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 .
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copies have been filed.
DETAILED ACTION
The following NON-FINAL Office Action is in response to application 18/236,580 filed on 08/22/2023. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 08/22/2023 are accepted.
IDS
The information disclosure statements received on 08/22/2023 and 01/16/2025 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 and are considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 discloses: “An apparatus for measuring a flow rate of fluid, the apparatus comprising: a memory configured to store one or more instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions, wherein the processor is configured to perform a plurality of operations when the instructions are executed, …wherein the pipe information comprises information on pressure of the fluid, information on temperature of the fluid, and control state information corresponding to a control state of an apparatus installed inside or outside the pipe,…”
In this case, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the bolded limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear which apparatus the applicant is referring to when “an apparatus” is recited, and thus Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
The interpretation being used in light of the specification based on FIGS. 1-2 and discussion of elements 200 and 170 (see, for example, p. 9, lines 22-25; p.10, lines 1-4; p.11, lines 1-2; p.12, lines 8-14, of the instant specification) is an apparatus installed inside or outside the pipe positioned between a first and second pressure gauge where the first passing route ends at the instant passing of the first pressure gauge and a second passing route begins at the instant passing of the first pressure gauge, allowing the first passing route to not include the apparatus installed inside or outside the pipe and a second passing route to include the apparatus installed inside or outside the pipe.
Claims 10-16 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, due to their dependency from a rejected base claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Representative Claim 1 recites:
A method of measuring a flow rate, the method comprising:
receiving pipe information on a pipe through which fluid passes from a measurement sensor installed on the pipe;
calculating physical properties of the fluid based on the pipe information;
obtaining a first parameter related to pressure loss of the fluid that occurs in a first passing route in the pipe;
obtaining a second parameter related to pressure loss of the fluid that occurs in a second passing route in the pipe;
and outputting a flow rate of the fluid based on the pipe information, the physical properties of the fluid, the first parameter, and the second parameter,
wherein the pipe information comprises information on pressure of the fluid, information on temperature of the fluid, and control state information corresponding to a control state of an apparatus installed inside or outside the pipe, wherein the first passing route is a route not comprising the apparatus installed inside or outside the pipe among routes through which the fluid passes through the pipe, and wherein the second passing route is a route comprising the apparatus installed inside or outside the pipe among routes through which the fluid passes through the pipe.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.” Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of claims 9 and 17.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1 does belong to a statutory category, namely it is a process claim. Likewise, claim 9 is an apparatus claim, and claim 17 is a process claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification of the steps recited in Claim 1 include at least one judicial exception, that being a mathematical concept and/or mental process. This can be seen in the claimed process steps of “calculating physical properties of the fluid based on the pipe information…” [See, for example, FIG. 2 (operation 211), p.15, lines 1-16 of the instant specification], and “outputting a flow rate of the fluid based on the pipe information, the physical properties of the fluid, the first parameter, and the second parameter…” [See, for example, FIGS. 1-3, (operation 370, apparatus 200), p. 17, lines 5-10, Eqn. 3) of the instant specification], each of which encompasses mathematical concepts requiring specific mathematical calculations to perform the methods described. For example, when given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the steps of “calculating,” and “obtaining” are performed using a “fluid property calculator” and a “flow rate calculation model” expressed as Equation 3.
In the alternative, or additionally, each of the recited judicial exceptions may also be considered a mental process because it is merely data evaluation including calculations, capable of being performed using a pen and paper. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the specification, upon receipt of pipe information, the first and second parameters related to pressure loss of the fluid, and measurement sensor data (pressure, temperature, etc…) a human would be capable of calculating the physical properties of the fluid (density, viscosity, etc…), the average flow velocity and flow rate to be measured, the friction coefficient, and flow rate using equations 1-3 described in the specification, by pen and paper. While such calculations by pen and paper may be time consuming, they fall in the “mental processes” abstract idea grouping. Noting MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(0I) “MENTAL PROCESSES,” “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea.” CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
Each of the process steps “receiving,” “calculating,” “obtaining,” and “outputting” are recited as being performed by a computer (for example, see, p. 20-22 of the instant specification describing the various generic hardware components). The computer is recited at a high level of generality (“processor”). The computer is used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of collecting data/information and parameters such as “pipe information,” “a first parameter related to pressure loss of the fluid,” and “a second parameter related to pressure loss of the fluid” and performing the recited process steps.
For example, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification, “outputting” involves an “output device” [(element 223), (p.13, line 22)] outputting information to “a memory” [(element 225), (p.13, line 22)], which is merely the use of a generic computer processing technology and doesn’t integrate the claim into a practical application. The step of “outputting” is merely an insignificant extra solution activity namely outputting pipe information and the results of calculations.
Claim 1 also recites additional elements (equipment) of a {measurement sensor and apparatus}; and data comprising, “pipe information,” “first parameter related to pressure loss of a fluid,” “second parameter related to pressure loss of a fluid,” and comprises information on “pressure of the fluid, information on temperature of the fluid, and control state information corresponding to a control state of an apparatus installed inside or outside the pipe…” (See, for example, p.13, lines 8-12 FIG. 2, (element 270, of the instant specification); “wherein the first passing route is a route not comprising the apparatus installed inside or outside the pipe among routes through which the fluid passes through the pipe, and wherein the second passing route is a route comprising the apparatus installed inside or outside the pipe among routes through which the fluid passes through the pipe” (See, for example, FIG. 1, p.11, lines 1-2, 12-13, of the instant specification).
However, these additional elements merely comprise generic conventional non-specific data/information and equipment, such as an (“apparatus”), and is/are set forth at a highly generic level. Claims 9 and 17 recite analogous additional elements.
Claims 9 and 17 are analogous to claim 1. Additionally, claim 9 recites a memory storage and processor (See, for example, FIG. 5, p.20, line 15, of the instant specification). Additionally, claim 17 recites a parameter training method where the trained first and second parameters are stored in a memory (See, for example, FIG. 6, p.21-22, lines 23-3). Thus, under Prong two, the recited generic computer components do not integrate the claimed subject matter into a particular practical application.
Specifically, claim 17 recites training a first parameter related to pressure loss of the fluid and a second parameter related to pressure loss of the fluid and storing the trained first parameter and trained second parameter in a memory. The courts have recognized computer functions such as “storing” as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in this generic manner (See MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Furthermore, the pipe system information training device 215 involves training using one of a gradient descent method or a genetic algorithm method (see p.18, line 25; p.19, lines 1-2 of the instant specification), which are additional abstract ideas given that they inherently involve mathematical equations, calculations and/or mathematical relationships. Thus, the limitation of “training” falls under the category of mathematical concept. Therefore, the limitations recited in claim 17 are ineligible.
The recited additional elements can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110, USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) (“The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm, is beside the point”)”.
Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements recited in claim 1, as well as claims 9 and 17, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed method. For instance, nothing is done once the flow rate of the fluid has been measured and outputted.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity (Claims 1, 9 and 17). Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document).
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fail to necessitate a conclusion that claim 1, as well as claims 9 and 17, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 1, 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding dependent claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20, these claims provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded calculation model(s) and/or the generic equipment/components, so these limitations should be considered as more “insignificant extra-solution activity” and/or part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims. Furthermore, the exemplary measurement sensors recited in claim 10 merely amount to a field of use and/or are simply descriptive of a generic source of the data (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), and therefore do not render the claim eligible. Therefore, these claims are found ineligible for the reasons described for parent claims 1, 9 and 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee U.S. Patent Publication US 2014/0200836 A1 (hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding Claim 17, Lee teaches: A parameter training method comprising: receiving an actual flow rate from a flow meter installed on a pipe through which fluid passes; (Lee, para. [0329], FIG. 9; [“According to the embodiment, the user has information regarding the flow regime (e.g., steady flow rate through a commercial flow meter) in the system (block 401) prior to using the proposed flow determination method.”]; (Lee, para. [0028]; [“…the application of the Washio model (Equation 1) resulted in an error between the actual and estimated flow rate of 16%.”]; [0162]: [“…the apparatus is arranged to adjust the flow rate of the fluid through the pipe if the determined flow rate substantially differs from an expected flow rate.”]; [0429]: [“…to illustrate the effect of an element in between the measurement points on the accuracy of the flow prediction, the fluctuating flow response from the Washio method is plotted with the true flow response in FIG. 13a.”]) and
training a first parameter related to pressure loss of the fluid that occurs in a first passing route in the pipe and a second parameter related to pressure loss of the fluid that occurs in a second passing route in the pipe by comparing a flow rate measured from a flow rate measurement apparatus with the actual flow rate; (Lee, FIGS. 20A-21J; paras. [0230-0233]; [“In one embodiment, the processor is further configured to: Determine a first set of signal characteristics relating to a determined flow rate of the fluid between a first pair of sensors. Determine a second set of signal characteristics relating to a determined flow rate of fluid between a second pair of sensors, and compare the determined first and second sets of signal characteristics to correct for any errors in the flow rate of the fluid.”]; [0428]: [“In a preferred embodiment, the method comprises (and the apparatus is arranged to) adjust the flow rate of the fluid through the pipe if the determined flow rate substantially differs from a desired or expected flow rate”]) and
storing the trained first parameter and the trained second parameter in a memory,
(Lee, paras. [0439]; [“The reader unit 714 is configured to receive a machine readable medium on which is stored one or more sets of instructions and data structures, for example computer software which when executed by the processor(s) 702 of the processing device causes the processor(s) 702 to perform one or more steps of the method described above.”]; [0441]: [“The machine readable medium includes any medium that is capable of storing, encoding or carrying out a set of instructions for execution by the machine and that cause the machine to perform any one or more of the methods described above. The machine-readable medium is also capable of storing, encoding or carrying data structures used by or associated with those sets of instructions.”]);
wherein the first passing route is a route not comprising an apparatus installed inside or outside the pipe among routes through which the fluid passes through the pipe, and wherein the second passing route is a route comprising the apparatus installed inside or outside the pipe among routes through which the fluid passes through the pipe; (Lee, FIGS. 14-15, para. [0451]; [“The pipeline system 600 consists of a 42.6 m pipe 610 with the nominal diameter of 1 inch and there are test sections where pressure transducers 601, 602 and a transient generator 606 are placed along the pipe 610.”]; (FIG. 11, para. [0456]): [(In Figure 11, where h1 and h2 are transducers measuring pressure and g is a generator) “The inline valve at the downstream end of the system is closed to establish a static steady state condition.”]).
Regarding Claim 18, Lee teaches: The parameter training method of claim 17, wherein the first parameter comprises a diameter of the pipe, roughness of an inner surface of the pipe, and a distance between pressure gauges; (Lee, para. [0471]; [“The system parameters involved in this calculation are the pipe diameter (D), the pipe friction factor (f), the base flow (Q), the system wave speed (a) and the transducer spacing.”]).
Regarding Claim 19, Lee teaches: The parameter training method of claim 17, wherein the second parameter comprises a calculation formula of a pressure loss coefficient of the apparatus according to control state information corresponding to a control state of an apparatus installed inside or outside the pipe. (Lee, para. [0413]; [“The flow loss is a function of the mean head and flow values. Examples of hydraulic elements include valves, orifices, pumps, corners and junctions. As previously discussed in the case where the hydraulic element is an orifice plate, the expression Δloss is given by the following equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
61
133
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where Q0 is the time averaged mean discharge, and ΔH0 is the difference between the time averaged mean pressure head.”]; [0457]: [“Controlled flow perturbations for the validation of the method are introduced using two hydraulic devices; an electronically controlled solenoid valve and a manually operated side discharge valve which are located 8.5 m from the downstream reservoir.”]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Yamashita (hereinafter “Yamashita”) U.S. Patent Publication US 2020/0159257 A1.
Regarding representative Claim 1, Lee teaches: A method of measuring a flow rate, the method comprising [Lee: Abstract]; receiving pipe information on a pipe through which fluid passes from a measurement sensor installed on the pipe; (Lee: [Abstract]; [“The method 100 includes measuring a pressure of fluid at least two locations in the pipe 101, the pressure being measured by sensors that are positioned on or in the pipe”]) and
calculating physical properties of the fluid based on the pipe information; (Lee, paras. [0329-0333]; [“The Reynold’s number, Re is determined from the following equation:
PNG
media_image2.png
49
83
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Where:
v = kinematic viscosity
Q = time-averaged mean discharge
A = the pipe cross-sectional area, and
D = the pipe diameter”]) and
obtaining a first parameter related to pressure loss of the fluid that occurs in a first passing route in the pipe; obtaining a second parameter related to pressure loss of the fluid that occurs in a second passing route in the pipe; (Lee, paras. [0318], FIG. 2; [“Having recorded the pressure parameter of the fluid at two points in the system 500…”]; [0413]: [“…the expression Δloss is given by the following equation:
PNG
media_image3.png
63
136
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Where Q0 is the time averaged mean discharge, and ΔH0 is the difference between the time averaged mean pressure head.
[0414]: The matrix E for a head loss hydraulic element is given by:
PNG
media_image4.png
56
118
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Where Δloss is a variable relating to the magnitude of head loss.”]);
and outputting a flow rate of the fluid based on the pipe information, the physical properties of the fluid, the first parameter, and the second parameter, wherein the pipe information comprises information on pressure of the fluid…and control state information corresponding to a control state of an apparatus installed inside or outside the pipe, (Lee, para. [0415]; [“In the case where there is both a head loss and flow loss, the matrix expression E is given by:
PNG
media_image5.png
74
170
media_image5.png
Greyscale
where DELTA.loss, is the variable relating to the magnitude of head loss, and .DELTA.loss.sub.2 is the variable relating to the magnitude of flow loss.”]; (Lee, para. [0416]; [“Manipulation of these matrix equations depends on which of the two pressures, h.sub.1, h.sub.2 or h.sub.3 are measured and also which flow, q.sub.1, q.sub.2 or q.sub.3 is of interest to the user. In the given example (FIG. 3), it is assumed that the pressures at points 501 and 502 are measured to determine the flow at point 503 (FIG. 3).”];
(Lee, [Claim 1]; [“A method of determining a flow rate of a fluid flowing in a pipe comprising: measuring a pressure of fluid at least two locations in the pipe, the pressure being measured by sensors that are positioned on or in the pipe; determining a wave speed of fluid based on measured pressure of fluid at a location in the pipe; determining if a flow regime of fluid in the pipe comprises either a laminar or turbulent flow and comprises either a steady or unsteady flow; and determining the flow rate of fluid based on the determined wave speed, on the measured pressures at two locations in the pipe, and on the determined flow regime of fluid.”]; [0437]: [“A further example output peripheral device includes a fluid regulator device for controlling the flow rate of the fluid through the pipe. For that embodiment, the device 700 and/or the fluid regulator device may be configured accordingly to implement a control loop with feedback, such as a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller for example, to control the flow rate of fluid through the pipe. In some embodiments, the output peripherals 706 are part of the processing device 700. In other embodiments, the output peripherals 706 are external to and in communication with the processing device.”]; [0457]: [“Controlled flow perturbations for the validation of the method are introduced using two hydraulic devices; an electronically controlled solenoid valve and a manually operated side discharge valve which are located 8.5 m from the downstream reservoir.”]);
wherein the first passing route is a route not comprising the apparatus installed inside or outside the pipe among routes through which the fluid passes through the pipe, and wherein the second passing route is a route comprising the apparatus installed inside or outside the pipe among routes through which the fluid passes through the pipe.
(Lee, FIGS. 14-15, para. [0451]; [“The pipeline system 600 consists of a 42.6 m pipe 610 with the nominal diameter of 1 inch and there are test sections where pressure transducers 601, 602 and a transient generator 606 are placed along the pipe 610.”];
([FIG. 11, para. [0456]): [(In Figure 11, where h1 and h2 are transducers measuring pressure and g is a generator) “The inline valve at the downstream end of the system is closed to establish a static steady state condition.”]).
Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1as described above. However, Lee does not explicitly teach calculating or determining flow rate based on pipe information comprising information on temperature of the fluid.
In an analogous field, Yamashita is directed to providing a fluid control system and flow rate measurement method (Yamashita: Abstract) where (Yamashita, para. [0031]; [“the flow rate Q downstream of the restriction part is given by:
PNG
media_image6.png
26
97
media_image6.png
Greyscale
where K1 is a constant depending on the fluid type and the fluid temperature. In another embodiment…the flow rate Q can be calculated from a predetermined equation:
PNG
media_image7.png
29
197
media_image7.png
Greyscale
where K2 is a constant depending on the fluid type and the fluid temperature”]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to determine the flow rate of a fluid, as taught by Lee, based on pipe information comprising information on the temperature of the fluid, as taught by Yamashita, in order to mitigate errors or deviations in calculations such as those involving density, viscosity and flow velocity given that the temperature of a liquid can greatly impact these values and ultimately the determined flow rate. This method of improving Lee was within the ability of one ordinary skilled in the art based on the teachings of Yamashita. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Lee and Yamashita to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3, Lee teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the first parameter comprises a diameter of the pipe, roughness of an inner surface of the pipe, and a distance between pressure gauges; (Lee, para. [0471]; [“The system parameters involved in this calculation are the pipe diameter (D), the pipe friction factor (f), the base flow (Q), the system wave speed (a) and the transducer spacing”]).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the second parameter comprises a calculation formula of a pressure loss coefficient of the apparatus according to the control state information; (Lee, para. [0413]; [“The flow loss is a function of the mean head and flow values. Examples of hydraulic elements include valves, orifices, pumps, corners and junctions. As previously discussed in the case where the hydraulic element is an orifice plate, the expression Δloss is given by the following equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
61
133
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where Q0 is the time averaged mean discharge, and ΔH0 is the difference between the time averaged mean pressure head”]).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the outputting of the flow rate of the fluid comprises obtaining a friction coefficient of the pipe, which is necessary for calculating the flow rate of the fluid passing through the pipe, based on the physical properties of the fluid and the first parameter; (Lee, para. [0470]; [“To investigate the sensitivity of the method, the following equation was used to determine the flow response at one of the pressure measurement points:”]
PNG
media_image8.png
38
245
media_image8.png
Greyscale
[0471]: [“The system parameters involved in this calculation are the pipe diameter (D), the pipe friction factor (f), the base flow (Q), the system wave speed (a) and the transducer spacing (Ia). The sensitivity of the method was studied by differentiating the equation above with respect to each of the input parameters. The values obtained from the differentiated equations indicate the significance of each input parameter. For a valid assessment, these values were normalized by the value of the input parameters and the results are summarized in Table 5.”]; [0472]: [“The results show that the influence of the transducer spacing and the system wave speed was in the order of 2 to 4 times larger than other input parameters and the robustness of the equations against estimation errors in the pipe friction factor and the base flow through the system are evident”]).
Regarding Claim 6, Lee teaches: The method of claim 5, wherein the outputting of the flow rate of the fluid comprises obtaining a pressure loss coefficient of the apparatus, which is necessary for calculating the flow rate of the fluid passing through the apparatus, based on the control state information and the second parameter. (Lee, para. [0413]; [“The flow loss is a function of the mean head and flow values. Examples of hydraulic elements include valves, orifices, pumps, corners and junctions. As previously discussed in the case where the hydraulic element is an orifice plate, the expression Δloss is given by the following equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
61
133
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where Q0 is the time averaged mean discharge, and ΔH0 is the difference between the time averaged mean pressure head.”]). (Lee, para. [0415]; [“In the case where there is both a head loss and flow loss, the matrix expression E is given by:
PNG
media_image5.png
74
170
media_image5.png
Greyscale
where DELTA.loss, is the variable relating to the magnitude of head loss, and DELTA.loss.sub.2 is the variable relating to the magnitude of flow loss.”]; (Lee, para. [0416]; [“Manipulation of these matrix equations depends on which of the two pressures, h.sub.1, h.sub.2 or h.sub.3 are measured and also which flow, q.sub.1, q.sub.2 or q.sub.3 is of interest to the user. In the given example (FIG. 3), it is assumed that the pressures at points 501 and 502 are measured to determine the flow at point 503 (FIG. 3).”];
Regarding Claim 7, Lee teaches: The method of claim 6, wherein the outputting of the flow rate of the fluid comprises: generating a flow rate calculation model for calculating a flow velocity of the fluid based on the pipe information, the physical property of the fluid, the first parameter, and the second parameter; obtaining the flow velocity of the fluid by analyzing the flow rate calculation model; and outputting the flow rate of the fluid based on the flow velocity of the fluid. (Lee, para. [0315], FIGS. 3-4; [“A flow rate determination model 100 of an embodiment of the present invention and its sequence of operations is shown in a flow chart in FIG. 4. The model could be applied to the pipe system 500 shown in FIG. 3 for example. The model 100 consists of a set of algorithms…In the developed model 100, a property of fluid namely pressure data, measured from two pressure transducers 501, 502 (in block 101) is used to obtain the system wave speed of the fluid flowing through the pipe 510 (in block 102). The obtained wave speed then goes through another algorithm (block 103) along with the raw pressure data. This algorithm modifies (in block 104) the raw pressure data to its appropriate form to ensure the accuracy of the predicted flow response. The outputs from this algorithm become the inputs for the flow calculation (in block 105) which output the flow rate (block 106). The present invention further provides a model relating the pressure and flow rate which can cater for different flow regimes (particularly steady and unsteady laminar and turbulent flows), the presence of hydraulic devices in the pipe, and the type of pipe that is used.”]).
(Lee, paras. [0329-0333]; [“The Reynold’s number, Re is determined from the following equation:
PNG
media_image2.png
49
83
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Where:
v = kinematic viscosity
Q = time-averaged mean discharge
A = the pipe cross-sectional area, and
D = the pipe diameter”]).
Lee teaches the limitations of claim 7 as described above. However, Lee does not explicitly teach calculating or determining flow rate based on pipe information comprising information on temperature of the fluid.
In an analogous field, Yamashita is directed to providing a fluid control system and flow rate measurement method (Yamashita: Abstract) where (Yamashita, para. [0031]; [“the flow rate Q downstream of the restriction part is given by:
PNG
media_image6.png
26
97
media_image6.png
Greyscale
where K1 is a constant depending on the fluid type and the fluid temperature. In another embodiment…the flow rate Q can be calculated from a predetermined equation:
PNG
media_image7.png
29
197
media_image7.png
Greyscale
where K2 is a constant depending on the fluid type and the fluid temperature”]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to determine the flow rate of a fluid, as taught by Lee, based on pipe information comprising information on the temperature of the fluid, as taught by Yamashita, in order to mitigate errors or deviations in calculations such as those involving density, viscosity and flow velocity given that the temperature of a liquid can greatly impact these values and ultimately the determined flow rate. This method of improving Lee was within the ability of one ordinary skilled in the art based on the teachings of Yamashita. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Lee and Yamashita to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Regarding Claim 8, Lee teaches: The method of claim 7, wherein the obtaining of the flow velocity of the fluid comprises analyzing the flow rate calculation model using one of an analytical method, a numerical method, and a model estimation method. (Lee, para. [0315]; [“A flow rate determination model 100 of an embodiment of the present invention and its sequence of operations is shown in a flow chart in FIG. 4. The model could be applied to the pipe system 500 shown in FIG. 3 for example. The model 100 consists of a set of algorithms to overcome problems of the prior art discussed in the background section. In the developed model 100, a property of fluid namely pressure data, measured from two pressure transducers 501, 502 (in block 101) is used to obtain the system wave speed of the fluid flowing through the pipe 510 (in block 102). The obtained wave speed then goes through another algorithm (block 103) along with the raw pressure data. This algorithm modifies (in block 104) the raw pressure data to its appropriate form to ensure the accuracy of the predicted flow response. The outputs from this algorithm become the inputs for the flow calculation (in block 105) which output the flow rate (block 106).”]).
Regarding Claim 9, Lee teaches: An apparatus for measuring a flow rate of fluid, the apparatus comprising: a memory configured to store one or more instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions, (Lee, para. [0438], FIG. 19; [“The device 700 further includes a main system memory 708 and static memory 710. The processor(s) 702, main memory 708 and static memory 710 communicate with each other via a data bus 716. The processing device 700 further includes a reader unit 714, optical media drive 712, and network interface device 718. These devices also communicate with the processor(s) via the data bus 716.”]);
wherein the processor is configured to perform a plurality of operations when the instructions are executed, wherein the plurality of operations comprises: receiving pipe information on a pipe through which fluid passes from a measurement sensor installed on the pipe; calculating physical properties of the fluid based on the pipe information; (Lee, paras. [0439], FIG. 19; [“The reader unit 714 is configured to receive a machine readable medium on which is stored one or more sets of instructions and data structures, for example computer software which when executed by the processor(s) 702 of the processing device causes the processor(s) 702 to perform one or more steps of the method described above.”]; [0317]: [“…the method will be implemented by a processor that is configured to or adapted to perform the steps of the method including applying the algorithms. The processor may be integral with, or coupled to, the sensor(s).”]; [0209]: [“…the processor is adapted to determine the flow rate of the fluid at a flow determination point in the pipe based on at least the determined fluid wave speed taking into account the characteristics of the pipe.”]; [Claim 38]: [“An apparatus for determining a flow rate of a fluid flowing in a pipe comprising: at least two sensors for positioning on or in the pipe to measure a pressure of the fluid at least two locations in the pipe; a processor coupled to the sensors, the processor being adapted to determine a fluid wave speed based on measured pressure of fluid at least one location in the pipe, and determine if a flow regime of fluid in the pipe comprises either a laminar or turbulent flow and comprises either a steady or unsteady flow, the processor further being adapted to determine the flow rate of fluid based on the determined wave speed, on measured pressures at two locations in the pipe, and on the determined flow regime of fluid.”]);
obtaining a first parameter related to pressure loss of the fluid that occurs in a first passing route in the pipe; obtaining a second parameter related to pressure loss of the fluid that occurs in a second passing route in the pipe; and outputting a flow rate of the fluid based on the pipe information, the physical properties of the fluid, the first parameter, and the second parameter, wherein the pipe information comprises information on pressure of the fluid…and control state information corresponding to a control state of an apparatus installed inside or outside the pipe; (Lee, [Claim 38]; [“…a processor coupled to the sensors, the processor being adapted to determine a fluid wave speed based on measured pressure of fluid at least one location in the pipe, and determine if a flow regime of fluid in the pipe comprises either a laminar or turbulent flow and comprises either a steady or unsteady flow, the processor further being adapted to determine the flow rate of fluid based on the determined wave speed, on measured pressures at two locations in the pipe, and on the determined flow regime of fluid.”]; [0209]: [“…the processor is adapted to determine the flow rate of the fluid at a flow determination point in the pipe based on at least the determined fluid wave speed taking into account the characteristics of the pipe.”]); [Claim 53]: [“The apparatus of Claim 38 wherein the processor is adapted to determine the flow rate of the fluid at a flow determination point in the pipe with n number of hydraulic element(s) between the locations at which pressure is measured for the flow rate determination and with m number of hydraulic element(s) between the flow determination point and one of the locations at which pressure is measured for flow rate determination…”]);
wherein the first passing route is a route not comprising the apparatus installed inside or outside the pipe among routes through which the fluid passes through the pipe, and wherein the second passing route is a route comprising the apparatus installed inside or outside the pipe among routes through which the fluid passes through the pipe; (Lee, [Claim 56]; [“The apparatus of Claim 53 wherein the processor is adapted to determine the flow rate of the fluid at the flow determination point in the pipe with one hydraulic element between the locations at which the pressure is measured and with one hydraulic element between the flow determination point and one of the locations at which the pressure is measured…”]).
Lee teaches the limitations of claim 9 as described above. However, Lee does not explicitly teach calculating or determining flow rate based on pipe information comprising information on temperature of the fluid. In an analogous field, Yamashita is directed to providing a fluid control system and flow rate measurement method (Yamashita: Abstract) where (Yamashita, para. [0031]; [“the flow rate Q downstream of the restriction part is given by:
PNG
media_image6.png
26
97
media_image6.png
Greyscale
where K1 is a constant depending on the fluid type and the fluid temperature. In another embodiment…the flow rate Q can be calculated from a predetermined equation:
PNG
media_image7.png
29
197
media_image7.png
Greyscale
where K2 is a constant depending on the fluid type and the fluid temperature”]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to determine the flow rate of a fluid, as taught by Lee, based on pipe information comprising information on the temperature of the fluid, as taught by Yamashita, in order to mitigate errors or deviations in calculations such as those involving density, viscosity and flow velocity given that the temperature of a liquid can greatly impact these values and ultimately the determined flow rate. This method of improving Lee was within the ability of one ordinary skilled in the art based on the teachings of Yamashita. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Lee and Yamashita to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Regarding Claim 11, Lee teaches: The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the first parameter comprises a diameter of the pipe, roughness of an inner surface of the pipe, and a distance between pressure gauges; (Lee, para. [0471]; [“The system parameters involved in this calculation are the pipe diameter (D), the pipe friction factor (f), the base flow (Q), the system wave speed (a) and the transducer spacing”]).
Regarding Claim 12, Lee teaches: The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the second parameter comprises a calculation formula of a pressure loss coefficient of the apparatus according to the control state information; (Lee, para. [0413]; [“The flow loss is a function of the mean head and flow values. Examples of hydraulic elements include valves, orifices, pumps, corners and junctions. As previously discussed in the case where the hydraulic element is an orifice plate, the expression Δloss is given by the following equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
61
133
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where Q0 is the time averaged mean discharge, and ΔH0 is the difference between the time averaged mean pressure head”]).
Regarding Claim 13, Lee teaches: The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the outputting of the flow rate of the fluid comprises obtaining a friction coefficient of the pipe, which is necessary for calculating the flow rate of the fluid passing through the pipe, based on the physical properties of the fluid and the first parameter; (Lee, paras. [0470]; [“To investigate the sensitivity of the method, the following equation was used to determine the flow response at one of the pressure measurement points:”];
PNG
media_image8.png
38
245
media_image8.png
Greyscale
[Lee, para. 0471]: [“The system parameters involved in this calculation are the pipe diameter (D), the pipe friction factor (f), the base flow (Q), the system wave speed (a) and the transducer spacing (Ia). The sensitivity of the method was studied by differentiating the equation above with respect to each of the input parameters. The values obtained from the differentiated equations indicate the significance of each input parameter. For a valid assessment, these values were normalized by the value of the input parameters and the results are summarized in Table 5.”];
[Lee, para. 0472]: [“The results show that the influence of the transducer spacing and the system wave speed was in the order of 2 to 4 times larger than other input parameters and the robustness of the equations against estimation errors in the pipe friction factor and the base flow through the system are evident.”]).
Regarding Claim 14, Lee teaches: The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the outputting of the flow rate of the fluid comprises obtaining a pressure loss coefficient of the apparatus, which is necessary for calculating the flow rate of the fluid passing through the apparatus, based on the control state information and the second parameter; (Lee, para. [0413]; [“The flow loss is a function of the mean head and flow values. Examples of hydraulic elements include valves, orifices, pumps, corners and junctions. As previously discussed in the case where the hydraulic element is an orifice plate, the expression Δloss is given by the following equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
61
133
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where Q0 is the time averaged mean discharge, and ΔH0 is the difference between the time averaged mean pressure head”]).
Regarding Claim 15, Lee teaches: The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the outputting of the flow rate of the fluid comprises: generating a flow rate calculation model for calculating a flow velocity of the fluid based on the pipe information, the physical properties of the fluid, the first parameter, and the second parameter; obtaining the flow velocity of the fluid by analyzing the flow rate calculation model; and outputting the flow rate of the fluid based on the flow velocity of the fluid. (Lee, para. [0315], FIGS. 3-4; [“A flow rate determination model 100 of an embodiment of the present invention and its sequence of operations is shown in a flow chart in FIG. 4. The model could be applied to the pipe system 500 shown in FIG. 3 for example. The model 100 consists of a set of algorithms…In the developed model 100, a property of fluid namely pressure data, measured from two pressure transducers 501, 502 (in block 101) is used to obtain the system wave speed of the fluid flowing through the pipe 510 (in block 102).
The obtained wave speed then goes through another algorithm (block 103) along with the raw pressure data. This algorithm modifies (in block 104) the raw pressure data to its appropriate form to ensure the accuracy of the predicted flow response. The outputs from this algorithm become the inputs for the flow calculation (in block 105) which output the flow rate (block 106). The present invention further provides a model relating the pressure and flow rate which can cater for different flow regimes (particularly steady and unsteady laminar and turbulent flows), the presence of hydraulic devices in the pipe, and the type of pipe that is used”]);
(Lee, paras. [0329-0333]; [“The Reynold’s number, Re is determined from the following equation:
PNG
media_image2.png
49
83
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Where:
v = kinematic viscosity
Q = time-averaged mean discharge
A = the pipe cross-sectional area, and
D = the pipe diameter”]).
Lee teaches the limitations of claim 15 as described above. However, Lee does not explicitly teach calculating or determining flow rate based on pipe information comprising information on temperature of the fluid.
In an analogous field, Yamashita is directed to providing a fluid control system and flow rate measurement method (Yamashita: Abstract) where (Yamashita, para. [0031]; [“the flow rate Q downstream of the restriction part is given by:
PNG
media_image6.png
26
97
media_image6.png
Greyscale
where K1 is a constant depending on the fluid type and the fluid temperature. In another embodiment…the flow rate Q can be calculated from a predetermined equation:
PNG
media_image7.png
29
197
media_image7.png
Greyscale
where K2 is a constant depending on the fluid type and the fluid temperature”]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to determine the flow rate of a fluid, as taught by Lee, based on pipe information comprising information on the temperature of the fluid, as taught by Yamashita, in order to mitigate errors or deviations in calculations such as those involving density, viscosity and flow velocity given that the temperature of a liquid can greatly impact these values and ultimately the determined flow rate. This method of improving Lee was within the ability of one ordinary skilled in the art based on the teachings of Yamashita. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Lee and Yamashita to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15.
Regarding Claim 16, Lee teaches: The apparatus of claim 15, wherein the obtaining of the flow velocity of the fluid comprises analyzing the flow rate calculation model using one of an analytical method, a numerical method, and a model estimation method. (Lee, para. [0315]; [“A flow rate determination model 100 of an embodiment of the present invention and its sequence of operations is shown in a flow chart in FIG. 4. The model could be applied to the pipe system 500 shown in FIG. 3 for example. The model 100 consists of a set of algorithms to overcome problems of the prior art discussed in the background section. In the developed model 100, a property of fluid namely pressure data, measured from two pressure transducers 501, 502 (in block 101) is used to obtain the system wave speed of the fluid flowing through the pipe 510 (in block 102). The obtained wave speed then goes through another algorithm (block 103) along with the raw pressure data. This algorithm modifies (in block 104) the raw pressure data to its appropriate form to ensure the accuracy of the predicted flow response. The outputs from this algorithm become the inputs for the flow calculation (in block 105) which output the flow rate (block 106).”]).
Claim(s) 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Yamashita, and further in view of Nimberger (hereinafter “Nimberger”) U.S. Patent No. US 6,485,175 B1.
Regarding Claim 2, Lee teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the measurement sensor comprises: a pressure gauge configured to measure the pressure of the fluid; (Lee, FIG. 10, para. [0316]; [“A pressure of the fluid is measured 101 using a sensor, such as a piezoelectric transducer (PZT) or a strain gauge. Two spaced apart sensors 501, 502 may be used to measure pressure at two points along a length of the pipe 510.”]; …and a control state measuring instrument configured to measure the control state of the apparatus installed inside or outside the pipe. (Lee, FIGS. 14-15, para. [0451]; [“The pipeline system 600 consists of a 42.6 m pipe 610 with the nominal diameter of 1 inch and there are test sections where pressure transducers 601, 602 and a transient generator 606 are placed along the pipe 610. The upstream and downstream ends of the system are bounded by the pressurized tanks 611, 612 whose pressure is controlled electronically to achieve desired flow rates and keep the pressure constant during the verification process. The pressure transducers 601, 602 have a measurement range of 0 to 352 kPa…”]).
Lee teaches the limitations of dependent claim 2 mentioned above. However, Lee does not explicitly teach calculating or determining flow rate using a temperature measurement sensor comprising a thermometer configured to measure the temperature of the fluid.
In an analogous field, Nimberger is directed to providing a temperature sensing device for metering fluids (Nimberger: Abstract). Therein Nimberger teaches a “temperature sensing element, such as a thermocouple, a resistance temperature device, a thermometer, a thermistor, and a semiconductor sensor…” for detecting the temperature of a fluid (Nimberger, [p.1, col. 2, lines 30-33]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to determine the flow rate of a fluid, as taught by Lee, by using a temperature sensor such as a thermometer, as taught by Nimberger, in order to mitigate errors or deviations in calculations such as those involving density, viscosity and flow velocity given that the temperature of a liquid can greatly impact these values and ultimately the determined flow rate. This method of improving Lee was within the ability of one ordinary skilled in the art based on the teachings of Nimberger. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Lee and Nimberger to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Nimberger teaches the limitations of claim 2 mentioned above. However, Nimberger fails to draw the correlation between using a thermometer and obtaining temperature information of a fluid using a thermometer to determine the flow rate. In an analogous field, Yamashita is directed to providing a fluid control system and flow rate measurement method (Yamashita: Abstract) where the temperature is measured using a “temperature sensor” (see FIG. 2, element 13) and (Yamashita, para. [0031]; [“the flow rate Q downstream of the restriction part is given by:
where K1 is a constant depending on the fluid type and the fluid temperature. In another embodiment…the flow rate Q can be calculated from a predetermined equation:
where K2 is a constant depending on the fluid type and the fluid temperature”]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to determine the flow rate of a fluid, as taught by Lee, based on pipe information comprising information on the temperature of the fluid measured by a temperature sensor, as taught by Yamashita, where the temperature sensor is a thermometer, as taught by Nimberger, in order to mitigate errors or deviations in calculations such as those involving density, viscosity and flow velocity given that the temperature of a liquid can greatly impact these values and ultimately the determined flow rate. This method of improving Lee was within the ability of one ordinary skilled in the art based on the teachings of Yamashita and Nimberger. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Lee and Yamashita with the teachings of Nimberger to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Regarding Claim 10, Lee teaches: The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the measurement sensor comprises: a pressure gauge configured to measure the pressure of the fluid; (Lee, FIG. 10, para. [0316]; [“A pressure of the fluid is measured 101 using a sensor, such as a piezoelectric transducer (PZT) or a strain gauge. Two spaced apart sensors 501, 502 may be used to measure pressure at two points along a length of the pipe 510.”]) …and a control state measuring instrument configured to measure the control state of the apparatus installed inside or outside the pipe; (Lee, FIGS. 14-15, para. [0451]; [“The pipeline system 600 consists of a 42.6 m pipe 610 with the nominal diameter of 1 inch and there are test sections where pressure transducers 601, 602 and a transient generator 606 are placed along the pipe 610. The upstream and downstream ends of the system are bounded by the pressurized tanks 611, 612 whose pressure is controlled electronically to achieve desired flow rates and keep the pressure constant during the verification process. The pressure transducers 601, 602 have a measurement range of 0 to 352 kPa…”]).
Lee teaches the limitations of dependent claim 10 mentioned above. However, Lee does not explicitly teach calculating or determining flow rate using a temperature measurement sensor comprising a thermometer configured to measure the temperature of the fluid.
In an analogous field, Nimberger is directed to providing a temperature sensing device for metering fluids (Nimberger: Abstract). Therein Nimberger teaches a “temperature sensing element, such as a thermocouple, a resistance temperature device, a thermometer, a thermistor, and a semiconductor sensor…” for detecting the temperature of a fluid (Nimberger, [p.1, col. 2, lines 30-33]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to determine the flow rate of a fluid, as taught by Lee, by using a temperature sensor such as a thermometer, as taught by Nimberger, in order to mitigate errors or deviations in calculations such as those involving density, viscosity and flow velocity given that the temperature of a liquid can greatly impact these values and ultimately the determined flow rate. This method of improving Lee was within the ability of one ordinary skilled in the art based on the teachings of Nimberger. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Lee and Nimberger to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Nimberger teaches the limitations of claim 10 mentioned above. However, Nimberger fails to draw the correlation between using a thermometer and obtaining temperature information of a fluid using a thermometer to determine the flow rate. In an analogous field, Yamashita is directed to providing a fluid control system and flow rate measurement method (Yamashita: Abstract) where the temperature is measured using a “temperature sensor” (see FIG. 2, element 13) and (Yamashita, para. [0031]; [“the flow rate Q downstream of the restriction part is given by:
where K1 is a constant depending on the fluid type and the fluid temperature. In another embodiment…the flow rate Q can be calculated from a predetermined equation:
where K2 is a constant depending on the fluid type and the fluid temperature”]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to determine the flow rate of a fluid, as taught by Lee, based on pipe information comprising information on the temperature of the fluid measured by a temperature sensor, as taught by Yamashita, where the temperature sensor is a thermometer, as taught by Nimberger, in order to mitigate errors or deviations in calculations such as those involving density, viscosity and flow velocity given that the temperature of a liquid can greatly impact these values and ultimately the determined flow rate. This method of improving Lee was within the ability of one ordinary skilled in the art based on the teachings of Yamashita and Nimberger. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Lee and Yamashita with the teachings of Nimberger to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Ozbayoglu (hereinafter “Ozbayoglu ”) NPL (see Notice of References Cited).
Regarding Claim 20, Lee teaches the parameter training method of claim 17. Specifically, the training of the first parameter and the second parameter and using a difference between the flow rate measured from the flow rate measurement apparatus and the actual flow rate (Lee, para. [0329], FIG. 9; [“According to the embodiment, the user has information regarding the flow regime (e.g., steady flow rate through a commercial flow meter) in the system (block 401) prior to using the proposed flow determination method.”]; (Lee, para. [0028]; [“…the application of the Washio model (Equation 1) resulted in an error between the actual and estimated flow rate of 16%.”]; [0162]: [“…the apparatus is arranged to adjust the flow rate of the fluid through the pipe if the determined flow rate substantially differs from an expected flow rate.”]; [0429]: [“…to illustrate the effect of an element in between the measurement points on the accuracy of the flow prediction, the fluctuating flow response from the Washio method is plotted with the true flow response in FIG. 13a.”]) and (Lee, FIGS. 20A-21J; paras. [0230-0233]; [“In one embodiment, the processor is further configured to: Determine a first set of signal characteristics relating to a determined flow rate of the fluid between a first pair of sensors. Determine a second set of signal characteristics relating to a determined flow rate of fluid between a second pair of sensors, and compare the determined first and second sets of signal characteristics to correct for any errors in the flow rate of the fluid.”]; [0428]: [“In a preferred embodiment, the method comprises (and the apparatus is arranged to) adjust the flow rate of the fluid through the pipe if the determined flow rate substantially differs from a desired or expected flow rate”]).
However, Lee fails to teach wherein the training of the first parameter and the second parameter comprises training the first parameter and the second parameter through one of a gradient descent method or a genetic algorithm method, based on a difference between the flow rate measured from the flow rate measurement apparatus and the actual flow rate.
In an analogous field, Ozbayoglu describes optimization of flow rate and pipe rotation speed considering effective cuttings transport using data-driven models (Ozbayoglu: Abstract) where a first parameter related to pressure loss of a fluid and a second parameter related to pressure loss of a fluid are trained using a gradient descent method or a genetic algorithm as they (see Ozbayoglu, p.7, para. 2, lines 1-5); [“used two neural networks, one for estimating the cuttings concentration and the other for pressure drop estimation…We used Levenberg–Marquard learning for error backpropagation, which is a relatively fast gradient descent algorithm”]. In the second phase of the system, (see Ozbayoglu, p.7, para. 5, lines 1-3); [“The genetic algorithm tries to minimize the y value, hence aiming to find the best cuttings concentration and frictional pressure loss (𝐶𝐶 and ΔP/ΔL) pairs that force y to be minimal.”] and (see Ozbayoglu, p.8, para. 1, lines 4-6); [“In future work, the other control parameters (i.e., fluid properties, eccentricity, etc.) can also be optimized”] where this process was based on a difference between the flow rate measured from the flow rate measurement apparatus and the actual flow rate given that (see Ozbayoglu, p.3, para. 5, lines
1-5); [“experimental data” for “data-driven models” may be collected “via a particle image velocimeter. The experimental test matrix included a distinct rate of penetration values, inclinations, rotation speeds, and flow rates”] and (see Ozbayoglu, p.12, para. 4, lines 1-2); [“after analyzing the experimental data, the optimal values for flow rate and pipe rotation speeds were found based on visual investigation of the results for each case”].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to determine the flow rate of a fluid using a parameter training method involving the training of the first parameter and the training of the second parameter and using a difference between the flow rate measured from the flow rate measurement apparatus and the actual flow rate, as taught by Lee, through one of a gradient descent method or a genetic algorithm method based on a difference between the flow rate measured from the flow rate measurement apparatus and the actual flow rate, as taught by Ozbayoglu, in order to optimize the training method and mitigate errors or deviations in calculations involving parameters related to pressure loss when determining the flow rate of a fluid. This method of improving Lee was within the ability of one ordinary skilled in the art based on the teachings of Ozbayoglu. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Lee and Ozbayoglu to obtain the invention as specified in claim 20.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicants disclose:
US-20200209022-A1, describing a flow rate measurement device and method including a processor that generates a two parameter set and obtains a reference differential pressure in a flow rate calculation formula, which includes the physical properties of the fluid, that is compared to measured differential pressures and flow rates. The flow rate measurement device includes an orifice that reduces flow path.
US-20220082415-A1, describing a mass flow controller measuring differential pressure from the fluid upstream and downstream in a pipe. The mass flow controller includes a flow rate calculator as well as a pressure controlling valve that can open and close using a flow rate controller that controls the valve.
US-20200264067-A1, describing a method for monitoring fluid and a control system including a memory, processor and an operable control valve. A first pressure is measured upstream and downstream of the valve to identify the pressure differential, and an electronically operated actuator is positioned between those sensors.
Conclusion
An inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to LOGAN D COONS whose telephone number is (571) 272-2698. (via email: logan.coons@uspto.gov “without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via internet e-mail to an internet correspondence” MPEP 502.02 II). The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30am – 6pm ET.
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, SPE SHELBY A TURNER, can be reached at (571) 272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LOGAN D COONS/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857