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 16-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claims 16 and 17, “the cylinder” lack proper antecedent basis. In claim 17, “the container” lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-10, 13, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinz et al. (US 2023/0398467) in view of Gracey (US 4,184,359).
Regarding claim 1, Hinz et al. disclose a method comprising: receiving fluid for treatment and processing in a water/fluid treatment system 10; determining an amount of the gas in the fluid based on measurements (par. 0057); and causing a flow rate and/or pressure of an inert gas that is being applied to the fluid to be adjusted based on the determined amount of the gas (pars. 0058 and 0060).
Hinz et al. do not disclose the particular fluid and gas measuring steps of claim 1. Gracey discloses a method for measuring gas in fluid from a fluid flow line, the method comprising: introducing a fluid into a container 14 (via inlet pipe 16 and regulator 33); removing the fluid from the container (via valve 20); collecting gas released from the fluid in the container during a period of time (col. 3 lines 5-17, gas released from fluid is collected in upper portion of container 14); receiving measurements from sensors (30,32,18,41,42) characterizing physical properties of the fluid and environment, the received measurements including a volume of gas released from the fluid in the container during the period of time (col. 3 lines 22-30); determining an amount of the gas in the fluid based on the measurements (col. 3 lines 18-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have employed the gas amount measuring steps as taught by Gracey in the method of Hinz et al., because it would have provided a thorough and comprehensive measure of the gas in the liquid, including both dissolved and entrained gas.
Regarding claim 2, Gracey discloses that the measurements include a volume of the fluid that was removed from the container during the period of time (col. 3 lines 9-25, product of collection time and liquid flow rate to recorder 44 is volume of fluid removed through recorder 44). This would have necessarily have been a part of the combination with Hinz et al.
Regarding claim 3, Gracey discloses that the measurements further include a temperature of the fluid during the period of time (col. 2 lines 35-38), the temperature of the fluid being used for determining the amount of gas in the fluid (see Id. and col. 3 line 50 to col. 4 line 19, Pv is determined using measurement of temperature, and Pv is used for determining gas amount).
Gracey does not disclose computing an average temperature for the fluid over the period of teim and using the average temperature. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used the average temperature in the combination of Gracey with Hinz et al. because averaging measured values would have been known to provide a more accurate indication of the temperature dependent values and would have been known to have helped to eliminate errors caused by momentary fluctuations in temperature measurement and/or sensor noise.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Gracey discloses that the amount of gas in the fluid is determined as a gas to liquid ratio (col. 3 lines 18-25; col. 3 line 50 to col. 4 line 19, gas amount is determined as a gas concentration, which is a gas to liquid ratio and a percentage of gas to total fluid), and this would necessarily be a gas to water (GTW) ratio and/or percentage in the combination with Hinz et al. where the fluid is a process water.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Hinz et al. and Gracey does not disclose the GTW ratio being represented as cubic feet of gas per barrel. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have know that the concentration could easily be converted to any of various formats using the known mathematical calculations. As such, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have converted and represented the GTW ratio into any useful format, including cubic fee per barrel, in order to make it readily comparable to other measurements or useful for a particular environment application.
Regarding claim 9, Gracey discloses adjusting a rate at which fluid is provided and removed from the container so that an amount of fluid in the container remains substantially the same (col. 2 line 59 to col. 3 line 12).
Regarding claims 10 and 13, Gracey does not disclose that causing, collecting, receiving and determining steps are performed after flushing the container to remove residual air or fluid in the container. However, it has been generally known in the art to flush, clean and/or rinse measurement equipment before use in order to remove potential contaminants and ensure that the equipment functions properly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have flushed and rinsed the measuring equipment including the container of Gracey, any number of times to remove all previous fluid, before using it for the causing, collecting and receiving steps, in order to ensure that no contaminants effect its function.
Regarding claim 19, Hinz et al. disclose a system comprising: a deaeration system configured to receive water at a water treatment facility and treat the water with an inert gas to remove one or more gasses from the water (pars. 0055-0056) to output treated water into a pipeline 36 for downstream processing (par. 0051); an analyzer (sensor 52, see par. 0057) to determine a concentration of a gas in the treated water and used to cause the deaeration system to adjust a flow rate and/or pressure of the inert gas that is being used to treat the water in providing the treated water (pars. 0058 and 0060).
Hinz et al. do not disclose the analyzer being a gas to water (GTW) analyzer with the particular features in claim 19. Gracey discloses a gas to water (GTW) analyzer configured to determine an amount of one or more dissolved gasses in a treated water as a GTW ratio, wherein the GTW analyzer comprises: a controller 38; a container 14; sensors (30,32,41,42); one or more first valves 33 to receive the water and provide the water to the container 14 (see Figure); one or more second valves 20 to remove the water from the container, wherein: the container 14 is configured to collect the one or more gasses released from the treated water in the container for a period of time (col. 3 lines 5-17, gas released from fluid is collected in upper portion of container 14); and the controller 38 is configured to receive measurements from the sensors characterizing physical properties of the water and environment during the period of time and determine the GTW ratio based on the measurements (col. 3 lines 18-60, determines gas concentration which is a gas ratio).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have employed the gas analyzer taught by Gracey in the system of Hinz et al., because it would have provided a more thorough and comprehensive measure of the gas in the liquid, including both dissolved and entrained gas.
Regarding claim 20, Hinz et al. disclose system being capable of use such that the gas concentration ratio and/or the gas analyzer measurements are used to control a system of device to control a downstream process (par. 0058, controls supply of inert gas which controls the oxygen concentration of a downstream flow). Note that in the proposed combination of Gracey with Hinz et al., the gas analyzer measurements would be the GTW ratio measurements.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinz et al. (US 2023/0398467) in view of Gracey (US 4,184,359), as set forth above with regard to claim 1, and further in view of Cao et al. (CN 111609724 A).
Regarding claim 14, Gracey discloses the container 14 being a eudiometer (see Figure, collects gas and measures volume using liquid level measurements with sensors 30,32), but does not disclose it being graduated. It has been known to put graduated sight windows on liquid tanks in order to be able to easily view the liquid level. For example, Cao discloses a liquid container 20 with a graduated sight glass window 17. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated a graduated sight glass window, as taught by Cao et al., in the container of Gracey, making it a graduated eudiometer, because it would have allowed a user to easily verify that the container has liquid and is functioning as expected.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gracey (US 4,184,359) in view of Cao et al. (CN 111609724 A).
Regarding claim 15, Gracey discloses a system comprising: an analyzer comprising: a controller 38; a eudiometer 14; one or more first valves 33 configured to provide water received from a pipeline 12 to the eudiometer 14 to fill up the eudiometer 14 (col. 2 lines 49-62); one or more second valves 20 configured to remove the water from the eudiometer 14 (col. 2 lines 19-20); sensors 30,32,41,42 to measure physical properties of the water and an environment in which the analyzer is used to provide measurements during a period of time, the measurements including a volume of gas released from the water in the eudiometer during the period of time (col. 3 lines 5-25); and wherein the controller is configured to determine an amount of the gas in the water as a gas to water (GTW) ratio based on the measurements (col. 3 lines 22-30).
Gracey discloses the container 14 being a eudiometer (see Figure, collects gas and measures volume using liquid level measurements with sensors 30,32), but does not disclose it being graduated. It has been known to put graduated sight windows on liquid tanks in order to be able to easily view the liquid level. For example, Cao discloses a liquid container 20 with a graduated sight glass window 17. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated a graduated sight glass window, as taught by Cao et al., in the container of Gracey, making it a graduated eudiometer, because it would have allowed a user to easily verify that the container has liquid and is functioning as expected.
Gracey does not explicitly disclose the first valve and the second valve being configured to be controlled and operate in response to the controller. However, Official Notice is taken that it has been known to use a controller to control the operation of valves. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used the controller in Gracey to control the operation of the valves in order to provide for more efficient and precise valve operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 11 and 12 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.
Claims 16-18 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 and to correct for the objections set forth above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 4, neither Gracey nor Hinz et al. teach or suggest the measurements on which the determining is based including an ambient air temperature, a vapor pressure of the fluid in the container, and an atmospheric pressure during the period of time.
With regard to claim 11, neither Gracey nor Hinz et al. teach or suggest the flushing comprising causing a one or more first valves to receive the fluid from an upstream valve so that the fluid flows to the container, and causing one or more second valves to provide the fluid to the container to fill up the container.
With regard to claim 16, neither Gracey nor Hinz et al. teach or suggest the controller being further configured to determine a first flow rate of the water into the container and a second flow rate of the water from the container, and adjust one of the first and second flow rates so that an amount of water in the container remains about a same during the period of time. Gracey teaches determining and using only a flow rate of liquid from the container.
With regard to claim 17, neither Gracey nor Hinz et al. teach or suggest the measurements on which the determining is based including an ambient air temperature, a vapor pressure of the fluid in the container, and an atmospheric pressure during the period of time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note that Guieze et al. (US 6,041,668) and Fujiwara et al. (US 5,036,697) both disclose methods and systems that measure gas amount in liquid.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL M WEST whose telephone number is (571)272-2139. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5:30 pm (CT).
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.
/PAUL M. WEST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights