more parameters for regulating a temperature compensation are detected.
However, House teaches temperature compensation for ultrasonic wave propagation (col. 18, line 32- col. 20, line 33) including time of flight for the ultrasound signal. This includes compensation for a change in speed of sound caused by a change in temperature (col. 20, lines 18-25; figs. 12, 13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teachings of House with the device of Musiak in view of Feldkamp for the obvious benefit of improved accuracy of the ultrasound measurements and therefore the acoustic parameters.
Claim 18: Musiak in view of Feldkamp teaches the method according to claim 9, but fails to teach that a change in speed of sound in the measurement fluid, in particular a change in the temperature of the measurement fluid, the density of the measurement fluid and/or the compressibility of the measurement fluid is detected in that the change alters the resonance frequency.
However, House teaches temperature compensation for ultrasonic wave propagation (col. 18, line 32- col. 20, line 33) including time of flight for the ultrasound signal. This includes compensation for a change in speed of sound caused by a change in temperature (col. 20, lines 18-25; figs. 12, 13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teachings of House with the device of Musiak in view of Feldkamp for the obvious benefit of improved accuracy of the ultrasound measurements and therefore the acoustic parameters.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musiak in view of Feldkamp further in view of Itoh further in view of Core and Funck.
Claim 20: Musiak in view of Feldkamp teaches the method according to claim 9, but fails to teach wherein the resonance state is maintained - in that the set frequency follows a change of the resonance frequency, e.g. by a temperature change, in that it is changed until a specific conductance value, a specific admittance value, a specific susceptance value, is determined through the measurement of current, voltage and phase shift.
Itoh teaches precisely setting the resonant frequency ([0125] Using the above-described apparatus, the frequency is changed within a predetermined range including the resonance frequency f.sub.s, and if the relation between the frequency and the conductance G is measured, then the conductance G takes on an extremum at the resonance frequency. In particular, the extremum value of the conductance G is a maximum in the resonance state of h=1, so that it can be easily seen that the frequency at which the maximum conductance G.sub.max during the measurement is the resonance frequency f.sub.s).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teachings of Itoh with the method of Musiak in view of Feldkamp in order to analyze trace materials contained in liquids with high precision (Itoh [0001]).
Musiak in view of Feldkamp further in view of Itoh fails to teach wherein the resonance state is maintained in that the set frequency follows a change of the resonance frequency, e.g. by a temperature change, in that it is changed until a specific conductance value, a specific admittance value, a specific susceptance value, in particular a conductance maximum, a conductance minimum, an admittance maximum, an admittance minimum, a susceptance maximum, a susceptance minimum or a susceptance zero-crossing is determined through the measurement of current, voltage and phase shift.
However, Core teaches that the resonant frequencies including the temperature of the transducer can affect the resonant frequency thereof [0047]. Funck teaches that it is known to detect a resonant frequency by detecting the extreme values of conductance (max,min). Knowing that the temperature change affects the resonant frequency and a resonant frequency as described above is a needed parameter of Funck, a person having ordinary skill in the art would pursue potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teachings of Core and Funck with the device of Musiak in view of Feldkamp in view of Itoh in order to achieve efficient performance of the acousto-fluidic operation ([0004] Core).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musiak in view of Feldkamp further in view of Itoh further in view of Core.
Claim 21: Musiak in view of Feldkamp teaches the method according to claim 9, but fails to teach that a property of the resonator, such as the power dissipation in the ultrasonic driver (11), is adjusted to a certain value - by inferring in a first step the temperature of the ultrasonic driver (11) from the change of the resonance frequency, and by limiting, in a second step, the adjusted electrical power of the ultrasonic driver (11) so that the temperature does not exceed a certain value.
Itoh teaches that when a piezoelectric resonator is immersed in water with increasing temperature, the frequency of the resonator changes because of both the properties of the water and the properties of the transducer [0135].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teachings of Itoh with the method of Musiak in order to analyze trace materials contained in liquids with high precision (Itoh [0001]).
Musiak in view of Feldkamp further in view of Itoh fails to teach that a property of the resonator, such as the power dissipation in the ultrasonic driver (11), is adjusted to a certain value by inferring in a first step the temperature of the ultrasonic driver (11) from the change of the resonance frequency, and by limiting, in a second step, the adjusted electrical power of the ultrasonic driver (11) so that the temperature does not exceed a certain value.
However, Core teaches that if the temperature of the ultrasound transducer increased as it is driven may cause a shift of the max/min impedance values ([0063]). To compensate for this, the driving frequency is changed [0063], which inherently requires a change in power.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teachings of Core with the device of Musiak in view of Feldkamp in view of Itoh in order to achieve efficient performance of the acousto-fluidic operation ([0004] Core).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN MORELLO whose telephone number is (313)446-6583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/JEAN F MORELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2855 12/18/25
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights