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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nimberger et al (US # 6,485,175). The Nimberger reference discloses a gas meter (Col. 4, ll. 46-67), comprising: a meter body (36F) forming an interior cavity (37f) with a longitudinal axis (Figs. 8 & 9); a temperature sensor (93f) disposed in the interior cavity to measure temperature of fluid proximate the longitudinal axis (Col. 5, ll. 1-10; Col. 8, line 56 to col. 10, line 39).
With respect to claims 2-5, see Figures 8 & 9.
With respect to claim 6, Nimberger discloses that the tube (36f) is at least partially filled with air (Col. 6, ll. 40-41; Col. 7, ll. 58-61)1.
With respect to claims 7-9, the temperature sensor is embedded in thermo-conductive resin (Col. 9, ll. 47-56).
With respect to claim 11, the tube in the various embodiments is comprised of at least two materials that exhibit different rates of thermal conductivity (Col. 2, ll. 55-66).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nimberger et al (US # 6,485,175) in view of Yada et al (US # 4,404,638). The Nimberger reference discloses that the meter (12) that lines upstream (Fig. 1) of the temperature sensor (20) is a differential pressure sensor, instead of an impeller driven sensor, but the use of impeller sensors in conjunction with temperature sensors to monitor flow rate were well known as shown by the example of the Yada reference (Col. 2, ll. 45-61), and it would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner to substitute the impeller (1) flow meter of Yada for the differential pressure flow meter (12) of Nimberger motivated by its art recognized suitability for its intended use.
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yada et al (US # 4,404,638) in view of Nimberger et al (US # 6,485,175). The Yada reference disclose a gas meter (Col. 1, ll. 6-12) comprising a meter body (3) with a longitudinal axis (inherent, as the fluid is obviously flowing inside of a pipe), impellers (1) disposed in the interior body (3), and a temperature sensor (5). However, the Yada reference does not disclose the specifics of the generic temperature sensor (5).
The Nimberger reference discloses a temperature sensor (20) as part of gas metering system (Fig. 1) comprising of a temperature sensor (93f) inside of a tube (Figs. 8 & 9). It would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner to use the temperature probe (20) of Nimberger as the temperature sensor (5) of Yada motivated by its art recognized suitability for its intended use.
With respect to claims 13, 16, & 17, Nimberger discloses that the tube (36f) is at least partially filled with air as an insulator (Col. 6, ll. 40-41; Col. 7, ll. 58-61)2.
With respect to claim 14, the temperature sensor is embedded in thermo-conductive resin (Col. 9, ll. 47-56).
With respect to claim 18, see Figure 8 of Nimberger.
With respect to claim 19, although the controlling circuitry of the temperature sensor of Nimberger is located in the flowmeter housing (12), relocating the electronic control circuitry for the temperature sensor inside of the tube itself (as there is plenty of unused empty space in the air filled region above the sensor) would have been a mere relocation of parts that would not have affected the operation of the device, and would have been obvious for the ordinary practioner to try3.
With respect to claim 20, Nimberger disclose that the temperature sensor (20) is located upstream of the flowmeter (12). A protruding temperature sensor, such as the one shown in Nimberger, could not be located exactly where the impeller of Yada was, as the impeller (1) shown (Fig. 1) takes up the entire interior space of the pipe, and the protruding temperature sensor of Nimberger would have had to have been located either immediately upstream or downstream of the impeller, as there were only two possible locations for the temperature sensor that were plausible, and it would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner to try either location.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other references cited buy not applied show the general state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDY W GIBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2103. The examiner can normally be reached Tue-Friday 10AM-6PM.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2275. 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.
RANDY W. GIBSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2856
/RANDY W GIBSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
1 The insulative air-filled space seems to be germane to the majority of the embodiments disclosed, including the embodiment shown in Figures 8 & 9. Note that DE 20230130707 A1 also states that it is normal for there to be an air gap between the temperature sensor and the sides of the tubular housing.
2 The insulative air-filled space seems to be germane to the majority of the embodiments disclosed, including the embodiment shown in Figures 8 & 9.
3 In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). See, also, MPEP § 2144.04, subsection (VI).