DETAILED ACTION
for
FLUID METER DETECTING AND DISTINGUISHING A LEAK AND AN OFFSET PROBLEM
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/06/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
The Oath/Declaration submitted on 06/06/2024 is noted by the Examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 1-7, 9-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OSAKA
(JP 4024110) “Submitted by Applicant” in view of Soneter (CA 2960772) “Submitted by Applicant”.
Regarding claims 1 and 11-12, Osaka discloses a monitoring method and fluid meter, implemented in a fluid meter which comprises: a conduit (1, Fig. 1), wherein a fluid circulates; a measuring device “Ultrasonic Sensor Unit A” arranged to measure a flow rate of the fluid (G); a valve (3) located upstream of the measuring device (Fig. 1); and a processing unit (2); the monitoring method being implemented in the processing unit (2) and comprising a preliminary phase comprising the step of acquiring first flow rate measurements (“Steps 1.1 to 1.4 in FIG. 3 are steps for calculating the average flow rate qave”; ¶0013, lines 1-2); the monitoring method further comprising a detection phase, carried out when the flow rate remains non-zero and less than a predetermined first threshold (¶0012, lines 1-5), for at least one predetermined duration, and comprising the steps of: verifying that the valve is open and, if this is the case (¶0013, lines 1-4) (“calculating the average flow rate qave, the maximum flow rate qmax, and the minimum flow rate qmin”; ¶0013, lines 1-4); and detecting a fluid leak if the flow rate is zero (¶0013-¶0016).
Osaka fails to disclose closing the valve; acquiring at least one second flow rate measurement.
Soneter discloses closing the valve; acquiring at least one second flow rate measurement “a method of monitoring fluid leak events, includes actuating a shut-off valve to stop fluid flow in a lumen and enforce a zero flow state (step 810), computing an estimate of an offset associated with a fluid flow parameter step (820)” and ¶0090, lines 1-6, Fig. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicants invention was filed in the field of testing device for carrying load test on flexible objects, to modify Osaka, to include closing the valve, as taught by Soneter, for the benefit of providing a device to measure cumulative fluid usage for monetary charging purposes and to stop fluid flow into the distribution system.
Regarding claims 2-3 and 5, Osaka further discloses the detection phase having a first primary condition, which is that the flow rate is constant (“average flow rate”; ¶0013, lines 1-3); and if the at least one first condition is verified, detecting an offset problem in the measuring device (“maximum flow rate qmax, and the minimum flow rate qmin are also set to 0”; ¶0013, lines 1-4).
Osaka fails to disclose at least one second flow rate measurement, if the flow rate is not zero, of: verifying at least one first condition.
Soneter discloses at least one second flow rate measurement, if the flow rate is not zero, of: verifying at least one first condition “a method of monitoring fluid leak events, includes actuating a shut-off valve to stop fluid flow in a lumen and enforce a zero flow state (step 810), computing an estimate of an offset associated with a fluid flow parameter step (820)” and ¶0090, lines 1-6, Fig. 8).
Soneter discloses the at least one first condition also comprises a first secondary condition, which is that the flow rate is less than a predetermined second threshold “the average flow rate during the set period of ± 0.5 L / h and not of ± 0.5 L / h”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicants invention was filed in the field of testing device for carrying load test on flexible objects, to modify Osaka, to include closing the valve, as taught by Soneter, for the benefit of providing a device to measure cumulative fluid usage for monetary charging purposes and to stop fluid flow into the distribution system.
Regarding claim 4, Osaka further discloses the detection phase comprises the steps, following the acquisition of the at least one second flow rate measurement, if the flow rate is not zero, of: verifying at least one second condition (“maximum flow rate qmax, and the minimum flow rate qmin are also set to 0”; ¶0013, lines 1-4), comprising a second primary condition, which is that the flow rate is variable; and if the at least one second condition is verified, detecting an operating defect of the valve (“The zero point shift test sends a valve closing signal to the shut-off valve drive unit”; ¶0004).
Regarding claim 7, Osaka further discloses the detection phase comprises, following the verification step, that the valve is open, if the valve is closed (“a valve closing signal is sent from the control circuit unit 7 to the shut-off valve drive circuit”; ¶0023, lines 1-3), of detecting an offset problem in the measuring device (Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 9, Osaka further discloses the detection phase is implemented.
Osaka fails to disclose at night.
Osaka discloses the claimed invention except for implemented at night. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice for the detection phase to be implemented at night, since applicant has not disclosed that detection phase at night solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the detection phase being implemented during the day.
Regarding claim 10, Osaka further discloses from the moment when an operating defect of the valve has been detected, of separately accounting for a water consumption by the installation (¶0023, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 14, Osaka further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, on which a computer program comprising instructions which make a processing unit of a meter execute the steps of the monitoring method (Fig. 3 & Fig. 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other prior art references listed on the PTO-892 (Notice of References Cited) are considered to be of interest disclosing similar systems.
SATHYANARAYANA discloses the method (100) involves applying (101) multiple electronic pulses including a first and a second pulse train to an ultrasound transducer pair including a first transducer (T1) and second transducer (T2) positioned for coupling ultrasonic waves between T1 and T2. A received ultrasonic wave of first and second pulse train (R12) and (R21) are windowed (106) to generate windowed portions. A signal delay is calculated (107) between t12 and t21 (specific time of flight (TOF)) using only windowed portions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDI N HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)270-7042. The examiner can normally be reached M & F 9-5 and T-TH, 6-4.
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/BRANDI N HOPKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights