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 § 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.
Claims 1 through 10, 17-18 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zanker (US20030094052A1, 2003-05-22) in view of Rothman et al. (WO2004048906A2, 2004-06-10) herein referred to as Rothman.
Regarding Claim 1, Zanker teaches a system, comprising: at least one flow conditioner or mixer (12) installed in a pipeline (13); at least one flow meter (14) installed downstream from the at least one flow conditioner or mixer that measures a flow rate of a fluid in the pipeline (Fig. 3); a pair of pressure sensors or transmitters (16), one pressure sensor or transmitter located at or near a first side of the least one flow conditioner or mixer, and another pressure sensor or transmitter located at or near a second side of the least one flow conditioner or mixer, thereby measuring a differential pressure of the at least one flow conditioner or mixer (16); at least one further pressure sensor or transmitter that measures a fluid pressure in the pipeline (19); and at least one temperature sensor for measuring a fluid temperature in the pipeline (18).
Zanker fails to specifically teach wherein the at least one flow meter is calibrated for a plurality of fluids to obtain k factor as a function of Reynolds number data.
However, in a related field, Rothman teaches wherein the at least one flow meter is calibrated for a plurality of fluids to obtain k factor as a function of Reynolds number data (Abstract, pg. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zanker to incorporate the teachings of Rothman by including: the limitation above in order to determine the actual volumetric flow rate.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination further teaches the system according to Claim 1, wherein the flow meter is a turbine flow meter (Zanker: [0012]).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination further teaches the system according to Claim 1, wherein the flow meter is an ultrasonic flow meter (Zanker: [0009]).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination further teaches the system according to Claim 1 comprising at least one flow conditioner (Zanker: Abstract).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination further teaches the system according to Claim 1 wherein the system does not comprise a flow meter proving device (Zanker: Fig. 3, [0025] (Although the system contains an ultrasonic flowmeter, it does not comprise a flow meter proving device). Further, Rothman teaches the calibration module (38) (the flow meter proving device) as external to the system (16), see Figure 1.).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination further teaches the system according to Claim 1, wherein the system does not comprise a viscometer (Zanker: Fig. 3, [0025] (Although the system contains an ultrasonic flowmeter, the system does not comprise a viscometer.).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination further teaches the system according to Claim 1 a wherein the k factor and Reynolds number data are stored in and/or uploaded to at least one of a flow computer, SCADA equipment/computer, or a programmable logic controller (PLC) (Rothman: pg. 6 (calibration correction function module (38))).
Regarding Claim 8, Zanker teaches a method, comprising: measuring a differential pressure of a fluid on a first and on a second side of at least one flow conditioner or mixer installed in a pipeline by a pair of pressure sensors or transmitters (16), one pressure sensor or transmitter located at or near a first side of the least one flow conditioner or mixer, and another pressure sensor or transmitter located at or near a second side of the least one flow conditioner or mixer ((16), Fig. 3); measuring a temperature of the fluid in the pipeline with at least one temperature sensor (18); measuring a pressure of the fluid in the pipeline by a further pressure sensor or transmitter (19); measuring flow rate the fluid with a flow meter downstream of the at least one flow conditioner or mixer (14); and measuring or obtaining a density of the fluid [0015; 0018 and 0030].
Zanker fails to specifically teach wherein the at least one flow meter is calibrated for a plurality of fluids to obtain k factor as a function of Reynolds number data. However, in a related field, Rothman teaches wherein the at least one flow meter is calibrated for a plurality of fluids to obtain k factor as a function of Reynolds number data (Abstract, pg. 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zanker to incorporate the teachings of Rothman by including: the limitation above in order to determine the actual volumetric flow rate.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination further teaches the system according to Claim 8, wherein the flow meter is a turbine flow meter (Zanker: [0012]).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination further teaches the method according to Claim 9, further comprising converting a measured density of the fluid into actual density (Zanker: [0008}).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination further teaches the method according to Claim 8, wherein the flow meter is an ultrasonic flow meter (Zanker: [0009]).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination further teaches the method according to Claim 17, comprising obtaining a density from a database or thermodynamic table comprising density as a function of temperature, pressure, and speed of sound for a plurality of hydrocarbon fluids (Zanker: [0008]).
Regarding Claim 25, Zanker teaches a system, comprising: at least one flow conditioner or mixer (12) installed in a pipeline (13); at least one flow meter (14) installed downstream from the at least one flow conditioner or mixer that measures a flow rate of a fluid in the pipeline (Fig. 3); a pair of pressure sensors or transmitters (16), one pressure sensor or transmitter located at or near a first side of the least one flow conditioner or mixer, and another pressure sensor or transmitter located at or near a second side of the least one flow conditioner or mixer, thereby measuring a differential pressure of the at least one flow conditioner or mixer (16); at least one further pressure sensor or transmitter that measures a fluid pressure in the pipeline (19); and at least one temperature sensor for measuring a fluid temperature in the pipeline (18). Zanker fails to specifically teach at least one of a flow computer, SCADA equipment, programmable logic controller, or any combination thereof configured to perform the method of Claim 8. However in a related field, Rothman teaches at least one of a flow computer, SCADA equipment, programmable logic controller, or any combination thereof configured to perform the method of Claim 8 (pg. 6 (calibration correction function module (38))). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zanker to incorporate the teachings of Rothman by including: the limitations above in order to calibrating the flow rate based on one or more parameters that characterize either the array of sensors, the pipe, the fluid flowing in the pipe, or some combination thereof.
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zanker and Rothman as applied to claims 1-10 above, and further in view of Pinguit et al. (EP2192391A1, 2010-06-02), herein referred to as Pinguit.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Zanker and Rothman teach the method according to Claim 10. The combination of Zanker further teach a discharge coefficient with respect to a flow conditioner (Zanker: [0008]), but fail to specifically teach calculating a Coefficient of Discharge for the at least one flow conditioner. However, in a related field Pinguit teaches calculating a Coefficient of Discharge (Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zanker and Rothman to incorporate the teachings of Pinguit by including: calculating a Coefficient of Discharge in order to accurate calculate the flow rate in the pipeline.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Zanker and Rothman teach the method according to Claim 18. The combination of Zanker further teach a discharge coefficient with respect to a flow conditioner (Zanker: [0008]), but fail to specifically teach calculating a Coefficient of Discharge for the at least one flow conditioner. However, in a related field Pinguit teaches calculating a Coefficient of Discharge (Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zanker and Rothman to incorporate the teachings of Pinguit by including: calculating a Coefficient of Discharge in order to accurate calculate the flow rate in the pipeline.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 and 20 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.
Regarding Claim 12, no prior, neither teaches or suggest, alone or in combination the method according to Claim 11, further comprising obtaining or calculating a Reynolds number of the fluid from the Coefficient of Discharge. It is for this reason Claim 12 and all of its dependencies would be allowed.
Regarding Claim 20, no prior, neither teaches or suggest, alone or in combination the method according to Claim 19, further comprising obtaining or calculating a Reynolds number of the fluid from the Coefficient of Discharge. It is for this reason Claim 20 and all of its dependencies would be allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Wee et al. (Method And Apparatus For Measuring Individual Components In A Multiphase Fluid, 2020-02-03) teaches a method and apparatus for measuring individual components in a multiphase fluid;
Sawchuk et al. (Measurement Ring For Fluid Flow In A Pipeline, 2018-03-08) teaches A measurement ring for a pipeline includes a body having a central hole extending along a longitudinal axis of the body and at least one tap for measuring fluid flow parameters in the pipeline. The at least one tap includes a threaded portion on a circumferential surface of the body extending through the body towards the central hole, and a first channel extending from the threaded portion to the central hole;
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SINGLETARY whose telephone number is (571)272-4593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 571-270-0349. 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.
/MICHAEL J SINGLETARY/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights