DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-9 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.
The term “high-temperature” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-temperature” 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. Although the examiner acknowledges that high temperatures are discussed in paragraph [0034] of the specification, the examiner notes that an only an example of a high temperature is provided (e.g., > 700ºC) and that the example does not appear to limit the term “high temperature” or provide a definition for the term “high temperature”.
Claims 3-9 depend on claim 1 and are rejected for inheriting the same problem.
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 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 3,943,884 issued to Majkrzak (“Majkrzak”).
As for claim 1, Majkrzak discloses a passive acoustic gas wave generator (Fig. 1) of a high-temperature (col. 3, lines 30-34) gas pipe (“Plenum Chamber” in Fig. 3), the passive acoustic gas wave generator comprising:
a tube body (2) having a tube gas flow passage spanning between an inlet opening and an outlet opening (see Fig. 1), the tube body having a plurality of corrugations residing at an inner surface of the tube body (see Fig. 1); and
a support structure (”Outboard Support” in Fig. 3) extending from an outer surface of the tube body and extending to an inside surface of the high-temperature gas pipe (see Fig. 3), the support structure locating the tube gas flow passage of the tube body generally centrally with respect to a pipe gas flow passage of the high-temperature gas pipe (see Fig. 3) wherein an annular clearance resides between an outer surface of the tube body and the inside surface of the high-temperature gas pipe, the annular clearance spanning a full longitudinal extent of the tube body (see Fig. 3), and wherein the tube body has at least one smooth section residing at the inner surface of the tube body, the at least one smooth section located upstream of the plurality of corrugations (see Fig. 4), downstream of the plurality of corrugations, or both upstream and downstream of the plurality of corrugations.
As for claim 4, Majkrzak discloses a high-temperature gas pipe assembly (see Fig. 3), comprising the gas pipe and the passive acoustic gas wave generator of claim 1.
As for claim 5, the examiner notes that the claim recites the process of making the assembly and does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.
As for claim 6, Majkrzak discloses that the gas pipe and the passive acoustic gas wave generator constitute a tube-in-tube construction (see Fig. 3).
As for claim 7, Majkrzak discloses an acoustic gas flow meter assembly comprising the passive acoustic gas wave generator of claim 1 (see Fig. 3).
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 2,033,157 issued to Simmons (“Simmons”).
As for claim 1, Simmons discloses a passive acoustic gas wave generator of a high-temperature (page 1, left column, line 20: metallic shell) gas pipe, the passive acoustic gas wave generator comprising:
a tube body (20) having a tube gas flow passage spanning between an inlet opening (22) and an outlet opening (23), the tube body having a plurality of corrugations residing at an inner surface of the tube body (see Fig. 2); and
a support structure (39, 40) extending from an outer surface of the tube body and extending to an inside surface of the high-temperature gas pipe (see Figs. 2 and 3), the support structure locating the tube gas flow passage of the tube body generally centrally with respect to a pipe gas flow passage of the high-temperature gas pipe (see Figs. 2 and 3), wherein an annular clearance resides between an outer surface of the tube body and the inside surface of the high-temperature gas pipe, the annular clearance spanning a full longitudinal extent of the tube body (see Figs. 2 and 3), and wherein the tube body has at least one smooth section residing at the inner surface of the tube body, the at least one smooth section located upstream of the plurality of corrugations (see bottom of Fig. 4), downstream of the plurality of corrugations, or both upstream and downstream of the plurality of corrugations.
As for claim 3, Simmons discloses that the support structure (39, 40) comprises a plurality of fins (see Fig. 5) extending from the outer surface of the tube body and extending to the inside surface of the gas pipe.
As for claim 4, Simmons discloses a high-temperature gas pipe assembly, comprising the gas pipe and the passive acoustic gas wave generator of claim 1 (see Figs. 2, 3 and 5).
As for claim 5, the examiner notes that the claim recites the process of making the assembly and does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.
As for claim 6, Simmons discloses that the gas pipe and the passive acoustic gas wave generator constitute a tube-in-tube construction (see Figs. 2 and 3).
As for claim 7, Simmons discloses an acoustic gas flow meter assembly comprising the passive acoustic gas wave generator of claim 1 (see Figs. 2 and 3).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 2,033,157 issued to Simmons (“Simmons”) in view of U.S. Patent 10,495,524 issued to Donderici et al. (“Donderici”).
As for claim 8, Simmons discloses the acoustic gas flow meter assembly as set forth in claim 7 (see the rejection of claim 7 above).
Simmons does not disclose an acoustic emission sensor located at least adjacent the passive acoustic gas wave generator, and a temperature sensor located at least adjacent the passive acoustic gas wave generator. Simmons discloses that the assembly can function as a well-bore casing (page 2, col. 2, lines 33-42).
However, Donderici discloses an acoustic emission sensor (DAS; 106; col. 13, lines 29-59) located at least adjacent the passive acoustic gas wave generator, and a temperature sensor (DTS; 106; col. 13, lines 29-59) located at least adjacent the passive acoustic gas wave generator. Donderici discloses that the sensors are used in a well-bore casing (Abstract).
Simmons and Donderici included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the sensors of Donderici with the assembly of Simmons by mounting the sensors to the assembly as suggested by Figs. 1a-1d of Donderici, and that in combination, the sensors and assembly merely perform the same function as each does separately. Therefore, 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 assembly of Simmons to include the sensors of Donderici to achieve the predictable result of providing sensors that can measure sounds and temperature.
As for claim 9, Simmons as modified by Donderici discloses a controller (Donderici: 308) electrically coupled to the acoustic emission sensor and electrically coupled to the temperature sensor (see Fig. 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-15 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the Remarks, filed 8/20/2026 with respect to the rejections using the Mao reference have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-15 using the Mao reference have been withdrawn.
With respect to the Majkrzak reference and the Simmons reference, Applicant's arguments filed 8/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 6 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Majkrzak does not disclose a high-temperature gas pipe. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner has not interpreted the claim to require the high-temperature gas pipe to withstand 700ºC. Instead, the examiner notes that the pipe of Majkrzak is made of metal.
On page 6 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Simmons does not disclose a high-temperature gas pipe. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner has not interpreted the claim to require the high-temperature gas pipe to withstand 700ºC. Instead, the examiner notes that the pipe of Simmons is made of metal.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights