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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Subspecies 1.e. and 2.b. in the reply filed on 18 February 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 24 and 25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 12 and 14 – 16, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites “correlation determines when the maximum similarity occurs between the signals”. The specification does not disclose how similarity is determined and how a maximum similarity is determined.
Regarding Claims 1, 4, 6, and 7, the claim utilizes the term “correlation”. While there is adequate disclosure with respect to utilizing a cross-correlation, there is no disclosure with respect to any other form of correlation.
Regarding Claim 4, the claim recites “convert … a signal phase at different frequencies into volumetric flow rates for flows having single or multiple flow phases”. The specification does not disclose how a signal phase at different frequencies is converted to volumetric flow rates for single or multiple flow phases.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites “a correlation of signals between the plates provides axial flow velocities, and … a correlation of signals between plates in a same plane gives cross-sectional velocities”. The specification does not disclose the correlation of the specific plate configurations provides either axial flow velocities or cross-sectional velocities.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites “detect flow patterns and behavior by ratiometric estimation of measurements from plate or plate pairs with different geometries”. The specification does not disclose what a ratiometric estimation is and how flow patterns or behavior are determined from a ratiometric estimation from plate or plate pairs with different geometries.
Regarding Claim 14, the claim recites “detect a flow regime of a multi-phase flow by analyzing any combination of a time series signal of volume fraction, a volume fraction range, a symmetry in the time series signal, or a frequency analysis”. The specification does not disclose how the analysis of any combination of a time series signal of volume fraction, a volume fraction range, a symmetry in the time series signal, or a frequency analysis results in a determination of a specific flow regime. The specification also does not disclose what the analysis is.
Regarding Claim 15, the claim recites “detect the flow regime of the multi-phase flow by a comparison of signals between sets of plates … or an analysis of flow velocity”. The specification does not disclose how the comparison or analysis results in a determination of a specific flow regime. The specification also does not disclose what the analysis is.
As such, the claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 12 and 14 – 16, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites “correlation determines when the maximum similarity occurs between the signals”. The specification does not disclose how similarity is determined and how a maximum similarity is determined.
Regarding Claims 1, 4, 6, and 7, the claim utilizes the term “correlation”. While there is adequate disclosure with respect to utilizing a cross-correlation, there is no disclosure with respect to any other form of correlation.
Regarding Claim 4, the claim recites “convert … a signal phase at different frequencies into volumetric flow rates for flows having single or multiple flow phases”. The specification does not disclose how a signal phase at different frequencies is converted to volumetric flow rates for single or multiple flow phases.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites “a correlation of signals between the plates provides axial flow velocities, and … a correlation of signals between plates in a same plane gives cross-sectional velocities”. The specification does not disclose the correlation of the specific plate configurations provides either axial flow velocities or cross-sectional velocities.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites “detect flow patterns and behavior by ratiometric estimation of measurements from plate or plate pairs with different geometries”. The specification does not disclose what a ratiometric estimation is and how flow patterns or behavior are determined from a ratiometric estimation from plate or plate pairs with different geometries.
Regarding Claim 14, the claim recites “detect a flow regime of a multi-phase flow by analyzing any combination of a time series signal of volume fraction, a volume fraction range, a symmetry in the time series signal, or a frequency analysis”. The specification does not disclose how the analysis of any combination of a time series signal of volume fraction, a volume fraction range, a symmetry in the time series signal, or a frequency analysis results in a determination of a specific flow regime. The specification also does not disclose what the analysis is.
Regarding Claim 15, the claim recites “detect the flow regime of the multi-phase flow by a comparison of signals between sets of plates … or an analysis of flow velocity”. The specification does not disclose how the comparison or analysis results in a determination of a specific flow regime. The specification also does not disclose what the analysis is.
Turning to the Wands factors, no guidance is provided by the applicant and no working examples have been located in the prior art.
As such, the claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims dependent upon a rejected claim are therefore rejected as well.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 12, 14 – 19, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites “correlation determines when the maximum similarity occurs between the signals”. It is unclear as to how similarity between signals is determined and how maximum similarity is determined, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claims 1 and 4, the claims recite “a capacitance magnitude is used for a volume fraction estimation” or similar. It is unclear what the difference is between using a capacitance magnitude to determine a volume fraction and using a capacitance magnitude to determine a volume fraction estimation, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites “correlation of signals between the plates in the sensor is used to determine a flow phase velocity estimation”. It is unclear what the difference is between using a correlation to determine flow phase velocity and using a correlation to determine a flow phase velocity estimation, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites “the flow phase velocity” in the two final clauses of the claim. It is unclear as to if this flow phase velocity is the same as the “flow phase velocity estimation” or some other flow phase velocity.
Regarding Claim 4, the claim recites “correlation between capacitance magnitude or the signal phase at single or different frequencies … is used for phase flow velocity estimations”. It is unclear what the difference is between using a correlation to determine flow phase velocity and using a correlation to determine a flow phase velocity estimation, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the multi-dimensional flow meter". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites “the plates can be of a circular shape”. It is unclear as to if the plate are actually a circular shape or capable of being a circular shape, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 7, the claim recites “the sensor can be of N layers”. It is unclear as to if the sensor is actually made of N layers or capable of being made of N layers, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 7, the claim recites “higher velocity resolution”. It is unclear as to what velocity resolution is and how it is determined, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 8, the claim recites “velocities of flow components”. It is unclear as to what a “flow component” is and how their velocities are determined, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites “flow patterns and behavior”. It is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of “behavior” is thus rendering the claim indefinite. What constitutes a behavior? Is a flow pattern a behavior?
Regarding Claim 11, the claim recites “the …flow meter can be applied …”. It is unclear as to if the flow meter is actually applied to the different combinations or is capable of being applied to the different combinations, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 12, the claim recites “various types of memory disks or non-transitory storage medium”. It is unclear as to what the “various types” of memory discs or non-transitory storage medium are, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claims 14, 15, 17, and 19, the claims recite a “flow regime” or similar. It is unclear as to what a flow regime is, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 15, it is unclear if the comparison of signals or analysis of a flow velocity further limit any of the elements of Claim 14 or if they are in addition to the elements of claim 14, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 18, the claim recites “a distribution style or styles of flow”. It is unclear as to what a distribution style or styles of flow are, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 22, the claim recites “an average” and “a range” of the signal. It is unclear as to what an average and range of a signal are, thus rendering the claims indefinite.
Regarding Claim 22, the claim recites “the symmetry can be normalized by the average”. It is unclear as to if the symmetry is actually normalized by the average or is merely capable of being normalized, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the heat is injected by the first thermometer or the second thermometer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims dependent upon a rejected claim are therefore rejected as well.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding Claim 17, the claim recites an ability of the capacitance flow meter which appears to be an inherent consequence of the presence of a thermal sensor with the capacitance flow meter. As such, the claim does not further limit the subject matter of Claim 13.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 13 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marashdeh et al. (US 2018/0348158), in view of Hirata et al. (US 2007/0168150).
Regarding Claim 13, Marashdeh discloses a capacitance flow meter comprising: a capacitance sensor (Figure 1b) having a plurality of plates, including at least one receiver plate and at least one excite plate [0055], a data acquisition circuit in communication with the capacitance sensor (Figure 1b), wherein the data acquisition circuit receives input data from the capacitance sensor including current output from the capacitance sensor [0055], one or more processors operationally connected to the data acquisition circuit (Figure 1b), wherein the one or more processors receive a signal from the data acquisition circuit and wherein the one more processors are configured to extract amplitude or phase data from the signal [0055, 0082].
Marashdeh fails to expressly disclose a thermal sensor operationally connected to the data acquisition circuit, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium including one or more sequences of instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to obtain a mass flow rate of a single-phase flow based on information received from the thermal sensor.
Hirata teaches a thermal sensor (3) operationally connected to the data acquisition circuit (Figure 6) and obtaining a mass flow rate of a single-phase flow based on information received from the thermal sensor [0122, 0123]
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Marashdeh to include a thermal sensor operationally connected to the data acquisition circuit, and connect it to the existing a non-transitory computer-readable medium including one or more sequences of instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to obtain a mass flow rate of a single-phase flow based on information received from the thermal sensor for the benefit of determining mass flow rate of the fluid, as taught by Hirata [0001].
Regarding Claim 21, Hirata teaches thermal sensor is adapted to be wrapped around a pipe or column, placed on a spot on a surface of a conduit through which the flow is conveyed, or inserted as a probe into the flow [Abstract].
The combination would have been obvious for the same reasons regarding the rejection of Claim 13 above.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marashdeh et al. (US 2018/0348158), in view of Hirata et al. (US 2007/0168150), in further view of Ligneul (US 2019/0162568).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination fails to expressly disclose the non-transitory computer-readable medium includes one or more sequences of instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to determine a mass flow rate of a multi-phase flow when signals from the thermal sensor are compensated with a volume fraction of each phase.
Ligneul teaches determine a mass flow rate of a multi-phase flow when signals from the thermal sensor are compensated with a volume fraction of each phase [0033 – 0038].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the combination so that the non-transitory computer-readable medium includes one or more sequences of instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to determine a mass flow rate of a multi-phase flow when signals from the thermal sensor are compensated with a volume fraction of each phase for the benefit of determining phase fractions of the fluid, as taught by Lignuel [0006].
Allowable Subject Matter
A proper search and determination of allowable subject matter on claims not provided with a prior art rejection was not possible due to the many interpretations of the claim outlined above. Upon applicant' s amendment to overcome the rejections raised by the Examiner and upon the Examiner' s better understanding of the invention a comparison of the prior art to the claims will again be made.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER MERCADO whose telephone number is (571)270-7094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am - 4pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Laura Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
ALEXANDER A. MERCADO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/ALEXANDER A MERCADO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855