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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 19 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Balasubramaniam and Hofmann fail to teach or suggest claimed features drawn to the operating frequency being in a range of 0-1200 kHz wherein the operating frequency range is divided into a plurality of attenuation regimes comprising an attenuation regime I with operating frequency between 0-400 kHz, an attenuation regime II with operating frequency between 400-800 kHz, and an attenuation regime III with operating frequency between 800-1200 kHz. Applicant argues that Hofmann is entirely silent regarding “the operating frequency range is divided into a plurality of attenuation regimes comprising...”. Applicant further argues that claim 1 of Hofmann recites transmitting ultrasound signals at a frequency in the range of from about 100 kHz to about 30,000 kHz through the fluid; measuring amplitude attenuation of the ultrasound signals having passed through the fluid; measuring amplitude attenuation to measure a parameter in the fluid.” Applicant further remarks that Hofmann does not disclose dividing a single operating frequency range into multiple attenuation regimes, does not disclose regime boundaries, and does not disclose operating the system based on discrete attenuation regimes. Applicant concludes that Hofmann teaches choosing one frequency range for operation based on physical constraints such as conduit diameter.
Regarding the above, the examiner respectfully submits that as claimed, the combination of Balasubramaniam teaches the features of claim 1. In particular, claim 1 requires only that the operating frequency at which the ultrasonic transducer operates is in a range of 0-1200 kHz wherein the operating frequency range is divided into a plurality of attenuation regimes comprising several attenuation regimes with differing frequencies. As remarked by Applicant, Hofmann discloses multiple possible operating frequencies in ¶ 52, 54, and 55. The examiner agrees that Hofmann is primarily concerned with choosing one frequency for operation based on physical constraints. However, the examiner disagrees that Hofmann fails to teach or suggest the operating frequency range being divided into a plurality of attenuation regimes. In particular, as noted previously above, Hofmann notes that several frequency ranges are possible, such as outlined in ¶ 52, 54, and 55. Because claim 1 requires only that there is an operating frequency with a range, Hofmann is considered to meet this claim limitation as recited. Furthermore, because Hofmann teaches multiple distinct attenuation regimes as outlined in ¶ 51, Hofmann is also considered to suggest the features of the multiple attenuation regimes. In particular, while Hofmann ¶ 51 suggests multiple possible frequency regimes depending on physical constraints as noted by Applicant and further disclosed in Hofmann ¶ 52, 54, and 55, this is considered to teach the claimed features of a plurality of attenuation regimes into which the operating frequency is divided because the availability of multiple distinct operating/attenuation regimes is itself indicative of the attenuation regimes being divided into multiple such regimes. While Hofmann does not disclose the use of a physical piece of hardware that carries out such a division, due to the lack of any further structural or functional limitations in the claim that further limit how such a division occurs, Hofmann is still considered to meet the claimed limitations as recited.
Applicant further argues that Hofmann discloses alternative operating frequency selections for different system configurations but does not disclose a single operating frequency range that is divided into defined attenuation regimes within a single system.
Regarding the above, the examiner respectfully submits that the claimed operating frequency range of 0 - 1200 kHz is taught in Hofmann ¶ 51 and that, as noted previously above, the multiple attenuation regimes disclosed throughout Hofmann ¶ 52, 54, and 55 are considered to teach the features of differing attenuation regimes with differing frequency ranges regardless of whether said regimes are linked to specific physical constraints and/or parameters. In particular, because several regimes are suggested throughout Hofmann ¶ 52, 54, and 55, this is considered to meet the claimed limitations of an operating frequency range with several attenuation regimes which are divided at least by virtue of being separate and distinct from one another as disclosed in each of said sections of Hofmann. In other words, absent any further structural or functional limitations regarding said “divid[ing]” of the attenuation regimes, Hofmann is still considered to teach the claimed features of claim 1.
Applicant further argues that Hofmann does not disclose a system that partitions, or structurally divides an operating frequency range into multiple attenuation regimes, nor does Hofmann disclose operating within such defined regimes to evaluate reflected ultrasonic signals. Applicant argues that Hofmann only teaches selecting a particular frequency range for a given conduit geometry and then operating within that selected range. Applicant argues that claim 1 requires that a bounded operating frequency range of 0-1200 kHz is subdivided into multiple, contiguous attenuation regimes, each representing a different attenuation behavior within that same operating range. Applicant concludes that Hofmann cannot be considered to teach this structural and operational distinction.
Regarding the above, the examiner respectfully submits that claim 1 recites only that the ultrasonic transducer operates an operating frequency range of 0-1200 kHz and that the operating frequency range be divided into a plurality of differing attenuation regimes, each with their own operating frequency range. The examiner respectfully contends that the claimed features of claim 1 do not require any specific structural and/or functional limitations related to how said division must occur and therefore because Hofmann discloses several such regimes as outlined in ¶ 52, 54, and 55, Hofmann is still considered to teach the required features of claim 1. Although the examiner agrees that Hofmann teaches differing attenuation regimes depending upon physical constraints/parameters of various systems, each of said possible operating frequencies and subdivided ranges is that which is considered to teach the features of claim 1 in the absence of any particular structure recited to carry out such division or any specific functional limitation related to said dividing.
Applicant concludes that Hofmann does not remedy the deficiencies of Balasubramaniam and that the combination thereof thus does not teach or suggest the features of independent claims 1 and 6.
Regarding the above, the examiner submits that because Hofmann is still considered to teach the features of claim 1 (and claim 6 which recites similar limitations) for the reasons noted previously above, the rejections of claims 1 and 6 have been maintained as outlined in further detail below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramaniam et al. US PG-PUB 2016/0153938 A1 (hereafter Balasubramaniam), prior art of record, in view of Hofmann US PG-PUB 2009/0272190 A1 (hereafter Hofmann), prior art of record.
As to claim 1: Balasubramaniam discloses a system for remotely measuring properties of a fluid (see ¶ 33, 34, and 57), the system comprising:
a waveguide (not labeled with a reference number but see the labeled element in figs. 1A-1D) and an ultrasonic transducer (not labeled with a reference number but see the labeled elements in figs. 1A-1D), wherein the waveguide is an elongated structure (see figs. 1A-1D; the waveguide is elongated between the transducer and the fluid such as disclosed in ¶ 36) having a first end connected with the ultrasonic transducer (see fig. 3 and ¶ 43 regarding the transducer placed at an end of the depicted waveguide) and a second end immersed in the fluid (see fig. 1D - see ¶ 47);
wherein the ultrasonic transducer is placed at the first end of the waveguide at such an angle that the waveguide transmits waves from its first end towards the second end in at least two wave modes comprising at least one symmetric modes and an asymmetric mode (see ¶ 72) at an operating frequency (fig. 3 and see ¶ 42; further see ¶ 73 regarding the possible frequencies utilized as operating frequencies);
wherein the symmetric modes comprises longitudinal (L(0,1)) mode and torsional (T(0,1)) mode (see ¶ 42), and wherein the asymmetric mode comprises flexural (F(1,1)) mode (see ¶ 42),
and wherein the system further comprises a processing unit (not labeled but see ¶ 64 regarding the disclosed “processor means for analyzing and calculating a plurality of properties of the wave guide material and the surrounding fluid”), operably coupled with the ultrasonic transducer, the processing unit is configured to:
determine a time of flight (see ¶ 60 and 64) and amplitude ratio of reflected waves received by the ultrasonic transducer in response to the waves transmitted from the first end of the waveguide (see ¶ 57); and
measure the properties of the fluid, at the same operating frequency at which the waves are transmitted and reflected between the first end and the second end of the waveguide, based on the time of flight and the amplitude ratio determined (see ¶ 64, 69, and 73).
Balasubramaniam does not explicitly teach:
wherein the operating frequency range is 0 - 1200 kHz, wherein the operating frequency range is divided into a plurality of attenuation regimes comprising:
an attenuation regime I with operating frequency between 0 - 400 kHz;
an attenuation regime II with operating frequency between 400 - 800 kHz; and
an attenuation regime III with operating frequency between 800 - 1200 kHz.
However, Hofmann teaches a system of remotely measuring fluid properties (see ¶ 1 and 20) with an operating frequency range in a range of 0 - 1200 kHz (see ¶ 51), wherein the operating frequency range is divided into a plurality of attenuation regimes comprising:
an attenuation regime I with operating frequency between 0 - 400 kHz (see ¶ 51 regarding the range disclosed of 100 kHz to 30 MHz);
an attenuation regime II with operating frequency between 400 - 800 kHz (see ¶ 51 regarding the range disclosed of 500 kHz to 25 MHz);
an attenuation regime III with operating frequency between 800 - 1200 kHz (see ¶ 51 regarding the range disclosed of 1000 kHz to 20 MHz).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Balasubramaniam’s operating range to be between 0 - 1200 kHz and the operating frequency range divided into a plurality of attenuation regimes between 0 - 400 kHz, 400 - 800 kHz, or 800 - 1200 kHz because different attenuation regimes are more useful depending upon the geometry of the housing in which the fluid being tested is disposed, such as suggested in Hofmann ¶ 57 and 58. Accordingly, depending upon the specific geometry of the conduit in which the fluid flows in Balasubramaniam’s system, it may be advantageous to have access to different operating ranges and attenuation regimes in order to improve signal response for specific conduit sizes and spacings.
As to claim 4: Balasubramaniam as modified by Hofmann teaches the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the angle at which the ultrasonic transducer is placed with respect to the waveguide ranges between 0° - 90° (see Balasubramaniam figs. 1A-1D, fig. 3, and details in ¶ 42 which depicts the angle at which the ultrasonic transducer is placed with respect to the waveguide is either perpendicular, i.e. 90° with respect to the longitudinal direction of the waveguide, or disposed to the side of the waveguide, i.e. 0° with respect to the longitudinal direction of the waveguide).
As to claim 5: Balasubramaniam as modified by Hofmann teaches the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the properties of the fluid comprises at least one of viscosity, density, flow rate, level and temperature (see Balasubramaniam ¶ 33, 34, and 48).
As to claim 6: Balasubramaniam discloses a method for remotely measuring properties of a fluid (see ¶ 33, 34, and 57), the method comprising:
configuring a waveguide (not labeled with a reference number but see the labeled element in figs. 1A-1D) and an ultrasonic transducer (not labeled with a reference number but see the labeled elements in figs. 1A-1D), wherein the waveguide is an elongated structure (see figs. 1A-1D; the waveguide is elongated between the transducer and the fluid such as disclosed in ¶ 36) having a first end connected with the ultrasonic transducer (see fig. 3 and ¶ 43 regarding the transducer placed at an end of the depicted waveguide) and a second end immersed in the fluid (see fig. 1D - see ¶ 47);
wherein the ultrasonic transducer is placed at the first end of the waveguide at such an angle that the waveguide transmits waves from its first end towards the second end in at least two wave modes comprising at least one of symmetric modes and asymmetric mode (see ¶ 72) at an operating frequency (fig. 3 and see ¶ 42; further see ¶ 73 regarding the possible frequencies utilized as operating frequencies);
wherein the symmetric modes comprises longitudinal (L(0,1)) mode and torsional (T(0,1)) mode (see ¶ 42), and wherein the asymmetric mode comprises a flexural (F(1,1)) mode (see ¶ 42),
determining, by a processing unit (not labeled but see ¶ 64 regarding the disclosed “processor means for analyzing and calculating a plurality of properties of the wave guide material and the surrounding fluid”), a time of flight (see ¶ 60 and 64) and amplitude ratio of reflected waves received by the ultrasonic transducer in response to the waves transmitted from the first end of the waveguide (see ¶ 57); and
measuring, by the processing unit, the properties of the fluid, at the same operating frequency at which the waves are transmitted and reflected between the first end and the second end of the waveguide, based on the time of flight and the amplitude ratio determined (see ¶ 64, 69, and 73).
Balasubramaniam does not explicitly teach:
wherein the operating frequency range is in a range of 0 - 1200 kHz, wherein the operating frequency range is divided into a plurality of attenuation regimes comprising:
an attenuation regime I with operating frequency between 0 - 400 kHz;
an attenuation regime II with operating frequency between 400 - 800 kHz; and
an attenuation regime III with operating frequency between 800 - 1200 kHz.
However, Hofmann teaches a system of remotely measuring fluid properties (see ¶ 1 and 20) with an operating frequency that is in a range of 0 - 1200 kHz (see ¶ 51), wherein the operating frequency range is divided into a plurality of attenuation regimes comprising:
an attenuation regime I with operating frequency between 0 - 400 kHz (see ¶ 51 regarding the range disclosed of 100 kHz to 30 MHz);
an attenuation regime II with operating frequency between 400 - 800 kHz (see ¶ 51 regarding the range disclosed of 500 kHz to 25 MHz);
an attenuation regime III with operating frequency between 800 - 1200 kHz (see ¶ 51 regarding the range disclosed of 1000 kHz to 20 MHz).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Balasubramaniam’s operating range to be between 0 - 1200 kHz and the operating frequency range divided into a plurality of attenuation regimes between 0 - 400 kHz, 400 - 800 kHz, or 800 - 1200 kHz because different attenuation regimes are more useful depending upon the geometry of the housing in which the fluid being tested is disposed, such as suggested in Hofmann ¶ 57 and 58. Accordingly, depending upon the specific geometry of the conduit in which the fluid flows in Balasubramaniam’s system, it may be advantageous to have access to different operating ranges and attenuation regimes in order to improve signal response for specific conduit sizes and spacings.
As to claim 9: Balasubramaniam as modified by Hofmann teaches the method as claimed in claim 6, wherein the angle at which the ultrasonic transducer is placed with respect to the waveguide ranges between 0° - 90° (see Balasubramaniam figs. 1A-1D, fig. 3, and details in ¶ 42 which depicts the angle at which the ultrasonic transducer is placed with respect to the waveguide is either perpendicular, i.e. 90° with respect to the longitudinal direction of the waveguide, or disposed to the side of the waveguide, i.e. 0° with respect to the longitudinal direction of the waveguide).
As to claim 10: Balasubramaniam as modified by Hofmann teaches the method as claimed in claim 6, wherein the properties of the fluid comprises at least one of viscosity, density, flow rate, level and temperature (see Balasubramaniam ¶ 33, 34, and 48).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M ROYSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 E.S.T..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JOHN M ROYSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855