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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 9/4/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a device for generating a magnetic field, recited in claim 1 and described on page 9 of the specification; and
a device for detecting an induced voltage in the medium, recited in claim 1 and described on page 9 of the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 14-17 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 14 recites the limitation "the at least one conductor" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether or not the at least one conductor is one of the at least two conductors of parent claim 13.
Claims 15 and 16 depend on claim 14 and are rejected for inheriting the same problem. The examiner notes that claims 15 and 16 also recite "the at least one conductor."
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the at least one conductor" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether or not the at least one conductor is one of the at least two conductors of parent claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 13-15, 17, 19 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2010/066518 by Drahm et al. (“Drahm”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0037702 by Rackebrandt et al. (“Rackebrandt”) and U.S. Patent 11,549,797 issued to Anderson et al. (“Anderson”).
As for claim 13, Drahm discloses a magnetic-inductive flow meter, comprising:
a measuring pipe (2, 12) for conveying a medium in a direction of flow;
wherein the measuring pipe (2, 12) comprises a measuring pipe body (2, 12) which electrically insulates portions thereof,
wherein the measuring pipe body (2, 12) surrounds, perpendicular to the direction of flow, a measuring pipe volume (11) in which the medium will be conveyed;
a device for generating a magnetic field that penetrates the measuring pipe body (field coils; paragraph [0007]);
a device for detecting an induced voltage in the medium, which voltage is a function of a velocity of flow (measuring electrodes; paragraph [0007]);
a monitoring device (5, 7, 8) for detecting damage to the measuring pipe body,
wherein the monitoring device comprises a measuring circuit (paragraph [0034]),
a conductor (5, 7);
wherein the conductor (5, 7) extends in a loop (see Fig. 1) or in a helix at least in portions along the measuring pipe body (2, 12);
wherein the measuring circuit is electrically connected to a conductor and is configured to measure measured values of a measured variable dependent at least on an impedance of the conductor (paragraph [0034]),
wherein the measuring circuit is configured to compare each of the measured values with a reference value or a target value range (paragraph [0034]).
Drahm does not disclose at least two conductors.
However, Rackebrandt discloses at least two conductors (2, 4).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the magnetic-inductive flow meter of Drahm to have two conductors as disclosed by Rackebrandt in order to allow the detection of progressive abrasion in the measuring pipe body (Rackebrandt: paragraph [0023]).
Drahm as modified by Rackebrandt does not explicitly disclose that the two conductors are connected to each other via a passive electrical component with an electrical impedance. Although Drahm as modified by Rackebrandt suggests that the two conductors are measured to determine the amount of wear, Drahm as modified by Rackebrandt does not provide specific circuitry that determines the amount of wear of multiple conductors (i.e. Rackebrandt implicitly provides an unspecified circuit that includes the two conductors to determine the amount of wear of the two conductors).
However, Anderson discloses two conductors (232, 233) that are connected to each other via a passive electrical component (e.g. 61) with an electrical impedance. Anderson discloses that the two conductors are measured to determine an amount of wear (Abstract), and Anderson provides specific circuitry (see Fig. 2) that determines the amount of wear of the two conductors.
Because Anderson and Rackebrandt both suggest circuitry including the two conductors to determine the amount of wear of the two conductors, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the circuitry of Anderson for the circuitry of Rackebrandt to achieve the predictable result of providing circuitry to determine the amount of wear of the two conductors.
Drahm as modified by Rackebrandt and Anderson discloses that the at least two conductors (Rackebrandt: 2, 4 and Anderson: 232, 233) are connected to each other via a passive electrical component (Anderson: 61) with an electrical impedance so that no short circuit forms in case medium contacts one of the conductors (Anderson: see Fig. 2, where resistor 61 prevents a short circuit);
wherein ach conductor (Rackebrandt: 2, 4) extends in a loop (Rackebrandt: see Fig. 1) or in a helix at least in portions along the measuring pipe body (Rackebrandt: see Figs. 1 and 3)
As for claim 14 Drahm as modified by Rackebrandt and Anderson discloses that the measuring pipe body (Drahm: 2, 12) comprises a support tube (Drahm: 2) having an inner peripheral surface,
wherein the measuring pipe (Drahm: 2, 12) comprises an electrically insulating liner (Drahm: 12);
wherein the liner (Drahm: 12) is arranged on the inner peripheral surface of the support tube (Drahm: 2),
wherein the at least one conductor (Drahm: 5, 7 and Rackebrandt: 2, 4) is embedded at least in portions in the liner (Drahm: 12) and is electrically insulated from the medium being conveyed.
As for claim 15, Drahm as modified by Rackebrandt and Anderson discloses that the liner (Drahm: 12) comprises a layer system of at least two layers (Drahm: 3, 4 and Rackebrandt: 3, 5),
wherein the at least one conductor (Drahm: 5, 7 and Rackebrandt: 2, 4) is arranged at least in portions between the two layers (Rackebrandt: see Fig. 1).
As for claim 17. Drahm as modified by Rackebrandt and Anderson discloses that the at least one conductor (Drahm: 5, 7 and Rackebrandt: 2, 4) extends at least in an inlet portion and an outlet portion of the measuring pipe (Drahm: paragraph [0046]).
As for claim 19, Drahm as modified by Rackebrandt and Anderson discloses that the at least two conductors (Rackebrandt: 2, 4) each have a support tube spacing dT (i.e. distance from the conductor to the outside; see Fig. 1 of Rackebrandt),
wherein the support tube spacings dT differ from each other at least in one measuring pipe portion (Rackebrandt: see Fig. 1).
As for claim 21, Drahm as modified by Rackebrandt and Anderson discloses that the measuring circuit (Anderson: Fig. 2) is connected via two measuring points (Anderson: each end of 61, including point 51) on the passive electrical component (61) and via two further measuring points (Anderson: each end of 62, including point 52) to ends of at least two conductors (Rackebrandt: 2, 4 and Anderson: 232, 233), wherein the measuring circuit can sequentially measure (Anderson: via 242) the four measuring points with respect to each other.
As for claim 22, Drahm as modified by Rackebrandt and Anderson discloses that the monitoring device (Anderson: Fig. 2) comprises at least four conductors (Anderson: pairs of wires on each side of 61 and 62),
wherein pairs of conductors (Anderson: e.g. pairs of wires on each side of 61 and pairs of wires on each side of 62) of the at least four conductors are connected to each other via a single passive electrical component (Anderson: 61 and 62, respectively),
wherein the at least four conductors are connected to the measuring circuit (Anderson: see Fig. 2),
wherein, when the measuring pipe body is intact, the determined measured values are a function of the impedance of the at least four conductors and the at least two components (Anderson: see Fig. 2).
As for claim 23, Drahm as modified by Rackebrandt and Anderson discloses that the monitoring device (Anderson: Fig. 2) has at least two passive electrical components (Anderson: 61, 62), each having an electrical impedance,
wherein the at least two passive electrical components (Anderson: 61, 62) are connected in series or in parallel (Anderson: see Fig. 2) to each other via at least two conductors (Anderson: see Fig. 2).
As for claim 24, Drahm as modified by Rackebrandt and Anderson discloses that the monitoring device (Anderson: Fig. 2) comprises a multiplexer (Anderson: 242),
wherein the multiplexer is configured to sequentially connect the at least two conductors (Anderson: see Fig. 2).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2010/066518 by Drahm et al. (“Drahm”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0037702 by Rackebrandt et al. (“Rackebrandt”) and U.S. Patent 11,549,797 issued to Anderson et al. (“Anderson”) as applied to claim 14, further in view of U.S. Patent 3,252,155 issued to Surtees et al. (“Surtees”).
As for claim 16, Drahm as modified by Rackebrandt and Anderson discloses the magnetic-inductive flow meter according to claim 14 (see the rejection of claim 14 above) and that the at least one conductor (Drahm: 7 and Rackebrandt: 2, 4) has openings (Drahm: paragraph [0053]).
Drahm as modified by Rackebrandt and Anderson does not disclose that the at least two layers are connected to each other by a material bond, at least in portions, by means of an adhesive.
However, Surtees discloses at least two layers (1, 3) that are connected to each other by a material bond (9, 10), at least in portions, by means of an adhesive (9, 10).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the two layers of Drahm, Rackebrandt and Anderson to be connected by an adhesive as disclosed by Surtees in order to obtain fewer leaks and better results (Surtees: col. 3, lines 39-42).
Drahm as modified by Rackebrandt, Anderson and Surtees discloses that the at least one conductor (Drahm: 7 and Rackebrandt: 2, 4) has openings (Drahm: paragraph [0053]), at least in portions, through which the adhesive extends (Surtees: because the adhesive is a liquid that is polymerized in situ; col. 3, lines 43-46).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 13 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN N OLAMIT whose telephone number is (571)270-1969. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am - 5 pm (Pacific).
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JUSTIN N OLAMIT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853