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 and 11-20 in the reply filed on 7 November 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the office action does not properly apply the unity of invention standards of PCT Rule 13. Applicant argues that PCT Rule 13.2 requires consideration of whether the claims of the identified groups recite the same or a corresponding “special technical feature” and notes that rule 13.2 defines “special technical features” as being “those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art”. Applicant argues that a restriction based on this is thus not even prima facie sustainable unless it identifies prior art that is said to evidence the absence of the same or corresponding special technical features.
Regarding the above, the examiner respectfully disagrees that a unity of invention restriction in accordance with PCT Rule 13.2 must (emphasis added) provide prior art evidence of the absence of the same or corresponding special technical features. In particular, MPEP § 1850, Section II, notes that “Lack of unity may be directly evident “a priori”, i.e., before considering the claims in relation to any prior art, or (emphasis added) may only become apparent “a posteriori”, i.e., after taking the prior art into consideration”. Accordingly, the examiner respectfully submits that because the claims make it clear that there is a special technical feature difference between the identified groups of claims (as outlined in the restriction requirement mailed 8 September 2025), the restriction is proper under the provisions of PCT Rule 13.2.
Applicant further argues that the claims of the identified groups are related as a product and a process of use of said product and that this combination of claim categories is expressly permitted by 37 CFR 1.475(b)(2). Applicant argues that claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories (i.e., the list of combinations of categories outlined in 37 CFR 1.475(b) and noted in the restriction requirement mailed 8 September 2025). Applicant further remarks that the provisions of Section (e)(ii) of Annex B of the Administrative Instructions under the PCT must also be considered and the restriction requirement thus should be withdrawn.
Regarding the above, the examiner respectfully submits that 37 CFR 1.475(b)(2) applies for groups in which a product and process of use of said product (emphasis added) are claimed. In the instant application, because the groups of inventions are not considered to form a single general inventive concept by virtue of having differing special technical features as noted previously above, the claims are not considered to fall within the scope of being a product and a process of use of that same/said product. Conversely, the claims appear to be drawn to a product and a process that differs in scope and is not a process of using the same product which is identified as group I in the restriction requirement mailed 8 September 2025. Additionally, the examiner notes that the Administrative Instructions under PCT Annex B (e)(ii), which is directed to combinations of different categories of claims, also notes that “in addition to an independent claim for a given process, an independent claim for an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process”. However, the examiner again respectfully submits that in order for the provisions of Annex B (e)(ii) to apply, the independent claim drawn to the apparatus must be designed specifically for carrying out the said process (emphasis added). In the instant application, because there is a lack of special technical features between groups I and II, unity is lacking, even when considered with the provisions of Annex B (e)(ii). Accordingly, the examiner respectfully submits that the restriction requirement is still held to be proper.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7 November 2025.
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 15 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.
As to claim 15: The claim recites “the at least two magnets of the piston consist of two magnets” but depends upon claims 1 and 2 which require instead “at least one magnet” such as recited in claim 2. Accordingly, the scope of the claim is unclear because one is not able to determine which two magnets of the piston are being referred to in the instant claim.
Although Applicant’s as-filed specification refers to two magnets in ¶ 42, this portion also discloses: “When there are two magnets” and accordingly it is still unclear whether two magnets are required or simply optional/preferable and therefore the scope of the claim is still rendered unclear.
Due the above noted issues, a proper and complete prior art search of the claimed subject matter of claim 15 could not be carried out at this time. The examiner recommends either explaining in remarks how Applicant believes the scope of the claim to be clear (preferably by providing evidence from Applicant’s disclosure) and/or amending the claim and/or parents claims 1 and 2 in order to obviate the above noted issues. Should Applicant’s reply overcome the 112(b) rejection of the instant claim, a prior art search will be conducted for the claimed subject matter at that time.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heller et al. US PG-PUB 2009/0013797 A1 (hereafter Heller), prior art of record as being the US equivalent of Document #3 listed on the 17 May 2023 IDS under “Foreign Patent Documents”.
As to claim 1: Heller discloses a flowmeter comprising a body (100; see fig. 1 and ¶ 21) provided with a central pipe (120; see fig. 1 and ¶ 21) adapted for the passage of a liquid (see ¶ 22), a low flow module (170; fig. 2 and see ¶ 25), and a detection module (190; see fig. 2 and ¶ 27), wherein the low flow module comprises a piston comprising a cylindrical portion (see ¶ 23; the motion of the magnet 170 controls flow as disclosed in ¶ 25 and is considered to be a piston with a cylindrical portion), the central pipe (120) forms a sleeve comprising a cylindrical portion adjusted to the diameter of the cylindrical portion of the piston and an enlarged part resulting from at least one flare of the pipe and wherein the piston can assume a stable position in the sleeve between a first position, where the cylindrical portion of the piston faces the widened portion of the piper so as to allow the passage of the liquid (see fig. 3A regarding the differing sizes of the conduit 120 and details in ¶ 28), wherein said piston comprises or is associated with a return device exerting a force opposite to the force exerted on the piston by the flow of liquid (see ¶ 28), and wherein the stable position of the piston corresponds to the equilibrium between the return force and the force exerted on the piston by the liquid flow, wherein said detection module is adapted for determining the position of the piston between the first and second positions (see ¶ 28 regarding the magnetic force between the movable magnet 170 and the ring magnet 180).
As to claim 2: Heller discloses the flowmeter according to claim 1, wherein the piston (170) has at least one magnet (see ¶ 23) arranged along the piston’s longitudinal axis (see fig. 3A), and the detection module (190) measures the magnetic field of one or all of the magnets in order to determine the position of the piston (see ¶ 27).
As to claim 3: Heller discloses the flowmeter according to claim 1, wherein the piston (170) is arranged downstream a feeding pipe (central pipe 120 is considered to also be a feeding pipe because it is an inlet as disclosed in ¶ 28) and comprising a conical part oriented toward said feeding pipe (see fig. 3A regarding the portion of the pipe 120 that widens as depicted to the left of the piston 170).
As to claim 8: Heller discloses the flowmeter according to claim 1, further comprising one or more sensors (see ¶ 27 regarding the one or more sensors 190).
As to claim 9: Heller discloses the flowmeter according to claim 1, further comprising one or more communication means allowing the transmission of the data collected or processed by the detection module (see ¶ 27 regarding the pump control 195 that utilizes a look up chart or other type of data structure to determine flow rate based upon measurements by sensors 190).
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.
Claims 4, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heller et al. US PG-PUB 2009/0013797 A1 (hereafter Heller), prior art of record as being the US equivalent of Document #3 listed on the 17 May 2023 IDS under “Foreign Patent Documents”, in view of Han US Pat 4,489,600 (hereafter Han).
As to claim 4: Heller teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
further comprising an anti-rotation device.
However, Han teaches the use an anti-rotation device (9; see col. 3, lines 21-32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heller’s device to utilize an anti-rotation device because such a device prevents the known problem of interfering with accurate flow rate measurements in flow sensing devices that can be caused by flow entering from an outlet or by compressed air, such as suggested in col. 2, lines 24-48. Accordingly, such an anti-rotation modification would serve to improve the accuracy of Heller’s flow sensor device.
As to claim 18: Heller teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 2, but does not explicitly teach:
further comprising an anti-rotation device.
However, Han teaches the use an anti-rotation device (9; see col. 3, lines 21-32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heller’s device to utilize an anti-rotation device because such a device prevents the known problem of interfering with accurate flow rate measurements in flow sensing devices that can be caused by flow entering from an outlet or by compressed air, such as suggested in col. 2, lines 24-48. Accordingly, such an anti-rotation modification would serve to improve the accuracy of Heller’s flow sensor device.
As to claim 19: Heller teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 3, but does not explicitly teach:
further comprising an anti-rotation device.
However, Han teaches the use an anti-rotation device (9; see col. 3, lines 21-32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heller’s device to utilize an anti-rotation device because such a device prevents the known problem of interfering with accurate flow rate measurements in flow sensing devices that can be caused by flow entering from an outlet or by compressed air, such as suggested in col. 2, lines 24-48. Accordingly, such an anti-rotation modification would serve to improve the accuracy of Heller’s flow sensor device.
Claims 5, 6, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heller et al. US PG-PUB 2009/0013797 A1 (hereafter Heller), prior art of record as being the US equivalent of Document #3 listed on the 17 May 2023 IDS under “Foreign Patent Documents”, in view of Kobold DE 9017793 U1 (hereafter Kobold), prior art of record as being a published equivalent of Document #2 listed on the 17 May 2023 IDS under “Foreign Patent Documents”.
As to claim 5: Heller teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including a low flow module (170; fig. 2 and see ¶ 25), but does not explicitly teach:
a high flow module, arranged downstream of the low flow module, the high flow module being provided with a paddle wheel comprising one or more series of blades arranged around a hub, and at least one magnet, arranged at a distance from the axis of rotation of the paddle wheel.
However, Kobold teaches a high flow module (5; see fig. 9 and ¶ 66), the high flow module being provided with a paddle wheel (see fig. 9; the impeller 5 is arranged as a paddle wheel) comprising one or more series of blades (6; see fig. 9) arranged around a hub (21; see ¶ 66), and at least one magnet (18; see ¶ 66 regarding the disclosed magnets and/or ferrite cores), arranged at a distance from the axis of rotation of the paddle wheel (see fig. 7 regarding the relative position of the wheel 5 and the magnet 18).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heller’s flow sensing device to include a high flow module, arranged downstream of the low flow module, the high flow module being provided with a paddle wheel comprising one or more series of blades arranged around a hub, and at least one magnet, arranged at a distance from the axis of rotation of the paddle wheel because such a construction is an art recognized means of achieving the useful and predictable result of generating a voltage indicative of flow rate, such as suggested in ¶ 66 of Kobold. Accordingly, the addition of such a high flow module could be utilized to provide redundancy to a low flow rate measurement and could also be utilized for differing rates of incident flow that enter the inlet of Heller’s device (i.e. the low flow module could be utilized for certain lower flow rates and the high flow module could be utilized for flow rates that exceed this first flow rate).
As to claim 6: Heller as modified by Kobold teaches the flowmeter of claim 5, wherein the rotational speed of the paddle wheel (impeller 5 of Kobold as depicted in fig. 9) is determined by the detection module (190 of Heller; see fig. 2 and ¶ 27 - the detection module 190 of Heller is capable of sensing Hall effect or other types of magnetic field strength measurements and accordingly is considered to be capable of determining the rotational speed of the paddle wheel 5 of Kobold).
As to claim 16: Heller as modified by Kobold teaches the flowmeter of claim 5, wherein the at least one magnet (18 of Kobold) of the paddle wheel (5 of Kobold) consists of two magnets (170 of Heller and 18 of Kobold; when considered in combination).
As to claim 20: Heller teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 2, including a low flow module (170; fig. 2 and see ¶ 25), but does not explicitly teach:
a high flow module, arranged downstream of the low flow module, the high flow module being provided with a paddle wheel comprising one or more series of blades arranged around a hub, and at least one magnet, arranged at a distance from the axis of rotation of the paddle wheel.
However, Kobold teaches a high flow module (5; see fig. 9 and ¶ 66), the high flow module being provided with a paddle wheel (see fig. 9; the impeller 5 is arranged as a paddle wheel) comprising one or more series of blades (6; see fig. 9) arranged around a hub (21; see ¶ 66), and at least one magnet (18; see ¶ 66 regarding the disclosed magnets and/or ferrite cores), arranged at a distance from the axis of rotation of the paddle wheel (see fig. 7 regarding the relative position of the wheel 5 and the magnet 18).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heller’s flow sensing device to include a high flow module, arranged downstream of the low flow module, the high flow module being provided with a paddle wheel comprising one or more series of blades arranged around a hub, and at least one magnet, arranged at a distance from the axis of rotation of the paddle wheel because such a construction is an art recognized means of achieving the useful and predictable result of generating a voltage indicative of flow rate, such as suggested in ¶ 66 of Kobold. Accordingly, the addition of such a high flow module could be utilized to provide redundancy to a low flow rate measurement and could also be utilized for differing rates of incident flow that enter the inlet of Heller’s device (i.e. the low flow module could be utilized for certain lower flow rates and the high flow module could be utilized for flow rates that exceed this first flow rate).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heller et al. US PG-PUB 2009/0013797 A1 (hereafter Heller), prior art of record as being the US equivalent of Document #3 listed on the 17 May 2023 IDS under “Foreign Patent Documents”, in view of Derschmidt US PG-PUB 2015/0369646 A1 (hereafter Derschmidt).
As to claim 11: Heller teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including a sleeve (the central portion defining the pathway of the pipe 120), a piston (magnet 170), and a return device (the magnetic force between magnets 170 and 180 as disclosed in ¶ 28), but does not explicitly teach:
said sleeve further comprises one or more stops, said piston being adapted to come into contact with said one or more stops under the effect of said return device.
However, Derschmidt teaches a sleeve that comprises one or more stops (9; see ¶ 11), and a piston (7; see ¶ 11) being adapted to come into contact with said one or more stops (see ¶ 11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heller’s sleeve to comprise one or more stops, with the piston being adapted to come into contact with said one or more stops under the effect of said return device because such stops can be used to limit piston motion for various purposes in flowmeters, such as for allowing flow to move through a bypass channel, as suggested in Derschmidt ¶ 11 and 12. Accordingly, such a design is useful when pressure due to flow may require such a bypass to be useful in alleviating excessive pressure, as further noted in Derschmidt ¶ 3, and could thus serve to prevent a hazardous situation due to said excessive pressure not having a proper outlet and potentially resulting damage to the flow meter.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heller et al. US PG-PUB 2009/0013797 A1 (hereafter Heller), prior art of record as being the US equivalent of Document #3 listed on the 17 May 2023 IDS under “Foreign Patent Documents”, in view of Haeussler US Pat 5,115,684 (hereafter Haeussler).
As to claim 12: Heller teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including a housing (see fig. 1 regarding the exterior surface of the device 100 considered to be a housing) and a piston (170), but does not explicitly teach:
said return device being a spring, inserted into a housing arranged on the bottom face of said piston.
However, Haeussler teaches a return device that is a spring (11; fig. 1 and see col. 3, lines 38-48) inserted into a housing (see fig. 1) arranged on the bottom face of a piston (6; fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heller’s flowmeter to include a return device that is a spring, inserted into a housing arranged on the bottom face of said piston because such a construction is an art recognized means of ensuring a piston utilized in a flowmeter is its neutral position when no flow is present while still allowing for motion due to external forces, in particular, a flow, such as suggested in col. 3, lines 26-48 of Haeussler.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heller et al. US PG-PUB 2009/0013797 A1 (hereafter Heller), prior art of record as being the US equivalent of Document #3 listed on the 17 May 2023 IDS under “Foreign Patent Documents”, in view of Davis et al. US PG-PUB 2007/0044572 A1 (hereafter Davis).
As to claim 17: Heller teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 8, including one or more sensors (190), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the one or more sensors comprise at least one of a thermal probe and conductivity meter.
However, Davis teaches that one or more sensors (110; see ¶ 30) in a flowmeter may comprise at least a conductivity meter (see ¶ 30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heller’s sensors to include at least a conductivity meter because a conductivity meter is one of the art recognized sensor types that may be utilized in flowmeters in order to carry out a number of measurements in a flowmeter device, such as suggested in ¶ 30 of Davis. Accordingly, such a modification would expand the capabilities of Heller’s device by allowing for additional parameters to be measured in addition to the flow rate of a flow passing therethrough.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 13, and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 7: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a flowmeter wherein said detection module is calibrate to correct or compensate for the interaction of the magnets of the piston and those of the paddle wheel, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claims 1 and 5.
As to claim 13: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a flowmeter wherein said at least one flare comprises a first flare angle adapted to determine the flowrate in a first range of low flow rate, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claim 1.
As to claim 14: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a flowmeter wherein said at least one flare comprising a second flare angle adapted to determine the flowrate in a second range of low flow rate, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claim 1.
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