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 § 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 1, 6, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 1,626,216 issued to Stratton (“Stratton”) in view of U.S. Patent 3,766,544 issued to Batz (“Batz”).
As for claim 1, Stratton discloses a device for measuring the flowrate of a liquid in a pipeline (6), which device comprises, on a mount (8) fixed to a perimeter of the pipeline (see Fig. 2), a part (11) rotatably moveable around a first shaft (10) through an action of a flow of liquid, the device also comprising:
- a mass (end of 20) supported by an arm (20) in rotation around a second shaft (18), said mass is configured for damping turbulences and variations in the flowrate of the liquid [Since the end of arm 20 is mechanically connected to rotatable part 11, the mass at the end of arm 20 provides a resistance, however small, to motions of rotatable part 11. This resistance, however small, dampens turbulences and variations.]; and
- an angle multiplier (14, 19) configured to transform an angular movement of the part (11) rotatably movable around the first shaft into an angular movement of the arm (20) supporting the mass, this arm travelling through an angle greater than an angle travelled by the part rotatably movable around the first shaft (due to the gear ratio of 14 and 19).
Stratton does not disclose a sensor as recited.
However, Batz discloses a sensor (20, 60) of a position of an arm (21, 24) supporting a mass (end of 24).
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 device of Stratton by including the sensor as disclosed by Batz in order to permit remote meter readout (Batz: col. 1, lines 55-61).
As for claim 6, Stratton as modified by Batz disclose that the angle multiplier (Stratton: 14, 19) is configured such that a ratio of the angle travelled by the arm supporting the mass to the angle travelled by the part rotatably movable around the first shaft is at least equal to two (Stratton: see the gear ratio in Fig. 1).
As for claim 9, Stratton as modified by Batz discloses the device according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Stratton as modified by Batz does not explicitly disclose that the part rotatably movable around the first shaft has a surface at least equal to one tenth of a square meter.
At the time the application was filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the part have a surface of at least one tenth of a square meter because Applicant has not disclosed that the size of the part provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the part of Stratton and Batz and applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either the size suggested by Stratton or the claimed size because both sizes would perform the same function of allowing the part to pivot in response to the amount of fluid flow.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Stratton and Batz to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Stratton and Batz.
As for claim 10, Stratton as modified by Batz discloses the device according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Stratton as modified by Batz does not explicitly disclose that the mass is greater than one kilogram.
At the time the application was filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the mass part have a mass greater than one kilogram because Applicant has not disclosed that the amount of mass provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the mass of Stratton and Batz and applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either the amount suggested by Stratton or the claimed mass because both masses would perform the same function of resisting movement of the moveable part.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Stratton and Batz to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Stratton and Batz.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 1,626,216 issued to Stratton (“Stratton”) in view of U.S. Patent 3,766,544 issued to Batz (“Batz”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of U.S. Patent 2,359,592 issued to Stokoe (“Stokoe”).
As for claim 3, Stratton as modified by Batz discloses the device according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above) and that the part rotatably movable around the first shaft is rectangular (Stratton: see Fig. 4).
Stratton as modified by Batz does not explicitly disclose that the device comprises flat side flanks perpendicular to the plane of the moveable part and at a constant distance from the part rotatably movable around the first shaft.
However, Stokoe discloses a device that comprises flat side flanks (f, f ) perpendicular to a plane of a part rotatably movable (b) and at a constant distance from the part rotatably movable.
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 device of Stratton and Batz to include the flat side flanks as disclosed by Stokoe in order to assist streamline flow to the part rotatably movable (Stokoe: page 2, col. 1, lines 31-34).
As for claim 4, Stratton as modified by Batz and Stokoe discloses the device according to claim 3 (see the rejection of claim 3 above).
Stratton as modified by Batz and Stokoe does not disclose that a distance between the side flanks and the part rotatably movable around the first shaft is less than one tenth of a distance between the side flanks.
At the time the application was filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the distance between the side flanks and the part rotatably movable to be less than one tenth of the distance between the side flanks because Applicant has not disclosed that the distance provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the distance of the Stratton-Batz-Stokoe combination and applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either the distance suggested by Stokoe or the claimed mass because both distances would perform the same function of guiding fluid to the part rotatably movable.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Stratton-Batz-Stokoe combination to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Stratton, Batz and Stokoe.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5, 7 and 8 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 6-7 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that the pointer 20 of Stratton does not correspond to the claimed mass because the pointer 20 of Stratton is a lightweight indicator and not a damping mass. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the examiner acknowledges that Stratton does not explicitly disclose that the pointer 20 dampens turbulence, the examiner notes that since the end of pointer 20 is mechanically connected to arm 11, the mass at the end of pointer 20 provides a resistance, however small, to motions of arm 11. This resistance, however small, dampens turbulences and variations by at least a small amount.
On pages 7-8 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Batz cannot be combined with Stratton because the sensor of Batz requires rotation of the axis free of any opposing force or return torque to ensure accurate angular positioning measurement. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that Batz does not disclose anywhere that the axis requires free rotation. Instead, Batz discloses that the cylinders must have a gap. Since Stratton does not disclose a signal sensing cylinder, Stratton does not require or suggest a signal sensing cylinder that contacts a rotating axis. Since Batz can be combined with Stratton, the incentive of Batz to provide remote sensing remains intact.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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