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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4-9-2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4-9-2026 have been fully considered. As the arguments are directed towards the claims as amended, please see below.
Examiner’s Note: For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 10, 11 and 15-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welle, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0184430, published June 29, 2017 in view of Ehsani, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0354402, published December 10, 2015.
As per claim 10, Welle discloses a method for measuring a surface velocity of a fluid flowing in a river, an open channel or an underground pipe using a stationary system comprising: a microwave radar device measuring the surface velocity of the fluid, a wind speed and direction measuring device to validate measurements taken by the microwave radar device in order to take into account effect of wind on the surface velocity of the fluid (Welle, ¶46-48 and ¶53 where it is noted that velocity is affected by wind speed);
said method comprising measuring the wind speed and direction to validate the measurements carried out by the microwave radar device, wherein the wind direction is used to calculate an axial component of the wind speed which is parallel to the fluid flow direction (Welle, ¶23 and 58).
Welle fails to expressly disclose invalidating a measurement when certain criteria of wind direction and speed are met.
Ehsani teaches ignoring measurement data based on wind speed measurements (¶48).
As Welle is already aware of the effect air flow above the water can have on measurements (¶58), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the existing wind measurements to determine if certain data should be ignored. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the speed and direction thresholds disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As per claim 11, Welle as modified by Ehsani discloses the method for measuring the surface velocity of a fluid flowing in a river, an open channel or an underground pipe according to claim 10, said method comprising measuring the wind speed and direction to validate and also to correct the measurements conducted by the microwave radar device (Welle, ¶54).
As per claims 15 and 16, Welle as modified by Ehsani further discloses discloses the method according to claim 10, wherein the fluid surface velocity is corrected based on an algorithm or mathematical model, said algorithm or mathematical model being theoretical or empirical and taken on site (Welle, Fig. 1 and ¶54 where it is understood that a correction based on measurements would be done mathematically).
As per claims 17 and 18, Welle as modified by Ehsani further discloses the method according to claim 10, wherein the wind speed and direction measuring device is a device measuring the direction of the wind along 2 and 3axes (Welle, ¶19 and 63).
As per claim 19, Welle as modified by Ehsani further discloses the method according to claim 10, wherein the microwave radar device is a patch antenna or horn antenna generating microwave signals that are transmitted towards the fluid surface, said fluid surface reflecting microwave signals with a Doppler frequency shift that is captured by the patch antenna or horn antenna (Welle, ¶16).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a patch or horn in order to gain the benefit of using very common and well-known antenna types.
As per claim 20, Welle as modified by Ehsani further discloses the method according to claim 10, wherein said stationary system is free of drones (Welle, Fig. 1).
As per claim 21, Welle as modified by Ehsani further discloses the method according to claim 10, wherein the wind speed and direction measuring device is attached above, below, or laterally from the microwave radar device (Welle, ¶54 and 62).
As per claim 22, Welle as modified by Ehsani further discloses the method according to claim 10, wherein the wind speed and direction measuring device is mounted remotely from the microwave radar device (Welle, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to separate the devices, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See also MPEP § 2144.04: In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). Examiner submits that applicant’s specification and drawings also provide for the wind sensor attached to the measuring device and separation is a suggestion “if required”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS E WINDRICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~7-3:30.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 5712726878. 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.
/MARCUS E WINDRICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights