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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the abrupt upstream sidewall that encroaches into the conduit of claim 5 (and is consistent with claim 1) and the deformation that is symmetric around an axis of the conduit of claims 6 and 18 (and is consistent with claims 1 and 15) must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 5, 6 and 18 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 5 recites that the deformation comprises an abrupt upstream sidewall that encroaches into the conduit. However, the original disclosure does not disclose a deformation that comprises an abrupt upstream sidewall that encroaches into the conduit and that also is consistent with the embodiment of claim 1 (which appears to be the embodiment of Fig. 4). Therefore, the original disclosure does not support that the inventors possessed the claimed invention.
Claims 6 and 18 recite that the deformation is symmetric around an axis of the conduit. However, the original disclosure does not disclose a deformation that deformation is symmetric around an axis of the conduit and that also is consistent with the embodiment of claim 1 (which appears to be the embodiment of Fig. 4). Therefore, the original disclosure does not support that the inventors possessed the claimed 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 1-6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 6,981,410 issued to Seki et al. (“Seki”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0310840 by Feagler et al. (“Feagler”).
As for claims 1, 12 and 15, Seki discloses a system (Fig. 1) for monitoring a fluid flow, the system comprising:
a conduit comprising a first section (left vertical portion of 108 in Fig. 1), a second section (horizontal portion of 108), and a third section (right vertical portion of 108) wherein an impingement (“impingement” in annotated Fig. 1 below) to the fluid flow is formed by a change in direction of inner and outer walls of the conduit from the first section to the second section (see Fig. 1), wherein the change in direction of inner and outer walls of the conduit form the first section to the second section is configured to redirect an entire flow of fluid from the first section to the second section (see Fig. 1) and the second section comprises, at least, a direction (horizontal in Fig. 1) that is perpendicular to the first section and the third section (see Fig. 1);
a first sensor (121B) configured to sense a temperature of the fluid and provide a first temperature measurement;
a second sensor (121A) thermally coupled to the conduit (at/in thermal proximity) to the impingement to provide a second temperature measurement;
a heater (120) affixed to the conduit in thermal proximity to the second sensor (121A) to enable the heater to heat the second sensor (see Fig. 1).
Seki does not explicitly disclose a flow monitor as recited.
However, Feagler discloses a flow monitor (212) configured to provide (to 104) an indication of a flowrate (paragraph [0038]) of the fluid based on a temperature difference between the first temperature measurement and the second temperature measurement (paragraph [0050]).
Seki and Feagler included 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 flow monitor of Feagler with the first sensor, second sensor and heater of Seki by connecting the flow monitor to the first sensor, second sensor and heater as suggested by Fig. 1 of Feagler and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it 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 Seki by including the flow monitor of Feagler to achieve the predictable result of providing a mechanism that automatically indicates the flow rate.
Regarding claim 12, Seki as modified by Feagler discloses a system (see above) that performs the claimed method steps.
PNG
media_image1.png
565
839
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for claims 2 and 16, Seki as modified by Feagler discloses that the first sensor (Seki: 121B) is thermally coupled to the conduit at a location that is thermally isolated (Seki: due to the diaphragm 124b) from the heater (Seki: 120) to sense the temperature of the fluid.
As for claims 3 and 17, Seki as modified by Feagler discloses that the impingement (Seki: “impingement” in annotated Fig. 1 above) comprises a deformation in the conduit (the recitation of a deformation describes the process of making the impingement and does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art).
As for claim 4, Seki as modified by Feagler discloses that the deformation (Seki: “impingement”) of the conduit is not symmetric around an axis (Seki: a vertical line through the middle of the first section in Fig. 1) of the conduit.
As for claim 5, Seki as modified by Feagler discloses that the deformation (Seki: “impingement”) comprises an abrupt upstream sidewall that encroaches into the conduit (Seki: see Fig. 1).
As for claims 6 and 18, Seki as modified by Feagler discloses that the deformation of the conduit is symmetric around an axis of the conduit (Seki: compare Fig. 1 to Fig. 4 of the instant application).
As for claims 8 and 20, Seki as modified by Feagler disclose that the change in direction is 90 degrees (Seki: see Fig. 1).
As for claim 9, Seki as modified by Feagler discloses that the first sensor and the second sensor are selected from the group consisting of a resistive temperature detector (col. 6, line 64 - col. 7, line 5), a thermocouple, and a thermistor.
As for claims 11 and 13, Seki as modified by Feagler discloses the flow monitor comprises:
a temperature difference calculator (Feagler: 112) configured to provide a temperature difference measure that is indicative of the temperature difference between the first temperature measurement and the second temperature measurement (paragraph [0040]);
a calibration data datastore (Feagler: 833) configured to store calibration data that relates the temperature difference measure to a flow rate (paragraph [0074]); and
a flow determination module (Feagler: 835) configured to access the calibration data from the calibration datastore to obtain the flow rate and provide the indication of the flowrate (paragraphs [0074] and [0038]).
Regarding claim 13, Seki as modified by Feagler discloses a system (see above) that performs the claimed method steps.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 6,981,410 issued to Seki et al. (“Seki”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0310840 by Feagler et al. (“Feagler”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of U.S. Patent 11,761,915 issued to Wetzel et al. (“Wetzel”).
As for claim 10, Seki as modified by Feagler discloses the system of claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Seki as modified by Feagler does not disclose that the heater is integrated with the second sensor.
However, Wetzel discloses a heater (8) that is integrated (see Figs. 2 and 3) with a second sensor (5a or 5b) in a heating-sensing device (10a or 10b). Wetzel discloses that a heating-sensing device can be substituted for a heater and a sensor (see Figs. 1-3) to sense a fluid flow.
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 heating-sensing device of Wetzel for the heater and second sensor of Seki and Feagler to achieve the predictable result of providing a mechanism to sense a fluid flow.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 6,981,410 issued to Seki et al. (“Seki”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0310840 by Feagler et al. (“Feagler”) as applied to claim 12, further in view of CN 211178608 by Qin (“Qin”).
As for claim 14, Seki as modified by Feagler discloses the method of claim 12 (see the rejection of claim 12 above).
Seki as modified by Feagler does not disclose that providing the indication of a flowrate of the fluid comprises providing an alarm when the flowrate of the fluid drops below a threshold value.
However, Qin discloses that providing an indication of a flowrate of a fluid comprises providing an alarm when the flowrate of the fluid drops below a threshold value (see the paragraph beginning “Further, the flow detection device 10 further comprises a flow alarm (not shown)…”).
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 method of Seki and Feagler to include providing an alarm as disclosed by Qin so that a user knows when a desired amount of liquid is no longer being supplied.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 12 and 15 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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