Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 21, 22 and 27 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 21 recites the broad recitation from, and the claim also recites from 1.1 to 2 and from 1.25-1.8 and from 1.3 to 1.6, which are both narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim 22 similarly has a broad recitation from .26 to .6 and from .2to .5 and from .25 to .45, which are both narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 22 additionally has the phrase “surface of attack of the baffle”. This is a non-standard phrase. The examiner suspects this may be a translation error as the only other instances of this phrase come from machine translations of German patents. The examiner can’t evaluate the claim with respect to prior art until this 112 is resolved.
With respect to Claim 27, the inner tube and sheath having a same length and/or the tube being 70-100% the length of the sheath is indefinite. The scope of “and” is contradictory and the scope of “or” would have a broad and narrow limitation in the same claim.
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 16-20 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE102015221355, hereinafter DE.
For clarity, when a paragraph number is cited for DE, the first full paragraph will be paragraph 1.
With respect to Claim 16, DE discloses a flowmeter [see fig 3 unless otherwise noted] for measuring the flow rate of a fluid, comprising:
a measuring tube [40a] that forms a measuring space through which the fluid can flow [page 5, para 1];
at least one baffle [54a] arranged in the measuring space; and
a measured value sensor [56a] arranged downstream of the baffle in the measuring space, the measured value sensor being deflectable when flowed around by the fluid due to a vortex formation at the baffle [see page 6, para 1];
wherein the measuring tube has an elliptical cross-section at least in a region of the arrangement of the baffle [page 9, para 1 and fig 7; and note that page 8, para 4 shows that the flowmeter from the embodiment of figure 7 inherits the features of fig 3 ].
With respect to Claim 17, DE discloses that the measuring space of the measuring tube extends between a fluid inlet [16] and a fluid outlet [18] along a flow axis, with the fluid inlet having a circular cross-section that merges into the elliptical cross-section along the flow axis extending up to a position of the baffle. See fig 7 and page 9, para 1.
With respect to Claim 18, DE discloses that the elliptical cross- section merges into the circular cross-section from the position of the baffle along the flow axis up to the fluid outlet. See fig 7.
With respect to Claim 19, DE discloses that the baffle [54a] has a baffle axis along which the baffle extends, with the baffle axis being aligned perpendicular to the flow axis extending through the measuring space and/or with the baffle having a streamlined cross-section. Clear from fig 3.
With respect to Claim 20, DE discloses that the elliptical cross- section is spanned by a longer main axis and a shorter secondary axis extending transversely to the main axis, with the elliptical cross-section being aligned such that the secondary axis coincides with the baffle axis. Clear from fig 7.
With respect to Claim 24, DE discloses that the measured value sensor is arranged in a section along the flow axis in the measuring space in which a cross- section of the measuring space has an elliptical cross-section and merges into a circular cross- section in a direction toward the fluid outlet. See fig 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE in view of WO2006034851, hereinafter WO.
With respect to Claim 25, DE does not disclose further comprising at least one projection projecting into the measuring space formed downstream of the baffle at an inner wall bounding the measuring space.
Many vortex flowmeters use pressure sensors that are inserted through the tube. WO shows such an example that has sensor 4, projecting into the tube, downstream of baffle 3. See fig 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that DE could replace measuring sensor 56a with a sensor that projects in through the wall for the benefit of ease of replacement and repair of the sensor.
Claims 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE in view of Lucero (U.S. Publication No. 2008/0288181, hereinafter Lucero).
With respect to Claim 26, DE shows a measuring tube but not that the measuring tube is formed with a sheath and with an inner tube, with the inner tube being pushed into the sheath.
Lucero shows a common flowmeter measuring tube with a plastic inner tube [112] and a metal sheath [120]. See para 28-29 and fig 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a common plastic inner tube with a metal protective sheath around it for DE’s measuring tube for the benefit of having a non-reactive flow path that’s protected.
With respect to Claim 27, Lucero shows the inner tube’s length being almost the length of the sheath but doesn’t give specific dimensions. DE’s measuring tube is along the flow axis and so is Lucero’s.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the sheath to cover and protect as much of the inner tube as possible, including more than 70% of the inner tube.
With respect to Claim 28, the combination of DE and Lucero disclose that the inner tube and/or the sheath has/have a fully circumferentially closed cross-section. Each of DE’s measuring tube, and Lucero’s inner tube and sheath have circumferentially closed cross-sections.
With respect to Claim 29, the combination of DE and Lucero disclose that the inner tube comprises a plastic; and the sheath comprises a metal. See Lucero See para 28-29 and fig 3.
With respect to Claim 30, neither DE nor Lucero disclose that the inner tube is manufactured in an injection molding process and/or the sheath is manufactured in a cutting production process.
However, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113-I. Since DE and Lucero disclose a product appearing substantially identical to the structure of the inner tube and sheath, the burden shifts to the applicant to show a non-obvious difference. See MPEP 2113-II.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 23 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to Claim 21, no prior art showed the claimed ratios.
With respect to Claim 23, no prior art shows “the circular cross- section of the fluid inlet and/or of the fluid outlet has a diameter dimension that corresponds to a length of the main axis of the elliptical cross-section and/or so that a width of the measuring space remains constant transversely from the baffle axis from the fluid inlet up to the fluid outlet”. While some constant width prior art were found, none had the elliptical cross section.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX T DEVITO whose telephone number is (571)270-7551. The examiner can normally be reached 12pm- 8 pm EST M-S.
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, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. 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.
/ALEX T DEVITO/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855