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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive since the present title can effectively describe all inventions classified in the same CPC classification subgroup. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: ELECTROMAGNETIC FLOW METER WITH STRUCTURAL MATRIX RESIN FILLING A SPACE BETWEEN HOUSING AND SENSOR ELEMENT.
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, 5-7, 10, 12, 13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210116273 (herein Savini) in view of US 20150168188 (herein Reichart).
Regarding claim 1, Savini teaches An electromagnetic flow meter (device 1, [0057], Fig. 3) comprising
a sensor element (11) which comprises a duct for the flow of a fluid (duct 3, [0059]),
a device for generating a magnetic induction field (arrangement 10, [0065]), comprising
wherein said duct (12) is made of a high resistance thermoplastic material (body 2 is made of polypropylene, [0147]) and
wherein said duct has, in correspondence with a measurement plane, a rectangular cross section (cross section of the duct 3 in the detection area—designated by DA—is substantially rectangular, [0086]) that has a smaller area than the area of respective inlet and outlet circular cross sections (Figs. 10 and 11 teach detection area DA significantly smaller than inlet and outlet 4, 5),
wherein the flowmeter (10) comprises a container (20) for housing said sensor element (11), wherein said housing container (20) has a cylindrical shape, and wherein said flow meter (10) comprises a structural matrix (R) disposed between said sensor element (11) and said housing container (20) completely filling the space present between them, and wherein said structural matrix (R) is a resin (body 2 having portion 6, [0084]; cylindrical tubular projection 32, [0106]; Final sealing can then be obtained by pouring or overmoulding an electrically insulating material into the cavity 6a, to fill the latter; this insulating material, shown only in FIGS. 1 and 11 and designated by 9, may, for example, be constituted by a suitable resin, [0085]).
Additionally regarding claim 1, Savini does not teach generating a magnetic induction field “comprising at least two coils.” However, Reichart teaches it is known in the art to use two coils 4 in a magnetic field generating device ([0032]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to simply substitute the magnetic generation of Savini with the magnetic generation of Reichart because both perform the same function of generating magnetic induction field. The above findings satisfies the Graham factual inquiries stated in MPEP 2143 B regarding simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Furthermore, adding a second coil is a mere duplication of parts and, according to MPEP § 2144.04 VI. B, has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Note that according to MPEP § 2144, “Office personnel may invoke legal precedent as a source of supporting rationale when warranted and appropriately supported.”
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Savini does not teach, “wherein at least one stiffening element (32) disposed between said sensor element (11) and said housing container (20), embedded in said structural matrix.” However, Reichart teaches hollow-walled support elements 18 may have a honeycomb design, made of a thermoplastic ([0031]).
Regarding claim 6, Savini does not teach, “wherein said at least one stiffening element (32) is a cylindrical component (32a) coaxial to said housing container (20).” However, Reichart teaches support elements coaxial with container 17 (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Savini does not teach, “wherein said at least one stiffening element (32) is a flat component (32b) that has undulated contact surfaces.” However, Reichart teaches support element having equivalent undulations (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Savini teaches wherein said coils (14) are flat coils or coils of the solenoid type (Fig. 4 and [0065] teach coil being flat).
Regarding claim 12, Savini teaches wherein said plurality of electrodes (20, [0066]) are made entirely of metal material (electrode unit 20 comprises an electrically conductive body 21, which, in the case now being exemplified, is made at least in part of a stiff material, preferably a metal material, [0068]) and are incorporated into said high resistance thermoplastic material which constitutes said duct (body 2, thermoplastic, [0099]) by means of co-molding techniques during the production process by means of injection molding of the duct (body itself in the most appropriate form, for example via injection moulding, [00153]).
Regarding claim 13, Savini teaches, disposed in said housing container (20), an integrated electrical energy supply source (27) and a supply circuit (27a) which is able to be interfaced directly both with an external electrical energy supply source and also with said integrated electrical energy supply source (27) without any drop in performance ([0157] teaches equivalent power system including battery and supplying circuitry).
For the above claims 1, 5-7, 10, 12, 13, and 15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the structure of Reichart into the body of Savini. One would be motivated to do so for at least the purpose of ensuring the sufficient compressive strength of the measuring tube ([0031]).
Claim(s) 2 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savini and Reichart as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2008170012 (herein Ogasawara).
Regarding claim 2, Reichart teaches “wherein said high resistance thermoplastic material is reinforced with glass fiber.” However, Savini and Reichart do not teach the combination having “a very high stiffness with elastic modulus comprised between 10 and 45 GPa.” However, Ogasawara teaches it is known in the art to that a thermoplastic (PPS) reinforced with glass fiber has an elastic modulus of 8-50 GPA (Abstract).
Regarding claim 14, Savini teaches a container (20) for housing said sensor element (11), wherein said housing container has a cylindrical shape, and wherein said flow meter comprises a structural matrix (R) disposed between said sensor element (11) and said housing container (20) completely filling the space present between them (cylindrical tubular projection 32, [0106]; Final sealing can then be obtained by pouring or overmoulding an electrically insulating material into the cavity 6a, to fill the latter; this insulating material, shown only in FIGS. 1 and 11 and designated by 9, may, for example, be constituted by a suitable resin, [0085]).
For claims 2 and 14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the stability of the plastic based on use case, by tuning the elastic modulus. Based on MPEP 2144.05 II, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382. Note that according to § MPEP 2144, “Office personnel may invoke legal precedent as a source of supporting rationale when warranted and appropriately supported.”
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savini and Reichart as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 103134558 A (herein Nevin).
Regarding claim 8, Savini does not teach, “wherein the ratio between the area of the circular cross sections (S1) and the area of the rectangular cross section (S0) is comprised between 1.5 and 3.5.” However, Nevin teaches it is known in the art to design the ratio between entrance inflow and measuring section to be greater than 1.8:1, preferably 2.2:1 ([0011]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the ratio of Nevin into the duct of Savini. One would be motivated to do so for at least the purpose of improving flow measuring detection space precision ([0010]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savini and Reichart as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20130145861 (herein Neven).
Regarding claim 9, Savini and Reichart do not teach “wherein the proportionality ratio between the height (L1) and the width (L2) of said rectangular cross section (S0) is comprised between 0.3 and 0.7, preferably between 0.5 and 0.6.” However, Neven teaches a cross section of the measurement section rectangular and has a length/width ratio of greater than 3:1 (0.33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize measurement cross section ratio to promote flow conditions that have improved measurement accuracy. Based on MPEP 2144.05 II, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382. Note that according to § MPEP 2144, “Office personnel may invoke legal precedent as a source of supporting rationale when warranted and appropriately supported.”
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savini and Reichart as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20140230564 (herein Graf).
Regarding claim 11, Savini teaches wherein said plurality of electrodes (15, 16) comprises at least two measurement electrodes (15) .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “Savini’s tubular projection 32 does not house Savini’s flow sensor”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The claim as written states the container houses said sensor element, and it is clear that body 2 houses core 12 and coil 13. The claim does not state that the sensor is housed in the cylindrical shape. Claim 1 discloses the container “has a cylindrical shape.” Per MPEP §2111.03, the transitional term “comprising”, used in this instance, does not exclude additional unrecited elements. As such, Savini’s body 2 does “have” a cylindrical shape 32 on portion 6 of body 2 (Fig. 8) but the recited container does not exclude additional non-cylindrical shapes such as portion 6 where coils and core reside.
Additionally, the Applicant states the “suitable resin” of Savini is not a structural matrix. The Office disagrees. Filling cavity 6a as shown in Fig. 3 would clearly offer structural integrity to the arrangement, including at the very least, to constrain, stabilize, and prevent movement of conductors 15, circuit support 8, electrodes 20, and member 25 as shown in Fig. 3. This constitutes the resin acting as a structural matrix. Furthermore, infill of resin like epoxy is well known in the art to offer structural integrity. The Office presents US 20150268077 (herein Mezheritsky) as one of several examples in the art. Mezheritsky is another flow meter that uses epoxy 504 to reinforce sleeve 506 and provide rigidity to housing 508.
Furthermore, the Office presents US 5385055 (herein Kubota) as relevant art pertaining to the arguments. Should the Applicant further clarify that the sensor is house within a cylindrical shape, Kubota teaches it is known in the art that cores 5a, 5b and coils 2a, 2b for electromagnetic flowmeters may be housed in cylindrical housings 19 (see Fig. 5a).
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 PHILIP FADUL whose telephone number is (571)272-5411. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8pm-6pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/PHILIP T FADUL/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights