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 Objections
Claims 3-6, 12, and 15-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claims 3-4, 12, 15-16, in lines 4,7,9,12 of claim 3, and in line 2 of claim 4, and in line 1 of claim 12, and in lines 3, 7, 10, 13 of claim 15, and in line 4 of claim 16, term “flow” should be “flow (Q)” because fig.8 refers to volumetric flow rate (Q) as a function of temperature difference.
As to claims 4-6, claims 4-6 are also rejected because of their dependency on claim 3.
As to claims 16-17, claims 16-17 are also rejected because of their dependency on claim 15.
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 2-6 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
As to claims 2 and 14, claims 2 and 14 recites “a corrected value of the flow of the fluid” in line 11 of claim 2 and in line 10 of claim 14 respectively render the claim indefinite because it is not clear about “a corrected value”. A corrected value of what of the flow of the fluid.
As to claims 3 and 15, the phrase "can be" in line 3 of claims 3 and 15 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
As to claims 3 and 5 and 16, claims 3 and 5 and 16 recite “one or more parameters; one or more measurements made in a flow-calibration-area” render the claim indefinite because it is not clear about “one or more measurements (M1, M2)”. The claims states one or more measurements and then recites two measurements M1, M2 in parenthesis. So, it is unclear if these are either one or two measurements.
As to claim 4, claim 4 recites “a single measurement (M1, M2)” renders the claim indefinite. The claims state a single measurement and then recites two measurements M1, M2 in parenthesis. So, it is unclear if these are either one/single or two measurements.
As to claims 3 and 15, claims 3 and 15 recite limitations "a flow” in lines 4,7,9 of claim 3 and in lines 3,7 of claim 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The claim languages “the flow" appear for the first time, however, read as though they have already been recited. See MPEP 2173.05(e).
As to claims 4-6, claims 4-6 are also rejected because of their dependency on claim 3.
As to claims 16-17, claims 16-17 are also rejected because of their dependency on claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3-6 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without the means or explanation to how to estimate the flow below the lower flow level (QA) based on one or more measurements (Mi, M2) made in a flow-calibration-area (B2) and determine how the flow depends on the temperature difference (∆Tsf) in the flow-calibration-area (B2) and in a flow area (B1) below the flow-calibration-area (B2) (as recited in claim 3); how to estimate the flow below the lower flow level (QA) based on a single measurement (Mi, M2) and predefined data that includes density (p) and specific heat capacity (Cp) of the fluid (as recited in claim 4); how to apply the one or more measurements (Mi, M2) made in the flow-calibration- area (B2) to determine one or more parameters required to determine how the flow depends on the temperature difference (∆Tsf) in the flow-calibration-area (B2) and in a flow area (B1) below the flow-calibration-area (B2); and c) estimating the flow below the lower flow level (QA) on the basis of the one or more measurements (Mi, M2) made in the flow-calibration-area (B2) (as recited in claim 15); and how to carry out the one or more measurements (M1, M2) in the flow-calibration-area (B2); and - updating the one or more parameters required to determine how the flow depends on the temperature difference (∆Tsf) in the flow-calibration-area (B2) and in the flow area (Bi) below the flow-calibration-area (B2) (as recited in claim 16).
The instant specification did not particularly specify particular mathematical equation/formula intended to carry out the estimations and determinations as recited in those claims 3-4 and 15-16.
An adequate disclosure may require details of mathematical equation/formula intended to carry out the estimations and determinations. See In re Scarbrough, 500 F.2d 560, 182 USPQ 298 (CCPA 1974).
The Examiner concluded that there was not an enabling disclosure because the specification did not describe how to estimate the flow below the lower flow level (QA) based on one or more measurements (Mi, M2) made in a flow-calibration-area (B2) and determine how the flow depends on the temperature difference (∆Tsf) in the flow-calibration-area (B2) and in a flow area (B1) below the flow-calibration-area (B2) (as recited in claim 3); how to estimate the flow below the lower flow level (QA) based on a single measurement (Mi, M2) and predefined data that includes density (p) and specific heat capacity (Cp) of the fluid (as recited in claim 4); how to apply the one or more measurements (Mi, M2) made in the flow-calibration- area (B2) to determine one or more parameters required to determine how the flow depends on the temperature difference (∆Tsf) in the flow-calibration-area (B2) and in a flow area (B1) below the flow-calibration-area (B2); and c) estimating the flow below the lower flow level (QA) on the basis of the one or more measurements (Mi, M2) made in the flow-calibration-area (B2) (as recited in claim 15); and how to carry out the one or more measurements (M1, M2) in the flow-calibration-area (B2); and - updating the one or more parameters required to determine how the flow depends on the temperature difference (∆Tsf) in the flow-calibration-area (B2) and in the flow area (Bi) below the flow-calibration-area (B2) (as recited in claim 16), with only a reasonable amount of experimentation" and that "an unreasonable amount of work would be required to arrive at the detailed relationships applicant says that he has solved." See In re Scarbrough, 500 F.2d at 566, 182 USPQ at 302. See also MPEP 2164.06 and 2164.06(a). The instant disclosure fails to provide a sufficient amount of direction provided to make and/or use the instant invention (Wands factor (F)), as well as providing any specific working examples employing all the method steps recited in instant independent claim 1 (Wands factor (G)).
Thus, the instant specification fails to fully enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and/or use the instant claimed invention.
Note that: while the analysis and conclusion of a lack of enablement are based on all the factors discussed in MPEP § 2164.01(a) and the evidence as a whole, it is not necessary to discuss each factor in the enablement rejection (see MPEP 2164.04).
As to claims 4-6, claims 4-6 are also rejected because of their dependency on claim 3.
As to claims 16-17, claims 16-17 are also rejected because of their dependency on claim 15.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 7-14, and 18-20 are allowable once objections are corrected.
Note that claims 2-6 and 15-17 are allowable once objections and 112 rejections are absolved/corrected.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 1, claim 1 includes identify a no-flow state, in which there is no flow of the fluid when: A) the expected change in the speed of sound corresponds to the change in the speed of sound calculated based on the time-of-flight (t, t1, t2), and B) a temperature difference (∆Tsf) between the surroundings and the fluid is below a predefined level which is pre-set at a fixed level between 0.01 degree Celsius and 0.5 degree Celsius, when in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim 1 distinguish the present invention from the prior arts.
As to claims 7-11, claims 7-11 are also allowable due to their dependency on claim 1.
As to claims 2-6, claims 2-6 are also allowable due to their dependency on claim 1 (once 112 rejections are absolved/corrected).
As to claim 12, claim 12 includes identifying a no-flow state, in which there is no flow of the fluid when: A) the expected change in the speed of sound corresponds to the change in the speed of sound calculated based on the time-of-flight (t, t1, t2), and B) a temperature difference (∆Tsf) between surroundings and the fluid is below a predefined level which is pre-set at a fixed level between 0.01 degree Celsius and 0.5 degree Celsius, when in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim 12 distinguish the present invention from the prior arts.
As to claims 13 and 18-20, claims 13 and 18-20 are also allowable due to their dependency on claim 12.
As to claims 14-17, claims 14-17 are also allowable due to their dependency on claim 12 (once 112 rejections are absolved/corrected).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is invited to review PTO form 892 accompanying this Office Action listing Prior Art relevant to the instant invention cited by the Examiner.
Applicant is invited to review Ramsay – US 20150000420, which teaches: Apparatus and methods for verifying temperature measurements in an ultrasonic flow meter. An ultrasonic flow metering system includes a passage for fluid flow, a temperature sensor, an ultrasonic flow meter, and a flow processor. The temperature sensor is disposed to provide measured temperature of fluid flowing in the passage. The ultrasonic flow meter is configured to measure transit time of an ultrasonic signal through the fluid. The flow processor is configured to 1) compute speed of sound through the fluid based on the transit time; 2) calculate a computed temperature of the fluid based on the speed of sound; 3) apply compensation, based on a historical difference between the computed temperature and the measured temperature, to a temperature verification parameter; and 4) determine, based on the temperature verification parameter, whether a current difference between the measured temperature and the computed temperature is within a predetermined range (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRUONG D PHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, John Breene can be reached on 571-272-4107. 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.
/TRUONG D PHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights