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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract contains at least one of the phrases that can be implied, such as the phrase “A method is also provided”. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 “diagnostic circuitry including an electrode referenced diagnostic signal applied to at least one of the first and second electrodes” but does not define whether or not the diagnostic circuitry generates and/or transmit the electrode referenced diagnostic signal to the electrodes and whether or not the diagnostic circuitry is actually coupled to the electrodes. The claim is incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections (see MPEP § 2172.01). Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “an electrode” without explaining whether “an electrode” is one of the first electrode and the second electrode or in addition to the first electrode and the second electrode. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “a diagnostic signal” without explaining whether “a diagnostic signal” is the same as “a diagnostic signal” in claim 2 or “a electrode referenced signal” in claim 1. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites that “the electrode flow signal is independent of the electrode referenced diagnostic signal”. However, the written specification does not appear to explain or describe how the electrode flow signal is “independent” from the electrode reference diagnostic signal. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites that “the electrode flow signal is unaffected by changes in the electrode referenced diagnostic signal”. However, the written specification does not appear to explain or describe how the electrode flow signal is “unaffected” by the electrode reference diagnostic signal. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “an electrode” without explaining whether “an electrode” is the same as or in addition to “an electrode” in claim 2. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites that “the diagnostic circuitry provides a second diagnostic signal and wherein one diagnostic signal is a common mode signal and the other diagnostic signal is a differential mode signal for use in providing different diagnostics simultaneously”. However, the specification does not explain how different diagnostics are provided “simultaneously”. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites “an electrode referenced diagnostic signal” being applied to the electrodes but does not disclose the element or device for generating and/or transmitting “an electrode referenced diagnostic signal”. The claim is incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections (see MPEP § 2172.01). Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “an electrode” without explaining whether “an electrode” is one of the first electrode and the second electrode or in addition to the first electrode and the second electrode. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites “powering the diagnostic signal on and off while obtaining a flow measurement”. However, the written specification does not explicitly disclose how the diagnostic signal is powered “on and off while obtaining a flower measurement”. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites “a differential mode signal for use in providing different diagnostics simultaneously”. However, the specification does not explain how different diagnostics are provided “simultaneously”. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claims 6-9, 12-13, 17-19 are rejected as being dependent on the rejected base claims.
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 1-20 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) including an electrode referenced diagnostic signal 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).
Regarding claim 2, Graber teaches the electrode referenced diagnostic signal is coupled to an electrode through a voltage source which references a diagnostic signal to the electrode flow signal (i.e., test function may comprise a current source) (see Column 4, lines 30-55).
Regarding claim 3, Graber teaches an electrode signal amplifier for use in coupling a diagnostic signal to the electrode flow signal (i.e., 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).
Regarding claim 4, Graber teaches that the electrode flow signal (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) is independent of 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).
Regarding claim 5, Graber teaches that the electrode flow signal (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) 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).
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 an electrode 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 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).
Regarding claim 15, Graber teaches coupling a diagnostic signal to an electrode through a voltage source which references the diagnostic signal to the electrode signal and thereby maintaining a high input impedance (i.e., test function may comprise a current source) (see Column 4, lines 30-55).
Regarding claim 16, Graber teaches powering the diagnostic signal on and off while obtaining a flow measurement (i.e., the test function signal may comprise the coil drive signal used during normal operation) (see Column 4, lines 21-29).
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892.
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