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 .
Specification
Acknowledgement is made of the substitute specification filed 6/16/26. The objection to the specification is moot in view of applicant’s amendment. The objection to the specification is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, filed 6/16/26, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-3, 5-9, 19-20, 20, 23, 25-29 under 35 U.S.C. 112 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, page 13-14, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Greer does not teach “arranging the emitting plates and the one or more receiving plates to measure both a first capacitance along a first path between the emitting plate on a first side of a conduit and one of the receiving plates on the first side of the conduit and a second capacitance along a second path between the emitting plate and one of the receiving plates on an opposing second side of the conduit.”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, specifically Greer, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Calciolari teaches measuring more than one capacitance value between a plurality of electrodes to obtain independent measurements. Greer teaches measuring capacitance between opposing electrodes or adjacent electrodes. A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention can choose a suitable arrangement of electrodes, positioned adjacent or opposite, for a plurality of measurements therebetween any two electrodes without producing any new or unexpected result.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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.
Claim 18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 18 states “wherein the first path is between a first electrode on a first side of the conduit and a second electrode on an opposing second side of the conduit and the second path is between at least one of the first electrode or a third electrode on the first side of the conduit and the second electrode;” It is unclear whether the second path can be or is the same as the first path (first path between first and second opposite electrodes, second path between either the first and second opposite electrodes or third and second opposite electrodes). For purposes of examination, the second path will be treated as between the third and second electrodes.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8, 18-19, 25, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over applicant-cited Calciolari et al. (US20120182030) in view of Morel-Fatio (US2019/0077292) further in view of Potyrailo et al. (US10914698) further in view of Greer (US6388453).
Claim 1: Calciolari teaches a system comprising:
a capacitive sensor (Fig. 6a, device 3, [0123-0128]) configured to measure a first capacitance along a first path (a path between one of the pairs 7a-7a, 7b-7b, or 7c-7c ) through a fluid (multiphase mixture F) flowing through a conduit (pipe 16) and a second capacitance along a second path (a different path between one of the pairs 7a-7a, 7b-7b, or 7c-7c) through the fluid, wherein the first path is different from the second path;
a first electrode positioned on a first side of the conduit, a second electrode positioned on an opposing second side of the conduit, wherein a path is between the first and second electrodes (path between electrodes 7a-7a, Fig. 6a); and
a circuit (permittivity measurement circuit 8) configured to:
receive sensor data from the capacitive sensor corresponding to the first capacitance (from the first path) and the second capacitance (from the second path);
determine a first value of a fluid property of the fluid based on the first capacitance;
determine a second value of the fluid property of the fluid based on the second capacitance ([0125] It is therefore possible to measure the permittivity or the conductivity of the portion of fluid between any one of the pairs of zones 7a-7a, 7b-7b and 7c-7c independently of the other zones.).
Calciolari fails to teach a processor responsive to determining that a variation between the first value of the fluid property and the second value of the fluid property is above a predetermined threshold, operate a display device to provide a variation interface corresponding to the variation to a user.
However, Morel-Fatio teaches a probe including two capacitive sensors (plates 5,6 measure a first zone Z1 and plates 7,8 measure a second zone Z2, Fig. 2) wherein the computing device 9 is configured to compare a difference between a measured value from a first sensor ([0046] the two measurement signals are compared against one another to ensure that a deviation between the measured values does not exceed a threshold. If the threshold is exceeded, then the values are deemed invalid.).
Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio fails to teach a display to provide a user interface corresponding to the variation to the user.
However, Potyrailo teaches a display 26 used to output sensor data to an operator (col. 7, line 41- col. 8, line 18).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a display, taught by Potyrailo, with the device of Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio in order to reconstruct and easily convey information to an operator (col. 7, lines 41-51).
Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio further in view of Potyrailo fails to teach a third electrode positioned on the first side of the conduit, wherein the first path is between at least one of the first electrode or the third electrode and the second electrode and the second path is between the first electrode and the third electrode.
However, Greer teaches capacitive measurement including a transmitting and receiving terminal for the capacitors (Figs. 1, 2). The capacitors can be arranged and/or operated to detect capacitance between two parallel plates (Fig. 1) or between two co-planar plates (Fig. 2). Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention can choose a suitable arrangement of electrodes, positioned adjacent or opposite, for a plurality of measurements therebetween any two electrodes.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teachings of Greer with the device of Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio further in view of Potyrailo, in order to permit more distinct measurements for a given number of array elements (Greer col. 3, lines 10-16).
Claim 2: Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio further in view of Potyrailo further in view of Greer teaches the system of claim 1. Calciolari teaches wherein the capacitive sensor is further configured to measure a third capacitance along a third path through the fluid (the remaining path among the pairs 7a-7a, 7b-7b, or 7c-7c, Fig. 6a), wherein the third path is different from the first path and the second path ([0125] It is therefore possible to measure the permittivity or the conductivity of the portion of fluid between any one of the pairs of zones 7a-7a, 7b-7b and 7c-7c independently of the other zones.), a fourth electrode (one of the remaining electrodes of 7a-7a, 7b-7b, or 7c-7c, Fig. 6a) positioned on the opposing second side of the conduit.
Calciolari fails to teach wherein the processor is further configured to: receive the sensor data from the capacitive sensor corresponding to the third capacitance; determine a third value of the fluid property of the fluid based on the third capacitance; model the first value of the fluid property with the second value of the fluid property and the third value of the fluid property to determine a sensor error associated with at least one of the first value of the fluid property, the second value of the fluid property, or the third value of the fluid property; and responsive to determining that the sensor error is above a predetermined error threshold, operate the display device to provide the sensor error to the user.
However, Morel-Fatio teaches a probe including two capacitive sensors (plates 5,6 measure a first zone Z1 and plates 7,8 measure a second zone Z2, Fig. 2) wherein the computing device 9 is configured to compare a difference between a measured value from a first sensor ([0046] the two measurement signals are compared against one another to ensure that a deviation between the measured values does not exceed a threshold. If the threshold is exceeded, then the values are deemed invalid.). Although Morel-Fatio does not teach a third capacitance, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to perform the same comparison on all of the measurement values as no new or unexpected result is achieved by performing the method a plurality of times.
Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio fails to teach a display to provide a variation to the user.
However, Potyrailo teaches a display 26 used to output sensor data to an operator (col. 7, line 41- col. 8, line 18).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a display, taught by Potyrailo, with the device of Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio in order to reconstruct and easily convey information to an operator (col. 7, lines 41-51).
Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio further in view of Potyrailo fails to teach wherein the third path is between the second electrode and the fourth electrode.
However, Greer teaches capacitive measurement including a transmitting and receiving terminal for the capacitors (Figs. 1, 2). The capacitors can be arranged and/or operated to detect capacitance between two parallel plates (Fig. 1) or between two co-planar plates (Fig. 2). Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention can choose a suitable arrangement of electrodes for a plurality of measurements between different pairs.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teachings of Greer with the device of Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio further in view of Potyrailo, in order to permit more distinct measurements for a given number of array elements (Greer col. 3, lines 10-16).
Claim 5: Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio further in view of Potyrailo further in view of Greer teaches the system of claim 2. Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio further in view of Potyrailo fails to teach wherein the capacitive sensor further comprises: a shield positioned between (i) the first electrode and the third electrode and (ii) the second electrode and the fourth electrode, the shield configured to at least partially block electric flux between (i) the first electrode and the third electrode and (ii) the second electrode and the fourth electrode.
However, Greer teaches a shield (shield 10) between adjacent transmitting and receiving electrodes (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a shield positioned between electrodes, as taught by Greer, in order to utilize the capacitive sensor for proximity sensing and non-contact material identification (Greer, col. 3, lines 51-53).
Claim 8: Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio further in view of Potyrailo further in view of Greer teaches the system of claim 1. Calciolari teaches wherein the fluid property is a permittivity of the fluid ([0068] permittivity measurement circuit 8).
Claim 18: Calciolari teaches a method comprising: receiving sensor data from a capacitive sensor (Fig. 6a, device 3, [0123-0128]) corresponding to a first capacitance along a first path (a path between one of the pairs 7a-7a, 7b-7b, or 7c-7c ) through a fluid flowing through a conduit (multiphase fluid F in pipe 16) and a second capacitance through the fluid along a second path (a different path between one of the pairs 7a-7a, 7b-7b, or 7c-7c) through the fluid, wherein the first path is between a first electrode on a first side of the conduit and a second electrode on an opposing second side of the conduit (the path between a respective pair 7a-7a, 7b-7b, or 7c-7c); determining a first value of a fluid property of the fluid based on the first capacitance (permittivity measurement circuit 8 determines permittivity from a measurement of the first path);
determining a second value of the fluid property of the fluid based on the second capacitance (permittivity measurement circuit 8 determines permittivity from a measurement of the second path; [0125] It is therefore possible to measure the permittivity or the conductivity of the portion of fluid between any one of the pairs of zones 7a-7a, 7b-7b and 7c-7c independently of the other zones.)and
Calciolari fails to teach responsive to determining that a variation between the first value of the fluid property and the second value of the fluid property is above a predetermined threshold, operating a display device to provide a variation interface corresponding to the variation to a user.
However, Morel-Fatio teaches a probe including two capacitive sensors (plates 5,6 measure a first zone Z1 and plates 7,8 measure a second zone Z2, Fig. 2) wherein the computing device 9 is configured to compare a difference between a measured value from a first sensor ([0046] the two measurement signals are compared against one another to ensure that a deviation between the measured values does not exceed a threshold. If the threshold is exceeded, then the values are deemed invalid.).
Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio fails to teach a display to provide a variation to the user.
However, Potyrailo teaches a display 26 used to output sensor data to an operator (col. 7, line 41- col. 8, line 18).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a display, taught by Potyrailo, with the device of Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio in order to reconstruct and easily convey information to an operator (col. 7, lines 41-51).
Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio further in view of Potyrailo fails to teach wherein the second path is between at least one of the first electrode or a third electrode on the first side of the conduit and the second electrode.
However, Greer teaches capacitive measurement including a transmitting and receiving terminal for the capacitors (Figs. 1, 2). The capacitors can be arranged and/or operated to detect capacitance between two parallel plates (Fig. 1) or between two co-planar plates (Fig. 2). Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention can choose a suitable arrangement of electrodes, positioned adjacent or opposite, for a plurality of measurements therebetween any two electrodes including opposing second and third electrodes.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teachings of Greer with the device of Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio further in view of Potyrailo, in order to permit more distinct measurements for a given number of array elements (Greer col. 3, lines 10-16).
Claim 19: Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio further in view of Potyrailo teaches the method of claim 18. Calciolari teaches wherein the capacitive sensor is further configured to measure a third capacitance along a third path through the fluid (the remaining path among the pairs 7a-7a, 7b-7b, or 7c-7c, Fig. 6a), wherein the third path is different from the first path and the second path ([0125] It is therefore possible to measure the permittivity or the conductivity of the portion of fluid between any one of the pairs of zones 7a-7a, 7b-7b and 7c-7c independently of the other zones.).
Calciolari fails to teach comparing the first value of the fluid property, the second value of the fluid property, and the third value of the fluid property to determine a sensor error associated with the capacitive sensor and at least one of the first value of the fluid property, the second value of the fluid property, or the third value of the fluid property; and responsive to determining that the sensor error is above a predetermined error threshold, operating the display device to provide an error interface corresponding to the sensor error to the user..
However, Morel-Fatio teaches a probe including two capacitive sensors (plates 5,6 measure a first zone Z1 and plates 7,8 measure a second zone Z2, Fig. 2) wherein the computing device 9 is configured to compare a difference between a measured value from a first sensor ([0046] the two measurement signals are compared against one another to ensure that a deviation between the measured values does not exceed a threshold. If the threshold is exceeded, then the values are deemed invalid.). Although Morel-Fatio does not teach a third capacitance, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to perform the same comparison on all of the measurement values as no new or unexpected result is achieved by performing the method a plurality of times.
Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio fails to teach a display to provide a variation to the user.
However, Potyrailo teaches a display 26 used to output sensor data to an operator (col. 7, line 41- col. 8, line 18).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a display, taught by Potyrailo, with the device of Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio in order to reconstruct and easily convey information to an operator (col. 7, lines 41-51).
Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio further in view of Potyrailo fails to teach wherein the third path is between the second electrode and a fourth electrode on the opposing second side of the conduit.
However, Greer teaches capacitive measurement including a transmitting and receiving terminal for the capacitors (Figs. 1, 2). The capacitors can be arranged and/or operated to detect capacitance between two parallel plates (Fig. 1) or between two co-planar plates (Fig. 2). Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention can choose a suitable arrangement of electrodes for a plurality of measurements including opposing second and fourth electrodes.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teachings of Greer with the device of Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio further in view of Potyrailo, in order to permit more distinct measurements for a given number of array elements (Greer col. 3, lines 10-16).
Claim 25: Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio further in view of Potyrailo further in view of Greer teaches the method of claim 19. Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio further in view of Potyrailo fails to teach wherein the wherein a shield is positioned between (i) the first electrode and the third electrode and (ii) the second electrode and the fourth electrode, the shield configured to at least partially block electric flux between (i) the first electrode and the third electrode and (ii) the second electrode and the fourth electrode.
However, Greer teaches a shield (shield 10) between adjacent transmitting and receiving electrodes (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a shield positioned between electrodes, as taught by Greer, in order to utilize the capacitive sensor for proximity sensing and non-contact material identification (Greer, col. 3, lines 51-53).
Claim 28: Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio further in view of Potyrailo further in view of Greer teaches the method of claim 18. Calciolari teaches wherein the fluid property is a permittivity of the fluid ([0068] permittivity measurement circuit 8).
Claims 3, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio further in view of Potyrailo further in view of Greer in view of Duan (US20110071777).
Claim 3: Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio further in view of Potyrailo further in view of Greer teaches the system of claim 2, but fails to teach wherein responsive to determining that the sensor error is above the predetermined error threshold, the processor is further configured to calibrate the capacitive sensor to reduce the sensor error.
However, Duan teaches that capacitive-type sensors are regularly re-calibrated [0008] including when a measured sensor data has changed beyond a predetermined amount (threshold) [0047].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to re-calibrate the sensors of Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio further in view of Potyrailo further in view of Greer when an error is detected for the obvious benefit of obtaining accurate capacitive sensor data.
Claim 23: Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio further in view of Potyrailo further in view of Greer teaches the system of claim 19, but fails to teach wherein, responsive to determining that the sensor error is above the predetermined error threshold, the method further comprises: calibrating the capacitive sensor to reduce the sensor error.
However, Duan teaches that capacitive-type sensors are regularly re-calibrated [0008] including when a measured sensor data has changed beyond a predetermined amount (threshold) [0047].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to re-calibrate the sensors of Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio further in view of Potyrailo further in view of Greer when an error is detected for the obvious benefit of obtaining accurate capacitive sensor data.
Claim 6-7, 9, 20, 26-27, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio further in view of Potyrailo further in view of Greer further in view of Oikonomou (US20160216196).
Claim 6: Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio further in view of Potyrailo further in view of Greer teaches the system of claim 2, but fails to teach wherein the sensor error is associated with a deposit of a material on the capacitive sensor or an erosion of the capacitive sensor due to the fluid.
However, Oikonomou teaches detection of electrode errors wherein the error can be caused by deposits on the electrode [0003, 0028, 0061].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to detect an error, as taught by Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio further in view of Potyrailo further in view of Greer, including an error caused by deposits on the electrode as taught by Oikonomou in order to allow for real-time detection of deposits on the meter body, so that cleaning and, if needed, calibration or adjustments in the measurements may be performed at an early stage before any effect on the quality of the measurements (Oikonomou [0004]).
Claim 7: Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio further in view of Potyrailo further in view of Greer further in view of Oikonomou teaches the system of claim 6. Potyrailo teaches a display 26 used to output sensor data to an operator (col. 7, line 41- col. 8, line 18).
Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio further in view of Potyrailo further in view of Greer fails to teach wherein the processor is further configured to: determine a location of (i) the deposit of the material on the capacitive sensor or (ii) the erosion of the capacitive sensor based on the sensor error; and operate the display device to provide the location of (i) the deposit of the material or (ii) the location of the erosion of the capacitive sensor to the user.
However, Oikonomou teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: determine a location of (i) the deposit of the material on the capacitive sensor (Oikonomou teaches detecting deposit on an electrode, therefore the location of the measurement will be associated with the electrode) or (ii) the erosion of the capacitive sensor based on the sensor error.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teaching of Oikonomou to detect electrode deposition, with the device of Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio further in view of Potyrailo further in view of Greer in order to allow for real-time detection of deposits on the meter body, so that cleaning and, if needed, calibration or adjustments in the measurements may be performed at an early stage before any effect on the quality of the measurements (Oikonomou [0004]).
Claim 9: Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio further in view of Potyrailo further in view of Greer teaches the system of claim 8, but fails to teach wherein the processor is further configured to: determine a water fraction of the fluid based on the permittivity of the fluid.
However, Oikonomou teaches using the detected permittivity to determine water fraction ([0040-0046]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine water fraction based on permittivity, as taught by Oikonomou, with the device of claim 8, in order to be able to measure the flow capacitance C.sub.m with sufficient accuracy in presence of the conductive leakage current, and as a result, d) allow accurate flow fraction calculations, without degradation of performance when the deposit volume fraction is small enough compared to the volume of the sensor. (Oikonomou [0035]).
Claim 20: Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio further in view of Potyrailo further in view of Greer teaches the method of claim 19. Calciolari teaches wherein the fluid property is a permittivity of the fluid([0068] permittivity measurement circuit 8). Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio further in view of Potyrailo fails to teach determining a water fraction of the fluid based on the permittivity of the fluid.
However, Oikonomou teaches using the detected permittivity to determine water fraction ([0040-0046]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine water fraction based on permittivity, as taught by Oikonomou, with the device of claim 8, in order to be able to measure the flow capacitance C.sub.m with sufficient accuracy in presence of the conductive leakage current, and as a result, d) allow accurate flow fraction calculations, without degradation of performance when the deposit volume fraction is small enough compared to the volume of the sensor. (Oikonomou [0035]).
Claim 26: Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio further in view of Potyrailo further in view of Greer teaches the method of claim 19, but fails to teach wherein the sensor error is associated with at least one of a deposit of a material on the capacitive sensor or an erosion of the capacitive sensor due to the fluid.
However, Oikonomou teaches detection of electrode errors wherein the error can be caused by deposits on the electrode [0003, 0028, 0061].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to detect an error, as taught by Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio further in view of Potyrailo further in view of Greer, including an error caused by deposits on the electrode as taught by Oikonomou in order to allow for real-time detection of deposits on the meter body, so that cleaning and, if needed, calibration or adjustments in the measurements may be performed at an early stage before any effect on the quality of the measurements (Oikonomou [0004]).
Claim 27: Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio further in view of Potyrailo further in view of Greer further in view of Oikonomou teaches the method of claim 26. Potyrailo teaches a display 26 used to output sensor data to an operator (col. 7, line 41- col. 8, line 18). Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio further in view of Potyrailo further in view of Greer fails to teach determining a location of the at least one of the deposit of the material on the capacitive sensor or the erosion of the capacitive sensor based on the sensor error; and operating the display device to provide a location interface corresponding to the location of the at least one of the deposit of the material or the location of the erosion of the capacitive sensor to the user.
However, Oikonomou teaches detection of electrode errors wherein the error can be caused by deposits on the electrode [0003, 0028, 0061].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to detect an error, as taught by Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio further in view of Potyrailo further in view of Greer, including an error caused by deposits on the electrode as taught by Oikonomou in order to allow for real-time detection of deposits on the meter body, so that cleaning and, if needed, calibration or adjustments in the measurements may be performed at an early stage before any effect on the quality of the measurements (Oikonomou [0004]).
Claim 29: Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio further in view of Potyrailo further in view of Greer teaches the method of claim 28. Calciolari teaches wherein the fluid property is a permittivity of the fluid ([0068] permittivity measurement circuit 8). Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio further in view of Potyrailo further in view of Greer fails to teach determining a water fraction of the fluid based on the permittivity of the fluid.
However, Oikonomou teaches using the detected permittivity to determine water fraction ([0040-0046]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine water fraction based on permittivity, as taught by Oikonomou, with the device of claim 28, in order to be able to measure the flow capacitance C.sub.m with sufficient accuracy in presence of the conductive leakage current, and as a result, d) allow accurate flow fraction calculations, without degradation of performance when the deposit volume fraction is small enough compared to the volume of the sensor. (Oikonomou [0035]).
Claims 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio further in view of Potyrailo further in view of Greer further in view of Okada et al. (US20190113407)
Claim 30: Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio further in view of Potyrailo further in view of Greer teaches the system of claim 2, but fails to teach wherein: the first electrode is a first inner electrode; the second electrode is a first outer electrode surrounding the first inner electrode along a first plane; the third electrode is a second inner electrode; and the fourth electrode is a second outer electrode surrounding the second inner electrode along a second plane.
However, Okada teaches a first inner electrode E31 and first outer electrode E32 in a first plane, and a second inner electrode E21 and second outer electrode E22 in a second plane. The arrangement of the electrodes does not provide any new or unexpected result.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the electrode arrangement as taught by Ishihara with the device of claim 2 for the obvious benefit of detecting capacitance and in order to use symmetric shapes to make processing easier ([0030] Okada).
Claim 31. Calciolari in view of Morel-Fatio further in view of Potyrailo further in view of Greer teaches the method of claim 19, but fails to teach wherein: the first electrode is a first inner electrode; the second electrode is a first outer electrode surrounding the first inner electrode along a first plane; the third electrode is a second inner electrode; and the fourth electrode is a second outer electrode surrounding the second inner electrode along a second plane.
However, Okada teaches a first inner electrode E31 and first outer electrode E32 in a first plane, and a second inner electrode E21 and second outer electrode E22 in a second plane. The arrangement of the electrodes does not provide any new or unexpected result.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the electrode arrangement as taught by Ishihara with the device of claim 19 for the obvious benefit of detecting capacitance and in order to use symmetric shapes to make processing easier ([0030] Okada).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JEAN MORELLO whose telephone number is (313)446-6583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/JEAN F MORELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2855 8/20/26
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights