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 .
Response to Amendment
This Action is in response to Applicant’s Reply of September 4, 2026.
Claims 1-19, 32, 40, and 51 have been cancelled.
Applicant’s cancellation of claim 51 and arguments overcome the previously presented objection to the drawings.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcame most of the previously presented 35 USC 112(b) rejections. Those that remain outstanding are listed below.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 30 overcomes the previously presented 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection thereof but does not place the claim in condition for allowance for the reasons set forth below.
Applicant’s has indicated that claim 55 has been amended to include subject matter of claims 32 and 40 however no such amendments are present in claim 55 as presented with the Reply of September 4, 2026. Such amendments would overcome the previously presented, and current, 35 USC 103 rejection thereof but would not place the claim in condition for allowance for the reasons set forth below with respect to claim 30.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that Kim does not disclose a flow conditioner but rather a heat exchanger.
While Kim is directed to a heat exchanger and not a generic flow conditioner, the structure of the heat exchanger does function to condition or change the flow of fluid therein. Therefore, it is considered a flow conditioner.
Applicant has argued that Kim is silent as to the claimed critical flare angle.
The previous Office Action acknowledged that Kim did not disclose the claimed flare angle. This angle was, and still is, considered to be obvious.
Applicant has argued that the original specification provides benefits or criticality to the claimed critical flare angle.
The benefits referenced by Applicant in the Reply of September 4, 2026 can be found in paragraphs [0003]-[0005], [0020], [0069], [and [0071] of the published application however none of these benefits are directly related to the critical flare angle. The benefits are generic benefits of the invention as a whole or are listed as benefits of different parameters. As such, these benefits cannot be used to show that the value of the critical flare angle would not be obvious.
It is noted that paragraph [0069] does indicate a separate benefit of the claimed critical flare angle, eliminating or reducing undesired boundary layer separations. As such, a reference to Cheng (US 5,165,452) has been added to show that the Examiner’s position that this value would be obvious remains valid.
The Examiner notes that Applicant has failed to argue the Examiner’s position that it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to have modified Kim to include the limitations of claims 40-43 and 54. Therefore, Applicant is considered to have conceded this point with regard to pending claim 40-43 and 54. MPEP 2144.03(C); In re Gunther, 125 F.2d 1020, 1022 (C.C.P.A. 1942); In re Chevenard, 139 F.2d 711, 712 (C.C.P.A. 1943).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: connection elements in claims 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 38, 52, 54, and 55.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” and thus are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: deflection means in claims 30, 31, 33-35, 54, and 55 and guide means in claims 33 and 34.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 30, 31, 33-39, 41-50, 52-58 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 claims 30 and 55: Both claims require “a second of two diffuser ends” however there remains no first end. It is not possible to have a second of an element without there being a first. It is suggested that claims 30 and 55 be amended to require that the diffuser have a first and second end and then the second flow opening would be located in the second end.
Regarding claims 31, 33-39, 41-50, 52-54, and 56-58: These claims are considered indefinite due to their dependence on claim 30 or 55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 30, 31, 33-39, 41-46, 50, and 53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0123683, Kim) in view of Cheng (US 5,165,452).
Regarding claim 30: Kim discloses a flow conditioner 100 – Fig 1 for a fluid flowing in a pipeline, comprising:
a diffuser 120,
having a lumen Fig 1 surrounded by a funnel shaped wall Fig 1 extending from a first flow opening Fig 1110 to a second flow opening Fig 1 located in a second diffuser-end Fig 1, and
having a guide system 140 arranged within the lumen Fig 1;
a flow rectifier 130,
having a lumen Fig 1 surrounded by a wall Fig 1 and extending from a first flow opening Fig 1 located in a first flow rectifier-end Fig 1 to a second flow opening Fig 1 located in a second flow rectifier end Fig 1, and
having at least one disc shaped flow obstruction 131a; and
a converging section end to the right of 130 in Fig 1 having a lumen Fig 1 surrounded by a funnel shaped wall Fig 1 and extending from a first flow opening Fig 1 located in a first converging section-end Fig 1 to a second flow opening Fig 1 located in a second converging section-end Fig 1;
wherein diffuser, flow rectifier and converging section are connected fluidically in series to form a flow path extending from the first flow opening of the diffuser to the second flow opening of the converging section Fig 1;
wherein the guide system has at least one sleeve shaped first deflection means 141, as well as a plurality of mutually separated connecting elements 142 each connected both with the first deflection means as well as also with the wall of the diffuser Fig 1, 2;
wherein the guide system is so formed and so positioned that the first deflection means is arranged spaced from the wall of the diffuser and coaxially with the lumen of the diffuser Fig 1;
wherein the guide system and the wall of the diffuser are so embodied that there is a critical flare angle Φ1 of the diffuser, measured as a greatest angle between a lateral surface element of the deflection means and an opposite, or nearest, surface element of an inner surface of the wall of the diffuser facing the lumen of the diffuser Fig 1; and
wherein the second flow cross section of the diffuser amounts to is greater the first flow cross section of the diffuser Fig 1.
Kim discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except the flare angle being less than 8° and the second flow cross section of the diffuser amounts to greater than 1.4-times the first flow cross section of the diffuser; or
wherein a flow cross section of a largest flow opening of the first flow obstruction amounts to not less than 0.1-times the first flow cross section of the diffuser or no more than 0.3 times the first flow cross section of the diffuser.
Cheng discloses a flow conditioner with a diffuser 10 with a guide system 40 located therein Fig 6. The critical flare angle between the wall of the diffuser and the guide system is no more than 7.5 degrees 4:53-61.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kim so that the critical flare angle was no more than 8[Symbol font/0xB0], as taught by Cheng, in order to have avoided flow separation claim 3.
Kim, as modified, discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except the second flow cross section of the diffuser amounts to greater than 1.4-times the first flow cross section of the diffuser; and/or
wherein a flow cross section of a largest flow opening of the first flow obstruction amounts to not less than 0.1-times the first flow cross section of the diffuser and/or no more than 0.3 times the first flow cross section of the diffuser.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Kim so that the second flow cross section of the diffuser amounts to greater than 1.4-times the first flow cross section of the diffuser and the a flow cross section of a largest flow opening of the first flow obstruction amounts to not less than 0.1-times the first flow cross section of the diffuser or no more than 0.3 times the first flow cross section of the diffuser, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
The test for obviousness of a result-effective variable is not whether or not this variable is recognized in the art applied. Such recognition would potentially lead to the variable being rejected as being anticipated by the reference. The test for obviousness of a result-effective variable is whether or not one or ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this variable could be changed or altered, and the results of this change, without deviating from the intended purpose of the reference. Further, the variable must not have any associated criticality in the instant application.
In this case, the instant specification gives no criticality to the amount of how bigger the second flow cross section of the diffuser is greater than the first flow cross section of the diffuser and the value of the size of the flow cross section of the flow opening of the first flow obstruction compared to the first flow cross section of the diffuser. Therefore, the these values can be said to be obvious.
Regarding claim 31: Wherein the guide system is so formed and so positioned that one or more subsections of the flow path of the flow conditioner extend through the first deflection means Fig 1 of Kim; or
wherein the guide system is so formed and so positioned that one or more subsections of the flow path of the flow conditioner extend between the first deflection means and the wall of the diffuser Fig 1 of Kim; or
wherein the guide system is so formed and so positioned that, in each case, a subsection of the flow path of the flow conditioner extends between two neighboring connecting elements connected, in each case, with the first deflection means and the wall of the diffuser Fig 1 of Kim.
Regarding claim 33: Wherein a principal axis of inertia of the first deflection means, corresponding to an at least fourfold rotation axis of the first deflection means, coincides with a principal axis of inertia of the lumen of the diffuser, corresponding to an at least fourfold rotation axis of the lumen of the diffuser Fig 1 of Kim – same structure performs the same function, see below; or
wherein the guide system is rotationally symmetric with respect to an at least threefold rotation axis Fig 1, 3 of Kim; or
wherein at least three connecting elements are formed each as a flat or symmetrically profiled, guide means Fig 1-3 of Kim; or
wherein a vane ring is formed by means of the connecting elements Fig 1-3 of Kim.
“When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 34: Wherein the guide system has:
a sleeve shaped second deflection means 141 – Fig 2 of Kim, as well as
a plurality of mutually separated connecting elements 142 – Fig 2 of Kim, in each case, connected both with the second deflection means as well as also with the first deflection means Fig 2 of Kim or, in each case, embodied as guide means or arranged equidistantly along a peripheral line of the lateral surface of the second deflection means Fig 2 of Kim; and
wherein the guide system is so formed and so positioned that the second deflection means is arranged spaced from both the wall of the diffuser as well as also from the first deflection means and coaxially with the lumen of the diffuser Fig 2 of Kim.
Regarding claim 35: Wherein the guide system is so formed and so positioned that one or more subsections of the flow path of the flow conditioner extend through the second deflection means Fig 1 of Kim; or
wherein the guide system is so formed and so positioned that one or more subsections of the flow path of the flow conditioner extend between the second deflection means and the first deflection means Fig 1 of Kim; or
wherein the guide system is so formed and so positioned that a subsection of the flow path of the flow conditioner extends between two neighboring connecting elements connected, in each case, with the first deflection means and the second deflection means Fig 1 of Kim; or
Regarding claim 36: Wherein a first flow cross section of the converging section provided by the first flow opening of the converging section is greater than a second flow cross section of the converging section provided by the second flow opening of the converging section Fig 1 of Kim.
Regarding claim 37: Wherein the first flow cross section of the converging section is the same size as the second flow cross section of the diffuser Fig 1 of Kim; or
wherein the first flow cross section of the diffuser is the same size as the second flow cross section of the converging section Fig 1 of Kim.
Regarding claim 38: Wherein a principal axis of inertia of the lumen of the diffuser coincides with an imaginary longitudinal, or flow, axis of the flow conditioner imaginarily connecting an center of gravity of the first flow opening of the diffuser and an center of gravity of the second flow opening of the converging section Fig 1 of Kim; or
wherein an longitudinal, or flow, axis of the lumen of the diffuser imaginarily connecting an center of gravity of the first flow opening of the diffuser and an center of gravity of the second flow opening of the diffuser coincides with an imaginary longitudinal, or flow, axis of the flow conditioner imaginarily connecting an center of gravity of the first flow opening of the diffuser and an center of gravity of the second flow opening of the converging section Fig 1 of Kim; or
wherein a principal axis of inertia of the lumen of the converging section coincides with an imaginary longitudinal, or flow, axis of the flow conditioner imaginarily connecting an center of gravity of the first flow opening of the diffuser and an center of gravity of the second flow opening of the converging section Fig 1 of Kim; or
wherein an longitudinal, or flow, axis of the lumen of the converging section imaginarily connecting an center of gravity of the first flow opening of the converging section and an center of gravity of the second flow opening of the converging section coincides with an imaginary longitudinal-, or flow, axis of the flow conditioner imaginarily connecting an center of gravity of the first flow opening of the diffuser and an center of gravity of the second flow opening of the converging section Fig 1 of Kim; or
wherein an longitudinal, or flow, axis of the lumen of the flow rectifier imaginarily connecting an center of gravity of the first flow opening of the flow rectifier and an center of gravity of the second flow opening of the flow rectifier coincides with an imaginary longitudinal-, or flow, axis of the flow conditioner imaginarily connecting an center of gravity of the first flow opening of the diffuser and an center of gravity of the second flow opening of the converging section Fig 1 of Kim.
Regarding claim 39: Wherein a first flow cross section of the diffuser provided by the first flow opening of the diffuser is less than a second flow cross section of the diffuser provided by the second flow opening of the diffuser Fig 1 of Kim.
Regarding claim 41: Kim, as modified, discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except an installed length of the flow conditioner, measured as a separation between the first diffuser-end and the second converging section end, amounts to no more than 15 times a square root of the first flow cross section of the diffuser or no more than 12 times a hydraulic diameter of the first flow opening of the diffuser or a nominal diameter of the flow rectifier amounts to no more than one 5 times the hydraulic diameter of the first flow opening of the diffuser, or the nominal diameter of the flow rectifier.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Kim so that an installed length of the flow conditioner, measured as a separation between the first diffuser-end and the second converging section end, amounts to no more than 15 times a square root of the first flow cross section of the diffuser and no more than 12 times a hydraulic diameter of the first flow opening of the diffuser and a nominal diameter of the flow rectifier amounts to no more than one 5 times the hydraulic diameter of the first flow opening of the diffuser, or the nominal diameter of the flow rectifier, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
The test for obviousness of a result-effective variable is not whether or not this variable is recognized in the art applied. Such recognition would potentially lead to the variable being rejected as being anticipated by the reference. The test for obviousness of a result-effective variable is whether or not one or ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this variable could be changed or altered, and the results of this change, without deviating from the intended purpose of the reference. Further, the variable must not have any associated criticality in the instant application.
In this case, the instant specification gives no criticality to the values of the claimed relationships. Therefore, these values can be said to be obvious.
Regarding claim 42: Kim, as modified, discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except a length of the diffuser amounts to not less than 0.2-times or no more than 0.4 times the installed length of the flow conditioner; or
wherein a length of the diffuser amounts to no more than 7-times the square root of the first flow cross section of the diffuser or no more than 6 times the hydraulic diameter of the first flow opening of the diffuser or the nominal diameter of the flow rectifier.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Kim so that a length of the diffuser amounts to not less than 0.2-times and no more than 0.4 times the installed length of the flow conditioner and wherein a length of the diffuser amounts to no more than 7-times the square root of the first flow cross section of the diffuser and no more than 6 times the hydraulic diameter of the first flow opening of the diffuser and the nominal diameter of the flow rectifier, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
The test for obviousness of a result-effective variable is not whether or not this variable is recognized in the art applied. Such recognition would potentially lead to the variable being rejected as being anticipated by the reference. The test for obviousness of a result-effective variable is whether or not one or ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this variable could be changed or altered, and the results of this change, without deviating from the intended purpose of the reference. Further, the variable must not have any associated criticality in the instant application.
In this case, the instant specification gives no criticality to the values of the claimed relationships. Therefore, these values can be said to be obvious.
Regarding claim 43: Kim, as modified, discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except a nominal diameter of the flow conditioner amounts to greater than 15 mm; or wherein a hydraulic diameter of the first flow opening of the diffuser amounts to greater than 15 mm.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Kim so that a nominal diameter of the flow conditioner amounts to greater than 15 mm and wherein a hydraulic diameter of the first flow opening of the diffuser amounts to greater than 15 mm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
The test for obviousness of a result-effective variable is not whether or not this variable is recognized in the art applied. Such recognition would potentially lead to the variable being rejected as being anticipated by the reference. The test for obviousness of a result-effective variable is whether or not one or ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this variable could be changed or altered, and the results of this change, without deviating from the intended purpose of the reference. Further, the variable must not have any associated criticality in the instant application.
In this case, the instant specification gives no criticality to the values of the claimed relationships. Therefore, these values can be said to be obvious.
Regarding claim 44: Wherein a first flow cross section of the flow rectifier provided by the first flow opening of the flow rectifier is the same size as the second flow cross section of the diffuser Fig 1 of Kim.
Regarding claim 45: Wherein a second flow cross section of the flow rectifier provided by the second flow opening of the flow rectifier is the same size as the first flow cross section of the flow rectifier Fig 1 of Kim or the first flow cross section of the converging section Fig 1 of Kim; or
Regarding claim 46: Wherein the at least one flow obstruction 131a, b – [0061] of Kim has flow openings with flow cross sections differing from one another.
Regarding claim 50: Which flow conditioner is adapted to be inserted into the course of a pipeline pipeline of a hydrocarbon processing facility – [0057] of Kim.
Regarding claim 53: The flow conditioner described above, produced, at least partially, by an additive production method, especially a free space or a powder bed method.
MPEP 2113 Product-by-Process Claims states that "If the product in the product-by-process claim is that same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process." The flow conditioner is anticipated by Kim. The process by which the flow conditioner is made is not a patentable distinction.
Regarding claim 54: Kim, as modified, discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except at least the guide system of the diffuser is a monolithic, formed part or the deflection means and the connecting elements of the guide system are components of one and the same monolithic, formed part.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Kim so that the guide system, and its components, were a monolithic, formed part, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Claim(s) 47-49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Cheng as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Toebben et al. (DR 10200703953 A1, Toebben).
Regarding claim 47: Kim, as modified, discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except the flow rectifier has at least a second flow obstruction, which is disc shaped and has a plurality of flow openings.
Toebben discloses a flow conditioner similar to that of Kim. The flow conditioner can have one flow obstruction 38 or two flow obstructions 38.1, 38.2.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Kim to include a second flow obstruction, as taught by Toebben, in order to have been able to further smooth the flow so that the asymmetries of the flow profile of the fluid are largely removed paragraph spanning pages 2 and 3 of the provided translation.
Regarding claim 48: Wherein a first reduced flow cross section of the flow rectifier provided, in total, by the flow openings of the first flow obstruction of the flow rectifier is not greater than a second reduced flow cross section of the flow rectifier provided, in total, by the flow openings of the second flow obstruction of the flow rectifier shown as equal in Fig 5 of Toebben; or
wherein a flow cross section of a largest flow opening of the first flow obstruction is not less than a flow cross section of a largest flow opening of the second flow obstruction shown as equal in Fig 5 of Toebben; or
wherein the first and second flow obstructions of the flow rectifier are spaced from one another in the direction of an longitudinal axis of the flow rectifier Fig 5 of Toebben.
Regarding claim 49: Kim, as modified, discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except the flow rectifier has at least a third flow obstruction, which is disc shaped and has a plurality of flow openings, especially a third flow obstruction having a construction different from the first flow obstruction or the second flow obstruction.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Kim to include a third flow obstruction, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. This would have achieved the predictable results of further smoothing the flow paragraph spanning pages 2 and 3 of the provided translation.
Claim(s) 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Cheng as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Wusterbarth et al. (US 6,053,054, Wuster).
Kim, as modified, discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except the wall of the converging section has at least two wall-openings for connecting both a pressure measuring device as well as also a temperature measuring device to the flow conditioner or for connecting an ultrasonic measuring device to the flow conditioner.
Wuster discloses a flow conditioner similar to that of Kim. The flow conditioner includes a converging section 42, 72 that includes at least one wall opening at 68, 70, 76 for connecting a pressure measuring device 70 and a temperature measuring device 68.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Kim so that the wall of the converging section included at least one wall opening for connecting a pressure measuring device and a temperature measuring device, as taught by Wuster, in order to have been able to monitor the conditions of the flow within the flow conditioner. This would have achieved the predictable results of providing an operator with information needed to make adjustments to the flow or conditioner to insure optimal operating conditions.
Claim(s) 55-58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wuster in view of Kim.
Regarding claim 55: Wuster discloses a measuring system Fig 1 for measuring at least one measured variable of a fluid flowing with a flow direction, wherein the measuring system comprises a flow conditioner 10, wherein the flow conditioner includes:
a diffuser 34;
a flow rectifier 40; and
a converging section 42, 72.
Wuster fails to disclose a fluid conditioner that includes the claimed features.
Kim discloses a flow conditioner 100 – Fig 1 for a fluid flowing in a pipeline, comprising:
a diffuser 120,
having a lumen Fig 1 surrounded by a funnel shaped wall Fig 1 extending from a first flow opening Fig 1110 to a second flow opening Fig 1 located in a second diffuser-end Fig 1, and
having a guide system 140 arranged within the lumen Fig 1;
a flow rectifier 130,
having a lumen Fig 1 surrounded by a wall Fig 1 and extending from a first flow opening Fig 1 located in a first flow rectifier-end Fig 1 to a second flow opening Fig 1 located in a second flow rectifier end Fig 1, and
having at least one disc shaped flow obstruction 131a; and
a converging section end to the right of 130 in Fig 1 having a lumen Fig 1 surrounded by a funnel shaped wall Fig 1 and extending from a first flow opening Fig 1 located in a first converging section-end Fig 1 to a second flow opening Fig 1 located in a second converging section-end Fig 1;
wherein diffuser, flow rectifier and converging section are connected fluidically in series to form a flow path extending from the first flow opening of the diffuser to the second flow opening of the converging section Fig 1;
wherein the guide system has at least one sleeve shaped first deflection means 141, as well as a plurality of mutually separated connecting elements 142 each connected both with the first deflection means as well as also with the wall of the diffuser Fig 1, 2; and
wherein the guide system is so formed and so positioned that the first deflection means is arranged spaced from the wall of the diffuser and coaxially with the lumen of the diffuser Fig 1.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the flow conditioner of Wuster to include the claimed features, as taught by Kim, in order to have used a flow conditioner that increased the uniformity of fluid flow [0006].
Regarding claim 56: The measuring system further comprising a flowmeter 76 – Fig 1 of Wuster arranged downstream from the flow conditioner.
Regarding claim 57: Wherein the flow conditioner and the flowmeter are connected fluidically in series to form a flow path extending from the first flow opening of the diffuser to an outlet opening of the flowmeter located in a flowmeter-outlet end remote from the second converging section-end, namely a flow path involving both the lumina of diffuser, flow rectifier and converging section as well as also a lumen of the flowmeter extending from an inlet opening of the flowmeter located in a flowmeter-inlet end to its outlet opening, especially in that the flowmeter inlet end is connected with the second converging section-end Fig 1 of Wuster.
Regarding claim 58: The measuring system further comprising:
a temperature-measuring device 68 of Wuster arranged at the wall of the converging section of the flow conditioner;
a pressure-measuring device 70 of Wuster arranged at the wall of the converging section of the flow conditioner; or
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 JENNIFER H GAY whose telephone number is (571)272-7029. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 6-3:30 and every other Friday 6-11.
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, Anita Y Coupe can be reached at (571)270-3614. 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.
/JENNIFER H GAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
JHG
9/25/2026
