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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species E in the reply filed on 7/29/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that the species share the same or corresponding special technical features. This is not found persuasive because the species lack a common inventive concept since the structures common to the species are not inventive as shown in the rejections of claims 42 and 68.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 57-60, 62, 63, 65, 66, 72-75, 77, 78, 80 and 81 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 5/31/2024 and 5/26/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 42, 57-63, 65, 66, 68, 72-78, 80 and 81 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 42 recites the limitation "the magnetic-field generating device" in lines 6-7 and 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 57-63, 65 and 66 recite the limitation "the diagnostic value". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 68 recites the limitation "the magnetic-field generating device" in lines 6, 7 and 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 72-78, 80 and 81 recite the limitation "the diagnostic value". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a device configured to generate a magnetic field recited in claim 42 and described on page 15 of the specification; and
a device configured to tap a measuring voltage recited in claim 42 and described on page 16 of the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 64 and 79 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 64 recites that the diagnostic circuit is configured to take into account a coil resistance of the coil arrangement for monitoring ageing of the magnetic field-generating device. However, the specification does not disclose any algorithm used by the diagnostic circuit that allows ageing of the magnetic-field generating device to be monitored, including any algorithm that uses a coil resistance. In the absence of any algorithm, the examiner concludes that the inventors did not possess the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(I).
Claim 79 recites a similar limitation and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 64 and 79 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 64 recites that the diagnostic circuit is configured to take into account a coil resistance of the coil arrangement for monitoring ageing of the magnetic field-generating device. The claimed diagnostic circuit can broadly be interpreted to include an electric circuit or a computer that uses software to perform the function of monitoring ageing using coil resistance. Neither the prior art (for example, see the prior art used in the rejections below) nor the specification discloses how to use the coil resistance to monitor ageing. Because neither the prior art nor the specification provide any direction as to how a coil resistance can be used to monitor ageing of a magnetic field-generating device, the examiner concludes that an undue amount of experimentation would be required to make and use the claimed invention.
Claim 79 recites a similar limitation and is rejected for the same reason.
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 43-45, 47, 48, 50, 54-56, 64 and 70 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.
Regarding claim 43, the term "particularly" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the term (i.e. “totality”) is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 44, 45, 47, 48 and 50 depend on claim 43 and are rejected for inheriting the same problem.
Claim 54 recites the limitation "the coil current value" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is a new limitation or if it refers to the current value of the coil current.
Claims 55 and 56 depend on claim 54 and are rejected for inheriting the same problem.
Although claims 62 and 63 have not been examined, the examiner notes that the term "particularly" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 64, the term "particularly" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the term (i.e. “the coil arrangement”) is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 70 depends on claim 28, but claim 28 has been canceled. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 70 cannot be determined.
Although claims 77 and 78 have not been examined, the examiner notes that the term "particularly" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 42, 46 and 68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 7,260,486 issued to Budmiger (“Budmiger”).
As for claims 42 and 68, Budmiger discloses a magnetic-inductive flow meter for detecting a flow velocity-dependent measurement variable of a flowable medium, the flow meter comprising:
a device (6, 7) configured to generate a magnetic field, which includes a coil arrangement;
a device (4, 5) configured to tap a measuring voltage induced in the flowable medium, which includes at least two diametrically arranged measuring electrodes;
an operating circuit (8) configured to supply electrical power to the magnetic field-generating device by an electrical operating signal including a variable coil voltage (Fig. 9) and a variable coil current (Fig. 8), wherein the operating signal has a time-varying coil voltage curve (Fig. 9), which is divided into time intervals,
wherein the time intervals each have a first time subinterval (tcont) in which a first voltage (Ucont) of the variable coil voltage is applied to the magnetic field-generating device over the first time subinterval, wherein the first voltage is a constant voltage (Fig. 9);
a control circuit (2) configured to control at least the first voltage such that a deviation of a control function (Im) from a predetermined control setpoint (IC) is minimal (col. 15, line 58 - col. 16, line 10), wherein the control setpoint (IC) includes a quantity proportional to a magnetic flux; and
a diagnostic circuit (3) configured to monitor at least one diagnostic value (col. 12, lines 31-33).
Regarding claim 68, Budmiger discloses an apparatus (see the rejection of claim 42 above) that performs the claimed method steps.
As for claim 46, Budmiger discloses that the coil current assumes a maximum current value in each of the time intervals (see Fig. 8),
wherein a condition is met that a coil current value determined by a quotient of the maximum current value and a coil current value determined during the first time subinterval is constant over the operating signal (because the current is constant over part of tcont).
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 51 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 7,260,486 issued to Budmiger (“Budmiger”) in view of U.S. Patent 4,784,000 issued to Gaertner (“Gaertner”).
As for claim 51, Budmiger discloses the magnetic-inductive flow meter according to claim 42 (see the rejection of claim 42 above).
Budmiger does not disclose that a sign of the coil voltage curve alternates in successive time intervals. Instead, Budmiger uses switches to change the direction of the current through the coils (see Figs. 4 and 8).
However, Gaertner discloses that a sign of a coil voltage curve alternates in successive time intervals (see Fig. 4). Gaertner uses the sign change to change the direction of the current through the coils (see Fig. 1).
Because Budmiger and Gaertner both disclose methods of changing the direction of current through coils, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the method of Gaertner for the method of Budmiger to achieve the predictable result of changing the direction of the current in the coils.
As for claim 52, Budmiger as modified by Gaertner discloses that time intervals with a positive sign in the coil voltage curve have a first control setpoint value and time intervals with a negative sign have a second control setpoint value (Budmiger: see Figs. 8 and 9),
wherein the first control setpoint differs from the second control setpoint (Budmiger: because they have opposite signs; see Fig. 8).
Claims 54-56 and 69-71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 7,260,486 issued to Budmiger (“Budmiger”) in view of U.S. Patent 9,726,526 issued to Shimura (“Shimura”).
As for claims 54 and 69, Budmiger discloses the magnetic-inductive flow meter according to claim 42 and the method of claim 68 (see the rejections of claims 42 and 68 above).
Budmiger does not disclose a device configured to detect the coil current and to determine a current value of the coil current during a measurement interval, wherein the diagnostic value comprises the coil current value.
However, Shimura discloses a device (22, 25) configured to detect a coil current (via 22) and to determine a current value of the coil current during a measurement interval (col. 5, lines 3-23), wherein a diagnostic value comprises the coil current value (col. 5, lines 3-23).
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 flow meter of Budmiger to include the device as disclosed by Shimura in order to diagnose deterioration of insulation of the coils (Shimura: Abstract and col. 5, lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 69, Budmiger as modified by Shimura discloses an apparatus (see the rejection of claim 54 above) that performs the claimed method steps.
As for claims 55 and 70, Budmiger as modified by Shimura discloses that the diagnostic circuit is configured to compare the coil current value with a factory-provided coil current value (Shimura: col. 5, lines 3-23).
Regarding claim 70, Budmiger as modified by Shimura discloses an apparatus (see the rejection of claim 55 above) that performs the claimed method steps.
As for claims 56 and 71, Budmiger as modified by Shimura discloses that the coil current value corresponds to a maximum current value present during a time interval or during the first time subinterval and/or a second time subinterval (Shimura: col. 5, lines 3-23 and col. 4, lines 24-27).
Regarding claim 71, Budmiger as modified by Shimura discloses an apparatus (see the rejection of claim 56 above) that performs the claimed method steps.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 49, 53, 61, 67, 76, 80 and 82 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.
Claims 43-48 and 50 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent 6,031,740 issued to Budmiger is cited for all that it discloses including a magnetic-inductive flow meter that includes an operating circuit that applies an operating signal that includes a time-varying coil voltage curve.
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
