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 .
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the apparatus of claims 12,14,16 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
As to claim 4, what is the “desired sensitivity”? No value is provided. No criteria is provided such that one may deem a particular sensitivity to be “desired”. No example is provided, no reference provides such, no manner of experimentation is hinted. Where is one of ordinary skill to turn?
As to claim 4, what makes for a point that is “selected”. For a selection, points much exist prior to the selection, but no points are presented.
As to claim 4, points to be “linearly increasing”? What feature is “linear”? What is “increasing”?
As to claim 4, this feature seems to be contradicted by the foreign application, which states sensitivity increases as the IMU is approaches the distal end. As such, claim 4 is not enabling.
Claims 3,5,12,14,15,16,19 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.
As to claim 3, what do "MEMS" and “NEMS” dimensionally limit any structure to in each of claims 3? Consider that different publications/patents provide different dimensional ranges for (different) structural elements in "MEMS" for their particular publications/patents, but no such description (i.e., range and identified structural component) is provided in the instant application. What structural and dimensional limitation(s) would one of ordinary skill attach to any particular claimed structure to account for "MEMS" and “NEMS”? The terms "MEMS" and “NEMS” resides claim 3, but the meaning of such is undefined. The specification does not provide for any dimension of a single component at all. In contrast, many different patents/publications provide different ranges for the same terms MEMS/NEMS. For example, note that Pat Pub 2009/0108193 relates (Para 43) micromechanical/MEMS structures to a range of 0.1 um – 1 mm, Pat Pub 2006/0261032 relates (Para 40) micromechanical/MEMS structures ”in the range of 0.01 microns to a few millimeters", Pat 6,679,055 relates (lines 39-43, col. 1) micromechanical/MEMS to 0.1 micron to 1000 microns" and Pat Pub 2014/0264900 GMBh relates (Para 3) micromechanical/MEMS to components of 1 - 100 micrometers (0.001 to 0.1 mm), all collectively providing for different distinct ranges. How is the public to recognize what range Applicant's claimed limitations MEMS and NEMS might relate to? Different publications provide those different ranges. Understand, the difficulty here is in the lack of any dimensional meaning (range?) of the claimed terms MEMs and NEMs in Applicant's specification, including lack of relating such range to a single particular structural component, or even just the lack of a dimension associated with a single structural component. What is Applicant's range? Is there any support for such? Does Applicant have a dimension for 1 component?
As to claim 5, “Units” (line 3) is not consistent with there being “one” (line 2) Unit.
As to claim 5, is the “one or more” (line 2) in addition to the “an Inertial Measurement Unit” (line 3, claim 1) for a total of 2, or is this claim limited to “one”? The claim is internally inconsistent.
As to claim 12, how many fins are in this claim? There are “fins” (line 2), “one” (line 6), medially located “fin” (line 9) and a “second lateral static fin” (line 11) for a total of at least 5. Is such Applicant’s count? If not, what does each and every fin of Applicant’s count refer to in any drawing. Such is necessary so that one of ordinary skill may recognize exactly what is connect to what so that he may comprehend metes and bounds of this claim.
As to claim 12, is the “one” (line 6) in addition to the “said static fins” (line 4)? Consider that they all have the same name tag.
As to claim 12, “said static fins” (line 4) is not consistent with “or being configured to be static” (italics added, line 3). Do lines 2-5 introduce “vibrating” (line 3) fins, and then remove those same fins?
As to claim 12, are the “one or more static fins” (line 6) in addition to “fins” (line 2)? The claim per se suggests yes, the specification seems to repeat the claim, but Applicant may have a different view considering the lack of any meaningful drawing as a reference. What is Applicant’s view? Does “one or more static fins” (line 6) introduce at least “one” (line 6) fin that is in addition to “fins” (line 2)?
As to claim 12, how is a plane “parallel” to an angular displacement? What defines a plane such that it also includes an angular displacement? Is this yet to be defined relationship in any figure?
As to claim 14, how many fins are in this claim? There are “fins” (line 2), “one” (line 6), medially located “fin” (line 9) and a “second lateral static fin” (line 11) for a total of at least 5. Is such Applicant’s count? If not, what does each and every fin of Applicant’s count refer to in any drawing. Such is necessary so that one of ordinary skill may recognize exactly what is connect to what so that he may comprehend metes and bounds of this claim.
As to claim 14, is the “one” (line 6) in addition to the “said static fins” (line 4)? Consider that they all have the same name tag.
As to claim 14, “said static fins” (line 4) is not consistent with “or being configured to be static” (italics added, line 3). Do lines 2-5 introduce “vibrating” (line 3) fins, and then remove those same fins?
As to claim 14, are the “one or more static fins” (line 6) in addition to “fins” (line 2)? The claim per se suggests yes, the specification seems to repeat the claim, but Applicant may have a different view considering the lack of any meaningful drawing as a reference. What is Applicant’s view? Does “one or more static fins” (line 6) introduce at least “one” (line 6) fin that is in addition to “fins” (line 2)?
As to claim 14, how is a plane “parallel” to an angular displacement? What defines a plane such that it also includes an angular displacement? Is this yet to be defined relationship in any figure?
As to claim 14, is “a medially located vibrating fin” (line 8) the same as “a medially located vibrating fin” (line 10), causing the same fin to be claimed twice. How many medially located vibrating fins is the claim limited to - - at least one, at least two?
As to claims 15,16, “optionally,” is indefinite. As there is a comma, it’s not clear how far the option extends in each of the claims.
As to claim 16, how many fins are in this claim? There are “fins” (line 2), “one” (line 6), “a medially located fin” (line 8), “a first lateral static fine” (line 9), “a medially located vibrating fin” (line 9) and a “second lateral static fin” (line 10) for a total of at least 7. Is such Applicant’s count? If not, what does each and every fin of Applicant’s count refer to in any drawing. Such is necessary so that one of ordinary skill may recognize exactly what is connect to what so that he may comprehend metes and bounds of this claim. Tagging the same component by the same name may be what’s causing the difficulty.
As to claim 16, is the “one” (line 5) in addition to the “static” (line 4” “fins” (line 3)? Consider that they all have the same name tag.
As to claim 16, are the “one or more static fins” (line 5) in addition to the “static” (line 4) “fins” (line 3)? The claim per se suggests yes, the specification seems to repeat the claim, but Applicant may have a different view considering the lack of any meaningful drawing as a reference. What is Applicant’s view? Does “one or more static fins” (line 5) introduce at least “one” (line 6) static fin that is in addition to static “fins” (line 3)?
As to claim 16, how is a plane “parallel” to an angular displacement? What defines a plane such that it also includes an angular displacement? Is this yet to be defined relationship in any figure?
As to claim 16, is “a medially located vibrating fin” (line 8) the same as “a medially located vibrating fin” (line 9), causing the same fin to be claimed twice. Again, us of the same name tag for (potentially different) structural components causes indefiniteness. How many medially located vibrating fins is the claim limited to - - at least one, at least two?
As to claim 19, “optionally” (everywhere) is indefinite. Is such the case, or not?
As to claim 19, is the “a third signal” (line 2 from last) that which was already optionally claimed in line 6 from last?
Claim(s) 1-6,17,18,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR ‘551 (listed 1449) in view of Halliburton ‘995 (listed 1449).
KR 551 teaches an apparatus for measuring, viscosity or one or more rheological properties of fluids as a function of at least one signal, said apparatus comprising: at least a member 110 with at least an
As to claims 1,2,3,5,6,17,18,20, it would have been obvious to employ an IMU in place of the accelerometer 131, as Halliburton teaches use of IMU to effectively measure properties of a liquid. IMU accelerometers include those inertially based.
As to claim 4, the IMU is mounted per selection of location; not randomly so.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR ‘551 (listed 1449) in view of Halliburton ‘995 (listed 1449) as called for above, and further in view of Morita et al JP 590115838.
As o claim 19, it would have been obvious to use air as a reference for accurate viscometer measurements of liquid.
“CONSTITUTION: A housing case 31 is fixed to a tube 1 through which a high pressure fluid such as coal slurry and a vibration rod 34 with a rectangular-plate- shaped vibrator 34a at the tip thereof is inserted thereinto. A vibration coil 36 and a displacement sensor 37 are provided at the upper end of the rod 34. As the vibration rod 34 is vibrated with the vibration coil 36 perpendicular to the axial direction thereof 34 and so that a seal member 32 constitutes a node, the vibration is damped with a viscous resistance of the fluid and the amplitude E thereof is detected with a displacement sensor 37. The ratio is determined between the amplitude E and the reference amplitude value Ea when the vibrator 34a is vibrated in the air on the same condition and the viscosity is calculated by a specified equation. Thus, the seal member does not disturb the vibration thereby enabling the measurement of the viscosity of a high pressure fluid at a high accuracy.”
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Igreja 6,250,136 makes reference to cooling fins 2, such projecting horizontally, and not of the member 4,3,23,5.
Claims 7-11,13,21-23 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT R RAEVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2204. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon to Fri from 8am to 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ROBERT R RAEVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855