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
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, 8-9, 12, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kircher (US-6957588), in view of, Calhoun (US-3645136).
Kircher teaches:
In regards to claim 1, Kicher teaches a method for measuring a variation in an internal pressure (abstract) and/or a variation in a temperature of a pipe (12-14 col. 1) including a portion extending along a longitudinal axis, comprising: (16 fig. 3, ‘sensing tube’)
for each of at least two measurement areas of the portion of the pipe, measuring, using a corresponding sensor, a monitoring quantity associated with a respective measurement direction, (‘the central zone of the pipe around dashed line 58 and the adjacent zones’; 58, 70-73 fig(s) 1-3, ‘middle of sensing tube’, ‘strain gages’) a relative variation in the monitoring quantity being representative of a variation in a corresponding local deformation of the pipe according to the associated measurement direction; and (14-21 col. 6)
calculating the variation in the internal pressure and/or the variation in the temperature of the pipe based on at least one deformation variation, (fig. 6) each deformation variation being obtained only based on measured monitoring quantities, among which at least one first measured monitoring quantity is associated with a first measurement direction and at least one second measured monitoring quantity is associated with a second measurement direction, (56-67 col. 6;1-51, 33-41 col. 7; fig(s) 1-3)
the first measurement direction (circumferential direction) defining a first angle (0°) with a plane normal to the longitudinal axis, the second measurement direction defining a second angle (90°) with a plane normal to the longitudinal axis, the first angle (0°) and the second angle (90°) having different absolute values modulo π, and
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Kicher to provide an inexpensive measuring device for determining pressure inside a pipe for improving the continuous measuring of pressure and/or flow rate in flowing fluids.
Kicher does not teach:
the sensors being selected so that a same variation in their temperature results in a same relative variation in their respective measured monitoring quantities.
Calhoun teaches:
the sensors being selected so that a same variation in their temperature results in a same relative variation in their respective measured monitoring quantities. (13 fig. 2, ‘pressure sensor element’; 27-31 col. 3, ‘Strain gages 26-29 are carefully chosen so that their resistance characteristics accurately match one another. As a consequence, bridge 30 is in a balance condition when no pressurized fluid is present in the passageway 15.’; 26-29, 30 fig. 4, ‘four arms Wheatstone bridge’, ‘strain gages’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Calhoun to employ a Wheatstone bridge where the four elements have the same temperature dependence decreasing the temperature of the signal output of the Wheatstone bridge for an inexpensive measuring device for determining pressure inside a pipe for improving the continuous measuring of pressure and/or flow rate in flowing fluids.
In regards to claim 8, Kircher & Calhoun teach a measurement method according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein, for at least one measurement area, the sensor is selected from the group comprising distance sensors, sensors implementing a reflectometry method on an electrical cable, sensors implementing an optical reflectometry method, deformation gauges, and stereo-correlation deformation sensors. (Kircher: 58, 70-73 fig(s) 1-3, ‘middle of sensing tube’, ‘strain gages’; 16-21 col.6, ‘the sensor are electrical strain gauges’)
In regards to claim 9, Kircher & Calhoun teach a measurement method according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) Kircher teaches wherein the first angle is 0 modulo 7π, and the second angle is π/2 modulo π. (Kircher: fig. 1, 2, 3)
In regards to claim claim 12, Kircher & Calhoun teach a measurement method according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) Kircher teaches wherein the measurement associated with the first measurement direction and the measurement associated with the second measurement direction are performed at a same surface of the portion of the pipe selected from among an inner surface and an outer surface of said portion of the pipe. (Kircher: fig(s) 1-3, ‘see specifically figure 2’)
In regards to claim 16, Kircher & Calhoun teach a measurement method according to claim 8, (see claim rejection 8) Kircher teaches wherein the distance sensors implement an acoustic method between an acoustic emitter and an acoustic receiver, and the deformation gauges are electrical deformation gauges. (Kircher: 70-73 fig(s) 1-3, ‘strain gauges’; claim 1, ‘sensing tube mechanically deforms’)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kircher (US-6957588), in view of, Calhoun (US-3645136), in further view of, Coupe (US 2012/099097).
Kircher & Calhoun teach:
In regards to claim 2, Kircher & Calhoun teach measurement method according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the measuring is preceded by fastening the corresponding sensor to each measurement area, (Kircher: abstract; 58, 70-73 fig(s) 1-3, ‘middle of sensing tube’, ‘strain gages’; 16 fig. 3, ‘sensing tube’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Kicher & Calhoun to provide an inexpensive measuring device for determining pressure inside a pipe for improving the continuous measuring of pressure and/or flow rate in flowing fluids.
Kircher & Calhoun do not teach:
the sensors being fastened to respective measurement areas according to a same fastening method, and being selected so that a same variation in a mechanical deformation applied thereto results in the same relative variation in their respective measured monitoring quantities.
Coupe teaches:
the sensors being fastened to respective measurement areas according to a same fastening method, and being selected so that a same variation in a mechanical deformation applied thereto results in the same relative variation in their respective measured monitoring quantities. (para [0008], ‘the sensors are all the same type and are fastened to their respective measurement zones in the same way.’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Coupe to apply the method as recited to prevent as much as possible perturbations and errors for the device determining pressure inside a pipe for improving the continuous measuring of pressure and/or flow rate in flowing fluids.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kircher (US-6957588), in view of, Calhoun (US-3645136).
Kircher teaches:
In regards to claim 14, Kircher teaches a device for measuring a variation in an internal pressure (abstract) of a pipe including a portion extending along a longitudinal axis, comprising: (16 fig. 3, ‘sensing tube’)
at least two sensors and a calculator, (‘the central zone of the pipe around dashed line 58 and the adjacent zones’; 58, 70-73 fig(s) 1-3, ‘middle of sensing tube’, ‘strain gages’; 56-67 col. 6;1-51, 33-41 col. 7; fig(s) 1-3)
each sensor being configured so as to output, for a corresponding measurement area of the portion of the pipe, a measurement signal indicative of a predetermined monitoring quantity associated with a respective measurement direction, a relative variation in the monitoring quantity being representative of a variation in a local deformation, according to an associated measurement direction, of the measurement area, 56-67 col. 6;1-51, 33-41 col. 7; fig(s) 1-3)
the calculator being configured to measure the corresponding monitoring quantity based on each measurement signal, (56-67 col. 6;1-51, 33-41 col. 7; fig(s) 1-3)
the calculator being further configured to calculate the variation in the internal pressure of the pipe based on at least one deformation variation, (fig. 6) each deformation variation being obtained only from the measured monitoring quantities, among which at least one first measured monitoring quantity is associated with a first measurement direction and at least one second measured monitoring quantity is associated with a second measurement direction, and (56-67 col. 6;1-51, 33-41 col. 7; fig(s) 1-3)
the first measurement direction (circumferential direction) defining a first angle (0°) with a plane normal to the longitudinal axis, the second measurement direction defining a second angle (90°) with a plane normal to the longitudinal axis, and the first angle (0°) and the second angle (90°) having different absolute values modulo .
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Kicher to provide an inexpensive measuring device for determining pressure inside a pipe for improving the continuous measuring of pressure and/or flow rate in flowing fluids.
Kircher does not teach:
the sensors being selected so that a same temperature variation results in a same relative variation in their respective measured monitoring quantities,
Calhoun teaches:
the sensors being selected so that a same temperature variation results in a same relative variation in their respective measured monitoring quantities, (13 fig. 2, ‘pressure sensor element’; 27-31 col. 3, ‘Strain gages 26-29 are carefully chosen so that their resistance characteristics accurately match one another. As a consequence, bridge 30 is in a balance condition when no pressurized fluid is present in the passageway 15.’; 26-29, 30 fig. 4, ‘four arms Wheatstone bridge’, ‘strain gages’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Calhoun to employ a Wheatstone bridge where the four elements have the same temperature dependence decreasing the temperature of the signal output of the Wheatstone bridge for an inexpensive measuring device for determining pressure inside a pipe for improving the continuous measuring of pressure and/or flow rate in flowing fluids.
In regards to claim 15, Kircher & Calhoun teach an apparatus comprising a pipe and a measurement device according to claim 14, (see claim rejection 14) Kircher teaches the pipe including a portion extending along a longitudinal axis, (Kircher: ‘the central zone of the pipe around dashed line 58 and the adjacent zones’; 58, 70-73 fig(s) 1-3, ‘middle of sensing tube’, ‘strain gages’)
each sensor of the measurement device being associated with a respective measuring area of an outer surface of the portion of the pipe, and being arranged so as to provide a monitoring quantity associated with a respective measurement direction, (Kircher: ‘the central zone of the pipe around dashed line 58 and the adjacent zones’; 58, 70-73 fig(s) 1-3, ‘middle of sensing tube’, ‘strain gages’) a relative variation in the monitoring quantity being representative of a variation in a corresponding local deformation of the pipe according to the associated measurement direction, and (Kircher: 14-21 col. 6)
at least one first measurement direction (Kircher: circumferential direction) defining a first angle (Kircher: 0°) with a plane normal to the longitudinal axis, and at least one second measurement direction defining a second angle (Kircher: 90°) with the plane normal to the longitudinal axis, the first angle (Kircher: 0°) and the second angle (Kircher: 90°) having different absolute values modulo π.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 3-7, 10-11, 13, 16-17 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.
The Examiner completed a PE2E search 01/09/2026, and a Similarity search. Upon completion the Examiner did not find all of the particulars required for claims 3, 10-11, 13, and 16 as recited by the limitation of each particular claim. Dependent claims 4-7 depend on claim 3, and dependent claim 17 depend on claim 11. (see claims, and search notes.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited Miyamoto (US-20240167900), Beugnot (US-20240133759), and Grosso (US-20120082415) references further describe a device and method of measuring pressure in a pipe as described by the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C BUTLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3973. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Stephanie E Bloss can be reached at (571)272-3555. 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.
/K.C.B/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852