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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 30 July 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-40 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6 July 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 3: The last line recites “plate” lacks antecedent basis but line 1 of the claim and line 3 in parent claim 1 both refer to “plates” and accordingly it is interpreted from context that Applicant intended to recite --plates-- instead of the singular “plate”. Accordingly, this is the interpretation taken by the examiner for the purpose of expedient examination and could constitute a proper correction.
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 4 and 7-9 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 4: The claim recites in line 1 “the sub-plates or segments” but in line 2 recites “sub-plates and ground sub-plates”. Accordingly, the claim scope is unclear because the claim may be met by sub-plates or segments but there is no further elucidation regarding any limitations required in the claim when, e.g. a prior art document discloses or renders obvious the claimed “segments” because line 2 requires only a further limitation regarding the sub-plates. In other words, if a prior art renders obvious/teaches segments that satisfy the claim limitations of line 1, the rest of the claim, i.e. “are arranged in an alternating pattern of voltage excitation sub-plates and ground sub-plates” is unclear with regard to any relation to the claimed “segments”.
As to claim 7: The claim recites in lines 1 and 2 “electrodes or plates” and accordingly could be satisfied by prior art that teaches/renders obvious either of electrodes or plates. However, because line 3 of the claim recites further limitations of “plates”, it is unclear whether such plates are required or only optional and accordingly conflicts with the recitations in lines 1 and 2.
As to claims 8 and 9: Each of said claims depends directly from claim 7 and accordingly each inherits the lack of clarity from claim 7 for the reasons indicated previously above.
Because the scope of claims 4 and 7-9 could not be ascertained at this time, a proper and complete prior art search for the claimed subject matter as set forth in claims 4 and 7-9 could not be carried out at this time. The examiner recommends explaining in remarks how Applicant believes the scope of the claims to be clear, preferably by referencing portions of Applicant’s disclosure, and/or amending the claims to obviate the above issues. In the event Applicant’s reply obviates the above noted issues, the claim rejections will be withdrawn and a prior art search for the claimed subject matter of each of said claims would be conducted at that time.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marashdeh et al. US PG-PUB 2021/0010966 A1 (hereafter Marashdeh) in view of Marashdeh et al. US PG-PUB 2017/0241817 (hereafter Marashdeh 817).
As to claim 1: Marashdeh teaches a system for sensing the contents of a vessel interior, volume or other object for determining a quantity of material in a volume or mass fraction (see fig. 1c and ¶ 6), the system comprising:
a sensor (11; see fig. 2b and ¶ 29) comprising a plurality of electrodes or plates (6; see fig. 1c and ¶ 27) in a capacitance sensor plate arrangement (see fig. 1c), wherein the sensor is adapted to provide electric field distribution and sensor sensitivity in three geometric dimensions (see ¶ 3 and ¶ 27).
Marashdeh does not explicitly teach:
a processing system, the processing system programmed with instructions for executing on the processing system to calculate a material volume from information collected by the sensor.
However, Marashdeh817 teaches:
a processing system (not labeled but see ¶ 32 regarding the disclosed image reconstruction processor), the processing system programmed with instructions for executing on the processing system to calculate a material volume from information collected by a sensor (see ¶ 31 and 32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marashdeh to include a processing system, the processing system programmed with instructions for executing on the processing system to calculate a material volume from information collected by the sensor because such a processing system can be utilized in order to reconstruct images from capacitance measurements inside a vessel in order to extract velocity and acceleration information of a multiphase flow, such as suggested in ¶ 5 of Marashdeh817. Accordingly, such a processing system is useful in determining various velocimetric variables in a multiphase flow by capacitance measurements such as also suggested in Marashdeh817 ¶ 21.
As to claim 2: Marashdeh as modified by Marashdeh817 teaches a system according to claim 1, wherein the electrodes or plates (6 of Marashdeh; see fig. 1c and ¶ 27) are divided into sub-plates or segments (see fig. 1c of Marashdeh; the plates 6 are segmented).
As to claim 3: Marashdeh as modified by Marashdeh817 teaches a system according to claim 2, wherein the sub-plates or segments (see fig. 1c of Marashdeh) are activated with different voltages excitations or ground to distribute a charge accumulation across the plates (see ¶ 29 of Marashdeh817).
As to claim 5: Marashdeh as modified by Marashdeh817 teaches a system according to claim 1, wherein the sensor (11 of Marashdeh; see fig. 2b and ¶ 29) is used to measure an amplitude or phase of a received signal and at different frequencies (see Marashdeh817 ¶ 32).
As to claim 11: Marashdeh as modified by Marashdeh817 teaches a system according to claim 1, wherein the sensor (11 of Marashdeh; see fig. 2b and ¶ 29) is categorized based on plate geometry for identification of flow pattern or material location (see ¶ 28 of Marashdeh).
As to claim 12: Marashdeh as modified by Marashdeh817 teaches a system according to claim 1, wherein the sensor (11 of Marashdeh; see fig. 2b and ¶ 29) is comprised of at least two planes of electrodes or plates to provide sensor sensitivity in the axial and radial directions (see ¶ 21 of Marashdeh817).
As to claim 13: Marashdeh as modified by Marashdeh817 teaches a system according to claim 1, wherein the sensor (11 of Marashdeh; see fig. 2b and ¶ 29) is adapted to be opened and closed around the region to be imaged (see fig. 1c of Marashdeh).
References Cited but not Relied Upon
As to references cited but not relied upon:
Fan et al. US PG-PUB 2010/0097374 A1 discloses a dynamic three-dimensional image electrical capacitance tomography sensor system and appears pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 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:
As to claim 6: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a system according to claim 1 wherein the sensor sensitivity is used to weight measurements from the sensor for accurate volumetric and (emphasis added) mass gauging of material in the sensor domain, 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 system according to claim wherein the electrodes or plates are projected from a spherical surface onto another open or closed surface, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claim 1.
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