NON-FINAL REJECTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings Objection
The drawings are objected to because-
(1) The drawings are objected to because Fig.3 of the drawings is blurred. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning (See MPEP 1.84 (l)).
(2) The drawings are objected to because of the font size of fig.3 being too small. Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height (see MPEP 1.84(p)).
(3) Solid black shading areas in fig.3 are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color (see MPEP 1.84(m)).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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 1-4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hofmann et al. (US 2009/0272190 Al, cited by Applicants, “Hofmann”).
Regarding Claim 1, Hofmann teaches a measuring apparatus (Fig.1-4) for inline measuring the homogenizing degree of a fluid product in a dispersing unit ([0005], [0009], [0022-0024], [0028-0029], [0034-0035], [0075]-[0086]), said measuring apparatus comprising: a tubular device (fig.1; element 1) arrangeable at an output of the dispersing unit [0101], said tubular device having an internal cavity for the passage of the fluid product received from the dispersing unit [0105]; a plurality of ultrasound sensors (fig.1; element 5, [0099], [0102], Claims 10, 12) mounted on the tubular device (1) (shown in fig.1 and discussed in Claims 10, 12 and para. [0026], [0099], [0102], [0137]), wherein said internal cavity has a variable diameter across the length of the tubular device (shown in fig.1), the internal cavity having at least one first tract with a tapering development from an inlet of the tubular device towards an outlet of the tubular device (tapering feature is shown in Fig.1 and 2).
Regarding Claim 2, the measuring apparatus according to claim 1 is taught by Hofmann.
Hofmann further teaches wherein the first tract of the internal cavity is formed by a plurality of substantially cylindrical portions which are joined by frusto-conical portions (shown in fig.1 that the first tract of the internal cavity is formed by a plurality of substantially cylindrical portions, at least three cylindrical portions and two frusto-conical portions), said cylindrical portions having corresponding diameters that decrease from the inlet towards the outlet of the tubular device (shown in fig.1).
Regarding Claim 3, the measuring apparatus according to claim 2 is taught by Hofmann.
Hofmann further teaches wherein the internal cavity has a second tract originating from the first tract and ending at the outlet of the tubular device, said second tract having a tapering development from the outlet of the tubular device towards said first tract (Fig.1 shows a symmetrical longitudinal cross section of a flow conduit with an ultrasound transceiver alongside it where one side from the middle could be considered as first tract and the other side as second tract. Fig.1 shows that the second tract having a tapering development from the outlet of the tubular device towards said first tract. Thus, the limitation is implicitly taught by Hofmann.).
Regarding Claim 4, the measuring apparatus according to claim 3 is taught by Hofmann.
Hofmann further teaches wherein the second tract of the internal cavity consists of a frusto-conical portion connecting the first tract to the outlet of the tubular device (shown in fig.1).
Regarding Claim 17, the measuring apparatus according to claim 1 is taught by Hofmann.
Hofmann further teaches wherein the ultrasound sensors are distributed along the length of the tubular device [0026].
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 5-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofmann as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. CN 103323064 (A), cited by the applicants, “Chen”).
Regarding Claim 5, the measuring apparatus according to claim 1 is taught by Hofmann.
Hofmann does not explicit teach wherein the tubular device comprises a first tube and a second tube, the first tube being coaxial with and internally arranged inside the second tube, said internal cavity being delimited by an internal surface of the first tube.
However, Chen teaches wherein the tubular device comprises a first tube (8) and a second tube (1), the first tube being coaxial with and internally arranged inside the second tube, said internal cavity being delimited by an internal surface of the first tube. (shown in Fig.2, [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hofmann’s structure with the teaching of Chen since it would provide a similar structure and such modification would not alter the functionality of Hofmann’s structure.
Regarding Claim 6, the measuring apparatus according to claim 5 is taught by Hofmann in view of Chen.
Modified Hofmann, specifically Chen further teaches wherein the internal surface of the first tube partially has a tapering development from the inlet towards the outlet of the tubular device so as to delimit the corresponding tapering development of the first tract of the internal cavity (shown in fig.2 of Chen).
Regarding Claim 7, the measuring apparatus according to claim 5 is taught by Hofmann in view of Chen.
Modified Hofmann, specifically Chen, teaches wherein the ultrasound sensors are arranged between the first tube and the second tube (shown in fig.2 of Chen).
Regarding Claim 8, the measuring apparatus according to claim 7 is taught by Hofmann in view of Chen.
Modified Hofmann, specifically Chen, further teaches wherein the first tube has a plurality of housings for receiving said ultrasound sensors, said housings being obtained as inward recesses of an external surface of the first tube (implicit in fig.2 of Chen).
Regarding Claim 9, the measuring apparatus according to claim 7 is taught by Hofmann in view of Chen.
Hofmann further teaches wherein the ultrasound sensors are glued to the first tube [0066].
Regarding Claim 10, the measuring apparatus according to claim 5 is taught by Hofmann in view of Chen.
Modified Hofmann, specifically Chen, further teaches wherein the ultrasound sensors are mounted externally to the second tube (shown in fig.1 of Hofmann and fig.2 of Chen).
Regarding Claim 11, the measuring apparatus according to claim 10 is taught by Hofmann in view of Chen.
Modified Hofmann further teaches wherein the ultrasound sensors are screwed to the second tube (Hofmann: [0066]).
Regarding Claim 12, the measuring apparatus according to claim 5 is taught by Hofmann in view of Chen.
Modified Hofmann further teaches wherein the first tube is made of a plastic material (claim 8) and the second tube is made of a metal material (claim 7). Hofmann teaches two options of materials in claims 7-8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first tube of a plastic material and the second tube of a metal material since such materials and usages are known in the art.
Regarding Claim 13, the measuring apparatus according to claim 12 is taught by Hofmann in view of Chen.
Hofmann further teaches wherein the first tube is made of PEEK or PTFE ([0047] discloses usage of “PEEK”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first tube of PEEK since such material and usage are known in the art.
Regarding Claim 14, the measuring apparatus according to claim 12 is taught by Hofmann in view of Chen.
Hofmann further teaches wherein the second tube is made of stainless steel ([0048] discloses usage of stainless steel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the second tube is made of stainless steel since such material and usage are known in the art.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofmann as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Calhoun et al. US 2024/0343609 A1, “Calhoun”).
Regarding Claim 15, the measuring apparatus according to claim 1 is taught by Hofmann.
Hofmann does not explicitly teach wherein the tubular device comprises a heat exchanger for cooling down the ultrasonic sensors.
However, Calhoun teaches a sonolysis module wherein the tubular device comprises a heat exchanger for cooling down the ultrasonic sensors [0262].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hofmann’s apparatus with the teaching of Calhoun since it is known in the art to cool down the ultrasonic sensors and it would protect the transducer probes and enhance the energy transfer when sound transducers are activated [0262].
Regarding Claim 16, the measuring apparatus of claim 15 is taught by Hofmann in view of Calhoun.
Modified Hofmann, specifically Calhoun teaches wherein the heat exchanger is a conduit for a cooling fluid, said conduit passing through the tubular device for its whole length and being parallel to a longitudinal axis of the tubular device (shown in Fig.41 of Calhaun).
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon, are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Dam (US 8,214,168 B2) teaches an apparatus and method for non-invasive measuring of the sound velocity of a fluid, such as a liquid, flowing in a tubing having points of two different and known transverse length has one sensor mounted at each point connected to a circuit that provides signals to each sensor that are returned to it after passing through the tubing wall and flowing fluid and reflection from the tubing internal wall opposing each sensor and from which the round trip transit time of the signals is measured and the sound velocity calculated from the two measured round trip transit times and the differential between the known transverse lengths. Flexible tubing is placed in the slot of a measuring head which deforms it to provide the two points at one location or the slot has two sections of different transverse length along its length with a point at each section [Abstract].
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAN NATH whose telephone number is (571)270-1443. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUMAN K NATH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights