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 Objections
Claims 19-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 19-20, the term "openings" should be "the openings".
In claim 21, the term "the reflecting surface" should be "the reflecting surfaces".
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
As to claim 1, claim 1 recites limitations "the flow main direction" in line 2; “the plurality of flows” in line 3; “the channel” in lines 3-4; “the ultrasonic waves, the electric signals” in lines 5-6; “the channels” in line 6; “the acoustic path” in lines 7-8; “the part” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The claim languages “"the flow main direction" in line 2; “the plurality of flows” in line 3; “the channel” in lines 3-4; “the ultrasonic waves, the electric signals” in lines 5-6; “the acoustic path” in lines 7-8; “the part” in line 8 appear for the first time, however, read as though they have already been recited. See MPEP 2173.05(e).
As to claims 2-22, claims 2-22 are also objected because these claims depend on claim 1.
As to claim 5, claim 5 recites limitations "the inner surface”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The claim languages “the inner surface" appear for the first time, however, read as though they have already been recited. See MPEP 2173.05(e).
As to claim 6, claim 6 recites limitations "the plurality of pipes”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The claim languages “the plurality of pipes" appear for the first time, however, read as though they have already been recited. See MPEP 2173.05(e).
As to claim 8, claim 8 recites limitations "the plurality of through openings”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The claim languages “the plurality of through openings" appear for the first time, however, read as though they have already been recited. See MPEP 2173.05(e).
As to claims 9-10 and 12, claims 9 and 12 recites “channels”, which render the claim indefinite. Are these “channels” corresponding to channels in which ultrasonic waves crossing as recited in claim 1? Or are these “channels” different channels than recited channels of claim 1? Hence, it is unclear.
As to claim 12, claim 12 is also rejected because claim 12 depends on claim 9.
As to claims 10 and 13, claims 10 and 13 recite limitations "the reflecting surfaces”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 10 and 13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The claim languages “the reflecting surfaces" appear for the first time, however, read as though they have already been recited. See MPEP 2173.05(e).
As to claims 13-17, 19, 22, claims 13-17, 19, 22 are also objected because claims 13-17, 19, 22 depend on claim 10.
As to claims 13-16 and 21, claims 13-16 and 21 recite limitations "the plate”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 13-14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The claim languages “the plate" appear for the first time, however, read as though they have already been recited. See MPEP 2173.05(e).
As to claim 14, claim 14 recites limitations "the concave curved surface”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The claim languages “the concave curved surface" appear for the first time, however, read as though they have already been recited. See MPEP 2173.05(e).
As to claim 15, claim 15 recites limitations "the dismountable connection”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The claim languages “the dismountable connection" appear for the first time, however, read as though they have already been recited. See MPEP 2173.05(e).
As to claim 16, claim 16 recites limitations "the channel”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The claim languages “the channel" appear for the first time, however, read as though they have already been recited. See MPEP 2173.05(e).
As to claim 17, claim 17 recites limitations "the reflecting surface, the concave surface, the surface”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 17 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The claim languages “the reflecting surface, the concave surface, the surface" appear for the first time, however, read as though they have already been recited. See MPEP 2173.05(e).
As to claims 10 and 11, claims 10 and 11 recite limitations "the inner surface”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 10 and 11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The claim languages “the inner surface" appear for the first time, however, read as though they have already been recited. See MPEP 2173.05(e).
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.
As best understood, claims 1-4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyata – JP4186645B2.
As to claim 1, Miyata teaches a device (figs.1-2) for measuring flow velocity and flowrate of fluid passing in a flow main direction (fluid flow as an arrow as shown in fig.2; see also [0008, 0013-0014]; thus “a device for measuring flow velocity and flowrate of fluid passing in a flow main direction”) containing: a casing 15, means for separating the fluid flow into a plurality of flows (22a, 22b, 22c, and 22d), each of the plurality of flows 22a, 22b, 22c, and 22d being passed in a channel allocated for it and located in the casing 15 (see described fig.1; [0027] and fig.1: measurement flow path body 15 is divided into a plurality of laminar flow passages 22a, 22b, 22c, and 22d via partition plates 21a, 21b, and 21c; hence, partition plates 21a, 21b, and 21c corresponds to “means for separating the fluid flow into a plurality of flows”); at least one pair of ultrasonic transducers 13,14 installed in the casing 15 and intended for forming and receiving the ultrasonic waves crossing the plurality of flows (22a, 22b, 22c, and 22d) ([0013-0014, 0029, 0056]: the transmission / reception surface is opposed to the plurality of laminar flows; the ultrasonic wave crosses the fluid diagonally; thus “at least one pair of ultrasonic transducers installed in the casing and intended for forming and receiving the ultrasonic waves crossing the plurality of flows”) and for generating the electric signals in response to receiving the ultrasonic waves ([0030-0031, 0008]: the converted/generated electric signal(s) are output(s) of the ultrasonic transducers); means for directing the ultrasonic waves along the acoustic path (see described fig.2; [0021-0022]: openings 16a, 16b in short side wall facing the ultrasonic transducers 13 and 14 (it means that that 16a-16b are a pair of openings in the casing 15); The openings 16a and 16b are covered with ultrasonically permeable porous materials 17a and 17b made of a wire mesh, punching metal, or the like so that fluid does not intrude in the direction of the ultrasonic transducers 13 and 14; openings 16a,16b corresponds to “means for directing the ultrasonic waves along the acoustic path”)) crossing at least part of plurality of flows or channels formed by the partition plates 21a, 21b, and 21c; means for calculating the fluid flow velocity and flowrate using generated electric signals ([0008-0009; 0057]: pair of ultrasonic transducers and calculating means corresponds to “means for calculating the fluid flow velocity and flowrate using generated electric signals or output(s) of the ultrasonic transducers”).
PNG
media_image1.png
479
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
394
652
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Miyata teaches the channel (formed by casing 15) is further separated into the plurality of channels formed by flows 22a, 22b, 22c, and 22d (see reasons stated in the rejection of claim 1).
As to claim 3, Miyata teaches cross-sectional areas of channels are not identical ([0056] and fig.1: it is not necessary for all areas to be the same; thus “cross-sectional areas of channels are not identical”).
As to claim 4, Miyata teaches cross-sectional areas of channels are identical (fig.1: the plurality of cross-sectional areas of channels formed by flows 22a, 22b, 22c, and 22d are identical).
As to claims 11 and 18, claims 11 and 18 are rejected as reasons stated in the rejection of claim 1.
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.
As best understood, claim 5 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Miyata and further in view of Derevyagin – US 20090151471.
As to claim 5, Miyata does not explicitly teach each ultrasonic transducer has the emitting surface basically aligned with an inner surface of the casing and parallel to the casing axis.
Derevyagin teaches a concept of: combining radiation/emitting surface of electroacoustic transducer 2 with inner surface of pipeline and parallel to casing/pipeline axis ([0024]; fig.2).
It would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify emitting surface of each ultrasonic transducer of Miyata with concept teachings of Derevyagin to include each ultrasonic transducer has the emitting surface basically aligned with an inner surface of the casing and parallel to the casing axis, because this helps eliminating formation of the hollows ("pockets"), distortions of the profile of the flow and pollutions ([0016]).
As best understood, claim 6 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Miyata and further in view of Adachi – US 20140230568.
As to claim 6, Miyata does not explicitly teach plurality of pipes installed parallel to the flow main direction and fixed inside the casing.
Adachi teaches plurality of pipes 102 installed parallel to flow main direction and fixed inside the casing 101 (fig.12 and [0004]: honeycomb structural bodies 102 corresponds to “plurality of pipes” installed parallel to flow main direction and fixed inside the casing 101).
It would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify plurality of partition plates of Miyata with concept teachings of Adachi to include means for separating the fluid flow into the plurality of flows is a plurality of pipes installed parallel to the flow main direction and fixed inside the casing, because this arrangement helps cancelling deviation of the flow and prevent the flow from being turbulent so that the flow rate or the flow velocity of target fluid can be measured accurately ([0005]).
As best understood, claim 8 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Miyata and further in view of Baumoel – US 3869915.
As to claim 8, While Miyata teaches separating the fluid flow into the plurality of flows is the plurality of through openings made parallel to the flow main direction ([0027] and fig.1: plurality of partition plates 21a, 21b, and 21c forming plurality of through openings 22a, 22b, 22c, and 22d made parallel to the flow main direction), it does not explicitly teach solid casing.
Baumoel teaches sonic or ultrasonic flowmeter having a solid casing where the fluid flowing through the solid casing (fig.1 and col.3, lines 1-5).
It would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify material of casing of Miyata with concept teachings of Baumoel to include the casing is solid and the means for separating the fluid flow into the plurality of flows is the plurality of through openings made parallel to the flow main direction in the solid casing, because it offers benefits like robustness, corrosion resistance, contamination prevention, and safety, especially with materials like stainless steel, protecting internal components from harsh environments, ensuring cleaner measurements in sensitive industries (food, pharma), and preventing leaks, leading to longer life, less maintenance, and accurate readings for various liquids, gases, slurries, and even dry solids.
As best understood, claims 11 and 21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Miyata and further in view of Tachikawa – Translate_JP 2004157101A.
As to claim 21, Miyata does not explicitly teach the reflecting surfaces represents plates intended for receiving and directing the ultrasonic waves along the acoustic path.
Tachikawa teaches a concept of: plurality of reflecting surfaces 131, 132, 133 represents plates on inner surface of casing and the plates intended for receiving and directing the ultrasonic waves along the acoustic path ([0031] and figs.3A-3B).
It would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miyata with concept teachings of Tachikawa to include the means for directing the ultrasonic waves along the acoustic path represents one, selected from the group containing: at least pair of openings in the casing, plurality of openings in channels, plurality of reflecting surfaces on the inner surface of the casing; plurality of reflecting surfaces on the outer surface of the channel, plurality of reflecting surfaces on the inner surface of the channel, or their combinations (as recited in claim 11); the reflecting surfaces represents plates intended for receiving and directing the ultrasonic waves along the acoustic path (as recited in claim 21), because it helps overcoming drawbacks of metal casing/channel, in which noises are created when ultrasonic waves deflect from the measurement metal casing/channel and also transmittance of the ultrasonic wave from the measurement metal casing/channel into the fluid becomes very small; hence, measurement error increases.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9-10, 12-17, 19-20, and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable once claim objections and 112 issues are corrected and if rewritten in independent form including 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:
As to claim 7, claim 7 includes each of plates being contained openings, each of which exits in tube connecting openings in plates, when in combination with all other elements in the claim 7 distinguish the present invention from the prior arts.
As to claim 9, claim 9 includes plurality of openings in channels, when in combination with all other elements in the claim 9 distinguish the present invention from the prior arts.
As to claim 12, claim 12 is also objected because claim 12 depends on claim 9.
As to claim 10, claim 10 includes plurality of openings in channels, when in combination with all other elements in the claim 10 distinguish the present invention from the prior arts.
As to claims 13-17, 19, 22, claims 13-17, 19, 22 are also objected because claims 13-17, 19, 22 depends on claim 10.
As to claim 20, claim 20 includes openings in channels, when in combination with all other elements in the claim 20 distinguish the present invention from the prior arts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRUONG D PHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, John Breene can be reached on 571-272-4107. 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.
/TRUONG D PHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855