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 .
Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed on 07/08/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the applicant’s argument, that “Graber reference fails to teach diagnostic circuitry which applies on electrode diagnostic signal that is referenced to the electrode flow signal rather than to electrical ground” because “Graber uses prior art techniques in which a ground reference signal is used”, as it “requires the flow measurements to be taken off line while diagnostic are performed”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully submits that Graber teaches “verification of the magnetic flowmeter can be performed during normal measurement of flow of process fluid, and without interrupting the output of flow information. In one configuration, the verification is performed in the background to normal operation of the flowmeter” (see Graber’s Column 5, lines 32-45) and that “test circuitry 202 may also be configured to measure the resistance of electrodes 202. In such a configuration, the test function 230 can be configured to apply a current through electrodes 30 and 32” (see Graber’s Column 4, lines 30-55).
In response to the applicant’s argument, that “the referencing technique set forth in the pending claims” which “provides high input impedance that allows the diagnostic signal to be applied without disturbing the flow induced EMF signal”, the examiner respectfully submits that these asserted features are not explicitly disclosed or recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims (see In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993)).
In response to the applicant’s argument that “the diagnostic signal source can be connected and disconnected with minimal disturbance to the flow measurement”, the examiner respectfully submits that the phrase “the diagnostic signal source” is not disclosed in the claims. Furthermore, the specification, dated 02/20/2024, discloses that “the electrode referenced diagnostic signal does not require the diagnostic signal to be disconnected during flow measurements” (see paragraph section [0023]). The examiner respectfully submits that Graber also teaches that “verification of the magnetic flowmeter can be performed during normal measurement of flow of process fluid, and without interrupting the output of flow information. In one configuration, the verification is performed in the background to normal operation of the flowmeter” (see Graber’s Column 5, lines 32-45) without explicitly requiring that the disconnection of “diagnostic signal source”.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 claim recites “the electrode referenced diagnostic signal is referenced to the electrode flow signal of the at least one of the first and second electrodes” without explaining whether the “referenced to the electrode flow signal" means that (1) the electrode flow signal is input to a positive or negative feedback loop or (2) that the referenced electrode flow signal as standard or baseline, such as “a “signature” indicative of nominal operation” (see Graber’s Column 5, lines 32-45). For examination purposes, this limitation will be interpreted according to (2).
The claim recites “diagnostic circuitry electrically coupled to at least one of the first and second electrodes which generates an electrode referenced diagnostic signal applied to the at least one of the first and second electrodes” without explaining whether the phrase means that (3) at least one of the first and second electrodes generates an electrode referenced diagnostic signal or that (4) diagnostic circuitry generates an electrode referenced diagnostic signal. For examination purposes, this limitation will be interpreted according to (4).
Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites that “changes in electrode impedance can be detected while sensing the electrode flow signal” without defining the whether the electrode impedance is measured from the first electrode, the second electrode, or something else. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites “the electrode referenced diagnostic signal is referenced to the electrode flow signal of the at least one of the first and second electrodes” without explaining whether the “referenced to the electrode flow signal" means that (5) the electrode flow signal is input to a positive or negative feedback loop or (6) that the referenced electrode flow signal as standard or baseline, such as “a “signature” indicative of nominal operation” (see Graber’s Column 5, lines 32-45). For examination purposes, this limitation will be interpreted according to (6).
Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 15, the currently amended claim recites “the electrode signal” without defining its proper antecedent basis. The claim further recites “maintaining a high input impedance” without disclosing the device associated with the claimed “high input impedance”, such as the electrodes, the diagnostic circuitry, or something else. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 16, the currently amended claim recites “connecting and disconnecting the diagnostic signal while obtaining a flow measurement” without explaining whether the “connecting and disconnecting” are essential steps in performing flow measurement. The specification, dated 02/20/2024, discloses that “diagnostic signal source can also be connected and disconnected with minimal disturbance to the flow measurement” (see paragraph section [0020]) and that “the electrode referenced diagnostic signal does not require the diagnostic signal to be disconnected during flow measurements” (see paragraph section [0023]). The specification does not appear to disclose the “connecting and disconnecting” as the method steps to be followed by the invention as claimed. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claims 2-3, 5-13, 17-20 are rejected as being dependent on the rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Graber et al. (Pat. No. US. 7,750,642) (hereafter Graber).
Regarding claim 1, Graber teaches a magnetic flow meter for measuring flow of a process fluid in a pipe, the flow meter comprising:
a magnetic coil disposed adjacent to the pipe configured to apply a magnetic field to the process fluid (i.e., electromagnet coil 26) (see Fig. 2);
first and second electrodes disposed within the pipe (i.e., electrodes 30 and 32) (see Fig. 2) which are electrically coupled to the process fluid and configured to sense an electromotive force (EMF) induced in the process fluid due to the applied magnetic field and flow of the process fluid and responsively provide respective first and second electrode flow signals (i.e., electromagnet 26 and the electrodes 30, 32 are wired to a transmitter circuit 34 as is ground electrode 35. In operation, the transmitter circuit 34 drives the electromagnet 26 with an electrical current, and the electromagnet 26 produces a magnetic field 36 indicated by arrows inside the flowtube 22. Process liquid 21 flows through the magnetic field in the flowtube 22, and the flow induces an electromotive force (EMF, voltage) in the liquid 21. The electrodes 30, 32 contact the liquid 21 and pick up or sense the EMF which, according to Faraday's law, is proportional to the flow rate of the liquid 21 in the flowtube 22) (see Column 2, lines 42-60);
output circuitry coupled to the first and second electrodes which provides an output related to the sensed EMF (i.e., measurement circuitry 154 provides an output related to flow) (see Fig. 2); and
diagnostic circuitry (i.e., test function 230 of verification circuitry 200) (see Fig. 2 and 4) electrically coupled to at least one of the first and second electrodes (i.e., test function 230 of the test circuitry 202 can be configured to apply a current through electrodes 30 and 32) (see Column 4, lines 30-55) which generates an electrode referenced diagnostic signal (i.e., a nominal parameter value 222 stored in memory 204 and the sensor 232 may be embodied in amplifiers 148 and 150 which are arranged to measure the voltage from electrodes 30 and 32) (see Column 4, lines 30-55) applied to the at least one of the first and second electrodes (i.e., the test function 230 can be configured to apply a current through electrodes 30 and 32) (see Column 4, lines 30-55),
wherein the electrode referenced diagnostic signal is referenced to the electrode flow signal of the at least one of the first and second electrodes (i.e., verification circuitry can be configured to measure a parameter of the flow tube including related electronic circuitry. Examples of parameters which may be monitored include, but are not limited to, electrical resistance of a drive coil of the flowtube, electrical inductance of the drive coil, resistance of sensed electrode of the flowtube and analog output from the magnetic flowmeter, operation of front end electronics of the flowmeter (i.e., the test function 230 can be configured to simulate an electrode voltage resulting from electrodes 30 and 32 resulting from a flow through the flowtube. Based upon the simulated sensed voltage, the input circuitry can be tested to determine proper operation of amplifiers or other components), a waveform and level of the drive current applied to the coil of the flowtube, pulse output, digital inputs and outputs, or others) (see Column 2, lines 14, 41; and Column 4, lines 30-55).
Regarding claim 2, Graber teaches that the electrode referenced diagnostic signal is coupled to the at least one of the first and second electrodes through a voltage source (i.e., test function 230 can be used to apply a test function or signal to components or circuitry of flowmeter circuitry 220. Sensor 232 may be used to measure a parameter of components or circuitry of flowmeter circuitry 220. Turning to a specific example, test function 230 may comprise a current source and sensor 232 may comprise a voltage sensor. In such a configuration, microprocessor 238 can measure a resistance value by monitoring the voltage drop across a component in response to the applied current level) (see Column 4, lines 30-55) which references a diagnostic signal to the electrode flow signal (i.e., the test function 230 can be configured to simulate an electrode voltage resulting from electrodes 30 and 32 resulting from a flow through the flowtube. Based upon the simulated sensed voltage, the input circuitry can be tested to determine proper operation of amplifiers or other components) (see Column 4, lines 30-55).
Regarding claim 3, Graber teaches an electrode signal amplifier for use in coupling the electrode referenced diagnostic signal to the electrode flow signal (i.e., Electrodes 30 and 32 couple to measurement circuitry 154 through amplifiers 150 and 148, respectively. The test circuitry 202 may be formed by discreet components, or may be shared with other components, for example a microprocessor, amplifier, analog to digital converters, sensors) (see Column 3, lines 26-40).
Regarding claim 4, Graber teaches that the electrode flow signal is independent of the electrode referenced diagnostic signal (i.e., the test function 230 can be configured to apply a current through electrodes 30 and 32. In this configuration, the sensor 232 may be embodied in amplifiers 148 and 150 which are arranged to measure the voltage from electrodes 30 and 32) (see Column 4, lines 30-55) whereby changes in electrode impedance can be detected while sensing the electrode flow signal (i.e., the verification is performed in the background to normal operation of the flowmeter) (see Column 5, lines 32-46).
Regarding claim 5, Gaber teaches that the electrode flow signal is unaffected by changes in the electrode referenced diagnostic signal (i.e., the test function 230 can be configured to simulate an electrode voltage resulting from electrodes 30 and 32 resulting from a flow through the flowtube) (see Column 4, lines 30-55) whereby changes in electrode impedance can be detected while sensing the electrode flow signal (i.e., the verification is performed in the background to normal operation of the flowmeter) (see Column 5, lines 32-46).
Regarding claim 6, Graber teaches that the electrode referenced diagnostic signal is a common mode signal (i.e., a common mode signal applied to the electrodes 30 and 32) (see Column 5, lines 9-30).
Regarding claim 7, Graber teaches that the electrode referenced diagnostic signal is a differential mode signal (i.e., the test function 230 can be configured to apply a current through electrodes 30 and 32) (see Column 4, lines 30-55).
Regarding claim 8, Graber teaches that the electrode referenced diagnostic signal is a single ended signal (i.e., the test function 230 can be configured to apply a current through electrodes 30 and 32) (see Column 4, lines 30-55).
Regarding claim 9, Graber teaches that the diagnostic signal is changed based upon process fluid impedance (i.e., the result of the test is compared with a nominal parameter value 222 stored in memory 204. The nominal parameter value may be a specific value, a value with a percent range, a range of values, or other way of identifying acceptable result from the test performed on the flowmeter circuitry 220) (see Column 3, lines 44-64).
Regarding claim 10, Graber teaches that the diagnostic signal is changed based upon an electrical connection between the at least one of the first and second electrodes and the process fluid (i.e., the result of the test is compared with a nominal parameter value 222 stored in memory 204. The nominal parameter value may be a specific value, a value with a percent range, a range of values, or other way of identifying acceptable result from the test performed on the flowmeter circuitry 220) (see Column 3, lines 44-64).
Regarding claim 11, Graber teaches that the diagnostic circuitry provides a second diagnostic signal and wherein one diagnostic signal is a common mode signal (i.e., a common mode signal applied to the electrodes 30 and 32) (see Column 5, lines 9-30) and the other diagnostic signal is a differential mode signal for use in providing different diagnostics simultaneously (i.e., the test function 230 can be configured to apply a current through electrodes 30 and 32) (see Column 4, lines 30-55).
Regarding claim 12, Graber teaches that the diagnostic signal changes based upon changes in an electrical characteristic of the flow meter (i.e., the result of the test is compared with a nominal parameter value 222 stored in memory 204. The nominal parameter value may be a specific value, a value with a percent range, a range of values, or other way of identifying acceptable result from the test performed on the flowmeter circuitry 220) (see Column 3, lines 44-64).
Regarding claim 13, Graber teaches that the diagnostic signal is related to a differential impedance measured between at least two components of the flow meter (i.e., multiple values may be stored in the memory and which overall provide a characterization of the various components of the flowmeter 20. These values can then be compared to measured values to verify the flowtube calibration has not shifted during operation. The data may be derived in a number of way, including for example, a measurement of a factory, measurement of the external equipment and placed into the memory, measured by the verification circuitry 200 itself when the flowmeter 20 is first commissioned) (see Column 4, lines 56-67).
Regarding claim 14, Graber teaches a method for measuring flow of a process fluid in a pipe, comprising:
applying a magnetic field to process fluid flowing through the pipe with a magnetic coil (i.e., electromagnet coil 26) (see Fig. 2);
sensing an electromotive force (EMF) induced in the pipe due to the applied magnetic field and flow of the process fluid using first and second electrodes and responsively generating first and second electrode flow signals (i.e., electromagnet 26 and the electrodes 30, 32 are wired to a transmitter circuit 34 as is ground electrode 35. In operation, the transmitter circuit 34 drives the electromagnet 26 with an electrical current, and the electromagnet 26 produces a magnetic field 36 indicated by arrows inside the flowtube 22. Process liquid 21 flows through the magnetic field in the flowtube 22, and the flow induces an electromotive force (EMF, voltage) in the liquid 21) (see Column 2, lines 42-60);
measuring the EMF with output circuitry, wherein the measured EMF is indicative of flow of the process fluid (i.e., the electrodes 30, 32 contact the liquid 21 and pick up or sense the EMF which, according to Faraday's law, is proportional to the flow rate of the liquid 21 in the flowtube 22) (see Column 2, lines 42-60); and
performing diagnostics using an electrode referenced diagnostic signal (i.e., a nominal parameter value 222 stored in memory 204 and the sensor 232 may be embodied in amplifiers 148 and 150 which are arranged to measure the voltage from electrodes 30 and 32) (see Column 4, lines 30-55) generated by diagnostic circuitry applied to at least one of the first and second electrodes (i.e., the test function 230 can be configured to apply a current through electrodes 30 and 32) (see Column 4, lines 30-55),
wherein the electrode referenced diagnostic signal is referenced to the electrode flow signal of the at least one of the first and second electrodes (i.e., verification circuitry can be configured to measure a parameter of the flow tube including related electronic circuitry. Examples of parameters which may be monitored include, but are not limited to, electrical resistance of a drive coil of the flowtube, electrical inductance of the drive coil, resistance of sensed electrode of the flowtube and analog output from the magnetic flowmeter, operation of front end electronics of the flowmeter (i.e., the test function 230 can be configured to simulate an electrode voltage resulting from electrodes 30 and 32 resulting from a flow through the flowtube. Based upon the simulated sensed voltage, the input circuitry can be tested to determine proper operation of amplifiers or other components), a waveform and level of the drive current applied to the coil of the flowtube, pulse output, digital inputs and outputs, or others) (see Column 2, lines 14, 41; and Column 4, lines 30-55).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Graber et al. (Pat. No. US. 7,750,642) (hereafter Graber) and in further view of Foss et al. (Pat. No. 9,952,075) (hereafter Foss)
Regarding claim 15, Graber teaches coupling a diagnostic signal to the at least one of the first and second electrodes (i.e., the test function 230 can be configured to apply a current through electrodes 30 and 32) (see Column 4, lines 30-55) through a voltage source (i.e., test function 230 may comprise a current source and sensor 232 may comprise a voltage sensor) (see Fig. 4) which references the diagnostic signal to the electrode signal (i.e., test circuitry 202 performs a test on flowmeter circuitry 220. The result of the test is compared with a nominal parameter value 222 stored in memory 204. The nominal parameter value may be a specific value, a value with a percent range, a range of values, or other way of identifying acceptable result from the test performed on the flowmeter circuitry 220. Based upon this comparison, an output is provided from verification circuitry 220 by output circuitry 206) (see Column 3, lines 44-64); but does not explicitly teach thereby maintaining a high input impedance.
Regarding the high input impedance, Foss teaches coupling a diagnostic signal to the at least one of the first and second electrodes (i.e., current source control signal 232) (see Fig. 3A-B) through a voltage source (i.e., the configurable current source 230 can be any type of configurable source including a voltage source) (see Column 3, line 36, to Column 5, line 10) which references the diagnostic signal to the electrode signal (i.e., amplifiers 148, 150 are configured to receive negative feedback through resistors 220 and 222) (see Column 3, line 36, to Column 5, line 10) and thereby maintaining a high input impedance (i.e., based upon the magnitude of the DC offset voltage seen at analog to digital converter 210, microprocessor 212 can apply a configurable current source control signal 232 to configurable current source 230 whereby a voltage is applied to electrodes 30 and 32 which has the same magnitude as the saturation voltage but of opposite polarity. Source 230 is used to apply a relative offset value between the two electrodes 30 and 32. This can be used to remove the DC offset voltage between electrodes 30 and 32 and thereby prevent saturation from occurring and allow the flowmeter to continue to correctly measure flow rate. The correction is applied typically at a very low frequency and therefore does not interfere with the pulsed DC flow measurement) (see Column 3, line 36, to Column 5, line 10). In view of the teaching of Foss, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the saturation detection and correction circuitry, in order to accurately detect zero flow conditions or to further determine the fluid level in the pipe.
Regarding claim 16, Graber teaches that connecting and disconnecting the diagnostic signal while obtaining a flow measurement (i.e., the verification is performed in the background to normal operation of the flowmeter) (see Column 5, lines 32-46).
Regarding claim 17, Graber teaches that the diagnostic signal is a common mode signal (i.e., a common mode signal applied to the electrodes 30 and 32) (see Column 5, lines 9-30).
Regarding claim 18, Graber teaches that the diagnostic signal is a differential mode signal (i.e., the test function 230 can be configured to apply a current through electrodes 30 and 32) (see Column 4, lines 30-55).
Regarding claim 19, Graber teaches that the diagnostic signal is a single ended signal (i.e., the test function 230 can be configured to apply a current through electrodes 30 and 32) (see Column 4, lines 30-55).
Regarding claim 20, Graber teaches providing a second diagnostic signal and wherein one diagnostic signal is a common mode signal (i.e., a common mode signal applied to the electrodes 30 and 32) (see Column 5, lines 9-30) and the other diagnostic signal is a differential mode signal for use in providing different diagnostics simultaneously (i.e., the test function 230 can be configured to apply a current through electrodes 30 and 32) (see Column 4, lines 30-55).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAN M. TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0307. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:30am - 7:00pm.
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 on (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.
/Tran M. Tran/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights