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 § 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 22 and 23 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.
As to claim 22: The claim depends from claim 21 which was canceled in the claims filed 19 July 2024 and accordingly the scope of the claim cannot be determined at this time because it is unknown what prior limitations must be considered with those of the instant claim.
Because the scope of the claim cannot be determined at this time, a proper and complete prior art search for the claimed subject matter could not be carried out at this time. The examiner recommends either canceling the instant claim or amending the claim such that it depends from a pending claim. In the event Applicant’s response to this rejection overcomes this rejection, a proper prior art search for the claimed subject matter of the instant claim will be carried out at that time.
As to claim 23: The claim depends directly from claim 22 and accordingly inherits the issue of claim 22 regarding lacking dependence upon a previous pending claim. Thus, similar to claim 22 above, a proper prior art search for the claimed subject matter could not be carried out at this time, but will be carried out in the event that Applicant’s response to the claim 22 issue indicated previously above is overcome.
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 1, 6-9, 13-15, 17, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Knight US PG-PUB 2019/0242792 A1 (hereafter Knight), prior art of record as being the US equivalent of GB 2433116 A, listed as the third reference under “Foreign Patent Documents” on the IDS filed 4 November 2024.
As to claim 1: Knight discloses a pipeline insertion device (10; see fig. 1 and ¶ 50) comprising:
an elongate device body (12; see fig. 1 and ¶ 50) having an outer surface comprising an in-use upstream portion (14; see fig. 1 and ¶ 50) and an in-use downstream portion (16; see fig. 1 and ¶ 50); and
a plurality of fluid-flow-directing elements (24; see fig. 1) positioned on the outer surface of the elongate device body (see fig. 1), the plurality of fluid-flow-directing elements being perimetrically offset to both the upstream portion (14) and the downstream portion (16) of the elongate device body (12) (see fig. 1).
As to claim 6: Knight discloses a pipeline insertion device as claimed in claim 1, wherein a perimetric dimension of the upstream portion (14) is greater than or equal to a perimetric extend of the downstream portion (16) (see fig. 1; the widest perimetric dimension of the upstream portion 14 is larger than the smallest part of the downstream portion 16 which is depicted in the examiner’s below annotated fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
1084
858
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 7: Knight discloses a pipeline insertion device as claimed in claim 1, wherein at least one first fluid-flow-directing element (see fig. 1) of the plurality of said fluid-flow-directing elements (24) is positioned on a left-hand lateral-facing portion of the elongate device body (see fig. 1 regarding element 24 depicted on the left half of the elongate body 12), and at least one second fluid-flow-directing element of the plurality of said fluid-flow-directing elements (24) is positioned on a right-hand lateral-facing portion of the elongate device body (see fig. 1 regarding element 24 depicted on the right half of the elongate body 12).
As to claim 8: Knight discloses a pipeline insertion device as claimed in claim 7, wherein the at least one first fluid-flow-directing elements (the left hand side depicted element 24 in fig. 1) is asymmetrically positioned with respect to the at least one second fluid-flow-directing elements (the right hand side depicted element 24 in fig. 1) (see fig. 1; each of the depicted fluid-flow-directing elements on the left and right side of the elongate body 12 are offset from one another with regard to a horizontal plane that runs from the left to right hand side of said body).
As to claim 9: Knight discloses a pipeline insertion device as claimed in claim 8, wherein the at least one first fluid-flow-directing elements (the left hand side depicted element 24 in fig. 1) direct fluid in a first at least in part vertical direction (see ¶ 36), and the at least one second fluid-flow-directing elements (the right hand side depicted element 24 in fig. 1) direct fluid in a second at least in part vertical direction which is different to the first at least in part vertical direction (see ¶ 36; the right hand side depicted element 24 directs fluid in a vertical direction which is vertically offset from the left hand side depicted element 24).
As to claim 13: Knight discloses a pipeline insertion device as claimed in claim 1, wherein a cross-section of the elongate device body (12) is or is substantially: cylindrical; square; hexagonal; or otherwise geometrically uniform or regular (see fig. 1; the device body 12 is substantially square and geometrically uniform).
As to claim 14: Knight discloses a pipeline insertion device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the upstream portion (14) is at least in part concave; convex; or flat (see fig. 1; the upstream portion 14 is convex as depicted).
As to claim 15: Knight discloses a pipeline insertion device as claimed in claim 1, further comprising at least one sampling inlet for an upstream sampling tube on the in-use upstream portion for receiving a sample fluid therein (see fig. 3 and ¶ 52), and/or further comprising at least one sampling outlet for a downstream sampling tube on the in-use downstream portion for returning the sampled fluid.
As to claim 17: Knight discloses a pipeline insertion device as claimed in claim 1, further comprising at least one sampling outlet (see ¶ 50; the downstream portion functions as an outlet as disclosed) for a downstream sampling tube in the in-use downstream portion for returning the sampled fluid (see ¶ 50) and a return conduit interconnecting the upstream sampling tube and the downstream sampling tube (while not explicitly disclosed, fluid is taken in as disclosed in ¶ 52 and therefore there must necessarily be an outlet present constituting a return conduit connected thereto so that the device does not fill indefinitely such that it would be unable to further function).
As to claim 24: Knight discloses a pipeline insertion device as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a bore (30; see fig. 2 and ¶ 51), wherein the bore is a sampling bore or an injection bore (see ¶ 51).
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.
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight US PG-PUB 2019/0242792 A1 (hereafter Knight), prior art of record as being the US equivalent of GB 2433116 A, listed as the third reference under “Foreign Patent Documents” on the IDS filed 4 November 2024 as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Mayeaux US PG-PUB 2002/0036167 A1 (hereafter Mayeaux).
As to claim 18: Knight teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 15, including a sample fluid (the fluid sampled by the probe 10 as disclosed in ¶ 50) but does not explicitly teach:
further comprising a sample analysis apparatus for analysing the said sample fluid.
However, Mayeaux teaches a sample analysis apparatus (not labeled but see the disclosed analyzer in ¶ 50) for analysing a sample fluid (9; see ¶ 50).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Knight’s probe device to include a sample analysis apparatus for analysing the said sample fluid because such a sample analysis apparatus allows for detailed information of a sample flow to be determined by an analyzer which can be separate from the sampling device/means itself and thus allows for a sampling device to be utilized in smaller or harder to reach areas while still allowing for an external sample analyzer to provide detailed information about a fluid flow to a user, such as suggested in ¶ 50 and 52 of Mayeaux.
Claims 19, 20, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight US PG-PUB 2019/0242792 A1 (hereafter Knight), prior art of record as being the US equivalent of GB 2433116 A, listed as the third reference under “Foreign Patent Documents” on the IDS filed 4 November 2024, and further in view of Wiklund US PG-PUB 2015/0090050 A1 (hereafter Wiklund).
As to claim 19: Knight teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 15, and an in-use upstream portion (14) and an in-use downstream portion (16), but does not explicitly teach:
further comprising at least one upstream pitot tube opening on the in-use upstream portion and/or at least one downstream pitot tube opening on the in-use downstream portion.
However, Wiklund teaches the use of pitot tube openings on a downstream side of a probe device (see fig. 4B and ¶ 37).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Knight’s probe device to include at least one upstream pitot tube opening on the in-use upstream portion and/or at least one downstream pitot tube opening on the in-use downstream portion because such a construction can stabilize vortices in a flow and can thus improve flow sensing capabilities of flow sampling device such as suggested in ¶ 17 and 37 of Wiklund.
As to claim 20: Knight teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 15, including an in-use upstream portion (14), an in-use downstream portion (16), and an elongate body (12), but does not explicitly teach:
further comprising at least one upstream pitot tube opening on the in-use upstream portion and/or at least one downstream pitot tube opening on the in-use downstream portion, wherein the at least one upstream pitot tube opening alternates with the at least one sampling inlet in a longitudinal direction of the elongate device body, and/or the at least one downstream pitot tube opening alternates with the at least one sampling outlet in a longitudinal direction of the elongate device body.
However, Wiklund teaches a probe device with at least one downstream pitot tube opening on an in-use downstream portion (see fig. 4B and ¶ 37 regarding openings 52), wherein the at least one downstream pitot tube opening alternates with the at least one one sampling outlet in a longitudinal direction of the elongate device body (see fig. 4B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Knight’s device such that it further comprises at least one upstream pitot tube opening on the in-use upstream portion and/or at least one downstream pitot tube opening on the in-use downstream portion, wherein the at least one upstream pitot tube opening alternates with the at least one sampling inlet in a longitudinal direction of the elongate device body, and/or the at least one downstream pitot tube opening alternates with the at least one sampling outlet in a longitudinal direction of the elongate device body because such a construction can stabilize vortices in a flow and can thus improve flow sensing capabilities of flow sampling device such as suggested in ¶ 17 and 37 of Wiklund.
As to claim 26: Knight teaches a sampling device (10; see fig. 1 and ¶ 50) for an in-line flow rate measurement and sampling of a fluid in a pipeline (see ¶ 50), the sampling device comprising:
an elongate probe body (12; see fig. 1) having an outer surface comprising an in-use upstream portion (14; see fig. 1 and ¶ 50) and an in-use downstream portion (16; see fig. 1 and ¶ 50); and
at least one sampling inlet (see fig. 3 and ¶ 52) on the in-use upstream portion (16) for receiving a sample fluid therein (see ¶ 52).
Knight does not explicitly teach:
the sampling device being a combined pitot tube and sampling device, the combined pitot tube and sampling device comprising:
at least one upstream pitot tube opening for an upstream pitot tube and at least one downstream pitot tube opening for a downstream pitot tube.
However, Wiklund teaches a sampling device (12; see fig. 2) that is a combined pitot tube and sampling device (see ¶ 20), the combined pitot tube and sampling device comprising:
at least one upstream pitot tube opening (48; see fig. 2 and ¶ 27) for an upstream pitot tube (see fig. 2 and ¶ 27) and at least one downstream pitot tube opening for a downstream pitot tube (52; see fig. 2 and ¶ 27).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Knight’s device such that the device is a combined pitot tube and sampling device, the combined pitot tube and sampling device comprising at least one upstream pitot tube opening for an upstream pitot tube and at least one downstream pitot tube opening for a downstream pitot tube because such a construction can be used to minimize vortex shedding such as suggested in ¶ 37 and 38 of Wiklund which is beneficial in obtaining more accurate flow measurements such as also suggested in ¶ 17 of Wiklund.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, 10, and 12 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 3: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a pipeline insertion device wherein a perimetric dimension of the upstream portion and/or the downstream portion is at least 10% of the perimetric extent of the elongate device body, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claim 1.
In particular, while Knight teaches a pipeline insertion device (10; see fig. 1) with an upstream portion (14; see fig. 1 and ¶ 50) and a downstream portion (16; see fig. 1 and ¶ 50), there is no disclosure therein or suggestion available therein or the other cited prior art of record that fairly teaches, suggests, or provides a motivation for the skilled artisan to modify the perimetric dimension of the upstream and/or downstream portion such that it is/they are at least 10% of the perimetric extend of the elongate device body.
As to claim 5: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a pipeline insertion device wherein a perimetric dimension of the upstream portion and/or the downstream portion is at least 20% of the perimetric extent of the elongate device body, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claim 1.
As to claim 10: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a pipeline insertion device wherein the lateral-facing portions have a perimetric dimension which is at least 10% of the perimetric extent of the elongate device body when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claims 1 and 7.
As to claim 12: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a pipeline insertion device wherein the lateral-facing portions have a perimetric dimension which is at least 25% of the perimetric extent of the elongate device body when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claims 1, 7, and 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M ROYSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 E.S.T..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JOHN M ROYSTON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights