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
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 9, the claimed, “the suction pad” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 13, 14, and 15 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perkins et al. (US Pub. # 20160341620), hereinafter referred to as Perkins.
Regarding claim 1, Perkins teaches, “A flow sensor comprising: a flow rate measuring element (Fig. 1, ref. # 109) configured to measure a flow rate of a working gas in a pipe (para. [0025; ref. # 108]) connected to a pneumatic device (102) and forming a flow path of the working gas; a pressure measuring element (114) configured to measure a pressure of the working gas in the pipe; and an evaluation unit (116, 120) that determines a characteristic amount indicating an operation of the pneumatic device based on a combination of the flow rate measured by the flow rate measuring element and the pressure measured by the pressure measuring element, and evaluates the operation of the pneumatic device to which the pipe is connected based on the characteristic amount [0032–0034].”
Regarding claim 13, Perkins teaches, “wherein the evaluation unit (116, 120) determines the characteristic amount indicating the operation of the pneumatic device based on a combination of time-series data of the flow rate measured by the flow rate measuring element and time-series data of the pressure measured by the pressure measuring element [0038–0040].”
Regarding claim 14, Perkins teaches, “wherein the evaluation unit (116, 120) executes reference value determination processing of determining an evaluation reference value using a plurality of the flow rates and a plurality of the pressures respectively measured by the flow rate measuring element and the pressure measuring element when the pneumatic device repeats the operation, and performs the evaluation based on the determined evaluation reference value (see para. [0013, 0032, 0035, 0038, 0039]; when detection determines time exceeds threshold, pressure measured at specific repetition frequency).”
Regarding claim 15, Perkins teaches, “wherein the evaluation unit (116, 120) repeatedly executes the reference value determination processing using the flow rate and the pressure acquired at a plurality of different timings until a degree of reliability of the evaluation reference value is equal to or higher than a predetermined degree of reliability [0038–0041].”
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins (US Pub. # 20160341620) in view of Hashimoto et al. (US Pub. # 20200209026), hereinafter referred to as Hashimoto.
Regarding claim 16, Perkins teaches details related to the flowmeter, including the flow rate measuring element and pressure measuring element, coupled to the built in pipe (see ref. # 109, 114, and 108), and also teaches a control unit, display, and connection line connecting between the flowmeter and control unit (see ref. # 120, 121, 116, 109, 119; para. [0033]). Perkins does not specifically teach details of the first body and second body as claimed. However, Hashimoto teaches the deficiencies of Perkins (see Fig. 1, 3, 4; ref. # 4 w/2, P, 34, 72, 48, 64). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Perkins’s invention to include the details set forth in claim 16, related to the configuration of parts, including the first and second body.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Perkins’s invention for at least the purpose of ensuring portable monitoring and metering, allowing easier maintenance and detection of abnormal conditions over time.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2–12 and 17–19 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.
Regarding claims 2–12 and 17–19, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed, “wherein the pipe is configured to be connectable to any one pneumatic device of a plurality of types of the pneumatic devices, and the evaluation unit determines a characteristic amount corresponding to a type of the pneumatic device connected to the pipe, and evaluates an operation of the pneumatic device connected to the pipe based on the characteristic amount.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO–892 form. The references cited herewith teach flow measuring devices with configurations and control related to the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:30pm.
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.
/RYAN D WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852