DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-18 are pending in the present application.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Canada on 1/31/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CA3188132 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-14 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what is included or excluded by the phrase “a substantially consistent angle”. Furthermore, the Examiner can find no description in the Applicant’s specification that would allow for one of ordinary skill in the art to ascertain what is included or excluded by the phrase. For the purpose of examination, the phrase has been read as “a consistent angle”.
Regarding claim 5, it is unclear what is included or excluded by the phrase “generally shaped as a Parshall flume”. Furthermore, the Examiner can find no description in the Applicant’s specification that would allow for one of ordinary skill in the art to ascertain what is included or excluded by the phrase. For the purpose of examination, the phrase has been read as “shaped as a Parshall flume”.
Regarding claims 2-4 and 6-14, these claims are rejected for failing to remedy the rejection of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 4, 11, 12, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon (KR 10-2010-0098360, hereinafter Kwon).
Regarding claim 1, Kwon teaches an apparatus for supporting inferential measurement of open channel flow of a fluid (see Fig. 1 and 2, all elements; see also translation page 3, para. 2, apparatus allows inferential measurement of open channel flow of a fluid), the apparatus comprising: a collection trough adapted to receive the fluid (see annotated Fig. 2, collection trough receives fluid); a measurement channel adapted to receive the fluid from the collection trough (see annotated Fig. 2, measurement channel receives the fluid from the collection trough), the measurement channel having a bottom at a consistent angle with ground (see annotated Fig. 2, measurement channel bottom is flat and thus considered to have a consistent angle relative to ground); one or more baffles connected to the measurement channel (see Fig. 2, baffle 12), the one or more baffles adapted to adjust the velocity of the process fluid to sub-critical flow (see annotated Fig. 2 and translation page 4, para. 5, buffer plate (baffle) 12 considered by the Examiner to reduce the flow rate of the fluid to sub-critical flow even if the inlet overflows (super-critical flow) relative to the collection trough); and a level measuring system connected to the measurement channel downstream of the one or more baffles (see Fig. 2, level measuring system 20 connected to the measurement channel downstream of the baffle 12), the level measuring system adapted to send and receive one or more signals through the process fluid in the measurement channel to determine the depth of the process fluid (see Fig. 2, sensing unit 21; see also translation page 4, para. 8-9, level measuring system 20 adapted to send and receive signals via the level sensing unit 21, configured as a capacitive level sensor).
Kwon fails to teach that the fluid is a process fluid; wherein the collection trough is adapted to receive the process fluid from a unit process.
However, Kwon does teach that the device may be configured to measure leakage from a pipe (see translation page 1, para. 2).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Kwon so as to monitor any fluid that may be leaked from a unit process utilizing the device of Kwon. This would allow for accurate measure of fluid leaked from a unit process pipe with minimized error as suggested by Kwon (see translation page 1, para. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
544
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Kwon above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Kwon teaches that the bottom of the measurement channel is generally shaped as any one of: a U-shape, a V-shape; or flat (see Fig. 1 and annotated Fig. 2 above, bottom of the measurement channel is flat).
Regarding claim 11, Kwon above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Kwon teaches that the level measuring system is any one of: a radar level measuring system; an ultrasonic level measuring system; a capacitance level measuring system; or a camera-based level measuring system (see Fig. 2, sensing unit 21; see also translation page 4, para. 8-9, level measuring system 20 adapted to send and receive signals via the level sensing unit 21, configured as a capacitive level sensor).
Regarding claim 12, Kwon above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Kwon above fails to specifically teach that the level measuring system comprises a detector adapted to send and receive the one or more signals (see Fig. 1 and 2, level measuring system 20 includes a detector to send and receive the one or more signals to the sensing unit 21).
Kwon fails to specifically teach that the detector is selectively connected to one or more support brackets fixed to the measurement channel so as to permit adjustment of a height of the detector relative to the measurement channel.
However, Kwon does teach that the level measuring system is calibrated such that the liquid level is correlated to the flow rate (see translation page 3, para. 7 through page 4, para. 1).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Kwon to include adjustable support brackets. This would allow for accurate placement of the sensing unit of Kwon using well-known techniques including adjustable brackets.
Regarding claim 15, Kwon teaches a method of measuring open channel flow of a fluid (see Fig. 1 and 2, all elements; see also translation page 3, para. 2, apparatus allows inferential measurement of open channel flow of a fluid), the method comprising steps of: collecting a flow of the fluid by a collection trough (see annotated Fig. 2, collection trough receives fluid); directing the fluid to one or more baffles (see Fig. 2, fluid directed towards baffle 12); contacting the fluid with the one or more baffles to reduce the velocity of the fluid to sub-critical flow (see annotated Fig. 2 and translation page 4, para. 5, buffer plate (baffle) 12 considered by the Examiner to reduce the flow rate of the fluid to sub-critical flow even if the inlet overflows (super-critical flow) relative to the collection trough); directing the fluid to a measurement channel (see annotated Fig. 2, measurement channel receives the fluid from the collection trough); measuring the depth of the fluid in the measurement channel by a level measuring system (see Fig. 2, sensing unit 21; see also translation page 4, para. 8-9, level measuring system 20 adapted to send and receive signals via the level sensing unit 21, configured as a capacitive level sensor); and inferring the flow rate of the fluid by a correlation algorithm using the depth of the fluid in the measurement channel and an angle of the bottom of the measurement channel relative to ground (see translation page 3, para. 7 through page 4, para. 1, flow rate determined via a depth to fluid flow correlation algorithm which is determined experimentally, thus considered by the Examiner as including any affects due to the angle of the measurement channel relative to the ground).
Kwon fails to teach that the fluid is a process fluid from a unit process.
However, Kwon does teach that the device may be configured to measure leakage from a pipe (see translation page 1, para. 2).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the method of Kwon so as to monitor any fluid that may be leaked from a unit process utilizing the device of Kwon. This would allow for accurate measure of fluid leaked from a unit process pipe with minimized error as suggested by Kwon (see translation page 1, para. 2).
Regarding claim 16, Kwon above teaches all of the limitations of claim 15.
Furthermore, Kwon teaches that the method further comprising the steps of: manually measuring the flow rate of the process fluid in the measurement channel; adjusting one or more parameters of the correlation algorithm so that the inferred flow rate of the process fluid more closely approximates the manually measured flow rate of the process fluid (see translation page 3, para. 7 through page 4, para. 1, flow rate determined via a depth to fluid flow correlation algorithm which is determined experimentally, thus considered by the Examiner as allowing for accurate correlation of the algorithm)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2, 3, 5-10, 13, and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 5-10, 13, and 14, Kwon represents the best art of record. However, Kwon fails to encompass all of the limitations of dependent claims 2, 3, 5-10, 13, and 14.
Specifically, Kwon fails to critically teach that the collection trough is curved, and the collection trough comprises clips and/or hooks to removably connect the collection trough to an edge of the unit process (claim 2); OR wherein an angle of the measurement channel relative to ground is selectively adjustable by a pin connecting the measurement channel to the collection trough (claim 3); OR the measurement channel is shaped as a Parshall flume (claim 5); OR the measurement channel comprising a spray deflector plate (claim 6); OR the apparatus further comprising a second collection trough adapted to shield the level measuring system from spray from the unit process and collect and return the spray to the collection trough (claim 7); OR wherein the shape of the measurement channel is selectively adjustable by an insert adapted to fit in the measurement channel (claim 8); OR wherein the baffles are removably connected to the measurement channel (claim 9); OR wherein an angle of the one or more baffles is adjustable relative to the process fluid (claim 10); OR the apparatus further comprising one or more anchor posts connected to the level measuring system (claim 13); OR the apparatus further comprising one or more lifting posts connected to the level measuring system (claim 14).
Hence the best prior art or record fails to teach the invention as set forth in dependent claims 2, 3, 5-10, 13, and 14 and the examiner can find no teachings for an apparatus for supporting inferential measurement of open channel flow of a process fluid as particularly claimed and including the above limitation, nor reasons within the cited prior art or on his own to combine the elements of these references other than the applicant's own reasoning to fully encompass the current pending claims.
Claims 17 and 18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Kwon represents the best art of record. However, Kwon fails to encompass all of the limitations of dependent claims 17 and 18.
Specifically, Kwon fails to critically teach that the method further comprising the steps of: adjusting the angle of the measurement channel relative to ground to a second angle; measuring a second depth of the process fluid by the level measuring system; inferring a second flow rate of the process fluid by the correlation algorithm using the second depth of the process fluid in the measurement channel; comparing the inferred flow rates (claim 17); OR the method further comprising the step of: using the inferred flow rate in a process control system to control one or more other process variables (claim 18).
Hence the best prior art or record fails to teach the invention as set forth in dependent claims 17 and 18 and the examiner can find no teachings for a method of measuring open channel of a process fluid as particularly claimed and including the above limitations, nor reasons within the cited prior art or on his own to combine the elements of these references other than the applicant's own reasoning to fully encompass the current pending claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL T WOODWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0704. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Patrick Assouad can be reached at (571) 272-2210. 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.
/NATHANIEL T WOODWARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855