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 .
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.
Claims 1-8, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0280121 by Strub et al. (“Strub”) in view of U.S. Patent 4,280,360 issued to Kobayashi et al. (“Kobayashi”) and U.S. Patent 9,057,391 issued to Sawchuck et al. (“Sawchuck”).
As for claim 1, Strub discloses a measuring device (Fig. 8) for measuring the flow rate of hydrogen flowing through a pipe, comprising:
a pipe piece which has:
a first upstream, longitudinal end portion (100 in Fig. 8) and a second downstream, longitudinal end portion (300# in Fig. 8), each having a first inner diameter D1 and being provided for connection to a pipe (see Fig. 8);
a central longitudinal portion (200, 300+ in Fig. 8) having a second inner diameter D2, wherein D2 is greater than D1; and
a first longitudinal transition portion (surrounding 110 in Fig. 8) having a varying inner diameter and being provided between the first longitudinal end portion and the central longitudinal portion (see Fig. 8), and a second longitudinal transition portion (301 in Fig. 8) having a varying inner diameter and being provided between the second longitudinal end portion and the central longitudinal portion (see Fig. 8);
a plurality of radially inwardly extending deflector plates (110, 112) which run from the first longitudinal end portion to the central longitudinal portion (see Figs. 2, 4 and 8); and
a flow conditioner element (210) provided at an upstream end of the central longitudinal portion.
Strub does not disclose a sensor element as recited. Instead, Strub discloses a generic sensor element (20) to detect a flow rate of fluid.
However, Kobayashi discloses a sensor element (15) for measuring the flow rate at a measuring point (see Fig. 7a), wherein the measuring point is located on a central longitudinal axis (L) of a pipe piece at a distance, corresponding to (i.e. implicitly a multiple of) a second inner diameter D2, from a downstream flow conditioner element (17).
Because Strub and Kobayashi both disclose sensor elements for measuring a flow rate, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the sensor element of Kobayashi for the sensor element of Strub to achieve the predictable result of providing a sensor element to measure a flow rate.
Strub as presently modified by Kobayashi does not disclose a circular baffle element as recited, in part, because Strub as presently modified by Kobayashi does not disclose a flow conditioner element located downstream the sensor element.
However, Kobayashi also discloses a flow conditioner element (17) located downstream (see Fig. 7a) a sensor element (15).
Kobayashi and the Strub-Kobayashi combination disclose each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the flow conditioner element of Kobayashi with the measuring device of the Strub-Kobayashi combination by providing the flow conditioning element 17 of Kobayashi downstream the sensor element of the Strub-Kobayashi combination, as suggested in Fig. 7a of Kobayashi , and that in combination, the flow conditioning element and the elements of the measuring device merely perform the same functions as it does separately. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the measuring device of Strub and Kobayashi to include the downstream flow conditioner element of Kobayashi to achieve the predictable result of providing a structure that further improves the flow profile of fluid flowing through the measuring device.
Strub as modified by Kobayashi does not disclose a circular baffle as recited because Strub as modified by Kobayashi does not disclose a circular baffle located adjacent to the downstream flow conditioner element.
However, Sawchuck discloses a circular baffle element (Fig. 5) which is arranged at to be concentric with a pipe piece (see Fig. 4) and defines an annular gap (120 and outside 130; similar to the annular gap outside 110 in Fig. 4) through which a flow can pass. Sawchuck discloses that the circular baffle element can be located adjacent a flow conditioner element (col. 4, lines 16-25).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the measuring device of Strub and Kobayashi to include the circular baffle element as disclosed by Sawchuck in order to reduce or prevent noise or pulsation form being transmitted downstream the position of the circular baffle element (Sawchuck: col. 3, lines 15-28). Furthermore, since one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the circular baffle element could be placed adjacent either the upstream or downstream flow conditioner elements, it would have been obvious to try to place the circular baffle element downstream from the downstream flow conditioner element with a reasonable expectation of success.
Strub as modified by Kobayashi and Sawchuck discloses a circular baffle element (Sawchuck: 100) which is arranged at a downstream end of the central longitudinal portion (because the circular baffle element is located downstream the downstream flow conditioner element which itself is located downstream the sensor element) so as to be concentric with the pipe piece (Sawchuck: see Fig. 4) and defines an annular gap (Sawchuck: 120 and outside 130; similar to the annular gap outside 110 in Fig. 4) through which a flow can pass; and
a sensor element (Kobayashi: 15) for measuring the flow rate at a measuring point, wherein the measuring point is located on the central longitudinal axis of the pipe piece at a distance, corresponding to (i.e. implicitly a multiple of) the second inner diameter D2, from the baffle element (Kobayashi: see Fig. 7a).
As for claim 2, Strub as modified by Kobayashi and Sawchuck discloses that the flow conditioner element (Strub: 210) is formed as a perforated plate (Strub: paragraph [0061]).
As for claim 3, Strub as modified by Kobayashi and Sawchuck discloses that four deflector plates are provided (Strub: see Fig. 3), which are arranged at a uniform distance from one another in a circumferential direction of the pipe piece (Strub: see Fig. 3).
As for claim 4, Strub as modified by Kobayashi and Sawchuck discloses that the baffle element (Sawchuck: see Fig. 5) has a curved surface in the form of a dome (Sawchuck: 130; Fig. 5) having an edge region extending at least partially parallel to the central longitude axis (L) of the pipe piece, wherein the curve is oriented counter to a direction of flow (col. 4, lines 54-63).
As for claim 5, Strub as modified by Kobayashi and Sawchuck discloses that the first and second longitudinal end portions are each equipped with a flange for connection to a pipe (Strub: see Fig. 8).
As for claim 6, Strub as modified by Kobayashi and Sawchuck discloses that the deflector plates have a radially inner edge which extends at least partially parallel to the longitudinal axis (L) of the pipe piece (Strub: see Figs. 4 and 8).
As for claim 7, Strub as modified by Kobayashi and Sawchuck discloses that the pipe piece has, in a pipe wall thereof, an opening (Strub: 301* in Fig. 8), through which a sensor tip may be inserted as the sensor element.
As for claim 8, Strub as modified by Kobayashi and Sawchuck discloses that the ratio of D2 to D1 is in a range from 1.17 to 1.3 (Strub: because the ratio of the cross sectional areas is 1.4, the ratio of the diameters is 1.4^0.5 = 1.18).
As for claim 14, Strub as modified by Kobayashi and Sawchuck discloses that the baffle element is connected to the pipe piece by a plurality of radially arranged support plates (Sawchuck: 115).
As for claim 15, Strub as modified by Kobayashi and Sawchuck discloses that a length of the pipe piece is seven to twelve times the first inner diameter D1 (Strub: paragraph [0069]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0280121 by Strub et al. (“Strub”) in view of U.S. Patent 4,280,360 issued to Kobayashi et al. (“Kobayashi”) and U.S. Patent 9,057,391 issued to Sawchuck et al. (“Sawchuck”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of U.S. Patent 3,840,051 issued to Akashi et al. (“Akashi”).
As for claim 9, Strub as modified by Kobayashi and Sawchuck discloses the measuring device as claimed in claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Strub as modified by Kobayashi and Sawchuck does not disclose that the flow conditioner element has from 30 to 85 openings. Instead, Strub discloses a flow conditioning element with an undisclosed number of openings that conditions the flow of fluid in the conduit of the measuring device.
However, Akashi discloses a flow conditioner element that has from 30 to 85 openings (Fig. 7). Akashi discloses that the flow conditioning element conditions the flow of fluid in a conduit (col. 2, lines 26-30).
Because Strub and Akashi both disclose flow conditioner elements that condition a flow of fluid in a conduit, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the flow conditioning element of Akashi for the flow conditioning element of Strub to achieve the predictable result of providing a structure that conditions the flow of fluid in a conduit.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0280121 by Strub et al. (“Strub”) in view of U.S. Patent 4,280,360 issued to Kobayashi et al. (“Kobayashi”), U.S. Patent 9,057,391 issued to Sawchuck et al. (“Sawchuck”) and U.S. Patent 3,840,051 issued to Akashi et al. (“Akashi”) as applied to claim 9, further in view of U.S. Patent 11,359,652 issued to Van Buskirk (“Van Buskirk”).
As for claim 10, Strub as modified by Kobayashi, Sawchuck and Akashi discloses the measuring device as claimed in claim 9 (see the rejection of claim 9 above) and that the flow conditioner element has circular (Akashi: see Fig. 7), the circular openings have diameters from 5 mm to 8 mm (Akashi: col. 2, lines 54-58).
Strub as modified by Kobayashi, Sawchuck and Akashi does not disclose that the flow conditioner element has both circular and slot-like openings.
However, Van Buskirk discloses a flow conditioner element that has both circular and slot-like openings (col. 3, lines 22-30).
Because Akashi and Van Buskirk both disclose shapes of openings for flow conditioning elements, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the shapes of Van Buskirk for the shapes of Akashi to achieve the predictable result of providing holes in a flow conditioning unit to condition the flow of fluid in a conduit.
As for claim 11, Strub as modified by Kobayashi, Sawchuck and Akashi discloses the measuring device as claimed in claim 9 (see the rejection of claim 9 above).
Strub as modified by Kobayashi, Sawchuck and Akashi does not disclose that a ratio of a total area of the openings in the flow conditioner element to a total area of a cross section of the central longitudinal portion is between 40% and 50%.
However, Van Buskirk discloses that a ratio (i.e. the Beta ratio) of a total area of the openings in the flow conditioner element to a total area of a cross section of the central longitudinal portion is between 40% and 50% (col. 5, lines 34-62).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the flow conditioning element of Strub, Kobayashi, Sawchuck and Akashi to have the ratio as disclosed by Van Buskirk in order to optimize the beta ratio of the flow conditioning element (Van Buskirk: col. 5, lines 34-62).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0280121 by Strub et al. (“Strub”) in view of U.S. Patent 4,280,360 issued to Kobayashi et al. (“Kobayashi”) and U.S. Patent 9,057,391 issued to Sawchuck et al. (“Sawchuck”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of U.S. Patent 11,976,888 issued to Deshpande et al. (“Deshpande”).
As for claim 12, Strub as modified by Kobayashi and Sawchuck discloses the measuring device as claimed in claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Strub as modified by Kobayashi and Sawchuck does not disclose that the baffle element is formed as a torispherical head, in accordance with German standard DIN 28011. Instead, Sawchuck discloses a baffle element that is formed as a cone (Sawchuck: see Fig. 5).
However, Deshpande discloses a baffle element that is formed as a torispherical head (col. 3, lines 46-49).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the baffle element of Strub, Kobayashi and Sawchuck to be formed as a torispherical head as disclosed by Deshpande in order to enable enhanced pressure and stress distribution (Deshpande: col. 3, lines 46-49).
Strub as modified by Kobayashi, Sawchuck and Deshpande does not explicitly disclose that the torispherical head is formed in accordance with German standard DIN 28011.
However, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the German standard relates to optimal formation of torispherical heads for withstanding pressure and stress.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to optimize the torispherical head of Strub, Kobayashi, Sawchuck and Deshpande to be formed in accordance with the claimed standard in order to optimize the ability of the baffle element to withstand pressure and stress.
As for claim 13, Strub as modified by Kobayashi, Sawchuck and Deshpande discloses that a ratio of a diameter of the baffle element to the second inner diameter D2 of the central longitudinal portion is in a range from 45% to 60% (Sawchuck: col. 3, lines 58-61).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0280121 by Strub et al. (“Strub”) in view of U.S. Patent 4,280,360 issued to Kobayashi et al. (“Kobayashi”) and U.S. Patent 9,057,391 issued to Sawchuck et al. (“Sawchuck”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of U.S. Patent 8,136,980 issued to Smith (“Smith”).
As for claim 17, Strub as modified by Kobayashi and Sawchuck discloses the measuring device as claimed in claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Strub as modified by Kobayashi and Sawchuck does not disclose that a plurality of plates, which project inward obliquely in a direction of flow, are provided in the first longitudinal end portion.
However, Smith discloses a plurality of plates (41-46), which project inward obliquely in a direction of flow, that are provided in a first longitudinal end portion (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the measuring device of Strub, Kobayashi and Sawchuck to include the plurality of plates as disclosed by Smith in order to improve fluid flow in the measuring device (Smith: col. 1, lines 9-15).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0280121 by Strub et al. (“Strub”) in view of U.S. Patent 4,280,360 issued to Kobayashi et al. (“Kobayashi”) and U.S. Patent 9,057,391 issued to Sawchuck et al. (“Sawchuck”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of CN 2019-45333 by Zhou et al. (“Zhou”).
As for claim 18, Strub as modified by Kobayashi and Sawchuck discloses a method of using the measuring device as claimed in claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above) the method comprising the steps of:
flowing gas through the pipe piece form the first longitudinal end portion to the second longitudinal end portion (Strub: Fig. 8; paragraphs [0002] and [0072]); and
measuring, by the sensor element, the flow rate of the gas at the measuring point (Strub: Fig. 8; paragraphs [0002] and [0072]).
Strub as modified by Kobayashi and Sawchuck does not disclose that the gas is hydrogen.
However, Zhou discloses a gas that is hydrogen (paragraph [0002]).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the gas of Strub, Kobayashi and Sawchuck to include hydrogen as disclosed by Zhou because measuring the flow of hydrogen is necessary in some industrial environments (Zhou: paragraphs [0001] and [0002]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Strub does not disclose a plurality of radially inwardly extending deflector plates. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The connecting means 112 of Strub are radially extending deflector plates; see for example Fig. 4 for additional detail.
On page 8 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Sawchuck does not disclose a circular baffle element that defines an annular gap. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Sawchuck discloses an annular gap that allow flow from 120 to an annular area around 130. The gap is similar to the annular gap surrounding 110 in Fig. 4.
On page 9 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Kobayashi does not disclose a sensor element located a certain distance from a baffle element. However, the examiner notes that this argues against Kobayashi in isolation rather than in combination with Strub. The examiner also notes that the claim limitation describing a distance corresponding to a second inner diameter has been broadly interpreted to include a distance that is a multiple of the second inner diameter. The multiple can be a non-integer value and can be less than 1.
On page 9 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that the rejection used impermissible hindsight. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
On page 10 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Strub does not disclose deflector plates that have a radially inner edge which extends at least partially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the pipe piece. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The inner edges of 112 of Strub (see Figs. 4 and 8 of Strub) extend at least partially parallel to the longitudinal axis even the inner edges are attached to 111.
On page 11 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Sawchuck does not disclose a baffle element with the claimed diameter ratio. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Sawchuck discloses that opening 120 has the claimed diameter (col. 3, lines 58-61) and that the diameter of the baffle element is the same as the diameter of the opening (col. 3, lines 40-41).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN N OLAMIT whose telephone number is (571)270-1969. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am - 5 pm (Pacific).
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JUSTIN N OLAMIT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
