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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12-2-2025 have been fully considered. As they 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) 1-6, 9-12, 15 and 16 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.
As per claim 1, Welle discloses a stationary system (01) for measuring the surface velocity of a fluid (7) flowing in a river, an open channel or an underground pipe, the system (01) comprising:
a microwave radar device (02) measuring the surface velocity of the fluid (7), a wind speed and direction measuring device (03) to validate the measurements taken by the microwave radar device (02) in order to take into account the effect of the wind on the surface velocity of the fluid (Welle, ¶46-48).
Welle fails to disclose the wind sensor being remote.
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”.
As per claim 2, Welle further discloses the stationary system (01) according to claim 1wherein the wind speed and direction measuring device (03) is configured to correct the measurements taken by the microwave radar device (02) in order to take into account the effect of the wind on the surface velocity of the fluid (Welle, ¶54).
As per claims 3 and 4, Welle further discloses the stationary system of claim 1 wherein wind speed and direction is measured along 2 and 3 axes (¶19 and 63).
As per claim 5, Welle discloses the system of claim 1 including antennas but fails to specify patch or horn antennas.
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 6, Welle further discloses the stationary system of claim 1 wherein it is free of drones (Welle, Fig. 1).
As per claim 9, Welle further discloses a stationary system (10) for calculating a flow rate of the fluid (7), comprising the stationary system (01) for measuring the surface velocity of the fluid (7) according to claim 1,and a microwave radar fluid level measuring device (Welle, ¶46).
As per claim 10, Welle further discloses a method for measuring the surface velocity of a fluid (7) flowing in a river, an open channel or an underground pipe using the stationary system (01) according to claim 1, said method consisting in comprising measuring the wind speed and direction to validate the measurements carried out by the microwave radar device (Welle, ¶54).
As per claim 11, Welle further discloses the method for measuring the surface velocity of a fluid (7) flowing in a river, an open channel or an underground pipe according to claim 10, said method consisting in comprising measuring the wind speed and direction to validate and also to correct the measurements carried out by the microwave radar device (Welle, ¶54).
As per claim 12, Welle further discloses the method according to claim 11, wherein the wind direction is used to calculate the axial component of the wind speed which is parallel to the fluid flow direction (Welle, ¶7).
As per claims 15 and 16, Welle further 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).
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welle in view of Russmeier, et. al., “Ocean Surface Water Currents by Large-Scale Particle Image Velocimetry Technique”, IEEE Xplore, published June 2017.
As per claims 13 and 14, Welle disclose the system of claim 1 but fails to explicitly disclose invalidating measurements of flow during a wind gust.
Russmeier teaches removal of invalid velocity data (section III, d).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to not use a temporary wind gust as a correction to fluid flow in order to gain the benefit of not adding errors to the data. It is understood by a person in the art that a gust of increased wind does not permanently increase the fluid velocity.
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.
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 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