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 § 102
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.
Claim(s) 18, 20, 21, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cushing (U.S. 3,759,097).
Regarding claim 18, Cushing teaches a flow measuring probe comprising a sleeve 100 with a sleeve end portion configured to contact the medium; at least two measuring electrodes 30, 32, each configured to effect galvanic contact with the medium and to tap an induced voltage in the flowing medium, wherein at least one of the at least two measuring electrodes is disposed in the sleeve end portion (see figures 10 and 11); and a magnetic field-generating device configured to generate a magnetic field passing through at least the sleeve end portion, the magnetic field-generating device comprising: a coil 52 with a coil opening; a field guiding body which extends, at least in portions, through the coil opening, wherein the field guiding body includes a coil core 50; and a shielding body (54, 56), which is arranged at least between the coil and the at least one of the at least two measuring electrodes (see figure 5), wherein the shielding body is electrically connected to a reference potential (see Abstract, ‘electrically conductive guard means is disposed adjacent the electrodes and means is provided for establishing a potential on the guard means which is directly proportional to the potential on the detecting electrodes’; see column 8, lines14-25).
Additionally, the recitation of a ‘magnetic-inductive flow measuring probe for insertion into an opening of a process container through which a flowable medium flows and for determining a flow velocity- dependent measured variable of the medium’ has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951).
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Cushing further teaches wherein the shielding body encloses the coil and the coil core in at least one cross-section of the magnetic field- generating device (see figure 5); and/or wherein the shielding body is cylindrical, at least in portions (see figure 5).
Regarding claim 23, Cushing further teaches wherein the shielding body is configured in two parts (54, 56).
Regarding claim 30, Cushing further teaches wherein, at least in each cross-section of the coil in which a coil plane intersects at least one of the measuring electrodes, the corresponding coil plane also intersects the shielding body (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 33, Cushing further teaches wherein the shielding body completely covers an outer surface of the coil (see figure 2).
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.
Claim 19, 22, 27, 29, 31, 32 and 34-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bier et al. (DE 10 2020 112151, hereafter referred to as Bier).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claim 19, Cushing teaches the claimed invention except a wherein the field guiding body includes at least one field return body, wherein the shielding body is operatively connected with the at least one field return body.
Bier teaches a similar measuring probe wherein a shielding body is operatively connected with the at least one field return body 14.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Cushing with the teaching of Bier in order to return the magnetic field emerging from the coil core.
Regarding claim 22, neither reference explicitly teaches the material or shape of the shielding body.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of Cushing and Bier since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Additionally, a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 27, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Cushing and Bier since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 29, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Cushing and Bier since One-piece construction, in place of separate elements fastened together, is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Kohno, 391 F.2d 959, 157 USPQ 275 (CCPA 1968); In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965). Additionally, see Bier, para. 0013.
Regarding claims 31 and 32, neither reference explicitly teaches wherein the shielding body includes a lateral surface; wherein a smallest distance between a point on the lateral surface and one of the at least two measuring electrodes is less than 10 mm and/or 1 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Cushing and Bier since a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claims 34 and 35, neither reference explicitly teaches wherein the shielding body covers two-thirds of an outer surface of the coil; or wherein the shielding body covers one-third of an outer surface of the coil.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Cushing and Bier since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 36, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Cushing and Bier since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Additionally, a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 37, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Cushing and Bier since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Additionally, a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24-26, 28 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 JAMEL E WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-4pm.
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 at (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.
/JAMEL E WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights