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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/17/2026 has been entered.
Status of the claims
The amendment received on February 17, 2026 has been acknowledged and entered. Claim 1 is amended. Thus, claims 1-13 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment filed February 17, 2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed February 17, 2026 with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection. However, since the rejection below relies on previously cited prior art, Applicant’s arguments with respect to Jacobson addressed as follows:
Rupp relates to a flow meter for determining a measured quantity relating to a flow of a fluid through a measuring tube. Jacobson also relates to a flow meter, or flow path intervalometer, in which a transmission signal is modulated. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique of a transmission signal (page 7, lines 11-18 of Jacob) to known device, determining a measured quantity relating to a flow of a fluid (as disclosed by Rupp) in order to provide an instrument which more accurately detects a characteristic of a received ultrasonic wave because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Further, when combining reference to support an obviousness rejection, the Examiner is not required to incorporate all features of Jacobson into Rupp. Rather, Examiner believes that a person of ordinary skill in the art, upon reviewing Jacobson, would be motivated to modify Rupp to incorporate feature of determination of the received signals (or transmission signal) of Jacobson, since feature of determination of the received signals provides the advantageous feature of flow meter of Rupp. See MPEP 2145 III, which notes that “the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." Therefore, combination of Rupp and Jacobson can be combined and the combination of Rupp and Jacobson are proper.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rupp et al. (“DE19815199 A1,” hereinafter referred to as “Rupp”) (cited in IDS dated January 10, 2023) further in view of Disch et al. (“US 2021/0287687 A1,” hereinafter referred to as “Disch”).
Regarding claim 1, Rupp teaches a method for determining a measured quantity relating to a flow of a fluid (page 2, line 32) through a measuring tube by means of a measuring device (Fig. 1, 6 and 8), which comprises the steps of:
emitting, for two propagation directions, an ultrasonic signal in each case by a transmitting ultrasonic transducer of the measuring device and being transmitted via the fluid to a receiving ultrasonic transducer of the measuring device (Fig. 1, 6, 8), wherein a receive signal is captured via the receiving ultrasonic transducer for a respective propagation direction (Fig. 1, 4) (page 3, line 13: the sensors 6 , 8 are operated alternately as transmitters or receivers, the received signals 18, 20);
depending on a position of a main maximum of a cross-correlation of receive signals (Fig. 1, 18, 20) for the two propagation directions (page 2, lines 22-24: for the Reliable detection of the correlation maximum even with a low signal-to-noise ratio it is important that the cross correlation resulting function from the two received signals has a pronounced main maximum, the amplitude ratio between The main and secondary maxima are as large as possible; page 3, lines 20-21: the ultrasonic flow meter according to the invention is designed for coarse and fine correlation and combines the advantages of broadband excitation for reliable maximum detection with the fine temporal resolution made possible by narrowband excitation) or
a cross-correlation (page 3, lines 29-44; Fig. 11) of processing signals which depend in each case on one of the receive signals (Fig. 1, 18, 20) or on a partial signal of the receive signal, determining, by a controller (Fig. 1, 30: evaluation computer), (Fig. 1, 18, 20; page 3, lines 20-21: the ultrasonic flow meter according to the invention is designed for coarse and fine correlation and combines the advantages of broadband excitation for reliable maximum detection with the fine temporal resolution made possible by narrowband excitation, note that the above feature of “evaluation computer” in Fig. 1 and “coarse correlation” in page 3, lines 20-21 reads on “a partial signal of the receive signal determined, by a controller”),
a transit time difference between transit times of a respective ultrasonic signal for the respective propagation direction from the transmitting ultrasonic transducer to the receiving ultrasonic transducer is determined (Fig. 1, 18, 20; page 3, line 22: an exact transit time difference measurement is made possible even in the case of media with a high scattering proportion);
determining the measured quantity in dependence on the transit time difference (page 3, line 22: an exact transit time difference measurement is made possible even in the case of media with a high), wherein the transmitting ultrasonic transducer (Fig. 1, 6, 8) being controlled in each case with an excitation signal (page 7, line 14: excitation at Baker codes);
determining, with the controller (Fig. 1, evaluation computer 30), if a trigger condition is fulfilled (page 2, lines 22-24: with a low signal-to-noise ratio), a fulfilment of the trigger condition depending on a height of the main maximum and of at least one secondary maximum of the cross-correlation (page 2, lines 22-24: for the Reliable detection of the correlation maximum even with a low signal-to-noise ratio it is important that the cross correlation resulting function from the two received signals has a pronounced main maximum, the amplitude ratio between The main and secondary maxima are as large as possible; page 4, lines 13-16: by using customized signal excitation functions such as. B. Barker Code, the ratio of the main to the secondary maximum can be significantly improved, note that the above feature of “the two received signals has a pronounced main maximum, the amplitude ratio between The main and secondary maxima” in page 2, lines 22-24 and “the ratio of the main to the secondary maximum” in page 4, liens 13-16 reads on “a height of the main maximum and of at least one secondary maximum of the cross-correlation”); and
when a triqqer condition is fulfilled (page 4, lines 13-16: with a low signal-to-noise ratio), automatically modifyinq, with the controller (Fig. 1, evaluation computer 30), the measurement operation compared with a normal operatinq mode (page 4, lines 13-16: the ratio of main to secondary maximum is at Burst excitation almost on. with a low signal-to-noise ratio, this is often a secondary factor maximum is recognized as the main maximum and therefore an incorrect transit time difference determined. By using customized signal excitation functions such as. B. Barker Code, the ratio of the main to the secondary maximum can be significantly improved, note that the above feature of “evaluation computer” in Fig. 1 and “incorrect transit time difference determined” and “By using customized signal excitation functions such as. B. Barker Code, the ratio of the main to the secondary maximum can be significantly improved” in page 4, lines 13-16 reads on “automatically modifyinq, with the controller, the measurement operation compared with a normal operatinq mode”).
Rupp does not specifically teach that the excitation signal having a fixed carrier frequency, the excitation signal having an envelope with a plurality of temporally spaced maxima.
However, Disch teaches the excitation signal having a fixed carrier frequency, the excitation signal having an envelope (para. [0028]: embodiments of the present invention indicated as Waveform Envelope Synchronized Pulse Excitation (WESPE) is based on the generation of a pulse train-like signal in a time domain, wherein the actual pulse placement is synchronized to a time domain envelope, note that the above feature of “Waveform Envelope Synchronized Pulse Excitation (WESPE)” reads on “the excitation signal having a fixed carrier frequency, the excitation signal having an envelope”) with a plurality of temporally spaced maxima (para. [0030]: the present invention provides a readily controlled procedure by determining the temporal envelope of the source signal and by placing pulses at certain features of the temporal envelope such as local maxima of the temporal envelope).
Rupp and Disch are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of processing a sound wave. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the excitation signal such as is described in Disch into Rupp, in order to generate a frequency enhanced audio signal from a source audio signal may have: an envelope determiner for determining a temporal envelope of at least a portion of the source audio signal (Disch, para. [0024]).
Regarding claim 12, Rupp in view Disch teaches a measuring device for determining a measured quantity relating to a flow of a fluid (Rupp, page 2, line 32) through a measuring tube (Rupp, Fig. 1, 2), the measuring device comprising:
a measuring tube guiding the fluid (Rupp, Fig. 1, 6 and 8);
at least two ultrasonic transducers (Rupp, Fig. 1, 6 and 8) disposed in or on said measuring tube (Rupp, Fig. 1, 2); and
a controller (Rupp, Fig. 1, computer 30) configured to control said at least two ultrasonic transducers (Rupp, Fig. 1, 6 and 8), to capture receive signals (Rupp, Fig. 1, 18, 20) via said at least two ultrasonic transducers (Rupp, Fig. 1, 6 and 8) and to determine the measured quantity depending on receive signals (Rupp, Fig. 1, 18, 20), said controller (Rupp, Fig. 1, computer 30) is configured to carry out the method according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
Claims 2-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rupp in view of Disch et al. (“US 2021/0287687 A1,” hereinafter referred to as “Disch”) further in view of Jacobson et al. (“EP0312224 A1,” hereinafter referred to as “Jacobson”).
Regarding claim 2, Rupp in view of Disch teaches all the limitation of claim 1.
Ruup and Disch do not specifically teach that if the trigger condition is fulfilled, modifying a determination of the measured quantity compared with the normal operating mode in such a way that the receive signals are rejected and either a previously determined measured quantity is used as a current measured quantity or a determination of the receive signals is repeated in order to provide new receive signals, wherein the determination of the new receive signals is performed either unchanged or with at least one modified determination parameter compared with the determination of the receive signals, and the measured quantity is determined on a basis of the new receive signals, and/or the transit time difference is determined depending on a position of one of the at least one secondary maxima of the cross-correlation and/or a determination rule is modified in order to determine the measured quantity from the transit time difference.
However, Jacobson teaches if the trigger condition is fulfilled, modifying a determination of the measured quantity compared with the normal operating mode in such a way that the receive signals are rejected and either a previously determined measured quantity is used as a current measured quantity or a determination of the receive signals is repeated in order to provide new receive signals (page 7, lines 11-18: at 62 the transmitted and received signals are correlated in accordance with the selected mode, and at 64 a determination is made whether the signal to noise ratio is greater than a pre-set threshold, e.g. 40 dB. If the noise exceeds that level, then at 66 the mode is switched to perform flow measurements based solely upon a passive measurement of noise, without attempting to correlate transmitted and received signals. The passive noise measuring protocol may simply employ a look-up table which stores an empirically-derived flow value for each measured noise level. This stored value is then provided as an output along line 70, note that the above feature of “look-up table reads on “previously determined measured quantity”),
wherein the determination of the new receive signals is performed either unchanged (page 9, line 11-18 : if the noise exceeds that level, then at 66 the mode is switched to perform flow measurements based solely upon a passive measurement of noise, without attempting to correlate transmitted and received signals) or with at least one modified determination parameter compared with the determination of the receive signals, and the measured quantity is determined on a basis of the new receive signals (page 9, line 11-18 : the passive noise measuring protocol may simply employ a look-up table which stores an empirically-derived flow value for each measured noise level. This stored value is then provided as an output along line 70), and/or
the transit time difference (page 3, line 22: an exact transit time difference measurement is made possible even in the case of media with a high scattering proportion) is determined depending on a position of one of the at least one secondary maxima of the cross-correlation (page 6, lines 19-21: while the passage of the signal through the conduit and medium has produced a concommitant degradation of the signal, it will be observed that the received signal, line E, has a general shape corresponding to that of the transmitted signal, line C, but offset by a certain time interval indicative of the transit time between the sending and receiving transducers. note that the above feature of “offset by a certain time interval” reads on “a position of one of the at least one secondary maxima of the cross-correlation”) and/or
a determination rule is modified in order to determine the measured quantity from the transit time difference (page 9, line 11-18 : the passive noise measuring protocol may simply employ a look-up table which stores an empirically-derived flow value for each measured noise level. This stored value is then provided as an output along line 70, note that the above feature of “a determination rule is modified” reads on “look-up table).
Rupp relates to a flow meter for determining a measured quantity relating to a flow of a fluid through a measuring tube. Jacobson also relates to a flow meter, or flow path intervalometer, in which a transmission signal is modulated. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique of a determination of the receive signals of Jacob to known device, determining a measured quantity relating to a flow of a fluid (as disclosed by Rupp) in order to provide an instrument which more accurately detects a characteristic of a received ultrasonic wave because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, Rupp in view of Disch teaches all the limitation of claim 1.
Ruup and Disch do not specifically teach that if the trigger condition is fulfilled and/or a spectral condition depending on a spectral composition of at least one of the receive signals is fulfilled, a second determination of the receive signals is carried out following a first determination of the receive signals.
However, Jacobson teaches if the trigger condition is fulfilled and/or a spectral condition depending on a spectral composition of at least one of the receive signals is fulfilled (page 7, lines 11-18: at 62 the transmitted and received signals are correlated in accordance with the selected mode, and at 64 a determination is made whether the signal to noise ratio is greater than a pre-set threshold, e.g. 40 dB. If the noise exceeds that level, note that the above feature of “determination at step 64” reads on “trigger condition”),
a second determination of the receive signals is carried out following a first determination of the receive signals (page 7, lines 28-31: if σ exceeds the threshold, indicating jittery derived data, the selector selects the next processing mode, and a new regimen of signal analysis recommencing at step 62, or a retransmission and correlation commencing at step 54, are made to obtain a better flow measurement),
wherein the fixed carrier frequency of the excitation signal and/or a size of the phase shift is modified compared with the first determination (page 7, lines 51-52: Frequency modulate the carrier, or in a more common case, simply select a carrier frequency, e.g., 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1.0 or 2.0 MHz; page 7, lines 56-57: phase modulate the tone burst with a code having low R-T correlation function side lobes, such as the 11-bit Barker code discussed herein).
Rupp relates to a flow meter for determining a measured quantity relating to a flow of a fluid through a measuring tube. Jacobson also relates to a flow meter, or flow path intervalometer, in which a transmission signal is modulated. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique of the second determination of the receive signals of Jacob to known device, determining a measured quantity relating to a flow of a fluid (as disclosed by Rupp) in order to provide an instrument which more accurately detects a characteristic of a received ultrasonic wave because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, Rupp in view of Jacobson and Disch teaches all the limitation of claim 3. Ruup and Disch do not specifically teach that a fulfilment of the spectral condition depends on a frequency range in which frequencies have a maximum amplitude in a respective one of the receive signals or in a selected time segment of the receive signal.
However, Jacobson teaches a fulfilment of the spectral condition depends on a frequency range in which frequencies have a maximum amplitude in a respective one of the receive signals or in a selected time segment of the receive signal (page 2, lines 22-24: for the Reliable detection of the correlation maximum even with a low signal-to-noise ratio it is important that the cross correlation resulting function from the two received signals has a pronounced main maximum, the amplitude ratio between The main and secondary maxima are as large as possible; page 7, lines 30-32: Where the received signals were well defined but their information content erratic due to intervening flow conditions, the same yet of stored received signals may alternatively be sorted and processed with a fast fourier transform calculation to derive frequency data which may be more strongly correlated with the transmitted signals, note that the above feature of “the two received signals has a pronounced main maximum” in page 2, lines 22-24 and “a fast fourier transform calculation to derive frequency data which may be more strongly correlated with the transmitted signals” in page 7, lines 30-32 reads on “a fulfilment of the spectral condition depends on a frequency range in which frequencies have a maximum amplitude in a respective one of the receive signals”).
Rupp relates to a flow meter for determining a measured quantity relating to a flow of a fluid through a measuring tube. Jacobson also relates to a flow meter, or flow path intervalometer, in which a transmission signal is modulated. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique of the fulfilment of the spectral condition of Jacob to known device, determining a measured quantity relating to a flow of a fluid (as disclosed by Rupp) in order to provide an instrument which more accurately detects a characteristic of a received ultrasonic wave because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, Rupp in view of Disch teaches all the limitation of claim 1. Ruup and Disch do not specifically teach determining the receive signals multiple times in temporal succession for the propagation directions and the cross-correlation, wherein a time characteristic of the height of the main maximum and/or at least one of the secondary maxima of the cross-correlation and/or a time characteristic of a processing result which depends on heights of the main maximum and at least one of the secondary maxima is recorded, wherein the fulfilment of the trigger condition depends on the time characteristic.
However, Jacobson teaches determining the receive signals (Fig. 1, 18, 20) multiple times in temporal succession for the propagation directions and the cross-correlation (page 7, lines 54-55: Amplitude modulate the carrier to produce a tone burst, e.g., the 11-cycle burst discussed herein. Thus, a burst of 11µs for a 1.0 MHz carrier, or a burst of 110µs for a 100 kHz carrier are produced),
wherein a time characteristic of the height of the main maximum and/or at least one of the secondary maxima of the cross-correlation (page 2, lines 22-24: for the Reliable detection of the correlation maximum even with a low signal-to-noise ratio it is important that the cross correlation resulting function from the two received signals has a pronounced main maximum, the amplitude ratio between The main and secondary maxima are as large as possible) and/or
a time characteristic of a processing result (page 9, lines 56: the aforesaid transmitting and sampling process is repeated at a pulse repetition frequency of 5.12 kHz) which depends on heights of the main maximum and at least one of the secondary maxima is recorded (page 2, lines 22-24: for the Reliable detection of the correlation maximum even with a low signal-to-noise ratio it is important that the cross correlation resulting function from the two received signals has a pronounced main maximum, the amplitude ratio between The main and secondary maxima are as large as possible; page 3, lines 20-21: the ultrasonic flow meter according to the invention is designed for coarse and fine correlation and combines the advantages of broadband excitation for reliable maximum detection with the fine temporal resolution made possible by narrowband excitation, note that above feature of “combines the advantages of broadband excitation for reliable maximum detection” reads on “record”),
wherein the fulfilment of the trigger condition depends on the time characteristic (page 6, line 24: an exact transit time difference measurement is made possible even in the case of media with a high scattering proportion; page 7, lines 11-13: If the noise exceeds that level, then at 66 the mode is switched to perform flow measurements based solely upon a passive measurement of noise, note that the above feature of “transit time difference” and “noise” reads on “time characteristic”).
Rupp relates to a flow meter for determining a measured quantity relating to a flow of a fluid through a measuring tube. Jacobson also relates to a flow meter, or flow path intervalometer, in which a transmission signal is modulated. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique of determining the receive signals of Jacob to known device, determining a measured quantity relating to a flow of a fluid (as disclosed by Rupp) in order to provide an instrument which more accurately detects a characteristic of a received ultrasonic wave because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Rupp in view of Disch teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Rupp teaches emitting a ultrasonic signal multiple times by the transmitting ultrasonic transducer (Fig. 1, 6, 8) and the ultrasonic signal is transmitted via the fluid to the receiving ultrasonic transducer (Fig. 1, 6, 8) for at least one of the propagation directions (Fig. 1, 4),
wherein a respective receive signal is captured via the receiving ultrasonic transducer (Fig. 1, 6, 8), wherein the transmitting ultrasonic transducer is controlled to emit the test ultrasonic signal in each case with a excitation signal (page 7, line 14: excitation at Baker codes), wherein test excitation signals differ from one another in terms of their carrier frequency and/or a size of their phase shift (page 4, lines 27-33: the modulation is such that the signal of line C has a sinusoidal wave form which shifts phase by 180 degrees at the start of each non-zero bit of the Barker code, line B. This signal on line C hereafter is referred to as the transmitted signal. Line D shows a digital replica of the transmitted signal which has been generated at the microprocessor 8 MHz clock frequency),
wherein the test excitation signal for which a maximum phase shift and/or a maximum separation of local maxima of an envelope of the test receive signal occur in a resulting test receive signal is chosen as the excitation signal for determining the transit time difference (page 4, lines 27-33: the modulation is such that the signal of line C has a sinusoidal wave form which shifts phase by 180 degrees at the start of each non-zero bit of the Barker code, line B. This signal on line C hereafter is referred to as the transmitted signal. Line D shows a digital replica of the transmitted signal which has been generated at the microprocessor 8 MHz clock frequency).
Ruup and Disch do not specifically teach a test ultrasonic signal before a transmission of the ultrasonic signal.
However, Jacobson teaches a test ultrasonic signal before a transmission of the ultrasonic signal (page 4, lines 27-33: Included in the mode selection is the optimization of the carrier signal for given mode, note that the above feature of optimization process reads on “test ultrasonic signal”).
Rupp relates to a flow meter for determining a measured quantity relating to a flow of a fluid through a measuring tube. Jacobson also relates to a flow meter, or flow path intervalometer, in which a transmission signal is modulated. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique of the respective receive signal of Jacob to known device, determining a measured quantity relating to a flow of a fluid (as disclosed by Rupp) in order to provide an instrument which more accurately detects a characteristic of a received ultrasonic wave because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, Rupp in view of Jacobson and Disch teaches all the limitation of claim 6. Ruup and Disch do not specifically teach determining a size of the phase shift by performing a Fourier transform in each case for a plurality of windows of the test receive signal.
However, Jacobson teaches determining a size of the phase shift by performing a Fourier transform in each case for a plurality of windows of the test receive signal (page 4, lines 27-33: the modulation is such that the signal of line C has a sinusoidal wave form which shifts phase by 180 degrees at the start of each non-zero bit of the Barker code, line B. This signal on line C hereafter is referred to as the transmitted signal. Line D shows a digital replica of the transmitted signal which has been generated at the microprocessor 8 MHz clock frequency; page 7, line 39: included in the mode selection is the optimization of the carrier signal for given mode; page 9, lines 23-24: a fast fourier transform calculation to derive frequency data which may be more strongly correlated with the transmitted signals).
Rupp relates to a flow meter for determining a measured quantity relating to a flow of a fluid through a measuring tube. Jacobson also relates to a flow meter, or flow path intervalometer, in which a transmission signal is modulated. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique of determining a size of the phase shift of Jacob to known device, determining a measured quantity relating to a flow of a fluid (as disclosed by Rupp) in order to provide an instrument which more accurately detects a characteristic of a received ultrasonic wave because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, Rupp in view of Disch teaches all the limitation of claim 1. Ruup and Disch do not specifically teach that the fulfilment of the trigger condition depends on a difference and/or a quotient of the height of the main maximum and the height of one of the at least one secondary maxima.
However, Jacobson teaches that the fulfilment of the trigger condition (page 7, lines 11-13: page 7, lines 19-21: the feature of “preset threshold” and “determination at step 62” reads on fulfillment of trigger condition) depends on a difference and/or a quotient of the height of the main maximum and the height of one of the at least one secondary maxima (page 2, lines 22-24: for the Reliable detection of the correlation maximum even with a low signal-to-noise ratio it is important that the cross correlation resulting function from the two received signals has a pronounced main maximum, the amplitude ratio between The main and secondary maxima are as large as possible, note that the above feature of “amplitude ratio” reads on “difference and/or a quotient of the height of the main maximum and the height of one of the at least one secondary maxima).
Rupp relates to a flow meter for determining a measured quantity relating to a flow of a fluid through a measuring tube. Jacobson also relates to a flow meter, or flow path intervalometer, in which a transmission signal is modulated. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique of the fulfilment of the trigger condition of Jacob to known device, determining a measured quantity relating to a flow of a fluid (as disclosed by Rupp) in order to provide an instrument which more accurately detects a characteristic of a received ultrasonic wave because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, Rupp in view of Disch teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Rupp teaches the height of the main maximum and/or the at least one secondary maximum of the cross-correlation of the processing signals (page 2, lines 22-24: for the Reliable detection of the correlation maximum even with a low signal-to-noise ratio it is important that the cross correlation resulting function from the two received signals has a pronounced main maximum, the amplitude ratio between The main and secondary maxima are as large as possible).
Rupp and Disch do not specifically teach the fulfilment of the trigger condition and a respective processing signal of the processing signals is determined through normalization of the receive signal or of a respective intermediate signal determined from the receive signal and/or in that, the height of the main maximum and of the at least one secondary maximum of the cross-correlation is determined following a normalization of the cross-correlation.
However, Jacobson teaches the fulfilment of the trigger condition (page 9, ;lines 7-8: at 62 the transmitted and received signals are correlated in accordance with the selected mode, and at 64 a determination is made whether the signal to noise ratio is greater than a pre-set threshold; page 9, lines 13: if at step 64 an acceptable signal to noise is detected) and a respective processing signal of the processing signals is determined through normalization of the receive signal or of a respective intermediate signal determined from the receive signal (page 7, lines 24: the processor computes the standard deviation σ of the derived values of the parameter, and compares it to a threshold acceptable level of variation; page 9, lines 20-22: if σ exceeds the threshold, indicating jittery derived data, the selector selects the next processing mode, and a new regimen of signal analysis, note that the above feature of “standard deviation reads on “normalization of the received signal”) and/or
in that, the height of the main maximum and of the at least one secondary maximum of the cross-correlation is determined following a normalization of the cross-correlation (page 7, line 24: standard deviation σ of the derived values of the parameter; page 2, lines 22-24: main maximum; page 7, lines 33-37: this determination may be made by comparing the correlation value of CD(k) with a stored largest value each time a summation over i is made, and keeping track of the running peak value. Alternatively, the microprocessor may simply select the first peak value which is greater than a preselected threshold value Cthresh, note that the above feature of “main maximum” in page 2, lines 22-24, “standard deviation σ” in page 7, line 24, “amplitude modulate the carrier to produce a tone burst” and “comparing the correlation value” in page 7, lines 54-55 reads on “height of the main maximum and/or the at least one secondary maximum of the cross-correlation of the processing signal”).
Rupp relates to a flow meter for determining a measured quantity relating to a flow of a fluid through a measuring tube. Jacobson also relates to a flow meter, or flow path intervalometer, in which a transmission signal is modulated. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique of the fulfilment of the trigger condition of Jacob to known device, determining a measured quantity relating to a flow of a fluid (as disclosed by Rupp) in order to provide an instrument which more accurately detects a characteristic of a received ultrasonic wave because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, Rupp in view of Jacobson and Disch teaches all the limitation of claim 6. Rupp and Disch do not specifically teach that the test excitation signal is amplitude-modulated by the envelope.
However, Jacobson teaches the test excitation signal (page 7, line 14: excitation at Baker codes; page 7, line 39: Included in the mode selection is the optimization of the carrier signal for given mode) is amplitude-modulated by the envelope (page 7, lines 54-55: amplitude modulate the carrier to produce a tone burst, e.g., the 11-cycle burst discussed herein. Thus, a burst of 11µs for a 1.0 MHz carrier, or a burst of 110µs for a 100 kHz carrier are produced).
Rupp relates to a flow meter for determining a measured quantity relating to a flow of a fluid through a measuring tube. Jacobson also relates to a flow meter, or flow path intervalometer, in which a transmission signal is modulated. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique of the test excitation signal of Jacob to known device, determining a measured quantity relating to a flow of a fluid (as disclosed by Rupp) in order to provide an instrument which more accurately detects a characteristic of a received ultrasonic wave because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, Rupp in view of Jacobson and Disch teaches all the limitation of claim 8. Rupp and Disch do not specifically teach that the height of one of the at least one secondary maxima is derived from a highest secondary maximum.
However, Jacobson teaches that the height of one of the at least one secondary maxima is derived from a highest secondary maximum (page 5, lines 34-35: the relation function of narrowband signals is due to an unfavorable one Amplitude ratio between the main and secondary maximum is marked; page 7, lines 23-26: The ratio of main to secondary maximum is at Burst excitation almost on. With a low signal-to-noise ratio, this is often a secondary factor maximum is recognized as the main maximum and therefore an incorrect transit time difference determined. By using customized signal excitation functions such as. B. Barker Code, the ratio of the main to the secondary maximum can be significantly improved).
Rupp relates to a flow meter for determining a measured quantity relating to a flow of a fluid through a measuring tube. Jacobson also relates to a flow meter, or flow path intervalometer, in which a transmission signal is modulated. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique of the height of one of the at least one secondary maxima of Jacob to known device, determining a measured quantity relating to a flow of a fluid (as disclosed by Rupp) in order to provide an instrument which more accurately detects a characteristic of a received ultrasonic wave because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rupp in view of Disch and Kawasaki et al. (“JPH1117842 A,” hereinafter referred to as “Kawasaki”).
Regarding claim 13, Rupp in view of Disch teaches all the limitation of claim 1. Rupp and Disch do not specifically teach the step of outputting a message to a user of the measuring device and/or to a further device outside the measuring device if the trigger condition exists.
However, Kawasaki teaches the step of outputting a message to a user of the measuring device and/or to a further device outside the measuring device if the trigger condition exists (page 6, lines 5-7: the sequence control means includes a message storage means for storing a preset fixed message indicating that a predetermined signal to be observed has appeared, The fixed message from the message storage means may be notified to the call destination; page 12, lines 8-12: when a signal to be observed that matches a preset trigger condition is detected, the fact is notified to a predetermined notification destination via a communication line. Communication means to notify the user of the event, when measuring an event that occurs very rarely, or when the user must leave the measurement location, a predetermined observation target can be established via a communication line to a portable paging device such as a page, note that the above feature of “message” in page 6, lines 5-7 and “a preset trigger condition,” “notification destination,” “a portable paging device” in page 12, lines 8-12 reads on “outputting a message to a user of the measuring device and/or to a further device outside the measuring device if the trigger condition exists”).
Rupp and Kawasak are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of measuring a signal state of a device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the outputting the message to a user of the measuring device if the trigger condition exists such as is described in Jacobson into Rupp, in order to transmit the predetermined observed signal to the notification destination of the call (Kawasak, page 2, lines 22-23).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANGKYUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, LEE RODARK can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/SANGKYUNG LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858