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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species A in the reply filed on 11/18/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 10-15 and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The examiner notes that claim 16 appears to read on Species A; therefore, claim 16 has not been withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the call-out lines for elements 210, 212, 213 and 510 appear to be inaccurately placed. The examiner respectfully suggests comparing the call-out lines with those in Figs. 2A and 5, in which the call out lines appear to be accurately placed. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 9 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the flow measurement channel diameter" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the micromachined flow sensing element carrier printed circuit board" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the micromachined flow sensing elements" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a central cylinder” in lines 9-10. It is unclear whether or not the central cylinder is one of the coaxial cylinders of line 8; i.e. it is unclear whether or not claim 1 requires two cylinders or three cylinders.
The term “small flow resistance” in line 12 of claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “small flow resistance” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “significantly” in line 14 of claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “significantly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-9 depend on claim 1 and are rejected for inheriting the same problems.
Claim 2 recites “its central circular opening is one-eighth of the outer diameter but not larger than one-half of its outer diameter” in lines 2-4. It is unclear whether or not this limitation is a range. The examiner has interpreted this to be a range.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "its central circular opening" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “its” in the claim. It is unclear if “its” refers to the flow guide ring or the main flow channel.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "its outer diameter" in two instances in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “its” in the claim. It is unclear if “its” refers to the flow guide ring or the main flow channel.
Regarding claims 2-6 and 8, the terms "preferably" and “most preferably” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the terms are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The examiner has interpreted the limitations following the terms “preferably” and “most preferably” to be optional limitations.
Claim 7 depends on claim 6 is rejected for inheriting the same problems as claim 6.
Claim 7 recites “the micromachined flow sensing element” in line 3. It is unclear whether or not this limitation refers to the micromachined flow sensing elements of the preamble of claim 1 or if it is a new element. The examiner has interpreted this to be a new element.
Claim 9 depends on claim 7 and is rejected for inheriting the same problems as claim 7.
The term “low flow velocity” in line 2 of claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low flow velocity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 16 recites “the electronics” in line 12. It is unclear whether or not this limitation refers to the flow sensing element, the carrier printed circuitry board, the control electronic printed circuitry board, the electronic communication interface, or if it is a new 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 9,057,391 issued to Sawchuk et al. (“Sawchuk”) in view of U.S. Patent 6,112,590 issued to Rilling (“Rilling”) and U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0136881 by Huang et al. (“Huang”).
As for claim 1, Sawchuk discloses a flow conditioning assembly (Figs. 3 and 4) for a flow velocity and mass flow measurement apparatus utilizing micromachined (“micromachined” describes the process of making the elements and does not structurally distinguish the elements over the prior art) flow sensing elements comprising:
an incoming flow guide ring (105);
a flow profile shatter disk (110);
a buffer chamber (between 105 and 205 in Fig. 4);
a flow conditioner (205); and
a flow measurement component (210),
wherein the micromachined flow sensing elements are placed at a center (see Fig. 4) of a central cylinder (200).
Sawchuk does not disclose a flow conditioning chamber having a flow straightener and a flow profiler. Instead, Sawchuk discloses a flow conditioner (205) that conditions the fluid flow.
However, Rilling discloses a flow conditioning chamber (20, 21 and the space between 20 and 21; see Fig. 1) having a flow straightener (20) and a flow profiler (21). Rilling discloses that the flow conditioning chamber, flow straightener and flow profiler conditions the flow (col. 1, lines 10-17).
Because Sawchuk and Rilling both disclose flow conditioners, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the flow conditioning chamber, flow straightener and flow profiler of Rilling for the flow conditioner of Sawchuk to achieve the predictable result of providing structures that condition the fluid flow for the flow measurement component.
Sawchuk as modified by Rilling does not disclose that the flow measurement component includes coaxial cylinders.
However, Huang discloses a flow measurement component (110) that includes coaxial cylinders (Fig. 4A).
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 flow measurement component of Sawchuk and Rilling by including the coaxial cylinders as disclosed by Huang in order to ensure stable flow and ensure measurement accuracy (Huang: paragraph [0027]).
Sawchuk as modified by Rilling and Huang discloses:
wherein the flow conditioning assembly is able to maintain metrological repeatability and reproducibility while having a small flow resistance or a pressure loss (because Sawchuk as modified by Rilling and Huang discloses the claimed structures), and
wherein the flow conditioning assembly is able to significantly reduce a chance of flow clogging and ease the requirements for a pipework system that is connected to the flow measurement apparatus (because Sawchuk as modified by Rilling and Huang discloses the claimed structures).
As for claim 2, Sawchuk as modified by Rilling and Huang discloses that the flow guide ring (Sawchuk: 105) has its outer diameter identical to that of a main flow channel (Sawchuk: see Fig. 4).
Sawchuk as modified by Rilling and Huang does not disclose that its central circular opening size is one-eighth of the outer diameter but not larger than one-half of its outer diameter.
However, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A). In this case, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect the flow guide ring, having either the opening size of Sawchuk or the claimed opening size, to be able to guide fluid flow to the flow profile shatter disk.
Therefore, 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 flow guide ring to have the claimed relative dimensions in order to achieve the predictable result of providing a flow guide ring that guides the fluid flow to the flow profile shatter disk.
The examine notes that the other limitations are optional and do not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.
As for claim 3, Sawchuk as modified by Rilling and Huang discloses that the flow shatter disk (Sawchuk: 110) has an identical size to the flow guide ring opening (Sawchuk: co. 3, lines 40-41).
Sawchuk as modified by Rilling and Huang does not disclose that the buffer chamber behind the flow shatter disk has a length of three to three-quarters of the flow channel diameter.
However, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A). In this case, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect the buffer chamber of Sawchuk or the claimed buffer chamber to be able to guide fluid flow to the flow conditioning chamber.
Therefore, 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 buffer chamber to have the claimed relative dimensions in order to achieve the predictable result of providing a buffer chamber that guides the fluid flow to the flow conditioning chamber.
The examine notes that the other limitations are optional and do not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.
As for claim 4, Sawchuk as modified by Rilling and Huang discloses that the flew conditioning chamber (Rilling: 20, 21 and the space between 20 and 21; see Fig. 1) is placed after the buffer chamber behind the flow shatter disk (Sawchuk: at 205 in Fig. 4).
The examine notes that the other limitations are optional and do not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.
As for claim 5, Sawchuk as modified by Rilling and Huang discloses that the flow conditioning chamber preferably has the flow straightener installed at an inlet of the flow conditioning chamber and the flow profiler installed in parallel at an outlet of the flow conditioning chamber (Rilling: see Fig. 1).
The examine notes that the other limitation is optional and does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.
As for claim 6, Sawchuk as modified by Rilling and Huang discloses that the flow measurement component (Sawchuk: 210 and Huang: 110) is placed in the main flow channel of the flow measurement apparatus behind the flow conditioning chamber (Sawchuk: see Fig. 4).
The examine notes that the other limitations are optional and do not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.
As for claim 7, Sawchuk as modified by Rilling and Huang discloses that the flow measurement component (Huang: 110) is including coaxial cylinders (Huang: see Fig. 4A), a central cylinder is designed as a flow measurement channel in which the micromachined flow sensing element (Huang: 101) is placed at a tip of a thin rectangular printed circuitry board (Huang: 105) that inserts into a center of the measurement channel and aligns in parallel to a flow direction such that the surface direction of the micromachined flow sensing element is perpendicular to the flow direction (Huang: see Fig. 3).
As for claim 8, the examiner notes that only that which is optional is recited. The examine notes that the limitations are optional and do not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.
As for claim 9, Sawchuk as modified by Rilling and Huang discloses the flow conditioning assembly of Claim 7 (see the rejection of claim 7 above) and a micromachined flow sensing element carrier printed circuit board (Huang: 105).
Sawchuk as modified by Rilling and Huang does not disclose that the micromachined flow sensing element carrier printed circuit board has a thickness of equal or less than one millimeter, and most preferably five-eighths millimeter.
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 size a thickness of a micromachined flow sensing element carrier printed circuit board of the Sawchuk-Rilling-Huang combination to be less than or equal to one millimeter apart because Applicant has not disclosed that a thickness of less than or equal to one millimeter 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 micromachined flow sensing element carrier printed circuit board of the Sawchuk-Rilling-Huang combination and applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either the thickness taught by Huang or the claimed thickness because both thicknesses would perform the same function of holding a flow sensor chip inside a central cylinder.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the Sawchuk-Rilling-Huang combination 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 the Sawchuk-Rilling-Huang combination.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 9,057,391 issued to Sawchuk et al. (“Sawchuk”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0136881 by Huang et al. (“Huang”) and CN 113008323 by Jing et al. (“Jing”).
As for claim 16, Sawchuk discloses a flow measurement apparatus utilizing the micromachined (“micromachined” describes the process of making the elements and does not structurally distinguish the elements over the prior art) flow sensing elements for low flow velocity and mass flow measurement comprising:
a main flow channel (see Fig. 4);
a flow conditioning assembly (105, 110, 115) which is installed into the main flow channel; and
a micromachined flow sensing element (210).
Sawchuk does not disclose that the micromachined flow sensing element is a chip, or the control electronic circuitry board, electronic communications interface and cover as recited. Instead, Sawchuk only broadly discloses a flow sensing element that detects the flow through the main flow channel.
However, Huang discloses a micromachined flow sensing element chip (101) placed on a carrier printed circuitry board (105) which is installed into a flow conditioning assembly (110);
a control electronic printed circuitry board (120) that connects to the carrier printed circuitry board (implied by paragraph [0023]);
an electronic communication interface (122) installed on the control electronics printed circuitry board (120); and
a cover that protects the electronics.
Huang discloses that the micromachined flow sensing element chip, the control electronic circuitry board, electronic communications interface and cover are structures that cooperate to detect flow through a main flow channel (paragraph [0023]).
Because Sawchuk and Huang both disclose structures that detect flow through a main flow channel, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the micromachined flow sensing element chip, the control electronic circuitry board, electronic communications interface and cover of Huang for the micromachined flow sensing element of Sawchuk to achieve the predictable result of providing structures that detect a flow through a flow channel.
Sawchuk as modified by Huang does not disclose an inlet and an outlet connector fixed with a U-pin, respectively.
However, Jing discloses an inlet (5) and an outlet (5) connector fixed with a U-pin (4), respectively.
Jing and the Sawchuk-Huang combination included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the inlet, outlet and U-pins of Jing with the flow measurement apparatus of the Sawchuk-Huang combination by attaching the inlet and outlet to the flow measurement apparatus using the U-pins as suggested by Figs. 1-4 of Jing, and that in combination, the inlet, outlet and U-pins and the flow measurement apparatus merely perform the same functions as each does separately. Therefore, 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 flow measurement apparatus of Sawchuk and Huang by including the inlet, outlet and U-pins as disclosed by Jing in order to achieve the predictable result of providing structures that allow a fluid to flow into and out of the flow measurement apparatus.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent 7,370,675 issued to Cancade et al. (“Cancade”) is cited for all that it discloses including a flow guide ring and a flow profile shatter disk.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2025/0067371 by von Mollendorff et al. (“von Mollendorff”) is cited for all that it discloses including an inlet and an outlet that are fixed by U-pins.
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