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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant has filed two IDSs dated 11-24-2025 which are duplicates of each other. The examiner has considered the references, but crossed out one of the duplicate IDS.
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 5, 7-8 and 19 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the stator coil.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. (claim 5 should depend on claim 4, which first recites this limitation)
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “there is no electrically-powered element beyond the inductor in the direction in the flow meter” is indefinite in regards to the scope of what is being claimed. The question is how far in the direction is there no electrically-powered element? At some point, given the proliferation of electrical devices in the modern world, there would surely be an electrically powered device (another sensor, a light bulb, a cell phone, a computer, etc.) located along said direction. As such, the scope of claim 7 is indefinite.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the final stator coil.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Su et al. (CN 111780818, copy/translation attached).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Su discloses (Fig. 1) a flow meter for use with a conductive fluid (see Abstract), the meter comprising:
a conduit 1 shaped to carry a flow of the conductive fluid (as shown in Fig. 1);
an inductor 3/5 (first/second excitation coils: middle p. 2) configured to cause an electromagnetic field to be carried by the flow (middle p. 2, top p. 4); and
a conductive wire 7 (pickup coil: middle p. 2) around the conduit 1 (as shown in Fig. 1), wherein the conductive wire 7 is not in contact with an electrical power source to drive current or voltage in the conductive wire 7 (i.e. not connected to power supplies 4/6: see Fig. 1; shielded from interference: middle p. 4), and wherein the conductive wire 7 is configured to convert the electromagnetic field from the flow to a voltage or current in the wire based on a speed of the flow (i.e. the magnitude of the voltage is proportional to the flow of the liquid metal: middle p. 4).
The apparatus of Su, as applied above in the rejection of claim 1, would perform the method and meet the limitations of claim 18.
Regarding claim 2, Su discloses (Fig. 1) the conductive wire 7 forms a coil with multiple loops (as shown in Fig. 1) each completely around an outer perimeter of the conduit 1 (as shown in Fig. 1), and wherein the flow passes through the loops (as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Su discloses (Fig. 1) the inductor is a stator coil (stationary coil 7) surrounding the conduit 1 (as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Su discloses (Fig. 1) the conductive wire 7 is spaced from the inductor 3/5 in a direction along the conduit 1 downstream of the flow in the conduit (as shown in Fig. 1).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. (CN 111780818) in view of Hammer (U.S. Patent 7,276,916).
Regarding claim 3, Su discloses (Fig. 1) there are ten or more of the multiple loops.
Su does not disclose the conductive wire includes copper.
Hammer discloses the conductive wire includes copper (col. 3, lines 3-4 and col. 5, lines 39-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Su’s device so that the conductive wire includes copper, as taught by Hammer.
Such a modification would improve the sensitivity of the measuring device (Hammer - col. 3, lines 3-4 and col. 5, lines 39-41)
Claims 5, 7-8, 12-14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. (CN 111780818) in view of Araseki (U.S. Pub. 2010/0263454).
Regarding claim 5, Su is applied as above, but does not disclose the stator coil is one of a plurality of coils in an electromagnetic pump.
Araseki discloses the stator coil is one of a plurality of coils 9 in an electromagnetic pump [0035].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Su’s device so that the stator coil is one of a plurality of coils in an electromagnetic pump, as taught by Araseki.
Such a modification would be an application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results – see MPEP 2143(I)(D) and Araseki [0035].
Regarding claims 7-8, Su is applied as above, and discloses the conductive wire 7 is spaced in the direction (flow direction) from a stator coil 3/5 in the direction within a casing 9.
Su does not disclose there is no electrically-powered element beyond the inductor in the direction in the flow meter; and the inductor includes stator coils on an electromagnetic pump.
Araseki discloses (Figs. 3-4) there is no electrically-powered element beyond the inductor 6 in the direction in the flow meter (as shown in Figs. 3-4); and the inductor includes stator coils 9 on an electromagnetic pump [0035].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Su’s device so that there is no electrically-powered element beyond the inductor in the direction in the flow meter; and the inductor includes stator coils on an electromagnetic pump, as taught by Araseki.
Such a modification would be an application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results – see MPEP 2143(I)(D) and Araseki [0035].
Regarding claim 12, Su is applied as above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not disclose an electromagnetic pump, the pump comprising: a channel configured to receive the fluid and expel the fluid from the pump.
Araseki discloses (Figs. 3-4) an electromagnetic pump [0035], the pump comprising: a channel configured to receive the fluid and expel the fluid from the pump (as shown in Figs. 3-4 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Su’s device to be/used with an electromagnetic pump, the pump comprising: a channel configured to receive the fluid and expel the fluid from the pump, as taught by Araseki.
Such a modification would be an application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results – see MPEP 2143(I)(D) and Araseki [0035].
Regarding claim 13, Su is applied but does not disclose there is no stator coil between the conductive wire and an end of the pump.
Araseki discloses (Figs. 3-4) there is no stator coil between the conductive wire and an end of the pump (as shown in Figs. 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Su’s device so that there is no stator coil between the conductive wire and an end of the pump, as taught by Araseki.
Such a modification would be an application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results – see MPEP 2143(I)(D) and Araseki [0035].
Regarding claim 14, Su discloses (Fig. 1) the conductive wire 7 is an insulated metal wire (middle p. 4) wrapped several times on an outer perimeter of the channel 1 (as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Su is applied but does not disclose the initial point is a final stator coil in an electromagnetic pump generating the electromagnetic field in the fluid from a current applied to a final stator coil.
Araseki discloses (Figs. 3-4) the initial point is a final stator coil in an electromagnetic pump generating the electromagnetic field in the fluid from a current applied to a final stator coil (as shown in Figs. 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Su’s device so that the initial point is a final stator coil in an electromagnetic pump generating the electromagnetic field in the fluid from a current applied to a final stator coil, as taught by Araseki.
Such a modification would be an application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results – see MPEP 2143(I)(D) and Araseki [0035].
Claims 9-11, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. (CN 111780818) in view of Seppa et al. (U.S. Patent 5,824,914).
Regarding claim 5, Su is applied as above, and discloses circuity 8 (middle p. 4) in contact with the conductive wire 7 and configured to receive the current or voltage from the conductive wire (middle p. 4).
Su does not disclose, wherein the circuitry is configured to convert the current or voltage to the speed of the flow and output the speed; and the circuitry is configured to convert the current or voltage to the speed based on an empirical relationship between current or voltage and the speed stored with the circuitry; and the relationship is between the speed and a phase of the voltage relative to a phase on an input current to the inductor.
Seppa discloses the circuitry is configured to convert the current or voltage to the speed of the flow and output the speed (i.e. calculate the velocity: see col. 4, lines 5-28 and col. 5, lines 17-25); and the circuitry is configured to convert the current or voltage to the speed based on an empirical relationship between current or voltage and the speed stored with the circuitry (col. 5, lines 17-25); and the relationship is between the speed and a phase of the voltage relative to a phase on an input current to the inductor (see col. 4, lines 5-28 and col. 5, lines 1-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Su’s device so that the circuitry is configured to convert the current or voltage to the speed of the flow and output the speed; and the circuitry is configured to convert the current or voltage to the speed based on an empirical relationship between current or voltage and the speed stored with the circuitry; and the relationship is between the speed and a phase of the voltage relative to a phase on an input current to the inductor, as taught by Seppa.
Such a modification would be an application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results – see MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin Schmitt, whose telephone number is (571) 270-7930. The examiner can normally be reached M-F | 8:30-5:00.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/BENJAMIN R SCHMITT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
