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 .
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because all the figures are difficult to read. The drawings include improper shading and the text is unclear. The Examiner is unable to identify or read the reference characters or the formulas, which are essential to understanding the claimed subject matter. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected 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 character “1” and “2” has been used to designate more than one different part in Figs. 1, 2, and 3. 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.
Figures 5A and 5B should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Figures 5B and 6B include graphs with multiple lines that appear to be different shades but they are difficult to distinguish from each other, even with the legend provided.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“4 pressure sensors” (paragraph [0011]) should be --four pressure sensors-- or the like.
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 1-6 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 1 recites the limitation "the signals and form of signal demodulation" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the electronic circuit" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 requires “sensors 3, 4, 5, 6,” but it is unclear if these are the same as the positively recited “a resistive sensor” as the disclosure appears to identify them as being the same feature [0020]. As such, it is unclear where the single “a resistive sensor” became a plurality of sensors 3, 4, 5, 6, or if they are supposed to be the same thing.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the electronic circuit" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the digital activation signals D2 and D3" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites “using the digital activation signals D2 and D3 to separate output signals s(t) and c(t) from each measuring station corresponding to the signals from each sensor 3, 4, 5, 6 and its respective excitation carrier wave using a binary word sequence proved by the signals D2 and D3” (lines 9-13). It is unclear what output signal c(t) is and how it is separated. The disclosure appears to refer to c(t) as a carrier wave [0036] but does not go into detail about the details of the wave. This paragraph also appears to not define s(t) and c(t) as “output signals”. Instead, the output appears to be from each measuring station.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the signals" in lines 11, 13, 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites “windowing the signals s(t) and c(t) to mitigate a spectral leak, obtaining SSji and CCji …” (lines 14-15). However, the examiner is unable to determine what SSji and CCji are as Fig. 4 (b) is unclear and unreadable. The disclosure [0022] discusses windowing is performed but it is unclear what steps are required to perform this step.
Claim 2 recites “estimating a gain through ratios of average power of input, CCji (t), and output, SSji (t)” (lines 17-18), but the formula for the gain in Fig. 4 (c) is unreadable. It is also unclear if SSji and CCji are the same as SSji(t) and CCji (t).
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the set of sensors" in lines 19 and 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites “a sensor 3, 4, 5, 6” (line 25) but “a sensor” is already positively recited throughout claims 1 and 2. Further, it is unclear if this is a single sensor or a plurality since 3, 4, 5, 6 appear to be separate sensors.
Claim 3 recites “a sensor 3, 4, 5, 6” (line 7) but a sensor is already positively recited in claim 1, from which it is dependent.
Claim 3 recites “digital inputs D2 and D3” (line 11) but they are positively recited as digital outputs in claim 1, from which it is dependent.
Claim 4 is rejected based on its dependency to claim 3.
Claim 5 recites “the fluid mixture” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites “the transmitter” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “digital output D2 and D3” (line 2) but they are positively recited as digital outputs in claim 1 and digital outputs in claim 3. It is unclear whether D2 and D3 are inputs or outputs.
Claim 6 recites “the combination” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “the first output” in lines 7 and 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “the second output” in lines 8 and 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “a high level” and “a low level” in lines 9 and 10, which are already positively recited in lines 7 and 8. It is unclear if these are a new “high level” and a new “low level”.
Claim 6 recites “a binary word” in line 13, which is already positively recited in line 4-5.
Conclusion
There are currently no art rejections for claims 1-6.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Henry et al. (CA 2658810) teaches a two-wire meter used to measure flow (page 63) but remains silent as to an excitation electronic circuit for a plurality of sensors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW V DO whose telephone number is (571)270-3420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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 L 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.
/A.V.D/Examiner, Art Unit 2852 /WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights