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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 16 is 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 16 recites the limitation "the sensor according to claim 1" in the beginning of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, the Examiner will examine the claim as if it were to depend from claim 13, as it appears to be a simple typo.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 13, 15-19, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kalotay (U.S. Patent Number 5,321,991).
With respect to claim 13, Kalotay discloses and illustrates a sensor comprising: an oscillator (column 4, line 42, states pipe 10 vibrates) having at least one measuring tube (10) for conducting a medium; only one exciter array (20) for exciting the oscillator to bending oscillations of the at least one measuring tube; at least one inlet-side sensor arrangement (30) for detecting the bending oscillations of the at least one measuring tube; and at least one outlet-side sensor arrangement (34) for detecting the bending oscillations of the at least one measuring tube; and a measuring and operating circuit (Figures 5, 6, or 7), which is configured to apply an exciter signal to the exciter array, and to detect sensor signals of the inlet-side and outlet-side sensor arrays, and, based upon the sensor signals, to determine a density measurement value and/or a mass flow rate measurement value (see column 7, line 1 through column 12, line 4, which give the details of the possible circuit arrangements), wherein the exciter array has a first exciter assembly (409), which is attached to the at least one measuring tube, and a second exciter assembly (403, 404), with respect to which the at least one measuring tube is to be excited to oscillate, wherein the first exciter assembly has a center of gravity which lies in a measuring tube transverse plane up to manufacturing tolerances (counter weight 40), which transverse plane runs perpendicular to the at least one measuring tube, and with respect to which the at least one measuring tube runs substantially mirror-symmetrically (see at least Figure 1); wherein the exciter array comprises an electrodynamic exciter (coil 403 and magnet 409) and at least one compensating mass body (counter weight 40), wherein the electrodynamic exciter is configured to exert an exciter force on the at least one measuring tube, which force acts between the first and second exciter assemblies, wherein an effective center of the exciter force is located outside the measuring tube transverse plane (see column 4, lines 59-63).
With respect to claim 15, the sensor according to claim 13, wherein a main axis of inertia of the first exciter assembly runs in the measuring tube transverse plane is shown in at least Figure 4.
With respect to claim 16, the sensor according to claim 1, wherein the first exciter assembly is fastened to the at least one measuring tube by means of a joint, wherein the measuring tube transverse plane runs through the joint is shown in at least Figure 4.
With respect to claim 17, the sensor according to claim 13, wherein the first exciter assembly comprises a magnet (409), wherein the second exciter assembly comprises a coil (403) configured to generate an alternating magnetic field with which the magnet interacts in order to excite the vibrations of the measuring tube.
With respect to claim 18, the sensor according to claim 13, wherein the first exciter assembly has a carrier body on which the magnet and the compensating mass are arranged, wherein the carrier body is symmetrical with respect to the measuring tube transverse plane is shown in at least Figure 4.
With respect to claim 19, the sensor according to claim 13, wherein the sensor arrays are each formed as electrodynamic sensor arrays (accelerometer 30).
With respect to claim 23, the sensor according to claim 13, wherein the exciter signal comprises a periodic signal with the natural frequency of a symmetric vibration mode of the at least one measuring tube and/or the natural frequency of an antisymmetric vibration mode of the at least one measuring tube (see column 2, lines 49-68).
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.
Claim(s) 14, 20, 21, and 24 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalotay as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Rieder et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0162702; hereinafter referred to as Rieder).
With respect to claim 14, Kalotay fails to disclose the sensor according to claim 13, wherein the at least one measuring tube has a free oscillation length which extends between an inlet-side fixation of the measuring tube and an outlet-side fixation of the measuring tube, wherein the center of the exciter force is spaced apart from the measuring tube transverse plane by no less than 0.5% of the free oscillation length and no more than 10% of the free oscillation length. However, Rieder teaches in at least paragraph [0035] that “For influencing the oscillation characteristics, the measuring tubes 110 are connected at their inlet and outlet ends via couplers 132, 134, wherein the positions of the two inner couplers 132, thus those, which are farthest removed from the nearest collector 120, establish a free oscillatory length of an oscillator formed by the two measuring tubes 110.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize a measuring tube with free oscillation end in the system of Kalotay such that the free oscillatory length influences the bending oscillation modes of the oscillator, especially their eigenfrequencies, with which the oscillator is preferably excited. Thus, the use of specific free oscillation in specific ranges provides a more accurate sensor
With respect to claim 20, Kalotay fails to disclose the sensor according to claim 13, wherein the oscillator further has a second measuring tube, wherein the first measuring tube and the second measuring tube run mirror-symmetrically to one another with respect to a sensor longitudinal plane, wherein the sensor longitudinal plane runs perpendicular to the measuring tube transverse plane. However, Rieder teaches and illustrates a second measuring tube in at least Figures 1 and 2 (tubes 110). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize a second measuring tube with the system of Kalotay since having two measuring tube allow the measurement in both directions thus providing a more complete picture of the flow of the medium.
With respect to claim 21, while Kalotay fails to disclose the sensor according to claim 20, wherein the second exciter assembly is fastened to the second measuring tube relative to the first exciter assembly, wherein the center of gravity of the second exciter assembly lies, up to predetermined manufacturing tolerances, within the measuring tube transverse plane. However, Rieder teaches the use of an exciter (140) mounted with a specific arrangement to the sensors (142). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to arrange the sensor on the tube of Kalotay as taught by Rieder. The benefit is that Rieder discloses that the sensor arrangements are so positioned that they can register the deflections of both bending oscillation modes. The electrodynamic exciter is positioned in the measuring tube transverse plane Sxy, which coincides in this projection with the X axis. The deflection of the sensor arrangements is in a bending oscillation mode proportional to the deflection of the exciter. Thus, an efficient deflection of the exciter leads to an efficient deflection of the sensor arrangements. Starting from this deliberation, an especially optimized exciter position will now be sought. (see at least paragraph [0038] of Rieder). Thus, the sensor position enables a more accurate sensor reading.
With respect to claim 24, Kalotay fails to disclose the sensor according to claim 13, wherein the measuring and operating circuit is configured to excite the first symmetric vibration mode and the first antisymmetric vibration mode, to determine the natural frequencies of the first symmetric vibration mode and the first antisymmetric vibration mode, to determine, on the basis of the natural frequencies of the first symmetric vibration mode and the first antisymmetric vibration mode, a density measurement value or mass flow measurement value for a medium guided in the measuring tube, wherein the density measurement value or the mass flow measurement value with respect to a resonator effect is corrected based upon a gas charging of the medium. However, Rieder teaches that the measuring tube has first and second bending oscillation modes, which are mirror symmetric to a measuring tube transverse plane and have first and second media density dependent eigenfrequencies f1, f3 with f3>f1. The measuring tube has a peak secant with an oscillation node in the second mirror symmetric bending oscillation mode. The operating circuit is adapted to drive the exciter conductor loop with a signal exciting the second mirror symmetric bending oscillation mode (see the abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the arrangement of the two tubes in Rieder with the system of Kalotay since the singular tube can only account for one oscillation more while the two tubed can handle the mirror oscillation modes (symmetric and asymmetric) as it provides a more accurate measurement since both oscillation modes can be accounted for.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY T FRANK whose telephone number is (571)272-2193. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm.
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.
RODNEY T. FRANK
Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
June 14, 2025