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 .
Examiner’s Note
The non-final Office action mailed on April 29, 2026 was mailed in error because a Request for Deferral of Examination Under 37 CFR 1.103(d) was received on June 21, 2024. The suspension period expired June 23, 2026. Therefore, the non-final Office action mailed on April 29, 2026 is hereby replaced with the instant non-final Office action.
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 1 and 8 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 1, the instant claim recites the limitation "the terminals" in lines 5 and 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation resulting in unclear scope of the claim.
As to Claim 8, the instant claim recites the limitation “a processing unit” in line 2 and further state “a processing unit” in line 4. It is vague/unclear if “a processing unit” (line 4) is an additional processing unit or if this is the same as line 2. For examining purposes, examiner has interpreted “a processing unit” of line 4 to be the same as “processing unit” of line 2.
Due to claim dependency, all dependent claims (i.e., 3 – 6, 8) are also rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0167904 A1 to Sathyanarayana et al. (hereinafter “Sathyanarayana”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,700,344 B2 to Wilson (hereinafter “Wilson”).
Regarding Claim 1, Sathyanarayana teaches a measuring method (see method indicated at 100, Fig. 1, see abstract), implemented in a meter comprising a conduit in which a fluid circulates (see paragraphs [0022], [0036], Figs. 1, 4A, describing and illustrating an ultrasonic flowmeter such as 400, Fig. 4A arranged in a pipe section 410) and an ultrasonic measuring device (see ultrasonic flowmeter 400, Fig. 4A having transducers T1 and T2, see paragraph [0036]) comprising an upstream transducer (T1, Fig. 4A) and a downstream transducer (T2, Fig. 4A), the measuring method (see Figs. 1, 4A) comprising the steps of:
applying an excitation electrical signal to the terminals of the upstream transducer (see paragraph [0036] which states “When transducers T1 and T2 are excited by the pulse train TX at a frequency near the resonant frequency of T1 and T2 (e.g., 1 MHz), RX is received at the receiving transducer”, thus an excitation signal is applied to the upstream transducer as claimed), so that it generates an upstream ultrasonic signal in the conduit and acquiring a downstream electrical signal produced by the downstream transducer when it receives the upstream ultrasonic signal (see step 102, Fig. 1 described at paragraph [0024], see also claim 1 stating “responsive to said first pulse train applied to said T1, said T1 transmitting an ultrasonic wave that is received as a received ultrasonic wave (R12) by said T2 after propagating through a fluid in a pipe section”, thus reading on the invention as claimed);
applying the excitation electrical signal to the terminals of the downstream transducer (see paragraph [0036] which states “When transducers T1 and T2 are excited by the pulse train TX at a frequency near the resonant frequency of T1 and T2 (e.g., 1 MHz), RX is received at the receiving transducer”, thus an excitation signal is applied to the downstream transducer as claimed), so that it generates a downstream ultrasonic signal in the conduit and acquiring an upstream electrical signal produced by the upstream transducer when it receives the downstream ultrasonic signal (see step 103, Fig. 1 described at paragraph [0024], see also claim 1 which states “responsive to a second said pulse train applied to said T2, said T2 transmitting an ultrasonic wave that is received as a received ultrasonic wave (R21) by said T1 after propagating through said fluid”, thus reading on the invention as claimed).
Even though Sathyanarayana teaches evaluating flow rate of the fluid using time of flight data as described at Fig. 1 and claim 1, Sathyanarayana does not explicitly teach evaluating a flow rate of the fluid in the conduit according to a first value representative of a difference between an amplitude of the upstream electrical signal and an amplitude of the downstream electrical signal.
Wilson, in the field of ultrasonic flow meters, teaches evaluating a flow rate of the fluid in the conduit according to a first value representative of a difference between an amplitude of the upstream electrical signal and an amplitude of the downstream electrical signal (see abstract, see Col. 3, line 49 – Col. 4, line 3, Col. 8, lines 6 – 51, Col. 10, lines 11 – 50, Figs. 1, 2, 6 and claims 6 - 7 which describes comparators and processor that obtains a difference value between the upstream signal and the downstream signals in order to obtain the fluid flow rate, in particular see claim 6 which states “Driving an input signal through first and second ultrasonic transducers simultaneously to generate a first and second transmitted ultrasonic signal, respectively; While driving said transducers with said input signal, receiving with said first transducer said second transmitted signal, and receiving with said second transducer said first transmitted signal; Measuring a difference between said first and second received signals, said difference defining a difference signal and being directly proportional to fluid flow through said pipe, wherein said input signal is derived from said difference signal”, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the amplitude difference measurement method of Wilson into Sathyanarayana, in order to improve accuracy of the system.
Sathyanarayana in view of Wilson as modified above teaches wherein the measuring method comprises the steps of:
measuring an upstream transit time of the upstream ultrasonic signal between the upstream transducer and the downstream transducer (see claim 1 of Sathyanarayana which states “wherein said t12 is a time for said ultrasonic wave to propagate from said T1 to said T2”, hence reading on the invention as claimed);
measuring a downstream transit time of the downstream ultrasonic signal between the downstream transducer and the upstream transducer (see claim 1 of Sathyanarayana which states “said t21 is a time for said ultrasonic wave to propagate from said T2 to said T1”, hence reading on the invention as claimed); and
evaluating the flow rate of the fluid according to both the first value (see first value as modified in claim 1 above) and of a second value, representative of a difference between the upstream transit time and the downstream transit time (see Wilson Col. 8, lines 6 – 51, Col. 10, lines 11 – 50 which describes using calculation of time of flight as well as difference of the upstream versus the downstream signals, see modification of claim 1 above, see also Col. 2, lines 15 – 28 and clam 1 and Figs. 2, 6 of Wilson, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Regarding Claim 3, Sathyanarayana in view of Wilson as modified above teaches wherein the evaluation of the flow rate of the fluid is performed, from the first value and from the second value (see rejections of claims 1 and 2 above).
Even though Sathyanarayana in view of Wilson as modified above teaches use of the first value and the second value by using multiple equations as also described in claims 1 and 2 above, Sathyanarayana in view of Wilson do not explicitly teach using a multiple regression model. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use multiple regression model as claimed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use a known technique (i.e., use of regression model in data processing) to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious.
Regarding Claim 6, Sathyanarayana in view of Wilson as modified above teaches a fluid meter comprising a conduit in which the fluid circulates, an ultrasonic measuring device comprising an upstream transducer and a downstream transducer, and a processing unit (see Fig. 3, 4A of Sathyanarayana, which illustrates the processing unit 300, see paragraph [0034] of Sathyanarayana), in which the measuring method according to claim 1 is implemented (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding Claim 8, Sathyanarayana in view of Wilson as modified above teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium on which a computer program comprising instructions which lead a processing unit (see processing unit 300, Figs. 3, 4, see paragraphs [0034] – [0035] of Sathyanarayana) of a fluid meter comprising a conduit in which the fluid circulates, an ultrasonic measuring device comprising an upstream transducer and a downstream transducer, and a processing unit to execute the steps of the measuring method according to claim 1 is recorded (see rejection of claim 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 (including dependent claim 5 due to claim dependency) is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if the 35 USC 112 rejection of the base claim 1 can be overcome and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. However, an updated search will again be made upon applicant’s response.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form accompanying this office action which includes the following relevant prior arts:
Martin Barry John et al. (AU 747759 B2) teaches a liquid flow meter (1) for directly measuring the velocity of a liquid is disclosed. The liquid flow meter (1) includes a pair of transducers (10, 20) arranged facing each other in a conduit through which the liquid flows. The liquid flow meter (1) also includes a transmitter means for causing the transducers to simultaneously transmit an acoustic wave packet directed for reception at the other transducer. A differential receiver means is also included whereby the differential receiver means has inputs each coupled to a corresponding one of the transducers (10, 20) for detecting an acoustic signal received thereby and determining a difference between the two received signals. The difference being related to the velocity of the liquid within the conduit.
Urdaneta et al. (U.S. 7,117,104 B2) teaches an ultrasonic flow meter includes a conduit, a first ultrasonic transducer, a second ultrasonic transducer, and a controller. The controller is configured to cross-correlate the first and second received ultrasonic signals and generate a resulting time-domain signal, analyze the resulting time-domain signal to determine a difference in transit time between the first and second received ultrasonic signals, and calculate a rate of flow of a fluid in the conduit based upon the determined difference.
Kippersund Remi Andre et al. (GB 2479115 A) teaches a flowmeter measures fluid flow 130 within a conduit 120 including a wall 110. The apparatus includes transducers 100A, 100B for alternately emitting and receiving ultrasonic radiation through the conduit wall and the flow. A signal processor determines signal propagation time periods through the first path and through the second path in upstream and downstream directions, and determines properties of the flow including fluid flow velocity in the conduit and sound velocity through the fluid.
Smalling et al. (U.S. 4,856,321) teaches an apparatus and method for measuring fluid flow parameters operate under conditions wherein the composition of the fluid flow can change rapidly thereby changing the speed of sound within the fluid and wherein the actual flow rate can change rapidly thereby further changing the transit time of acoustic energy traversing an interrogation path within the fluid. The apparatus determines the speed of sound in the fluid and the fluid flow velocity by measuring an upstream and a downstream transit time of acoustic energy within the fluid.
Wallen (U.S. 6,098,467) teaches an acoustic flow meter with an upstream and downstream acoustic transceiver arrangement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARRIT EYASSU whose telephone number is (571)270-1403. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 9:00AM - 6:00PM.
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, Laura E. Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
/MARRIT EYASSU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights