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 § 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], wherein the evaluation unit determines, as the result of an evaluation of the operation of the pneumatic device, whether the operation is normal or corresponds to one of a plurality of abnormal conditions ("plurality of abnormal conditions" interpreted as "empty" or "nearly empty" determination as disclosed in control of 116/120 as described in [0033]; “operation is normal” is interpreted as determination as disclosed in [0033], where the cylinder is neither "nearly empty" or "empty", meaning other than one of these abnormal conditions, and the control which is performed via 114/116/120 "at specified times", thus alerting a user of the "abnormal" (empty/near empty conditions) for inventory purposes).”
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
Claim 20 is allowed (incorporates original claim 2, which was indicated as allowable, with language of original claim 1, into a new independent claim).
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. (originally noted in 3/27/2026 Office action).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 15, 2026 (page 2 of Remarks) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states, “Perkins et al. only shows a system that measures the static pressure of a gas cylinder to determine the remaining quantity of gas. Specifically, Perkins et al. uses a drop in flow rate merely as a "trigger" to indicate that the gas flow has stopped (either because the valve is closed or the cylinder is empty) and the pressure has stabilized without flow drop (Perkins et al., paragraphs [0035]-[0040]). By measuring the pressure at this specific timing, Perkins et al. can only distinguish between a "normal state" (valve closed = high pressure) and a single "abnormal state" (cylinder empty = low pressure).
Perkins et al. does not teach or suggest evaluating the operation of the device based on the combination of flow rate and pressure to determine "whether the operation is normal or corresponds to one of a plurality of abnormal conditions". Therefore, claim 1 and its dependent claims are novel over Perkins et al.” The Office disagrees with applicant’s conclusions.
As shown in the rejection of claim 1 above, Perkins teaches the newly claimed language, directed to, “the evaluation unit determines, as the result of an evaluation of the operation of the pneumatic device, whether the operation is normal or corresponds to one of a plurality of abnormal conditions.” Because control of 114/116/120 is performed “at specified times”, and one of a plurality of conditions are detected (empty, near empty, another state such as full when a new cylinder is used, or something other than empty/near empty as taught by the continuous monitoring), Perkins anticipates the claimed evaluation unit and determination control as claimed (see [0033]).
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 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
Prosecution Insights