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 .
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.
Claims 1 – 12 are pending.
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. See Claim 8, the limitations “adjustment means for adjusting a potential on the outer electrode” are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Claims 9 – 10 are also interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for depending on Claim 8.
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(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Slezak et al. (US 2009/0267619 A1; hereinafter Slezak) in view of Buzza et al. (US 4,003,705; hereinafter Buzza).
Regarding Claim 1, Slezak discloses an apparatus (Fig. 2, item 1) for measuring characteristics of a fluid (Fig. 2 and para [0032]; device is therefore adapted to measure the electrical conductivity of the fluid flowing through pipe piece 1), said apparatus (Fig. 2, item 1) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
518
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a sensor (para [0010]; the device according to the invention is suitable for measuring electrical properties of a flowing medium) with at least an outer electrode (Fig. 2, item 4) and an inner central electrode (Fig. 2, item 14), the sensor being configured to allow fluid to pass through and contact (Fig. 2 and para [0033]; the device is also adapted to measure the dielectric constant of the fluid flowing through pipe piece 1; use is made for this purpose of the centrally placed first measuring electrode 14 and second measuring electrode 4) the central electrode Fig. 2, item 14) and the outer electrode (Fig. 2, item 4);
a measuring circuit having a positive (Fig. 2, item 16) and negative input (Fig. 2, item 18 and para [0034]; earthed via connecting wire 18) and an output (para[0040; control circuit is also adapted to transmit the measurement results to for instance a more centrally located circuit for collecting and processing measurement data).
But Slezak does not specifically teach an integrator; one of the electrodes being connected to the negative input of the integrator, the other electrode being connected to Solution Ground; and
the output of the integrator being a function of the characteristics of the fluid.
However, Buzza suggests an integrator; one of the electrodes being connected to the negative input of the integrator, the other electrode being connected to Solution Ground (column 7, lines 23 – 31; coupling the measuring electrodes to respective input terminals of a differential amplifier and coupling the solution ground to the internal ground terminal of the differential amplifier, the integrator is coupled to the internal ground); and
the output of the integrator being a function of the characteristics of the fluid (column 8, lines 15 – 17; a measure of the amount of charge required to titrate the chloride present is provided by the voltage output of current integrator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Slezak in view of Buzza because it provides an enhanced signal-to-noise ratio with resulting improved sensitivity and precision of measurement and ensures that solution ground variations cancel out (Buzza, column 7, lines 23 – 31).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 – 10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 2, the prior art of record does not teach claimed limitation: “which further comprises: a comparator connected to the output of the integrator, the comparator having an output that is coupled to the positive input of the integrator, the output changing state as a function of the integrator output” in combination with all other claimed limitations of claim 2.
Regarding Claims 3 – 6, the claims would be allowable as they further limit claim 2.
Regarding Claim 7, the prior art of record does not teach claimed limitation: “wherein the integrator output is configured to generate an output with a positive slope followed by an output of a negative slope, and the counter being configured to count pulses from the Schmitt trigger between a beginning of the positive slope and ending of the negative slope” in combination with all other claimed limitations of claim 7.
Regarding Claim 8, the prior art of record does not teach claimed limitation: “which further comprises: adjustment means for adjusting a potential on the outer electrode” in combination with all other claimed limitations of claim 8.
Regarding Claims 9 – 10, the claims would be allowable as they further limit claim 8.
Claims 11 and 12 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 11, the prior art of record does not teach claimed limitation: “a comparator connected to the output of the integrator, the comparator having an output that is coupled to the positive input of the integrator, the output changing state as a function of the integrator output; a Schmitt trigger gate connected to an output of the comparator, the Schmitt trigger generating pulses for each change of state of the comparator; a timer connected to an output of the Schmitt trigger gate counting pulses from the Schmitt trigger gate; and wherein the pulse count from the timer is a function of the characteristics of the fluid” in combination with all other claimed limitations of claim 11.
Regarding Claim 12, the claim is allowed as it further limit claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Suzuki et al. (US 10,488,357 B2) teaches an electric conductivity meter that measures electric conductivity of a fluid, wherein comprising at least two tubular electrodes inside of each of which respectively formed is an inner flow channel where the fluid flows, and an electrode holder that communicates each of the inner flow channels of the above-mentioned at least two electrodes and that holds the above-mentioned at least two electrodes, and is characterized by that the electrode holder holds the above-mentioned at least two electrodes by making an engagement with each outer peripheral surface of mutually facing axial direction end parts of the above-mentioned at least two electrodes (see claim 1).
Son (US 10,209,210 B2) suggests a measuring device, configured to be dipped into an object to be measured, for measuring electrical characteristics of the object to be measured, the measuring device using electrical conductivity and having a function of informing electrode contamination, the measuring device comprising: a main body on which a display part is disposed on a surface thereof, and a control module controlling an operation of the measuring device is mounted therein; and a sensor unit disposed on the main body and configured to be dipped into the object to measure electrical characteristics of the object to be measured, driven by the control of the control module, the sensor unit comprising: a plurality of electrodes at least including a first sensor electrode and a second sensor electrode configured to measure the electrical characteristics of the object to be measured, and a reference electrode disposed equidistant between each of the plurality of electrodes (see claim 1).
Vogt (US 2018/0106743 A1) discloses a conductivity sensor for measuring the electrical conductivity of a liquid medium comprising: at least a first coil, a current source connected to the first coil, a control and evaluation unit, at least a first electrode and a second electrode, and at least one voltage measuring unit, the voltage measuring unit being connected to the first electrode and the second electrode (see claim 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIOVANNI ASTACIO-OQUENDO whose telephone number is (571)270-5724. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/GIOVANNI ASTACIO-OQUENDO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858 3/7/2026