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 1-15 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 1, the phrase "in particular" (line 2) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Also in claim 1, “a first differential pressure range” is set forth in part (b) and then “the first differential pressure region” is referred to in part (c) and appears to be referring back to the first differential pressure range; however, this is confusing because the same term is not used. Is the pressure range and the pressure region referring to the same thing?
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "in particular" (line 4) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, the term “preferably” (line 5) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "in particular" (line 5) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, the term “preferably” (line 5) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, the term “preferably” (line 4) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, the term “preferably” (line 6) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, the term “preferably” (line 3) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11, the term “preferably” (line 3) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, the term “preferably” (line 4) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13, the term “preferably” (line 11) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "in particular" (line 12) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Note that claims 2, 5, 6, 9, 14 and 15 are indefinite because of their dependence on one or more of the indefinite claims above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 9 fails to include all of the limitations of the claim 1 on which it depends because claim 9 is drawn to a flow sensor for use in performing the method of claim 1, but the sensor of claim 9 does not itself require or encompass the method of use of claim 1.
In addition to the reasons set forth above with regard to claim 9, claim 15 is also in improper dependent form because it does not include all of the limitations of claim 9 from which it depends. Claim 15 is drawn to a differential pressure sensor for a flow sensor of claim 9, but it does not actually require the particulars of the flow sensor of claim 9.
Note that claims 10-14 are all rejected similarly because of their dependence on claim 9.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8, 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fincke (US 2002/0016688).
Regarding claim 1, Fincke discloses a method for determining a flow rate of a fluid through a flow sensor 110 having a measurement channel 122, the method comprising at least the following steps: a. providing a fluid in the measurement channel 122 of the flow sensor 110, wherein three resistive elements (portion of inlet section 126 leading up to section 130, throat section 134, and converging section 130) are present in the measurement channel (see Fig. 1); b. detecting at least one first differential pressure in the measurement channel (ΔP2, see par. 0046), wherein the at least one first differential pressure is present in a first differential pressure range/region in the measurement channel, and wherein the first differential pressure (ΔP2) is detected over the second resistance element 134 (see Fig. 1); c. detecting at least one second differential pressure (ΔP0) in the measurement channel (see par. 0025), wherein the at least one second differential pressure is present in a second differential pressure region in the measurement channel and the differential pressure in the second differential pressure region encompasses the differential pressure in the first differential pressure region (see Fig. 1, ΔP0 includes region of ΔP2); d. transmitting the detected differential pressures to an evaluation unit 153 (par. 0029); e. determining a flow rate in the measurement channel 122 with the evaluation unit on the basis of the detected differential pressures (Id. and par. 0025, flow rate may be determined from ΔP2 and ΔP0).
Regarding claim 5, Fincke discloses that the second differential pressure ΔP0 is detected over all three resistance elements (see Fig. 1, ΔP0 is over element 126, 134 and 130).
Regarding claim 8, Fincke discloses that at least one fluid property of the fluid is detected in the measurement channel and is used in step (e) when determining the flow rate, the fluid property being detected with the aid of a user and/or being measured with a sensor and/or being calculated in the evaluation unit, and the fluid property being comprised of at least one parameter from the group of absolute pressure, temperature, humidity, fluid type, viscosity, and density (pars. 0034 and 0035, absolute pressure P, temperature T and density of gas flow is measured and/or calculated).
Regarding claim 9, Fincke discloses a flow sensor 110 for determining a flow rate of a fluid in a measurement channel 122, wherein the measurement channel 122 comprises at least four channel sections (channel section where port 150 is, channel section where measuring port 154 is, channel section where measuring port 158 is and channel section where measuring port 162 is), which are arranged in series adjacent to one another in the flow sensor (see Fig. 1) and at least one resistance element is arranged between each of the channel sections adjacent to one another (portion of inlet 126 and converging section element 130 is between port 150 and 154, throat section 134 is between port 154 and 158, diffuser section element 138 is between port 158 and 162), wherein each of the channel sections has at least one measurement connection (connection ports 150, 154, 158 and 162 at each of the channel sections) for measuring a fluid pressure (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Fincke discloses a differential pressure sensor for a flow sensor 110 according to claim 9, having four pressure measurement connections (see Fig. 1, two pressure line connections on sensor 159 and two line pressure connections on sensor 155) for detecting two different differential pressures (ΔP2 and ΔP0) in a measurement channel 122.
Note: the following is an additional rejection of claim 9 based on different prior art, made as a foundation for the rejection of claim 11 under 35 USC 103 below.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Atherton (US 2014/0299210).
Regarding claim 9, Atherton discloses a flow sensor for determining a flow rate of a fluid in a measurement channel, wherein the measurement channel comprises at least four channel sections (section before straightener 17, section between straightener 17 and 19, section between straightener 19 and 22, section after straightener 22), which are arranged in series adjacent to one another in the flow sensor (see Fig. 2) and at least one resistance element (straighteners 17, 19, 22) is arranged between each of the channel sections adjacent to one another, wherein each of the channel sections has at least one measurement connection (connections for sensors 12, 13, 21 and 14) for measuring a fluid pressure (see Fig. 2 and pars. 0023 and 0027).
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) 2-4, 6, 7, 10 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fincke (US 2002/0016688).
Regarding claim 2, Fincke does not explicitly state that the detecting of the first differential pressure and the second differential pressure takes place simultaneously. However, Fincke disclose the detecting being done with separate individual transducers 159 and 155 and being directed with a processor 153 (par 0029). One of ordinary skill in the art would have known that a processor with separate individual transducers can operate to detect values simultaneously. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have operated the pressure transducers 159 and 155 together to detect the differential pressures simultaneously because it would have provided for faster information and ensured that the measurements represent the same flow conditions at the same point in time.
Regarding claim 3, Fincke discloses that the first differential pressure region in the measurement channel 122 comprises at least one resistance element (ΔP2 is measured over region that includes element 134, see Fig. 1). Fincke is silent as to the range of values that the differential pressures are present in. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have designed the pressures and differential pressure detections to be in the range of any desired values based on the particular applications of the flow channel and the expected flow rates, including differential pressures in the range from -0.5kPa to 0.5kPa. This would have been obvious because the relationships between the expected flow rates, the fluid parameters, the shape/charcteristics of the channel, and the differential pressures were known in the art as taught by Fincke’s equations 1-10, and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to measure differential pressures in any of these various ranges based on the predictable relationships to the expected flow rates in a particular application, i.e. measuring differential pressures in the range -0.5kPa to 0.5kPa would have enabled the measurement of the flow rates that equate to this range.
Regarding claim 4, Fincke disclsoes that the second differential pressure region in the measurement channel 122 comprises at least two resistance elements (ΔP0 is measured across element 126, 130 and 134, see Fig. 1). Fincke is silent as to the range of values that the differential pressures are present in. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have designed the pressures and differential pressure detections to be in the range of any desired values based on the particular applications of the flow channel and the expected flow rates, including differential pressures in the range from -1.5kPa to 1.5kPa. This would have been obvious because the relationships between the expected flow rates, the fluid parameters, the shape/charcteristics of the channel, and the differential pressures were known in the art as taught by Fincke’s equations 1-10, and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to measure differential pressures in any of these various ranges based on the predictable relationships to the expected flow rates in a particular application, i.e. measuring differential pressures in the range -1.5kPa to 1.5kPa would have enabled the measurement of the flow rates that equate to this range.
Regarding claim 6, Fincke does not disclose explicitly a memory unit being present in which at least a first threshold value for the first differential pressure is stored and/or at least a first threshold value of the second differential pressure is stored. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date to have stored at least one threshold value for differential pressure measurement in a memory of because it would have provided a way to trigger alerts and notifications of certain conditions such as maximum, minimum or critical flow conditions (see Fincke claim 2).
Regarding claim 7, Fincke discloses that at least one differential pressure sensor 159 is arranged to measure the first differential pressure ΔP2 and a second differential pressure sensor 155 is arranged to measure the second differential pressure ΔP0 (see Fig. 1 and par. 0029). Fincke does not disclose that the measurement range of the first differential pressure is greater than the measurement range for the second differential pressure. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have designed the sensors to have different measurement ranges in this way the first differential pressure is measured over a more constricted part of the channel and would be expected to experience a greater local pressure difference; tailoring the pressure sensors to their particular expected ranges would have allowed for more accurate measuring data.
Regarding claim 10, Fincke does not explicitly disclose a housing component being present in which the four channel sections are formed. Housings have generally been known in the art for providing protection to components of a device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided at least one housing component in which the channel sections are formed in Fincke, in order to provide protection to the flow sensor and its components.
Regarding claim 12, Fincke discloses that there is at least one differential pressure sensor (151, 155 or 159) arranged on at least two of the measurement connections (see Fig. 1). Fincke also discloses that the temperature T and absolute pressure P are measured (par. 0034) but does not explicitly disclose or show the temperature sensor or the pressure sensor for these measurements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have included a conventional temperature sensor and absolute pressure sensor on the channel of Fincke in order to be able to quickly and efficiently provide these measured values.
Regarding claim 13, Fincke discloses a measurement system for determining a flow rate with the flow sensor according to one of claims claim 9, and with at least one differential pressure sensor (sensors 151, 155 and 159), wherein an evaluation unit 153 is provided which is connected at least to the at least one differential pressure sensor, in order to detect at least a first differential pressure (ΔP2) in the measurement channel of the flow sensor and to detect a second differential pressure (ΔP0) in the measurement channel of the flow sensor (par. 0029), the evaluation unit being configured to carry out a method for determining the flow rate of a fluid through the flow sensor (Id.).
Fincke does not disclose there being a display unit in order to display at least the flow rate graphically. However, display units that display measurement results graphically, such as conventional computer monitors, have been known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have included a display for graphically displaying measurement results because it provides an quick and efficient way to convey the measurements to a user.
Regarding claim 14, Fincke do not explicitly disclose at least one interface for reading out recorded values. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided a conventional interface such as a connector for a USB cable or any conventional wired or wireless data interface, because it would have allowed for measurement data to be easily transmitted to various users and/or display devices.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atherton (US 2014/0299210), as set forth above with regard to claim 9, in view of Dimeff (US 6,164,142).
Regarding claim 11, Atherton discloses the elements of claim 9 as set forth above, but Atherton does not disclose the resistance elements being interchangeable. Dimeff discloses a flow measurement sensor that uses three resistance elements 32, 34, 36, in the form of screens or flow straighteners, similar to those of Atherton, and Dimeff discloses them being separate elements that can be removed or be considered interchangeable (see Fig. 2, showing the screens 32, 34, 36 as individual separable structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used separable interchangeable resistance elements, as taught by Dimeff, in the flow sensor of Atherton because it would have provided for more versatility in the types of flow straighteners and resistance elements that are able to be used.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL M WEST whose telephone number is (571)272-2139. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5:30 pm (CT).
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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/PAUL M. WEST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855