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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because line 5 appears to have a typographical error “senso” should read “sensor” (line 5 of the abstract section as filed). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the specification at page 2, paragraph [0003] at last line states “burn put”. This appears to be a typographical error. Examiner suggests to replace “burn put” with “burn pit” which is in-line with the term used in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “130” has been used to designate both “center” and “second axis” (see paragraph [0040] of the disclosure as filed. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "130" and "131" have both been used to designate “center” (see paragraph [0040] of the disclosure as filed). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “132” described at paragraph [0040] when referring to “second axis” is not in the drawings. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 4, 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to Claim 1, the instant claim recites the limitation “the first vibrational sensor” in connecting lines 9 – 10. Examiner suggests to replace the aforementioned limitation with “the first vibration sensor” as recited in line 9.
As to Claim 1, the instant claim recites the limitation “the second vibrational sensor” in line 14. Examiner suggests to replace the aforementioned limitation with “the second vibration sensor” as recited in line 13.
As to Claim 3, the instant claim recites the limitation “based on at least the vibrational amplitude” in line 3. Examiner suggests to replace the aforementioned limitation with “based on the at least one vibrational amplitude” as recited in claim 2, line 12 from which the instant claim depends from.
As to Claim 4, the instant claim recites the limitation “connected the pipeline” in line 2. Examiner suggests to replace the aforementioned limitation with “connected to the pipeline” in order to fix grammatical problems.
As to Claim 12, the instant claim recites the limitation “connected the pipeline” in line 2. Examiner suggests to replace the aforementioned limitation with “connected to the pipeline” in order to fix grammatical problems.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 5, 9, 13 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 “measure an acceleration, velocity, or displacement of the first vibration sensor” (emphasis added) in lines 11 – 12. Note that the “oscillator” (line 6) is configured to “vibrate the pipeline” (line 7). Then how does the first vibration sensor arranged to measure the acceleration/velocity/displacement of “of the first vibration sensor”? (emphasis added). It is thus unclear as to what the “first vibration sensor” is actually measuring the acceleration/velocity/displacement of?
As to Claim 1, the instant claim recites the limitation “the first vibration sensor” (lines 15 – 16. It is vague/unclear as to how and what the second vibration sensor is measuring as the instant claim recites the “second vibration sensor” (emphasis added) (line 13) measuring an acceleration/velocity/displacement “of the first vibration sensor” (emphasis added).
As to Claim 2, the instant claim recites the limitation "the first and second sensors" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation resulting in unclear scope of the claim. It is vague/unclear if the aforementioned limitation is referring to the first and the second vibrational sensors or if these are other types of sensors.
As to Claim 5, the instant claim recites the limitation "the first sensor" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation resulting in unclear scope of the claim. It is vague/unclear if the aforementioned limitation is referring to the first vibrational sensor or if this sensor is a different sensor.
As to Claim 5, the instant claim recites the limitation “second sensor, third sensor, and fourth sensor” in line 2. It is vague/unclear if these are referring to the “the second vibration sensor” (line 13 of claim 1), “a third sensor” (line 1 of instant claim 5), and “a fourth sensor” (bridging lines 1 – 2 of the instant claim), respectively or if these sensors are different or additional sensors.
As to Claim 9, the instant claim recites the limitation “the second sensor” in lines 10 and 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation resulting in unclear scope of the claim. It is vague/unclear if the aforementioned limitation is referring to “a second vibrational sensor” (line 8) or if this sensor is a different sensor.
As to Claim 9, the instant claim recites the limitation “the first sensor” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation resulting in unclear scope of the claim. It is vague/unclear if the aforementioned limitation is referring to “a first vibrational sensor” (line 5) or if this sensor is a different sensor.
As to Claim 13, the instant claim recites the limitation “measure a change in acceleration, velocity, or displacement” in lines 6 – 7. What is actually being measured? In other words, “measure a change in acceleration, velocity or displacement” of what? Is it measuring of the “containment structure”? or “of each vibration sensor” (lines 9 – 10)? Or the fluid itself that is in the containment structure? It is thus unclear as to what the scope of this limitation in the instant claim, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Due to claim dependency, all dependent claims (i.e., all pending claims 2 – 8, 10 – 12, 14 – 20) are also rejected.
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) 13 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0170552 A1 to Dutton (hereinafter “Dutton”).
Regarding Claim 13, as best understood, Dutton teaches a method (see abstract) comprising:
prompting, by a controller of a computer sub-system of a system (see meter electronics 20, Figs. 1, 2), an oscillator the system mounted to a containment structure (see left and right drivers 180L, 180R, Fig. 1, see abstract and paragraph [0039]), to oscillate at a predetermined frequency (see Fig. 2 illustrating the meter electronics 20, thus providing a frequency as claimed);
prompting, by the controller, a plurality of sensors of the system mounted to the containment structure to measure a change in acceleration, velocity, or displacement, over a predetermined amount of time, the plurality of sensors having at least two vibration sensors (see abstract describing The method includes the steps of vibrating at least one flow tube (130, 130′) in a drive mode vibration with the at least one driver (180L, 180R), and receiving a sensor signal based on a vibrational response to the drive mode vibration from the at least one pickoff sensor (170L, 170R)”, hence reading on the invention as claimed);
obtaining amplitude data containing a vibrational amplitude of each vibration sensor in the plurality of sensors (see paragraphs [0055], [0057] describing measuring amplitude by the sensor assembly 10 via the pick off sensors 170, hence reading on the invention as claimed);
determining at least one property of a fluid in the containment structure based on the at least one vibrational amplitude of the amplitude data (see paragraphs [0055] – [0060] describing obtaining flow rate of fluid from the amplitude data, see also paragraph [0002], [0038], hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Regarding Claim 14, Dutton teaches wherein determining the at least one property of the fluid in the containment structure based on the at least one vibrational amplitude of the amplitude data, comprises: determining a liquid flow rate of a liquid component of the fluid, based at least one of the vibrational amplitudes of the amplitude data (see paragraphs [0055] – [0060] describing obtaining flow rate of fluid from the amplitude data, see also paragraph [0002], [0038], hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Regarding Claim 15, Dutton teaches wherein determining the at least one property of the fluid in the containment structure based on the at least one vibrational amplitude of the amplitude data, comprises: determining a gas volume fraction of the fluid, based on at least one the vibrational amplitudes of the amplitude data (see paragraph [0057] describing amplitude measurement obtained by the sensor assembly and further describing characterization of low gas void fraction (GVF), hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Regarding Claim 16, Dutton teaches wherein determining the at least one property of the fluid in the containment structure based on the at least one vibrational amplitude of the amplitude data, comprises: determining a liquid flow rate of a liquid component of the fluid, based on the determined gas volume fraction (see paragraphs [0057], [0059] describing determining mass flow rate corresponding to the tube amplitudes being determined, and further states “As a multiphase flow is produced through a Coriolis sensor, such as from an oil and gas well, there are often periods of non-measureable flow and periods of measureable, homogenous, flow. The measurable periods are typically characterized by low gas void fraction (GVF) flow in predominantly liquid flow and a low Lockhart-Martinelli (LM) parameter in wet gas flow. The LM is a dimensionless number used in two-phase flow calculations, and expresses the liquid fraction of a flowing fluid”, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
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 relevant prior arts.
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