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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 26 November 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there are elements similar between the identified groups. This is not found persuasive because the basis for the restriction is not the commonly recited/claimed elements, but instead based upon those elements which are not common amongst the groups. The identified elements outlined in the restriction requirement mailed 1 October 2025 are the reason for the indicated restriction and the differing elements are the elements that thus create the serious search burden.
Applicant further traverses the restriction on the grounds that a search for references in group I will also likely identify references applicable to the independent claims of groups II and III. Applicant thus concludes there is no serious burden of search.
Regarding the above, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the presumption that a search for references of group I will identify references applicable to all of groups I-III. In particular, the differing features of each of said groups (see the restriction requirement mailed 1 October 2025) create a search burden because, although a reference could be found for the common elements amongst each of said groups, the different features between each of the groups are not likely to be found in a single reference. Furthermore, because there are three identified groups, each with their own identified features that differ from the other groups, at least three sets of references would likely be required and thus the examiner contends that a serious search burden exists.
Applicant further argues that restriction requirements are optional in accordance with MPEP § 806 and that that Applicant should not be required to incur additional costs with filing multiple applications in order to obtain protection for the claimed subject matter.
Regarding the above, the examiner respectfully submits that a serious search burden has been established following the guidelines of MPEP § 806.05(j), as also noted in the restriction requirement mailed 1 October 2025. Furthermore, because a serious search burden has been established in accordance with MPEP 808.02, the examiner contends that a restriction requirement is still proper for the reasons noted previously above and outline the restriction requirement mailed 1 October 2025. Furthermore, while the examiner recognizes that there may be a financial burden associated with such a restriction, this consideration is not factored into the reasons for making or not making a restriction requirement. Additionally, the examiner notes that there are possible pathways of prosecution that could be pursued, such as amending the non-elected groups such that they depend from an allowable claim, in order to mitigate any financial burden to Applicant.
Due to the above outlined reasons, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions/groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 26 November 2025.
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, 3, 4, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajay et al. US PG-PUB 2015/0128722 A1 (hereafter Ajay), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 6 March 2025, in view of Tomita US Pat 5,443,552, prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 6 March 2025, and Maul et al. US Pat 6,351,999 B1 (hereafter Maul), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 6 March 2025.
As to claim 1: Ajay teaches a flow rate sensor for an aspirating smoke detection system (fig. 1 and see ¶ 140-141), comprising:
a flow chamber configured to allow a gas to flow through the flow chamber (see fig. 1 and ¶ 140; the path connected to by inlet 20 and outlet 22 is considered to be a flow chamber).
The embodiment of Ajay disclosed thus far does not explicitly teach:
a memory; and
a processor configured to execute executable instructions stored in the memory.
However, another embodiment of Ajay teaches:
a memory (not labeled but see ¶ 344); and
a processor (not labeled but see ¶ 306) configured to execute executable instructions stored in the memory (see ¶ 64).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first embodiment of Ajay by including a memory and a processor configured to execute executable instructions stored in the memory because such a construction is an art recognized means of controlling various electronic components. In this particular instance, such a memory and processor could be utilized to control the flow sensor 24 disclosed in ¶ 142 of Ajay by both calculating the flow therethrough and also working with the controller 40 to carry out a number of flow responsive instructions, such as by sounding an alarm or warning if the flow is outside an acceptable range.
Ajay also does not explicitly teach:
a receive coil located inside the flow chamber, wherein:
the receive coil is configured to physically oscillate in response to the flow of the gas acting upon the receive coil;
in response to the physical oscillation, the receive coil is configured to generate a signal; and
determine a flow rate of the gas through the flow chamber based on the frequency of the signal.
However, Tomita teaches:
a receive coil (23; see fig. 1 and col. 6, lines 6-22) located inside the flow chamber (see fig. 1), wherein:
the receive coil (23) is configured to physically oscillate in response to the flow of the gas acting upon the receive coil (see col. 6, lines 36-38 and col. 7, lines 33-36);
in response to the physical oscillation, the receive coil is configured to generate a signal (see col. 8, lines 21-33); and
determine a flow rate through the flow chamber based on the frequency of the signal (see col. 8, lines 21-43).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ajay to include a receive coil located inside the flow chamber, wherein the receive coil is configured to physically oscillate in response to the flow of the gas acting upon the receive coil in response to the physical oscillation, the receive coil is configured to generate a signal and determine a flow rate of the gas through the flow chamber based on the frequency of the signal because such a design is an art recognized means of achieving the useful and predictable result of measuring a flow rate via a flow rate signal even when excitation frequency is zero, such as suggested in Tomita col. 8, lines 34-43. Furthermore, such a design also improves of a flow rate measurement by reducing noise, such as also suggested in Tomita col. 8, lines 61-65.
Ajay as modified also does not explicitly teach:
a bluff body located inside the flow chamber and configured to disrupt the flow of the gas through the flow chamber.
However, Maul teaches:
a bluff body (4; see fig. 1 and col. 3, lines 34-40) located inside a flow chamber (see col. 3, lines 34-35) and configured to disrupt the flow of gas through the flow chamber (see col. 3, lines 37-40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ajay by including a bluff body located inside the flow chamber and configured to disrupt the flow of the gas through the flow chamber because such a bluff body is an art recognized structure of determining a flow from the frequency of vortex shedding, such as suggested in Maul col. 3, lines 41-49. Accordingly, such a bluff body could be utilized in Ajay’s device to provide a redundant measure of flow in Ajay’s flow sensing device that can verify computed flow rate obtained without said bluff body.
As to claim 3: Ajay as modified by Tomita and Maul teaches the flow rate sensor of claim 1, wherein the flow rate sensor (fig. 1 of Ajay) further includes a transmit coil (22 of Tomita; see fig. 1 and col. 6, lines 6-16 and 27-30).
As to claim 4: Ajay as modified by Tomita and Maul teaches the flow rate sensor of claim 3, wherein the processor (not labeled but see ¶ 306 of Ajay) is configured to cause an oscillating signal to be applied to the transmit coil (22 of Tomita) such that the receive coil generates the signal in response to the physical oscillation of the receive coil (see Tomita col. 6, lines 18-22).
As to claim 8: Ajay as modified by Tomita and Maul teaches the flow rate sensor of claim 1, wherein the bluff body (4 of Maul; see fig. 1 and col. 3, lines 34-40) is configured to cause the gas flowing through the flow chamber (see fig. 1 and ¶ 140 of Ajay; the path connected to by inlet 20 and outlet 22 is considered to be a flow chamber) to be a turbulent flow (see Maul col. 3, lines 37-40 regarding the disclosed Karman vortices 5 that are depicted in fig. 1) in the flow chamber.
As to claim 9: Ajay as modified by Tomita and Maul teaches the flow rate sensor of claim 1, wherein the receive coil (23 of Tomita; see fig. 1 and col. 6, lines 6-22) is located downstream of the bluff body (4 of Maul; see fig. 1 and col. 3, lines 34-40) in the flow chamber (see fig. 1 and ¶ 140 of Ajay; the path connected to by inlet 20 and outlet 22 is considered to be a flow chamber) (in the combination of Ajay as modified by Tomita and Maul, the bluff body 4 of Maul is upstream of the further components, such as depicted in fig. 1 of Maul).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajay et al. US PG-PUB 2015/0128722 A1 (hereafter Ajay), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 6 March 2025, in view of Tomita US Pat 5,443,552, prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 6 March 2025, and Maul et al. US Pat 6,351,999 B1 (hereafter Maul), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 6 March 2025 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ciobanu et al. US PG-PUB 2020/0217698 A1 (hereafter Ciobanu).
As to claim 2: Ajay as modified by Tomita and Maul teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including a processor (not labeled but see ¶ 306 of Ajay), and a signal with a frequency (see Tomita col. 8, lines 21-33), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the processor is configured to determine the flow rate by:
comparing the frequency of the signal to a plurality of frequencies included in a lookup table; and
determining, based on the frequency matching a particular frequency of the plurality of frequencies included in the lookup table, the flow rate to be a particular flow rate from the lookup table that is associated with the particular frequency.
However, Ciobanu teaches:
a processor that is configured to determine a flow rate by (see ¶ 65 regarding the disclosed computer):
comparing the frequency of the signal to a plurality of frequencies included in a lookup table (see ¶ 65); and
determining, based on the frequency matching a particular frequency of the plurality of frequencies included in the lookup table, the flow rate to be a particular flow rate from the lookup table that is associated with the particular frequency (see fig. 11 and ¶ 65; a particular frequency of those listed in the look-up table is associated with a particular frequency according to the relationship between the two variables).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Ajay such that the processor is configured to determine the flow rate by comparing the frequency of the signal to a plurality of frequencies included in a lookup table and determining, based on the frequency matching a particular frequency of the plurality of frequencies included in the lookup table, the flow rate to be a particular flow rate from the lookup table that is associated with the particular frequency, because such a look up table is one of the art recognized means of achieving the useful and predictable result of determining a flow rate that depends upon a drive current in a known manner, such as suggested in ¶ 65 of Ciobanu.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajay et al. US PG-PUB 2015/0128722 A1 (hereafter Ajay), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 6 March 2025, in view of Tomita US Pat 5,443,552, prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 6 March 2025, and Maul et al. US Pat 6,351,999 B1 (hereafter Maul), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 6 March 2025 as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Savini et al. US PG-PUB 2021/0140805 A1 (hereafter Savini).
As to claim 5: Ajay as modified by Tomita and Maul teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 3, including a transmit coil (22 of Tomita; see fig. 1 and col. 6, lines 6-16 and 27-30), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the transmit coil is an electromagnet located on a printed circuit board.
However, Savini teaches a coil (26; see ¶ 138) that is an electromagnet located on a printed circuit board (see ¶ 138).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ajay’s transmit coil to be an electromagnet located on a printed circuit board because integrating the electrical components into a common printed circuit board both streamlines fabrication and can potentially reduce the size of the overall apparatus in which the coil and board are located, such as suggested in ¶ 138 of Savini.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajay et al. US PG-PUB 2015/0128722 A1 (hereafter Ajay), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 6 March 2025, in view of Tomita US Pat 5,443,552, prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 6 March 2025, and Maul et al. US Pat 6,351,999 B1 (hereafter Maul), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 6 March 2025 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dam Es et al. US Pat 6,626,048 B1 (hereafter Dam).
As to claim 6: Ajay as modified by Tomita and Maul teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including a signal generated by a receive coil (see Tomita col. 8, lines 21-33 regarding the signal associated with coil 23), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the signal generated by the receive coil is an amplitude modulated signal.
However, Dam teaches that signals generated by receive coils may be amplitude modulated signals (see col. 11, lines 58-64).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Ajay’s the signal generated by the receive coil such that it is an amplitude modulated signal because such signals are an art recognized means of achieving the useful and predictable result of converting analog circuit AC signals to digital pulses without requiring a conversion to a baseband/DC signal, such as suggested in col. 11, lines 58-64 of Dam. Such an amplitude modulated signal would be useful in the signal processing of Ajay’s device because it avoids DC offsets that can affect measurement of flow, such as also suggested in col. 11, lines 58-64 of Dam.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajay et al. US PG-PUB 2015/0128722 A1 (hereafter Ajay), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 6 March 2025, in view of Tomita US Pat 5,443,552, prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 6 March 2025, and Maul et al. US Pat 6,351,999 B1 (hereafter Maul), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 6 March 2025 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Herzl et al. US Pat 4,123,940 (hereafter Herzl).
As to claim 7: Ajay as modified by Tomita and Maul teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including a processor (not labeled but see Ajay ¶ 306) and a signal associated with a receive coil (see Tomita col. 8, lines 21-33), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the processor is configured to demodulate the signal generated by the receive coil to determine the frequency.
However, Herzl teaches that signals associated with a flow rate may be demodulated to determine a frequency (see col. 7, lines 9-25).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Ajay’s processor such that it is configured to demodulate the signal generated by the receive coil to determine the frequency because demodulated signals extract information from analog signals which have been modulated for signal transmission purposes and the frequency of an oscillatory component in a flow meter is indicative of a flow rate therethrough, such as suggested in Herzl col. 7, lines 9-15. Accordingly, such a modification would provide both a way to improve signal transmission efficiency and also provide a flow rate measurement method in Ajay’s apparatus.
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