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
The Preliminary Amendment filed December 18, 2023 has been entered and considered with the Office Action below.
Claims 1-29 have been cancelled.
Claims 30-58 have been added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
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 diffuser having at least one wall opening as recited in claim 51 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 20. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 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, 51, 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 30-35, 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.
Claims 30-58 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
The following is a list of some of the errors in the claims. This list must not be considered all inclusive. All of the claims must be reviewed for similar and additional errors and all errors addressed in response to this Office Action.
Regarding claim 30: Claim 30 is considered indefinite for at least the following reasons:
Line 4 requires “a second diffuser-end” however there is no preceding recitation of a first diffuser-end. It is not possible to have a second of an element without there being a first.
In line 9, the recitation of “(first)” is unclear. Is this extraneous language or is the “first” intended to be part of the name of the element. The inclusion of limitations in parentheses is generally confusing because it is not clear if the language is required or not.
Line 13 includes a positive recitation of “diffusor, flow rectifier, and confusor”. As such, it is unclear if this recitation is referring to the previously recited elements or a new diffuser, flow rectifier, and confusor. For the purpose of examination, they are being treated as the same element.
In the phrase “wherein diffusor, flow rectifier and confusor are connected fluidically in series to form a flow path extending from the first flow opening of the diffusor to the second flow opening of the confusor, namely a flow path involving the lumina of diffusor, flow rectifier and confusor” it is unclear how “namely a flow path…” further limits this clause. Is the flow path just in the lumina of the diffusor, flow rectifier, and confusor or can it include other portions of the flow conditioner? Correction is required.
Regarding claim 31: Claim 31 is considered indefinite for at least the following reasons:
Lines 3 and 6 use the phrase “and/or”. It is unclear if Applicant is intending to use this in a manner similar to “at least one of”, if all of the clauses are required, or if they can be optional. For the purposes of examination, “and/or” is being treated as indicating that the clauses are optional.
Line 8 includes a positive recitation of “connecting elements”. It is unclear if this recitation is referring to the connecting elements recited in claim 30 or separate elements. Correction is required.
Regarding claims 32, 33, 35, 38, 41, 48, and 55: At least these claims include language in parentheses.
Regarding claims 33-35, 37, 38, 40-43, 45, 48, 51, 55, and 58: At least these claims use the phrase “and/or”.
Regarding claims 49, 53, and 57: The term "especially" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 58: Lines 6 and 7 of the claim are considered generally confusing. What is “in the wall of the confusor at least one wall-opening” referring to?
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.
Claim(s) 30, 31, 33-39, 44-46, 50, and 53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2021/0123683, Kim).
Regarding claim 30: Kim discloses a flow conditioner 100 – Fig 1 for a fluid flowing in a pipeline, comprising:
a diffusor 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 diffusor-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 (first) flow obstruction 131a; and
a confusor 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 confusor-end Fig 1 to a second flow opening Fig 1 located in a second confusor-end Fig 1;
wherein diffusor, flow rectifier and confusor are connected fluidically in series to form a flow path extending from the first flow opening of the diffusor to the second flow opening of the confusor, namely a flow path involving the lumina of diffusor, flow rectifier and confusor 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 diffusor 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 diffusor and coaxially with the lumen of the diffusor Fig 1.
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; and/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 diffusor Fig 1; and/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 diffusor Fig 1.
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 diffusor, corresponding to an at least fourfold rotation axis of the lumen of the diffusor Fig 1 – same structure performs the same function, see below; and/or
wherein the guide system is rotationally symmetric with respect to an at least threefold (imaginary) rotation axis (longitudinal axis) Fig 1, 3; and/or
wherein at least three connecting elements are formed each as a flat and/or symmetrically profiled, guide means Fig 1-3; and/or
wherein a vane ring is formed by means of the connecting elements Fig 1-3.
“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, as well as
a plurality of mutually separated connecting elements 142 – Fig 2, in each case, connected both with the second deflection means as well as also with the first deflection means Fig 2 and/or, in each case, embodied as guide means and/or arranged equidistantly along a peripheral line of the lateral surface of the second deflection means Fig 2; 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 diffusor as well as also from the first deflection means and coaxially with the lumen of the diffusor Fig 2.
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; and/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; and/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; and/or
Regarding claim 36: Wherein a first flow cross section of the confusor provided by the first flow opening of the confusor is greater than a second flow cross section of the confusor provided by the second flow opening of the confusor Fig 1.
Regarding claim 37: Wherein the first flow cross section of the confusor is the same size as the second flow cross section of the diffusor Fig 1; and/or
wherein the first flow cross section of the diffusor is the same size as the second flow cross section of the confusor Fig 1.
Regarding claim 38: Wherein a principal axis of inertia (longitudinal axis) of the lumen of the diffusor coincides with an imaginary longitudinal-, or flow, axis of the flow conditioner imaginarily connecting an (area-)center of gravity of the first flow opening of the diffusor and an (area-)center of gravity of the second flow opening of the confusor Fig 1; and/or
wherein an (imaginary) longitudinal-, or flow, axis of the lumen of the diffusor imaginarily connecting an (area-)center of gravity of the first flow opening of the diffusor and an (area-)center of gravity of the second flow opening of the diffusor coincides with an imaginary longitudinal-, or flow, axis of the flow conditioner imaginarily connecting an (area-)center of gravity of the first flow opening of the diffusor and an (area-)center of gravity of the second flow opening of the confusor Fig 1; and/or
wherein a principal axis of inertia (longitudinal axis) of the lumen of the confusor coincides with an imaginary longitudinal-, or flow, axis of the flow conditioner imaginarily connecting an (area-)center of gravity of the first flow opening of the diffusor and an (area-)center of gravity of the second flow opening of the confusor Fig 1; and/or
wherein an (imaginary) longitudinal-, or flow, axis of the lumen of the confusor imaginarily connecting an (area-)center of gravity of the first flow opening of the confusor and an (area-)center of gravity of the second flow opening of the confusor coincides with an imaginary longitudinal-, or flow, axis of the flow conditioner imaginarily connecting an (area-)center of gravity of the first flow opening of the diffusor and an (area-)center of gravity of the second flow opening of the confusor Fig 1; and/or
wherein an (imaginary) longitudinal-, or flow, axis of the lumen of the flow rectifier imaginarily connecting an (area-)center of gravity of the first flow opening of the flow rectifier and an (area-)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 (area-)center of gravity of the first flow opening of the diffusor and an (area-)center of gravity of the second flow opening of the confusor Fig 1.
Regarding claim 39: Wherein a first flow cross section of the diffusor provided by the first flow opening of the diffusor is less than a second flow cross section of the diffusor provided by the second flow opening of the diffusor Fig 1.
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 diffusor Fig 1.
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 and/or the first flow cross section of the confusor Fig 1; and/or
Regarding claim 46: Wherein the at least one flow obstruction 131a, b – [0061] 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].
Regarding claim 53: The flow conditioner described above, produced, at least partially, by an additive production method, especially a free space and/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.
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) 32, 40-43, and 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim.
Regarding claim 32: Wherein the guide system and the wall of the diffusor are so embodied that there is a (first) critical flare angle Φ1 of the diffusor, measured as a greatest (section-)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 diffusor facing the lumen of the diffusor.
Kim discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except the flare angle being less than 8°.
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 flare angle was 8°, 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 flare angle. Therefore, the measure of the flare angle can be said to be obvious.
Regarding claim 40: Wherein the second flow cross section of the diffusor amounts to is greater the first flow cross section of the diffusor Fig 1.
Kim discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except the second flow cross section of the diffusor amounts to greater than 1.4-times the first flow cross section of the diffusor; 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 diffusor and/or no more than 0.3 times the first flow cross section of the diffusor.
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 second flow cross section of the diffusor amounts to greater than 1.4-times the first flow cross section of the diffusor 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 diffusor or no more than 0.3 times the first flow cross section of the diffusor, 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 diffusor 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 diffusor. Therefore, the these values can be said to be obvious.
Regarding claim 41: Kim discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except an installed length of the flow conditioner, measured as a (smallest) separation between the first diffusor-end and the second confusor end, amounts to no more than 15 times a square root of the first flow cross section of the diffusor and/or no more than 12 times a hydraulic diameter of the first flow opening of the diffusor and/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 diffusor, 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 modified Kim so that an installed length of the flow conditioner, measured as a (smallest) separation between the first diffusor-end and the second confusor end, amounts to no more than 15 times a square root of the first flow cross section of the diffusor and no more than 12 times a hydraulic diameter of the first flow opening of the diffusor 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 diffusor, 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 discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except a length of the diffusor amounts to not less than 0.2-times and/or no more than 0.4 times the installed length of the flow conditioner; and/or
wherein a length of the diffusor amounts to no more than 7-times the square root of the first flow cross section of the diffusor and/or no more than 6 times the hydraulic diameter of the first flow opening of the diffusor and/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 modified Kim so that a length of the diffusor 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 diffusor amounts to no more than 7-times the square root of the first flow cross section of the diffusor and no more than 6 times the hydraulic diameter of the first flow opening of the diffusor 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 discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except a nominal diameter of the flow conditioner amounts to greater than 15 mm; and/or wherein a hydraulic diameter of the first flow opening of the diffusor 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 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 diffusor 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 54: Kim discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except at least the guide system of the diffusor 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 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 Toebben et al. (DE 10200703953 A1, Toebben).
Regarding claim 47: Kim 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 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; and/or
wherein a flow cross section (hydraulic diameter) 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; and/or
wherein the first and second flow obstructions of the flow rectifier are spaced from one another in the direction of an (imaginary) 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 and/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) 51 and 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Wusterbarth et al. (US 6,053,054, Wuster).
Regarding claim 51: Kim discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except
Wuster discloses a flow conditioner similar to that of Kim. The flow conditioner includes a confusor 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 modified Kim so that the wall of the confusor 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 and/or conditioner to insure optimal operating conditions
Regarding claim 52: Kim discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except the wall of the confusor 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 confusor 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 modified Kim so that the wall of the confusor 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 and/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 diffusor 34;
a flow rectifier 40; and
a confusor 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 diffusor 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 diffusor-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 (first) flow obstruction 131a; and
a confusor 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 confusor-end Fig 1 to a second flow opening Fig 1 located in a second confusor-end Fig 1;
wherein diffusor, flow rectifier and confusor are connected fluidically in series to form a flow path extending from the first flow opening of the diffusor to the second flow opening of the confusor, namely a flow path involving the lumina of diffusor, flow rectifier and confusor 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 diffusor 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 diffusor and coaxially with the lumen of the diffusor 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 diffusor to an outlet opening of the flowmeter located in a flowmeter-outlet end remote from the second confusor-end, namely a flow path involving both the lumina of diffusor, flow rectifier and confusor 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 confusor-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 confusor of the flow conditioner;
a pressure-measuring device 70 of Wuster arranged at the wall of the confusor of the flow conditioner; and/or
Conclusion
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
3/3/2026