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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/8/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment has been entered. Applicants arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10 under 35 USC 103 as amended have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues the art fails to teach or render obvious determining salt based on measured voltage, but instead compares calculated conductivity. In response, Feldman teaches the control unit is configured and operable to determine at least one of the electrical conductivity and the salt content of the liquid based on the liquid response to the induced relatively low-frequency electric (or electromagnetic) field (0024). Whether the salt directly or conductivity as an indication of salt level, the voltage is measured and compared, directly or as a calculated value, to a predetermined value which provides an indication of relative salinity.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldman (US 2015/0226683).
With respect to claim 1, Feldman teaches a system for determining properties of liquids (abstract) including the salt content through induction (par. [0044]). Figure 2b shows an electromagnetic circuit comprising a toroidal, magnetic core which is a closed with a first and second side separated by an air gap (see also par. 0066). At par. [0067], Fieldman describes two coils winding around opposite sides of the core in Figure 2B. An electric voltage is applied across one coil using a power source (par. [0066]), and a second current is induced over the second coil to be measured using a voltage detection device (pars. [0066]-[0068]). At pars. [0065]-[0066], Fieldman describes liquid flowing through the core. Feldman teaches wherein the system may be connected to a PLC or other logic controller (par. [0104]). Par. [0025] describes an embodiment wherein “the control unit may be configured and operable to determine the electrical conductivity of the liquid based on one or more measurements of electrical signals (e.g. voltages and/or currents) induced at the measurement coil of the first sensor by the liquid response to the induced relatively low-frequency electric (or electromagnetic) field.” Fieldman teaches “the control unit is configured and operable to determine at least one of the electrical conductivity and the salt content of the liquid based on the liquid response to the induced relatively low-frequency electric (or electromagnetic) field” (0024).
Feldman teaches wherein the system capable of processing complex fluid and determining salt content of such. The system is capable of processing crude oil from an oil tank and would have thus been obvious to include as the pipe an inlet pipe passing the crude from a tank or other crude source through the system.
With respect to the PLC, Feldman teaches measuring the induced voltage across the second coil; the first voltage is known (0066). Feldman teaches that the measured values are indicative of a physical or chemical condition such as salinity and may be acted upon if high or low, i.e. above or below a threshold amount and thus is capable of controlling a water wash to dilute crude oil in the oil tank when a threshold amount is surpassed.
With respect to comparing the difference in the second and first voltages, rather than second voltage alone, the comparison of second voltage reading to a threshold amount for a given first voltage would produce the same result of comparing the difference to a threshold amount.
With respect to claim 2, the threshold amount of salt would be dependent can be selected by the operator.
With respect to claims 3, 4, and 5, at par. [0029] Feldman teaches wherein the system may determine that salt is below or above a threshold amount or is within an acceptable value.
With respect to claims 6-8 and 10, the threshold values would be set for a given process.
With respect to claim 9, the voltage source can be selected for a given system (par. [0067]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brandi Doyle whose telephone number is (571)270-1141. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at (571)272-6381. 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.
/BRANDI M DOYLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1771