NONDETAILED 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 § 102
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 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) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 10729925 (herein Lomas). Note: Lomas includes the use of Dayton flow meter 32ZN69 (Col. 4, Line 53), and thus Non-Patent Literature titled, “Operating Instructions Manual – Dayton Digital Turbine Flow Meter” (herein Dayton) is also relied upon to teach the flow meter’s inherent features.
Regarding claim 11, Lomas teaches A portable meter test assembly (flow test assembly 10, Col. 3, Line 52, Fig. 1) comprising:
a case composed of a container portion (flow test assembly 10 may include a single structure that includes the pressure gauge, control valve, and flow totalizer, with a single, continuous housing defining a flow path through each, Col. 4, Lines 62-65);
an inlet port located adjacent the container portion of the case (test head orifice 24, Col. 3, Line 55);
an outlet port located adjacent the container portion of the case (connector 30, Col. 4, Line 7, Fig. 2);
a fluid passageway extending from the inlet port to the outlet port (conduit 14, Col. 3, Line 53);
a pressure gauge located on the fluid passageway; wherein the pressure gauge is configured to identify a pressure from a fluid source (pressure gauge 18, Col. 4, Lines 46-49);
a valve located on the fluid passageway; wherein the valve is configured to open and close in order to allow and prevent fluid from passing through the fluid passageway (Control valve 20, Col. 4, Line 50);
a flow meter located on the fluid passageway; wherein the flow meter is configured to determine a flow rate (flow totalizer 22 suitable for use with the present flow test assembly is a Model 32ZN69 digital turbine flow meter, Col. 4, Lines 52-54); and
a power source to provide power to the flow meter (Model 32ZN69 digital turbine flow meter, manufactured by Dayton Electronic Mfg, Col. 4, Lines 53-55; Dayton shows battery is inherently included in 32ZN69 digital turbine flow meter, p. 4).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9, and 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lomas in view of CN101074887A (herein Zhao). Note: Lomas includes the use of Dayton’s flow meter 32ZN69 (Col. 4, Line 53), and thus Dayton is also relied upon to teach the flow meter’s inherent features.
Regarding claim 1, Lomas teaches A portable meter test assembly (flow test assembly 10, Col. 3, Line 52, Fig. 1) comprising:
a case composed of a container portion (flow test assembly 10 may include a single structure that includes the pressure gauge, control valve, and flow totalizer, with a single, continuous housing defining a flow path through each, Col. 4, Lines 62-65);
an inlet port located adjacent the container portion of the case (test head orifice 24, Col. 3, Line 55);
an outlet port located adjacent the container portion of the case opposite the inlet port (connector 30, Col. 4, Line 7, Fig. 2);
a linear fluid passageway extending from the inlet port to the outlet port (conduit 14, Col. 3, Line 53);
a pressure gauge located on the linear fluid passageway adjacent the inlet port, wherein the pressure gauge is configured to identify an active line pressure from a fluid source (pressure gauge 18, Col. 4, Lines 46-49);
a first valve located on the linear fluid passageway adjacent the pressure gauge; wherein the first valve is configured to open and close in order to allow and prevent fluid from passing through the linear fluid passageway (Control valve 20, Col. 4, Line 50);
a flow meter located on the linear fluid passageway adjacent the first valve; wherein the flow meter is configured to determine a flow rate (flow totalizer 22 suitable for use with the present flow test assembly is a Model 32ZN69 digital turbine flow meter, Col. 4, Lines 52-54);
a second valve located on the linear fluid passageway
a power source located within the case to provide power to the flow meter (Model 32ZN69 digital turbine flow meter, manufactured by Dayton Electronic Mfg, Col. 4, Lines 53-55; Dayton shows battery is inherently included in 32ZN69 digital turbine flow meter, p. 4).
Further regarding claim 1, Lomas does not teach the case having a lid, or the second valve adjacent to the flow meter and opposite the first valve. However, Zhao teaches it is known in the art to provide a flow meter 2 with a box 8 having a door which is equivalent to lid of the present invention (see p. 2 of translation). Furthermore, Zhao teaches it is known in the art to provide valves 7 and 3 on opposite sides of flow meter 2 (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Lomas does not teach, “wherein the inlet port includes an inlet coupling, wherein the outlet port includes an outlet coupling, and wherein the inlet coupling and the outlet coupling are each located on the exterior of the case.” However, Zhao teaches it is known in the art to provide (see ref # 4, 6 exterior of box 8, in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Lomas teaches wherein the first valve is a ball valve (valve 20 is a quarter-turn ball valve, Col. 4, Line 51).
Regarding claim 4, Lomas teaches wherein the flow meter is configured to determine the flow rate by volume (Model 32ZN69 digital turbine flow meter, manufactured by Dayton Electronic Mfg, Col. 4, Lines 53-55; p. 1 of Dayton teaches flow rate in terms of liters and gallons per minute; p. 2 of Dayton teaches display showing in quarts).
Regarding claim 5, Lomas teaches wherein the flow meter includes a totalizer (totalizer 22, Col. 4, Line 59), which is configured to display a predetermined volume of fluid that can be reset to zero (Dayton teaches reset instructions on p. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Lomas teaches wherein the flow rate determined by the flow meter is displayable in a plurality of unit variations (p. 2 of Dayton teaches display showing in quarts).
Regarding claim 8, Lomas teaches wherein the power source includes one or more batteries to provide the power to the flow meter (Dayton teaches batteries in p. 4).
Regarding claim 9, Lomas teaches one or more battery adapters to accommodate corresponding connection configurations of the one or more batteries (p. 5 of Dayton shows corresponding battery adapter, shown as the bottom element of meter body 3 that accommodates batteries and adapts them for use in the flow meter).
Regarding claim 12, Lomas does not teach, “wherein the case also includes a lid that is selectively attachable to the case, wherein the lid is configured to store accessories selected from the group consisting of at least one or more adapter, elbow, coupling, battery, battery adapter, and hose.” However, Zhao teaches a box 8 having a door which is equivalent to the lid of the present invention (see p. 2). Furthermore, Fig. 1 teaches elbows inside box 8.
Regarding claim 13, Lomas teaches wherein the outlet port is located opposite of the inlet port (see Fig. 1 teaching 12 and 24 opposite of assembly).
Regarding claim 14, Lomas teaches wherein the fluid passageway is a linear fluid passageway such that fluid flows in a straight line from the inlet port to the outlet port (Fig. 1 shows corresponding linear passageway including conduit and the assembly between 12 and 24).
Regarding claim 15, Lomas does not explicitly teach, “wherein the pressure gauge is located adjacent the inlet port.” Pressure gauge is shown in Fig. 1. But relocating a pressure gauge to near orifice 24 is a mere rearrangement of parts and an obvious design choice and, according to MPEP § 2144.04 VI. C, may be held unpatentable because the rearrangement would not affect the operation of the device. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Note that according to MPEP § 2144, “Office personnel may invoke legal precedent as a source of supporting rationale when warranted and appropriately supported.”
Regarding claim 16, Lomas teaches wherein the valve is located adjacent the pressure gauge (Fig. 1 teaches valve 20 adjacent to pressure gauge 18).
Regarding claim 17, Lomas teaches wherein the valve is configured to open and close in order to allow and prevent fluid from passing through the fluid passageway (Col. 5, Lines 25-30 teach valve 20 openable and closeable for allowing air to pass through, and closed to stop any fluid from passing)
Regarding claim 18, Lomas does not teach, “a second valve located on the fluid passageway adjacent the flow meter and opposite the valve.” However, Zhao teaches it is known in the art to provide two valves 7 and 3 on opposite sides of flow meter 2 (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Lomas teaches wherein the power source is located within the case to provide the power to the flow meter (p. 5 of Dayton shows batteries within shroud 2).
For the above claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the door of Zhao into the housing of Lomas. One would be motivated to do so for at least the purpose of providing easy access for maintenance. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the upstream valve of Zhao upstream of the meter of Lomas. One would have been motivated to do so for at least the purpose of allowing a bypass route simpler maintenance. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to place inlet and outlet exterior to the housing of Lomas as taught by Zhao. One would be motivated to do so for at least the purpose of easily connecting the meter without opening the housing.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lomas and Zhao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20130240045 (herein Feng).
Regarding claim 7, Lomas and Zhao do not teach, “wherein the second valve is a globe valve to selectively open and close fluid flow from the flow meter to the outlet port.” However, Feng teaches it is known in the art to use globe valve in flow meters ([0029]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to simply substitute the ball valve of Lomas with the globe valve of Feng because both valve types perform the same function of controlling the passage of fluid. The above findings satisfies the Graham factual inquiries stated in MPEP 2143 B regarding simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lomas and Zhao as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of US 20200124453 (herein Huber).
Regarding claim 10, Lomas and Zhao do not teach, “an inlet plate and an outlet plate, both located within the case, and each configured to shroud components within the container portion of the case.” However, Huber teaches housing has first and second housing bearings 41 42, (which correspond to inlet and outlet plate of the present invention) which are firmly connected to the housing plate 40 and to which the line inlet section 18 and the line outlet section 19 are fixed ([0052]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the plates 41, 42 of Huber into the housing of Lomas. One would have been motivated to do so for at least the purpose of suppressing transmission of vibrations of the pipeline to the measurement tube ([0052]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lomas in view of US 20190137321 (herein Mastic) and Feng.
Regarding claim 20, Lomas teaches A method of administering a flow rate test (flow test assembly for testing fire sprinkler systems, Col. 2, Line 5), with a portable meter test assembly (10, Fig. 1), the method of administering the flow rate test comprising steps of:
providing a case for the portable meter test assembly (continuous housing, Col. 4, Line 64), which includes an inlet port (24, Fig. 1), a pressure gauge (18, Fig. 1), an inlet valve (20, Fig. 1), a flow meter electrically coupled to a power source (32ZN69 digital turbine flow meter, manufactured by Dayton Electronic Mfg. Co, Col. 4, Line 53), a valve (28, Fig. 2), and an outlet port (12, Fig. 1), in fluid communication with each other by a fluid passageway between the inlet port and the outlet port (conduit 14, Fig. 1);
coupling the inlet port to a fluid source (orifice 24 is affixed to the device via a fitting 36, which mates with fitting 38 affixed to drainage hose 26, Col. 5, Lines 1-2);
initiating fluid flow to the inlet port from the fluid source; purging the portable meter test assembly by opening the globe valve then opening the inlet valve for removing air in the fluid passageway; closing the inlet valve after the air has been removed from the fluid passageway (ball shut-off valve 28 and control valve 20 are opened to purge air from flow test assembly 10. Draining of the sprinkler system, as required by the bucket test, is not required when using flow test assembly 10. After air has been purged from flow test assembly 10, ball shut-off valve 20 is closed, Col. 5, Lines 24-29);
reading a fluid service meter to be tested in order to obtain an initial value (static pressure indicated on pressure gauge 18 is recorded, Col. 5, Lines 29-30);
opening the inlet valve (testing of the sprinkler line begins by opening control valve 20, Col. 5, Lines 31-32);
determining, by the flow meter, a
Further regarding claim 20, Lomas does not explicitly teach, “determining, by the flow meter, a predetermined volume of fluid passed through the flow meter; closing the inlet valve once the predetermined volume of fluid has passed through the flow meter; reading the fluid service meter, after the predetermined volume of fluid has passed through the flow meter and the inlet valve has been closed, to determine an end value; calculating a volume of fluid that passed through the fluid service meter using the initial value and the end value; and comparing the predetermined volume of fluid that passed through the flow meter of the portable meter test assembly with the volume of fluid that passed through the fluid service meter.” However, Mastic teaches it is known in the art to take a known amount of fluid and compare it to an actual amount that has been pumped through a meter under test and compare the two results ([0006]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the method taught by Mastic into the method of Lomas. One would be motivated to do so for at least the purpose of verifying accuracy of flow meters at various flow rates ([0003]).
Additionally regarding claim 20, Lomas does not teach a globe valve. However, Feng teaches it is known in the art to use globe valve in flow meters ([0029]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to simply substitute the ball valve of Lomas with the globe valve of Feng because both valve types perform the same function of controlling the passage of fluid. The above findings satisfies the Graham factual inquiries stated in MPEP 2143 B regarding simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP FADUL whose telephone number is (571)272-5411. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8pm-6pm.
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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/PHILIP T FADUL/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights