DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the pump" in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 21-24 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 8,800,383 issued to Bates (“Bates”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0138168 by Pinguet et al. (“Pinguet”), U.S. Patent 6,213,853 issued to Gonzalez-Martin et al. (“Gonzalez-Martin”) and U.S. Patent 11,988,543 issued to Hidaka et al. (“Hidaka”).
As for claim 21, Bates discloses a system (Fig. 2) for measuring a flow rate of a gaseous stream through an instrument (200), the system comprising:
a venturi tube (including 400) having an inlet (left end of 400), an exit (right end of 400), and a throat (middle of 400) located between the inlet and the exit, the throat having a smaller cross-sectional area than both a cross-sectional area of the inlet and a cross-sectional area of the exit (see Fig. 2); the inlet being configured to be coupled pneumatically to the instrument (see Fig. 2), the instrument (200) comprising at least one instrument selected form a particle counter (Abstract) and an active air sampler, the exit being configured to be coupled pneumatically to an external vacuum source (300) [The examiner notes that the recitation that the instrument is a particle counter or active air sampler describes the intended use of the system and does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.];
a differential pressure transducer (120) operative to sense a pressure differential of the venturi tube;
a controller (500 and associated electronics, col. 9, lines 38-43) in electrical communication with the differential pressure transducer and operative to perform actions comprising:
converting a first signal from the differential pressure transducer to the pressure differential (col. 9, lines 38-43),
determining the flow rate through the instrument based on the pressure differential (col. 7, lines 7-9 and col. 9, lines 38-43), and
setting a flag when the flow rate is outside a flow rate range (col. 10, lines 31-37).
Bates does not disclose that the differential pressure transducer is operative to sense a pressure differential between the throat and a point either at or upstream the inlet of the venturi tube. Instead, Bates discloses a generic differential pressure sensor (120) that measures a fluid flow based on a measured differential pressure (col. 7, lines 7-9).
However, Pinguet discloses a differential pressure transducer (Fig. 1) that is operative to sense a pressure differential between the throat and a point either at or upstream an inlet of a venturi tube (see Fig. 1). Pinguet discloses that the differential pressure sensor is a venturi tube that measures a fluid flow based on a measured differential pressure (paragraphs [0042]-[0043]).
Because Bates and Pinguet both disclose venturi tubes and differential pressure transducers that measure a fluid flow based on a measured 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 venturi tube and differential pressure sensor of Pinguet for the venturi tube and differential pressure transducer of Bates to achieve the predictable result of providing a transducer that can measure a fluid flow.
Bates as modified by Pinguet discloses:
a venturi tube (Pinguet: Fig. 1) having an inlet (Pinguet: left end of Fig. 1), an exit (Pinguet: right end of Fig. 1), and a throat (Pinguet: middle of Fig. 1) located between the inlet and the exit, the throat having a smaller cross-sectional area than both a cross-sectional area of the inlet and ta cross-sectional area of the exit (Pinguet: see Fig. 2); the inlet being configured to be coupled pneumatically to the instrument (Bates: see Fig. 2), the instrument (Bates: 200) comprising at least one instrument selected form a particle counter (Bates: Abstract) and an active air sampler, the exit being configured to be coupled pneumatically to an external vacuum source (Bates: 300) [The examiner notes that the recitation that the instrument is a particle counter or active air sampler describes the intended use of the system and does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.];
a differential pressure transducer (Pinguet: Fig. 1) that is operative to sense a pressure differential between the throat and a point either at or upstream the inlet of the venturi tube (Pinguet: see Fig. 1);
a controller (Bates: 500 and associated electronics, col. 9, lines 38-43) in electrical communication with the differential pressure transducer and operative to perform actions comprising:
converting a first signal from the differential pressure transducer to the pressure differential (Bates: col. 9, lines 38-43 and Pinguet: paragraph [0021]),
determining the flow rate through the instrument based on the pressure differential and at least one intensive property of a gas in the gaseous stream (Bates: col. 7, lines 7-9 and col. 9, lines 38-43 and Pinguet: paragraphs [0042]-[0043]); and
setting a flag when the flow rate is outside a flow rate range (Bates: col. 10, lines 31-37).
Bates as modified by Pinguet does not explicitly disclose that, based on a determination that the flow rate is not within a predetermined range of the flow rate, the controller is operative to send a signal as recited.
However, Gonzalez-Martin discloses a controller (804) that, based on a determination that a flow rate is not within a predetermined range of the flow rate (col. 19, lines 12-15), is operative to send a signal to an external source (810) to adjust the flow rate to be within the predetermined range (col. 19, lines 16-21).
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 Bates and Pinguet to send a signal as disclosed by Gonzalez-Martin in order to maintain the flow in a desired range (Bates: Abstract and Gonzalez-Martin: col. 19, lines 7-11).
Bates as modified by Pinguet and Gonzalez-Martin does not explicitly disclose that the controller determines, substantially continuously, the flow rate.
However, Hidaka discloses a controller (10) that determines, substantially continuously, a flow rate (col. 13, lines 1-10).
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 Bates, Pinguet and Gonzalez-Martin to determine the flow rate substantially continuously as disclosed by Hidaka in order to accurately monitor the flow rate (Hidaka: col. 13, lines 1-10).
Bates as modified by Pinguet, Gonzalez-Martin and Hidaka discloses that, based on a determination that the flow rate is not within a predetermined range of the flow rate (Gonzalez-Martin: col. 19, lines 12-15), the controller (Bates: 500 and Gonzalez-Martin: 804 and Hidaka: 10) is operative to:
send a signal to the external vacuum source (Bates: 300 and Gonzalez-Martin: 810) to adjust a speed of a pump (Bates: 300 and Gonzalez-Martin: 810) up or down to adjust the flow rate to be within the predetermined range (Gonzalez-Martin: col. 19, lines 16-21); and
continue measuring the flow rate to verify that the flow rate continues to be within the predetermined range (Gonzalez-Martin: col. 19, lines 3-21 and Hidaka: col. 13, lines 1-10).
As for claim 22, Bates as modified by Pinguet, Gonzalez-Martin and Hidaka discloses a pressure transducer (Bates: 124) in electrical communication with the controller (Bates: col. 9,lines 38-43), the controller operative to perform additional actions comprising:
converting a signal from the pressure transducer into an ambient pressure measurement (Bates: col. 9, lines 38-43); and
detecting an obstruction upstream of the venturi tube based on the ambient pressure and the flow rate (Bates: col. 8, lines 52-54 and col. 9, lines 38-43).
As for claim 23, Bates as modified by Pinguet, Gonzalez-Martin and Hidaka discloses:
an orifice (Bates: 410) located downstream of an exit (Bates: end of 400), the orifice sized such that upon application of a vacuum (by 300), the gaseous stream flows through the system at a sonic velocity (Bates: col. 7, 33-49 and lines 55-65); and
the external vacuum source (Bates: 300) being in pneumatic communication with the orifice (Bates: 410), the external vacuum source (Bates: 300) being operative to draw the gaseous stream through the orifice at the sonic velocity.
As for claim 24, Bates as modified by Pinguet, Gonzalez-Martin and Hidaka discloses that the flow rate is a volumetric flow rate (Bates: col. 1, lines 65-67).
As for claim 29, Bates as modified by Pinguet, Gonzalez-Martin and Hidaka discloses that the instrument (Bates: 200) is an optical particle counter.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 8,800,383 issued to Bates (“Bates”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0138168 by Pinguet et al. (“Pinguet”), U.S. Patent 6,213,853 issued to Gonzalez-Martin et al. (“Gonzalez-Martin”) and U.S. Patent 11,988,543 issued to Hidaka et al. (“Hidaka”) as applied to claim 21, further in view of U.S. Patent 6,546,812 issued to Lewis (“Lewis”).
As for claim 25, Bates as modified by Pinguet, Gonzalez-Martin and Hidaka discloses the system of claim 21 (see the rejection of claim 21 above).
Bates as modified by Pinguet, Gonzalez-Martin and Hidaka does not disclose a blower downstream of the venturi tube, the controller configured to transmit a fourth signal to the blower, the fourth signal operative to adjust a blower speed.
However, Lewis discloses a blower (76) downstream of a venturi tube (30), a controller (50) configured to transmit a fourth signal to the blower (76), the fourth signal operative to adjust a blower speed (col. 7, lines 3-5).
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 system of Bates, Pinguet, Gonzalez-Martin and Hidaka to include the blower as disclosed by Lewis in order to maintain a desired flow speed.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 8,800,383 issued to Bates (“Bates”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0138168 by Pinguet et al. (“Pinguet”), U.S. Patent 6,213,853 issued to Gonzalez-Martin et al. (“Gonzalez-Martin”) and U.S. Patent 11,988,543 issued to Hidaka et al. (“Hidaka”) as applied to claim 21, further in view of KR 2006-0023120 by Maes et al. (“Maes”).
As for claim 26, Bates as modified by Pinguet, Gonzalez-Martin and Hidaka discloses a third pressure transducer (Bates: 124) in electrical communication with the controller (Bates: col. 9,lines 38-43), the controller operative to perform additional actions comprising:
converting a signal from the third pressure transducer into an ambient pressure measurement (Bates: col. 9, lines 38-43); and
detecting an obstruction upstream of the venturi tube based on the ambient pressure and the flow rate (Bates: col. 8, lines 52-54 and col. 9, lines 38-43).
Bates as modified by Pinguet, Gonzalez-Martin and Hidaka does not disclose that the controller is configured to store the at least one intensive property of the gas.
However, Maes discloses a controller (3, 30) that is configured to store at least one intensive property of a gas (see the paragraph beginning “Preferably, the absolute pressure sensor 32 is controlled to make a measurement… ”).
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 Bates, Pinguet, Gonzalez-Martin and Hidaka to store at least one intensive property of a gas as disclosed by Maes in order to allow the flow rate to be calculated based on the density of the gas (Pinguet: paragraphs [0042] and [0043] and Maes: see the paragraph beginning “The result of the pressure measurement performed by the pressure sensors 32, 33 makes it possible to determine the flow rate” and see the paragraph beginning “Preferably, the absolute pressure sensor 32 is controlled to make a measurement… ”).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 8,800,383 issued to Bates (“Bates”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0138168 by Pinguet et al. (“Pinguet”), U.S. Patent 6,213,853 issued to Gonzalez-Martin et al. (“Gonzalez-Martin”) and U.S. Patent 11,988,543 issued to Hidaka et al. (“Hidaka”) as applied to claim 21, further in view of U.S. Patent 5,184,501 issued to Lewis et al. (“Lewis ‘501”).
As for claim 30, Bates as modified by Pinguet, Gonzalez-Martin and Hidaka discloses the system of claim 21 (see the rejection of claim 21 above) and:
an orifice (Bates: 410) located downstream of then exit (Bates: end of 400); and
the external vacuum source (Bates: 300) being in pneumatic communication with the orifice (Bastes: 410), the external vacuum source (Bates: 300) operative to draw the gaseous stream through the orifice (Bates: 410).
Bates as modified by Pinguet, Gonzalez-Martin and Hidaka does not disclose an adjustable valve as recited.
However, Lewis ‘501 an adjustable valve (29) located downstream of an exit (right end of 27) and in electrical communication with a controller (28).
Lewis’501 and the Bates-Pinguet-Gonzalez-Martin-Hidaka combination include each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the adjustable valve of Lewis ‘501 with the system of the Bates-Pinguet-Gonzalez-Martin-Hidaka combination by placing the adjustable valve of Lewis downstream the venturi tube of the Bates-Pinguet-Gonzalez-Martin-Hidaka combination as suggested by Fig. 1 of Lewis ‘501, and that in combination, the adjustable valve and system merely perform the same functions as each does separately. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the system of the Bates-Pinguet-Gonzalez-Martin-Hidaka combination to include the adjustable valve of Lewis ‘50 to achieve the predictable result of providing a valve that can adjust the flow rate within the system.
Bates as modified by Pinguet, Gonzalez-Martin, Hidaka and Lewis ‘501 discloses that the controller is operative to perform additional actions comprising adjusting an opening of the adjustable valve (Lewis ‘501: col. 5, lines 4-11) such that upon application of a vacuum, the gaseous stream flows through the system at a sonic velocity (Bates: col. 7, 33-49 and lines 55-65).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 11-13 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that a skilled artisan would not consider the patent of Gonzales. The examiner respectfully disagrees. One of the problems Applicant faced was the issue of correcting a flow to be within a predetermined range. Since Gonzales teaches how to correct a flow to be within a predetermined range, Gonzales is analogous art. Applicant further argues that Gonzalez discloses a fluid that is a liquid rather than a gas; therefore the disclosure of Gonzalez would not be considered by one having ordinary skill in the art. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that Gonzales is not bodily incorporated into Bates. Instead, Gonzalez is used for its disclosure of the idea that a flow rate can be adjusted to maintain the flow rate within a desired range.
On pages 13-14 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Hidaka does not disclose sending a signal to the external vacuum source to adjust a flow rate. However, the examiner notes that Hidaka was used instead to disclose determining, substantially continuously, a flow rate.
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
Prosecution Insights