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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Response After Final Action, filed 4/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) as listed in the Final Rejection dated 3/2/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the references and rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkissian et al. (US 20200326216) in view of Lisnyak et al. (US 11525537).
Regarding Claims 1 and 8, Sarkissian et al. discloses a system for monitoring a pipe comprising: a sensing unit having a device that mechanically presses at least one sensor toward the pipe, the at least one sensor being configured to generate a flowrate signal indicative of a flowrate of the fluid through the pipe (Paragraphs 13, 20, Fig 4B, clamped sensor); and a hub connected to the sensing unit and configured to receive the signal (Paragraphs 40, 49, 92, remote server), however Sarkissian et al. fails to explicitly disclose the device is remotely operatable and is a clamp configure to partially enclose the pipe.
In an analogous art, Lisnyak et al. discloses remotely operable mechanically pressing sensor and is a clamp configure to partially enclose the pipe ( ultrasonic sensor, gears and arms remotely controlled to press drive on pipe, Col. 9, Lines 46-57, Col. 16, Lines 7-17, Col. 19, Lines 34-50).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have remotely mechanically press the sensor to allow the sensor and clamp to accommodate pipes of different diameters (Lisnyak et al., Col. 20, Lines 42-43).
Regarding the preamble of Claim 1, and the limitations “a well having a pump disposed within a bore to pump fluid out of the bore through a pipe” are interpreted to be intended use and not given any patentable weight as the body of the claim does not refer back in any significant way to the limitations in the preamble. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation of “a well having a pump disposed within a bore to pump fluid out of the bore through a pipe” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Regarding Claim 3, Sarkissian et al. discloses including control circuitry and antennas (Paragraph 48), however Sarkissian et al. fails to disclose at least one of a rod or a tether extending from the hub to the sensing unit.
Lisnyak et al. discloses a tether extending from the hub to the sensing unit (drive segment which contains the sensors is wired to a controller which is remote thus tethered, Col. 9, Lines 58-60).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provide the hub remotely from the sensor to reduce electrical noise at the sensor and to provide better antenna coverage.
Regarding Claim 4. (Original) The system of claim 1, wherein: the sensor is a transducer (Paragraph 13); and the sensing unit includes two transducers located at a same side of the pipe in an axially spaced-apart configuration (Fig. 4B, Paragraph 53).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkissian et al. (US 20200326216) in view of Lisnyak et al. (US 11525537) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Owens (US 20040168795) .
Regarding Claim 2, Sarkissian et al. discloses a flow sensor for a pipe (Paragraphs 13, 20, Fig 4B), however Sarkissian et al. fails to disclose a well includes a casing inside the bore; the sensing unit is configured to connect to the pipe at a location inside the casing; and the hub is mounted to an end of the casing extending from the bore and remote from the sensing unit. Sarkissian discloses a Sarkissian et al. in view of Lisnyak et al. discloses the specifics of a flow monitor on a pipe.
In an analogous art, Owens discloses monitoring flow in a pipe and a well includes a casing inside the bore (Paragraph 3); the sensing unit is configured to connect to the pipe at a location inside the casing (Sensor on well pipe, Paragraph 18 and 57); and the hub is mounted to an end of the casing extending from the bore and remote from the sensing unit (controller end of casing which is remote from sensor, Paragraph 31).
Because all of the reference teach methods to monitor pipe contents it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the specific monitoring techniques and attachment of Sarkissian et al. in view of Lisnyak et al. on the particular in ground well pipe of Owens to substitute one type of pipe for another to achieve the predictable result of monitoring a flow of a pipe within the ground.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkissian et al. (US 20200326216) in view of Lisnyak et al. (US 11525537) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Crozier et al. (US 20200370679).
Regarding Claim 9, Sarkissian discloses a sensor mounted on a clamp (Paragraph 20), however Sarkissian et al. fails to disclose the clamp includes: a first leaf; a second leaf; a pivot pin removably connecting the first leaf to the second leaf; a lock pin inhibiting pivoting of the first leaf relative to the second leaf; and a biasing mechanism configured to cause the pipe to be sandwiched between the first and second leaves.
In an analogous art, Crozier et al. discloses a clamp with a sensor and the claim includes: a first leaf (first jaw, Paragraph 129); a second leaf (second jaw, Paragraph 129); a pivot pin removably connecting the first leaf to the second leaf (head acts as pin, Paragraph 131); a lock pin inhibiting pivoting of the first leaf relative to the second leaf (projection 212 in groove 216, Paragraph 136-137); and a biasing mechanism configured to cause the pipe to be sandwiched between the first and second leaves (spring pressed head and jaws to clamp pipe, Paragraphs 131-132, 136,137).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the clamp construction as claimed in order to have a sensor properly positioned against a pipe for better measurements (Paragraph 5 of Crozier et al.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15-20 are allowed.
Claims 5-7, and 10-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Lim whose telephone number is (571)270-1210. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays 9am-5pm, Tuesday-Friday 8:30am-5pm.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/STEVEN LIM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2688
