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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “of” at the end of line 2 should be deleted for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
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 11-20 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 claim 11, the claim recites the limitation of “recognizing a calibration” however it is not clear as to what is meant by recognizing and if it means initiating, validating, or similar.
The claim recites the limitation of at least one first sensor and in particular at least one second sensor. It is unclear if the second sensor is required or not in the claim since the term “in particular” is indefinite.
It is unclear if the test variable for G1 and G2 are the same or different test variables since G1 is directed towards a flow velocity and G2 is directed towards the variation of a flow velocity which are not the same variables. Since the flow variable is defined as being “based on” a flow velocity, it is assumed that the test variable would be the same for both.
The final line of the claim “greater than 150% of a reference value” is indefinite as the phrase does not appear to apply to the previous limitations and it is not clear as to what the 150% refers to.
Regarding claim 14, the claim refers to “the respective increase” however it is not clear as to what increase this is referring to since multiple increases have been previously disclosed in the claim and in parent claim 11.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites the limitation of “a third threshold value concerning the variation of the measurement signal in a third measurement step. The limitation is indefinite since it is unclear as to what is meant by “concerning the variation of the measurement signal” and what would be entailed by the limitation. It is further not clear if the third step is the step of claim 16, or an additional step which is not being described.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites the limitation that a message is output “as soon as” the increase in the oscillation amplitude is reduced, however it is not clear as to what is meant by “as soon as” and when the amplitude would be reduced since no such reduction has been previously recited in the method.
Regarding claim 19, it is not clear as to what is meant by the limitation of “in each case” and what each case refers to as the claim is directed to structural limitations and not the method steps.
All claims which depend from those above are rejected for the same reasons due to their dependency thereon.
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(s) 11-13 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiebe DE 10 2017 006 710 A11 and Rieder et al. US 2022/0307886.
Regarding claim 11, Wiebe teaches a method of correcting a mass flow measurement of a fluid through a Coriolis mass flow device including a Coriolis measurement device 1 comprising (as seen in fig. 2):
at least one measuring tube 4 for guiding a medium,
at least one exciter D for exciting measuring tube oscillations,
at least one first sensor S1 and in particular at least one second sensor S2 for detecting measuring tube oscillations,
an electronic measuring/operating circuit 2 for operating the exciter D and for detecting and evaluating measurement signals from the sensors and for providing measured values of the mass flow and/or density (abstract),
wherein the method includes the following steps:
in a first method step, checking whether an amount of a measured value of at least one test variable exceeds a first threshold value G1 or a variation of measured values of a test variable exceeds a second threshold value G2 (the exciter causes the tube to oscillate and power applied must be increased when the flow rate increases, therefore a minimum threshold value would be the value at which the flow meter vibrates),
and increasing an oscillation amplitude of the measuring tube oscillations by a factor E by boosting exciter performance in a second method step when a threshold value is exceeded (the increase of the excitation occurs as the flow increases beyond the threshold where it would no longer vibrate, page 8),
wherein the test variable is based on the following variable:
flow velocity (as flow velocity increases, the variable would change).
Wiebe does not explicitly disclose the first threshold value of the flow velocity in the measuring tube is greater than 4 m/s or the second threshold as a variation of flow velocity in the measuring tube is in a time interval of at least 0.5 seconds, greater than 150% of a reference value.
Reider teaches a method for operating a Coriolis flowmeter wherein a damping occurs due to a flow rate and in which a flow velocity of the fluid within the flowmeter is about 4 m/s (paragraph 0034). Reider further teaches the relationship between oscillation amplitude and the excitation current and therefore an excitation would need to overcome damping effects to be usable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Reider with those of Wiebe in order to set a target flow velocity at 4 m/s or any desired value at which a threshold would be surpassed in order to maintain proper excitation in the system. Additionally, no criticality has been disclosed in the present application as to the benefit of using 4 m/s as the threshold value, and therefore any range disclosed by the prior art which overlaps the claimed value would be considered an obvious choice In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941). It is further noted that the limitations regarding the value G2 are listed as an alternative to G1 and therefore, the prior art need only teach either G1 or G2 to satisfy the claimed limitations. In this case the references teach the limitations with regard to G1.
Regarding claim 12, Wiebe teaches increasing the oscillation amplitude which would increase the vibration in the system but does not explicitly disclose the increase as being at least 1.1 and/or at most 4 times but does disclose increasing the excitation power in fig. 4 which is within the claimed range as seen along the Y-axis.
Regarding claim 13, in combination as above, the time period of measuring the tube oscillations of one cycle of an increase in the oscillation amplitude would be limited by the duration of the measurements.
Regarding claim 16, the increase in oscillation amplitude in Wiebe is dependent on the threshold being exceeded, so it would have been obvious to have terminated the increase when the value falls below the threshold in order to maintain proper vibration in the system since the excitation would be a function of the flow velocity.
Regarding claim 17, in combination as above, the factor E is dependent on a measure of the exceeding of the first threshold value since the increase would be in proportion to the flow rate in order to maintain vibration.
Regarding claim 18, in combination as above, data would be output as the increase in oscillation amplitude is increased or decreased to monitor the system which would be a message as claimed.
Regarding claim 19, the device of Wiebe and Reider would each have a coil and magnet as claimed (see Wiebe, page 7 for example).
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiebe and Reider as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Cunningham US 2008/0223148.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Wiebe and Reider disclose the claimed invention but do not explicitly teach calculating an overload based on the increase in oscillation amplitude and outputting a warning message in response. Cunningham teaches a method for monitoring a Coriolis flow meter in which an amplitude in the system is monitored and a warning can be generated when the amplitude is higher than a preset value (paragraph 0115). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings Cunningham with those of Wiebe and Reider in order to provide a warning when the amplitude of a signal is too high in order to alert and operator and potentially prevent damage in the system.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiebe and Reider as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Matt et al. US 2006/0010990.
Regarding claim 20, Wiebe discloses means for storing the data which would be required in order to operate the system. Wiebe and Reider do not explicitly teach determining it by calibration at startup however. Matt discloses a Coriolis flow device and method and in paragraph 0070, the storing of data and loading thereof during start of the device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Matt with those of Wiebe and Reider in order to load the values at startup, thereby resulting in a calibration of the system with regard to the amplitude and frequency control of the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark A. Shabman whose telephone number is (571)272-8589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 EST.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/MARK A SHABMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
1 An English translation has been provided and is relied upon for the rejection.