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 statements submitted on 2/27/2024, 1/8/2026, and 3/2/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the second chamber" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the gas outlet" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 9-17 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.
Claim 9 recites “a measuring module arranged to measure a flow rate, as well as an inlet channel which extends upstream from the measuring module and an outlet channel which extends downstream from the measuring module, the inlet channel and the outlet channel passing through one same first plane” in lines 1-4. However, claim 1, on which claim 9 depends, already recites a measuring module, an inlet channel, an outlet channel and a one same plane. It is unclear if the measuring module, inlet channel, outlet channel and one same plane of claim 9 are the same as those recited in claim 1 or if they are new structures. The examiner has interpreted the claim to mean that they are the same structures.
Claims 10-17 depend on claim 9 and are rejected for inheriting the same problem.
Claim 15 recites that the additional conduit has a shape and dimensions similar to those of the measuring circuit. The term “similar” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, it is unclear how similar the shape and dimensions must be in order to infringe the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the additional circuit" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner has interpreted claim 16 to depend on claim 15 rather than claim 13.
Claim 17 recites “a dust filter …” in lines 1-19. However, claim 1, on which claim 17 depends, already recites the limitations of lines 1-19 claim 17 depends. It is unclear if the limitations of lines 1-19 of claim 17 are the same as those recited in claim 1 or if they are new structures. The examiner has interpreted the claim to mean that they are the same structures.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 7,329,342 issued to Faria et al. (“Faria”).
As for claim 1, Farra discloses a dust filter (12, 30, 84 in Figs. 1 and 2), arranged to be installed in a single-tube gas meter which comprises a measuring module arranged to measure a flow rate of a gas, as well as an inlet channel which extends upstream from the measuring module and an outlet channel which extends downstream from the measuring module, the inlet channel and the outlet channel passing through one same first plane (the recitation of the gas meter describes the intended use of the claimed dust filter and does not structurally distinguish the claimed dust filter over the prior art),
the dust filter comprising a filtering medium (12, 84) wherein a hole (including 86) is made, a cross-section of the filtering medium and a cross-section of the hole, along a second plane (a cross section through 12, 84 in Fig. 2 corresponding to a horizontal line through the middle of 12, 84) perpendicular to a thickness (a vertical dimension of Fig. 2) of the filtering medium, respectively having for shapes, a shape of a cross-section of the inlet channel (i.e. the cross section of 12, 84 is a circular donut) and a shape of a cross-section of the outlet channel (i.e. the cross section of 86 is a circular donut hole) along the first plane,
the dust filter thus being arranged (i.e. having the cross section described above) such that, when it is installed in the meter, such that the first plane coincides with the second plane, the gas, before entering into the measuring module, passes into the inlet channel through the filtering medium, and after exiting from the measuring module, passes into the outlet channel through the hole (the recitation of the gas meter describes the intended use of the claimed dust filter and does not structurally distinguish the claimed dust filter over the prior art),
the dust filter further comprising at least one generally flat (along the bottom) first frame (30), which is positioned against a first face of the filtering medium (12, 84) by being fixed to it (see Fig. 2), the first face being a lower face of the filtering medium when the dust filter is installed in the meter (see Fig. 2), wherein the dust filter (12, 30, 84) further
As for claim 2, Faria discloses that the hole (86) is positioned in a central portion of the filtering medium (see Fig. 2).
As for claim 3, Faria discloses that a contour (circular bottom outline) of the first frame (30) has one same shape as a contour (circular bottom outline) of the filtering medium (12, 84), a width and a length of the filtering medium being greater than a width and a length of the first frame (see Fig. 2).
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 113102361 by Zhong et al. (“Zhong”) in view of KR 102437740 by Lee (“Lee”).
As for claim 1, Zhong discloses a dust filter (202), arranged to be installed in a single-tube gas meter which comprises a measuring module arranged to measure a flow rate of a gas, as well as an inlet channel which extends upstream from the measuring module and an outlet channel which extends downstream from the measuring module, the inlet channel and the outlet channel passing through one same first plane (the recitation of the gas meter describes the intended use of the claimed dust filter and does not structurally distinguish the claimed dust filter over the prior art),
the dust filter (202) comprising a filtering medium (2023) wherein a hole is made (see Fig. 4), a cross-section of the filtering medium (see Fig. 4) and a cross-section of the hole (see Fig. 4), along a second plane (see Fig. 4) perpendicular to a thickness (vertical dimension in Fig. 2) of the filtering medium, respectively having for shapes, a shape of a cross-section of the inlet channel and a shape of a cross-section of the outlet channel along the first plane (see Fig. 4),
the dust filter thus being arranged (i.e. having the cross section described above) such that, when it is installed in the meter, such that the first plane coincides with the second plane, the gas, before entering into the measuring module, passes into the inlet channel through the filtering medium, and after exiting from the measuring module, passes into the outlet channel through the hole (the recitation of the gas meter describes the intended use of the claimed dust filter and does not structurally distinguish the claimed dust filter over the prior art).
Zhong does not disclose a first frame or magnet as recited.
However, Lee discloses a dust filter (23) further comprising at least one generally flat first frame (21, 234), which is positioned against a first face of a filtering medium (231) by being fixed to it (see Fig. 3), the first face being a lower face of the filtering medium when the dust filter is installed in a meter (see Fig. 3), wherein the dust filter further comprises a magnet (233) positioned on the first frame and arranged to attract metal dust particles (see the paragraph beginning “The magnetic ring 233 is disposed between the filtration filer 213 and the stabilization filer 232 …”).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the dust filter of Zhong to include the first frame and magnet as disclosed by Lee in order to improve the filtration by attracting magnetic particles.
As for claim 2, Zhong as modified by Lee discloses that the hole is positioned in a central portion of the filtering medium (Zhong: see Fig. 4).
As for claim 6, Zhong as modified by Lee discloses that the filtering medium (Zhong: 233) has a generally flat shape and has, when it is seen from above or below, a square (Zhong: see Fig. 4) or rectangular shape having rounded corners.
Claims 1, 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2012/143669 by Evans (“Evans”) in view of KR 102437740 by Lee (“Lee”).
As for claim 1, Evans discloses a dust filter (18), arranged to be installed in a single-tube gas meter (Fig. 7) which comprises a measuring module (27) arranged to measure a flow rate of a gas (the recitation of the gas meter describes the intended use of the claimed dust filter and does not structurally distinguish the claimed dust filter over the prior art), as well as an inlet channel (through 18) which extends upstream from the measuring module and an outlet channel (30) which extends downstream from the measuring module, the inlet channel and the outlet channel passing through one same first plane (plane of 18 in Fig. 7),
the dust filter (18) comprising a filtering medium (18) wherein a hole (see Figs. 7 and 14) is made, a cross-section of the filtering medium and a cross-section of the hole, along a second plane (i.e. the same plane through 18 in Fig. 7) perpendicular to a thickness (vertical dimension of 18 in Fig. 7) of the filtering medium, respectively having for shapes, a shape of a cross-section of the inlet channel and a shape of a cross-section of the outlet channel along the first plane (see Figs. 7 and 14),
the dust filter (18) thus being arranged such that, when it is installed in the meter, such that the first plane coincides with the second plane (see Fig. 7), the gas, before entering into the measuring module (27), passes into the inlet channel (through 18) through the filtering medium, and after exiting from the measuring module, passes into the outlet channel through the hole (see Fig. 7).
Evans does not disclose a first frame or magnet as recited.
However, Lee discloses a dust filter (23) further comprising at least one generally flat first frame (21, 234), which is positioned against a first face of a filtering medium (231) by being fixed to it (see Fig. 3), the first face being a lower face of the filtering medium when the dust filter is installed in a meter (see Fig. 3), wherein the dust filter further comprises a magnet (233) positioned on the first frame and arranged to attract metal dust particles (see the paragraph beginning “The magnetic ring 233 is disposed between the filtration filer 213 and the stabilization filer 232 …”).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the dust filter of Evans to include the first frame and magnet as disclosed by Lee in order to improve the filtration by attracting magnetic particles.
As for claim 2, Evans as modified by Lee discloses that the hole is positioned in a central portion of the filtering medium (Evans: see Fig. 14).
As for claim 6, Evans as modified by Lee discloses the dust filter according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above) and that the filtering medium (Evans: 18) has a generally flat shape (Evans: see Fig. 2).
Evans as modified by Lee does not disclose that the filtering medium has, when it is seen from above or below, a square or rectangular shape having rounded corners.
At the time the application was filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to shape the filter medium of Evans and Lee to have a square or rectangular shape having rounded corners because Applicant has not disclosed that shaping the filter medium as claimed provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the filter medium of Evans and Lee and applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either the shape taught by Evans and Lee or the claimed square or rectangular shape with rounded corner because both shapes would perform the same function of filtering a fluid.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Evans and Lee to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Evans and Lee.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2012/143669 by Evans (“Evans”) in view of KR 102437740 by Lee (“Lee”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of U.S. Patent 12,044,423 issued to Dameno et al. (“Dameno”).
As for claim 4, Evans as modified by Lee discloses the dust filter according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Evans as modified by Lee does not disclose at least one first pressure sensor which is positioned on the first frame.
However, Dameno discloses at least one first pressure sensor (104) which is positioned on a first frame (114,127).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the dust filter of Evans and Lee by including the first pressure sensor as disclosed by Dameno in order to be able to track the performance of the dust filter in real time (Dameno: col. 1, line 65 - col. 2, line 1).
As for claim 5, Evans as modified by Lee and Dameno discloses a second generally flat frame (Lee: 22), which is positioned against a second face of the filtering medium (Evans: 18 and Lee: 231) by being fixed to it, the dust filter further comprising at least one second pressure sensor (Dameno: 106) which is positioned on the second frame.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2012/143669 by Evans (“Evans”) in view of KR 102437740 by Lee (“Lee”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of U.S. Patent 9,991,021 issued to Klug et al. (“Klug”).
As for claim 7, Evans as modified by Lee discloses the dust filter according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Evans as modified by Lee does not disclose that the first frame is made of polyoxymethylene.
However, Klug discloses a first frame that is made of polyoxymethylene (col. 3, lines 32-34).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the first frame of Evans and Lee to be made of polyoxymethylene as disclosed by Klug because it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07 and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2012/143669 by Evans (“Evans”) in view of KR 102437740 by Lee (“Lee”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of U.S. Patent 6,169,045 issued to Pike et al. (“Pike”).
As for claim 8, Evans as modified by Lee discloses the dust filter according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Evans as modified by Lee does not disclose that the filtering medium is a polyester medium.
However, Pike discloses a filtering medium that is a polyester medium (col. 1, lines 10-16 and claim 4).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the filtering medium of Evans and Lee to be a polyester medium as disclosed by Pike because it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07 and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claims 9/1, 9/2 and 9/6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2012/143669 by Evans (“Evans”) in view of KR 102437740 by Lee (“Lee”) as applied to claims 1, 2 and 6, further in view of CN 100408984 by Hu (“Hu”).
As for claims 9/1, 9/2 and 9/6, Evans as modified by Lee discloses a single-tube meter (Evans: Fig. 7) comprising a measuring module (Evans: 27) arranged to measure a flow rate, as well as an inlet channel (Evans: through 18) which extends upstream from the measuring module and an outlet channel (Evans: 30) which extends downstream from the measuring module, the inlet channel and the outlet channel passing through one same first plane (Evans: plane of 18 in Fig. 7), the meter further comprising a dust filter according to one of the preceding claims (see the rejections of claims 1, 2 and 6 above), the dust filter being installed in the meter, such that the first plane coincides with the second plane (Evans: see Fig. 7).
Evans as modified by Lee does not disclose that the meter and measuring module measure a gas. Instead, Evans discloses that the meter and measuring module use a piston to measure a water flow.
However, Hu discloses a meter and measuring module that measure a gas (see the Abstract and first paragraph of “Technical Field”). Hu discloses that a measuring module that measures a gas flow or a water flow using a piston.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the meter and piston of Evans and Lee to measure a gas flow as disclosed by Hu in order to accurately meter a gas as desired by the user.
As for claims 10/9/1, 10/9/2 and 10/9/6, Evans as modified by Lee and Hu discloses the first plane being a horizontal plane (Evans: see Fig. 7).
As for claims 14/9/1, 14/9/2 and 14/9/6, Evans as modified by Lee and Hu discloses that the measuring module (Evans: 27 and Hu: Fig. 2) comprises a measuring conduit (Hu: 19), wherein the gas circulates, the measuring conduit being positioned vertically when the meter is installed in its nominal position (Evans: Fig. 7, the measuring module 27 conducts fluid in a generally vertical direction).
Claims 9/4 and 9/5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2012/143669 by Evans (“Evans”) in view of KR 102437740 by Lee (“Lee”) and U.S. Patent 12,044,423 issued to Dameno et al. (“Dameno”) as applied to claims 4 and 5, further in view of CN 100408984 by Hu (“Hu”).
As for claims 9/4 and 9/5, Evans as modified by Lee and Dameno discloses single-tube meter (Evans: Fig. 7) comprising a measuring module (Evans: 27) arranged to measure a flow rate, as well as an inlet channel (Evans: through 18) which extends upstream from the measuring module and an outlet channel (Evans: 30) which extends downstream from the measuring module, the inlet channel and the outlet channel passing through one same first plane (Evans: plane of 18 in Fig. 7), the meter further comprising a dust filter according to one of the preceding claims (see the rejections of claims 4 and 5 above), the dust filter being installed in the meter, such that the first plane coincides with the second plane (Evans: see Fig. 7).
Evans as modified by Lee and Dameno does not disclose that the meter and measuring module measure a gas. Instead, Evans discloses that the meter and measuring module use a piston to measure a water flow.
However, Hu discloses a meter and measuring module that measure a gas (see the first paragraph of “Technical Field”). Hu discloses that a measuring module that measures a gas flow or a water flow using a piston.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the meter and piston of Evans, Lee and Dameno to measure a gas flow as disclosed by Hu in order to accurately meter a gas as desired by the user.
As for claims 10/9/4 and 10/9/5, Evans as modified by Lee, Dameno and Hu discloses the first plane being a horizontal plane (Evans: see Fig. 7).
As for claims 14/9/4 and 14/9/5, Evans as modified by Lee, Dameno and Hu discloses that the measuring module (Evans: 27 and Hu: Fig. 2) comprises a measuring conduit (Hu: 19), wherein the gas circulates, the measuring conduit being positioned vertically when the meter is installed in its nominal position (Evans: Fig. 7, the measuring module 27 conducts fluid in a generally vertical direction).
Claim 9/7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2012/143669 by Evans (“Evans”) in view of KR 102437740 by Lee (“Lee”) and U.S. Patent 9,991,021 issued to Klug et al. (“Klug”) as applied to claim 7, further in view of CN 100408984 by Hu (“Hu”).
As for claim 9/7, Evans as modified by Lee and Klug discloses single-tube meter (Evans: Fig. 7) comprising a measuring module (Evans: 27) arranged to measure a flow rate, as well as an inlet channel (Evans: through 18) which extends upstream from the measuring module and an outlet channel (Evans: 30) which extends downstream from the measuring module, the inlet channel and the outlet channel passing through one same first plane (Evans: plane of 18 in Fig. 7), the meter further comprising a dust filter according to one of the preceding claims (see the rejection of claim 7 above), the dust filter being installed in the meter, such that the first plane coincides with the second plane (Evans: see Fig. 7).
Evans as modified by Lee and Klug does not disclose that the meter and measuring module measure a gas. Instead, Evans discloses that the meter and measuring module use a piston to measure a water flow.
However, Hu discloses a meter and measuring module that measure a gas (see the first paragraph of “Technical Field”). Hu discloses that a measuring module that measures a gas flow or a water flow using a piston.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the meter and piston of Evans, Lee and Klug to measure a gas flow as disclosed by Hu in order to accurately meter a gas as desired by the user.
As for claim 10/9/7, Evans as modified by Lee, Klug and Hu discloses the first plane being a horizontal plane (Evans: see Fig. 7).
As for claim 14/9/7, Evans as modified by Lee, Klug and Hu discloses that the measuring module (Evans: 27 and Hu: Fig. 2) comprises a measuring conduit (Hu: 19), wherein the gas circulates, the measuring conduit being positioned vertically when the meter is installed in its nominal position (Evans: Fig. 7, the measuring module 27 conducts fluid in a generally vertical direction).
Claim 9/8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2012/143669 by Evans (“Evans”) in view of KR 102437740 by Lee (“Lee”) and U.S. Patent 6,169,045 issued to Pike et al. (“Pike”) as applied to claim 8, further in view of CN 100408984 by Hu (“Hu”).
As for claim 9/8, Evans as modified by Lee and Pike discloses single-tube meter (Evans: Fig. 7) comprising a measuring module (Evans: 27) arranged to measure a flow rate, as well as an inlet channel (Evans: through 18) which extends upstream from the measuring module and an outlet channel (Evans: 30) which extends downstream from the measuring module, the inlet channel and the outlet channel passing through one same first plane (Evans: plane of 18 in Fig. 7), the meter further comprising a dust filter according to one of the preceding claims (see the rejection of claim 8 above), the dust filter being installed in the meter, such that the first plane coincides with the second plane (Evans: see Fig. 7).
Evans as modified by Lee and Pike does not disclose that the meter and measuring module measure a gas. Instead, Evans discloses that the meter and measuring module use a piston to measure a water flow.
However, Hu discloses a meter and measuring module that measure a gas (see the first paragraph of “Technical Field”). Hu discloses that a measuring module that measures a gas flow or a water flow using a piston.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the meter and piston of Evans, Lee and Pike to measure a gas flow as disclosed by Hu in order to accurately meter a gas as desired by the user.
As for claim 10/9/8, Evans as modified by Lee, Pike and Hu discloses the first plane being a horizontal plane (Evans: see Fig. 7).
As for claim 14/9/8, Evans as modified by Lee, Pike and Hu discloses that the measuring module (Evans: 27 and Hu: Fig. 2) comprises a measuring conduit (Hu: 19), wherein the gas circulates, the measuring conduit being positioned vertically when the meter is installed in its nominal position (Evans: Fig. 7, the measuring module 27 conducts fluid in a generally vertical direction).
Claims 17/9/1, 17/9/2 and 17/9/6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2012/143669 by Evans (“Evans”) in view of KR 102437740 by Lee (“Lee”) and CN 100408984 by Hu (“Hu”) as applied to claims 9/1, 9/2 and 9/6, further in view of U.S. Patent 9,991,021 issued to Klug et al. (“Klug”) and U.S. Patent 7,751,990 issued to Kerrigan et al. (“Kerrigan”).
As for claims 17/9/1, 17/9/2 and 17/9/6, Evans as modified by Lee and Hu discloses the meter according to claims 9/1, 9/2 and 9/6 (see the rejections of claims 9/1, 9/2 and 9/6 above), comprising a dust filter (Evans 18) wherein the dust filter is arranged to be installed in a single-tube gas meter (Evans: Fig. 7) which comprises a measuring module (Evans: 27) arranged to measure a flow rate of a gas (Hu: Abstract), as well as an inlet channel (Evans: through 18) which extends upstream from the measuring module and an outlet channel (Evans: 30) which extends downstream from the measuring module, the inlet channel and the outlet channel passing through one same first plane (Evans: see Fig. 7),
the dust filter (Evans: 18) comprising a filtering medium (Evans: 18) wherein a hole (Evans: see Figs. 7 and 14) is made, a cross-section of the filtering medium and a cross-section of the hole, along a second plane perpendicular to a thickness of the filtering medium, respectively having for shapes, a shape of a cross-section of the inlet channel and a shape of a cross-section of the outlet channel along the first plane (Evans: see Figs. 7 and 14),
the dust filter (Evans: 18) thus being arranged such that, when it is installed in the meter, such that the first plane coincides with the second plane (Evans: see Fig. 7), the gas, before entering into the measuring module (Evans: 27), passes into the inlet channel through the filtering medium, and after exiting from the measuring module, passes into the outlet channel through the hole (Evans: see Fig. 7),
the dust filter further comprising at least one generally flat first frame (Lee: 21, 234), which is positioned against a first face of the filtering medium by being fixed to it (Lee: see Fig. 3),
the first face being a lower face of the filtering medium when the dust filter is installed in the meter (Lee: see Fig. 3), the dust filter further comprising a magnet (Lee: 233) positioned on the first frame and arranged to attract metal dust particles.
Evans as modified by Lee and Hu does not disclose that the first frame is made of polyoxymethylene.
However, Klug discloses a first frame that is made of polyoxymethylene.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the first frame of Evans, Lee and Hu to be made of polyoxymethylene as disclosed by Klug because it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07 and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Evans as modified by Lee, Hu and Klug does not disclose that the meter comprises a processing unit arranged to compare, with a reference threshold, a pressure difference as recited.
However, Kerrigan discloses a meter comprising a processing unit (102) arranged to compare (step 409), with a reference threshold (212), a pressure difference (216) between a first pressure measurement produced by the first pressure sensor (116) and a second pressure measurement produced by the second pressure sensor (118), and to produce an alarm message if the pressure difference is greater than said reference threshold (step 228).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the meter of Evans, Lee, Hu and Klug to include the processing unit, first pressure sensor and second pressure sensor as disclosed by Kerrigan in order to allow a user to determine when the filter has become clogged.
Claims 17/9/4 and 17/9/5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2012/143669 by Evans (“Evans”) in view of KR 102437740 by Lee (“Lee”), U.S. Patent 12,044,423 issued to Dameno et al. (“Dameno”) and CN 100408984 by Hu (“Hu”) as applied to claims 9/4 and 9/5, further in view of U.S. Patent 9,991,021 issued to Klug et al. (“Klug”) and U.S. Patent 7,751,990 issued to Kerrigan et al. (“Kerrigan”).
As for claims 17/9/4 and 17/9/5, Evans as modified by Lee, Dameno and Hu discloses the meter according to claims 9/4 and 9/5 (see the rejections of claims 9/4 and 9/5 above), comprising a dust filter (Evans 18) wherein the dust filter is arranged to be installed in a single-tube gas meter (Evans: Fig. 7) which comprises a measuring module (Evans: 27) arranged to measure a flow rate of a gas (Hu: Abstract), as well as an inlet channel (Evans: through 18) which extends upstream from the measuring module and an outlet channel (Evans: 30) which extends downstream from the measuring module, the inlet channel and the outlet channel passing through one same first plane (Evans: see Fig. 7),
the dust filter (Evans: 18) comprising a filtering medium (Evans: 18) wherein a hole (Evans: see Figs. 7 and 14) is made, a cross-section of the filtering medium and a cross-section of the hole, along a second plane perpendicular to a thickness of the filtering medium, respectively having for shapes, a shape of a cross-section of the inlet channel and a shape of a cross-section of the outlet channel along the first plane (Evans: see Figs. 7 and 14),
the dust filter (Evans: 18) thus being arranged such that, when it is installed in the meter, such that the first plane coincides with the second plane (Evans: see Fig. 7), the gas, before entering into the measuring module (Evans: 27), passes into the inlet channel through the filtering medium, and after exiting from the measuring module, passes into the outlet channel through the hole (Evans: see Fig. 7),
the dust filter further comprising at least one generally flat first frame (Lee: 21, 234), which is positioned against a first face of the filtering medium by being fixed to it (Lee: see Fig. 3),
the first face being a lower face of the filtering medium when the dust filter is installed in the meter (Lee: see Fig. 3), the dust filter further comprising a magnet (Lee: 233) positioned on the first frame and arranged to attract metal dust particles.
Evans as modified by Lee, Dameno and Hu does not disclose that the first frame is made of polyoxymethylene.
However, Klug discloses a first frame that is made of polyoxymethylene.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the first frame of Evans, Lee, Dameno and Hu to be made of polyoxymethylene as disclosed by Klug because it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07 and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Evans as modified by Lee, Dameno, Hu and Klug does not disclose that the meter comprises a processing unit arranged to compare, with a reference threshold, a pressure difference as recited.
However, Kerrigan discloses a meter comprising a processing unit (102) arranged to compare (step 409), with a reference threshold (212), a pressure difference (216) between a first pressure measurement produced by the first pressure sensor (116) and a second pressure measurement produced by the second pressure sensor (118), and to produce an alarm message if the pressure difference is greater than said reference threshold (step 228).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the meter of Evans, Lee, Dameno, Hu and Klug to include the processing unit, first pressure sensor and second pressure sensor as disclosed by Kerrigan in order to allow a user to determine when the filter has become clogged.
Claims 17/9/7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2012/143669 by Evans (“Evans”) in view of KR 102437740 by Lee (“Lee”), CN 100408984 by Hu (“Hu”) and U.S. Patent 9,991,021 issued to Klug et al. (“Klug”). as applied to claims 9/7, further in view of and U.S. Patent 7,751,990 issued to Kerrigan et al. (“Kerrigan”).
As for claims 17/9/7, Evans as modified by Lee, Klug and Hu discloses the meter according to claim 9/7 (see the rejections of claim 9/7 above), comprising a dust filter (Evans 18) wherein the dust filter is arranged to be installed in a single-tube gas meter (Evans: Fig. 7) which comprises a measuring module (Evans: 27) arranged to measure a flow rate of a gas (Hu: Abstract), as well as an inlet channel (Evans: through 18) which extends upstream from the measuring module and an outlet channel (Evans: 30) which extends downstream from the measuring module, the inlet channel and the outlet channel passing through one same first plane (Evans: see Fig. 7),
the dust filter (Evans: 18) comprising a filtering medium (Evans: 18) wherein a hole (Evans: see Figs. 7 and 14) is made, a cross-section of the filtering medium and a cross-section of the hole, along a second plane perpendicular to a thickness of the filtering medium, respectively having for shapes, a shape of a cross-section of the inlet channel and a shape of a cross-section of the outlet channel along the first plane (Evans: see Figs. 7 and 14),
the dust filter (Evans: 18) thus being arranged such that, when it is installed in the meter, such that the first plane coincides with the second plane (Evans: see Fig. 7), the gas, before entering into the measuring module (Evans: 27), passes into the inlet channel through the filtering medium, and after exiting from the measuring module, passes into the outlet channel through the hole (Evans: see Fig. 7),
the dust filter further comprising at least one generally flat first frame (Lee: 21, 234), which is positioned against a first face of the filtering medium by being fixed to it (Lee: see Fig. 3),
the first face being a lower face of the filtering medium when the dust filter is installed in the meter (Lee: see Fig. 3), the dust filter further comprising a magnet (Lee: 233) positioned on the first frame and arranged to attract metal dust particles, and
the first frame that being made of polyoxymethylene (Klug: col. 3, lines 32-34).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the first frame of Evans, Lee and Hu to be made of polyoxymethylene as disclosed by Klug because it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07 and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Evans as modified by Lee, Hu and Klug does not disclose that the meter comprises a processing unit arranged to compare, with a reference threshold, a pressure difference as recited.
However, Kerrigan discloses a meter comprising a processing unit (102) arranged to compare (step 409), with a reference threshold (212), a pressure difference (216) between a first pressure measurement produced by the first pressure sensor (116) and a second pressure measurement produced by the second pressure sensor (118), and to produce an alarm message if the pressure difference is greater than said reference threshold (step 228).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the meter of Evans, Lee, Hu and Klug to include the processing unit, first pressure sensor and second pressure sensor as disclosed by Kerrigan in order to allow a user to determine when the filter has become clogged.
Claim 17/9/8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2012/143669 by Evans (“Evans”) in view of KR 102437740 by Lee (“Lee”), U.S. Patent 6,169,045 issued to Pike et al. (“Pike”) and CN 100408984 by Hu (“Hu”) as applied to claim 9/8, further in view of U.S. Patent 9,991,021 issued to Klug et al. (“Klug”) and U.S. Patent 7,751,990 issued to Kerrigan et al. (“Kerrigan”).
As for claims 17/9/8, Evans as modified by Lee, Pike and Hu discloses the meter according to claims 9/8 (see the rejections of claim 9/8 above), comprising a dust filter (Evans 18) wherein the dust filter is arranged to be installed in a single-tube gas meter (Evans: Fig. 7) which comprises a measuring module (Evans: 27) arranged to measure a flow rate of a gas (Hu: Abstract), as well as an inlet channel (Evans: through 18) which extends upstream from the measuring module and an outlet channel (Evans: 30) which extends downstream from the measuring module, the inlet channel and the outlet channel passing through one same first plane (Evans: see Fig. 7),
the dust filter (Evans: 18) comprising a filtering medium (Evans: 18) wherein a hole (Evans: see Figs. 7 and 14) is made, a cross-section of the filtering medium and a cross-section of the hole, along a second plane perpendicular to a thickness of the filtering medium, respectively having for shapes, a shape of a cross-section of the inlet channel and a shape of a cross-section of the outlet channel along the first plane (Evans: see Figs. 7 and 14),
the dust filter (Evans: 18) thus being arranged such that, when it is installed in the meter, such that the first plane coincides with the second plane (Evans: see Fig. 7), the gas, before entering into the measuring module (Evans: 27), passes into the inlet channel through the filtering medium, and after exiting from the measuring module, passes into the outlet channel through the hole (Evans: see Fig. 7),
the dust filter further comprising at least one generally flat first frame (Lee: 21, 234), which is positioned against a first face of the filtering medium by being fixed to it (Lee: see Fig. 3),
the first face being a lower face of the filtering medium when the dust filter is installed in the meter (Lee: see Fig. 3), the dust filter further comprising a magnet (Lee: 233) positioned on the first frame and arranged to attract metal dust particles.
Evans as modified by Lee, Pike and Hu does not disclose that the first frame is made of polyoxymethylene.
However, Klug discloses a first frame that is made of polyoxymethylene.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the first frame of Evans, Lee, Pike and Hu to be made of polyoxymethylene as disclosed by Klug because it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07 and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Evans as modified by Lee, Pike, Hu and Klug does not disclose that the meter comprises a processing unit arranged to compare, with a reference threshold, a pressure difference as recited.
However, Kerrigan discloses a meter comprising a processing unit (102) arranged to compare (step 409), with a reference threshold (212), a pressure difference (216) between a first pressure measurement produced by the first pressure sensor (116) and a second pressure measurement produced by the second pressure sensor (118), and to produce an alarm message if the pressure difference is greater than said reference threshold (step 228).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the meter of Evans, Lee, Pike, Hu and Klug to include the processing unit, first pressure sensor and second pressure sensor as disclosed by Kerrigan in order to allow a user to determine when the filter has become clogged.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9/3, 11-13, 15 and 16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 9/3, the prior art of record and the examiner’s knowledge does not disclose or suggest a single tube gas meter comprising dust filter that includes a contour of a first frame has one same shape as a contour of a filtering medium, a width and a length of the filtering medium being greater than a width and a length of the first frame.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record and the examiner’s knowledge does not disclose or suggest a tank comprising a first chamber and a second chamber, the first chamber being an upper chamber and the second chamber being a lower chamber when a meter is installed in a nominal position, the meter in addition comprising a connecting device comprising a gas inlet and a gas outlet, the gas inlet opening into the first chamber, a measuring module being located in the second chamber, a dust filter separating the first chamber and the second chamber.
Claims 12 and 13 depend on claim 11 and inherit the same allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art of record and the examiner’s knowledge does not disclose or suggest a measuring module that comprises a measuring conduit wherein a gas circulates, a meter in addition comprising an additional conduit, having a shape and dimensions similar to those of the measuring conduit, and being disposed parallel to the measuring conduit, the additional conduit being arranged such that a portion of the gas which circulates in a second chamber to a gas outlet, passes through the additional conduit, which makes it possible to reduce a flow rate of gas circulating in the measuring conduit.
Claim 16 depends on either claim 13 or claim 15 and inherits the allowable subject matter of those claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0247962 by Timis et al. (“Timis”) is cited for all that it discloses including a gas meter that includes a dust filter with a hole.
U.S. Patent 7,553,414 issued to Hall (“Hall”) is cited for all that it discloses including a dust filter with a hole and a magnet.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN N OLAMIT whose telephone number is (571)270-1969. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am - 5 pm (Pacific).
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JUSTIN N OLAMIT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853