DETAILED ACTION
for
FLUID FLOW SENSING APPARATUS AND RELATED METHOD
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/19/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
The Oath/Declaration submitted on 08/30/2024 is noted by the Examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because: it uses the phrases, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Fluid Flow Sensing Apparatus and Method For Use In Fluid Flow Controlling Apparatus Has Controlling Unit For Sensor Input To Set Sensitivity Of Micro-calorimetry Sensor Based On Control Input.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: [controlling means in claims 1, claim 2, claim 5 and more].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nelson et al. [herein after Nelson] (US 11,385,086) “Submitted by applicant on IDS”.
PNG
media_image1.png
412
481
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Nelson discloses a fluid flow sensing apparatus and method having a fluid flow channel (100) having an inlet and an outlet; a microcalorimetry sensor (106) disposed in the fluid flow channel (100; Col. 9, line 58 to Col. 10 line 42); and a controlling means (110-114) for the microcalorimetry sensor (106; Col. 8, line 62 to Col. 9, line 3), controlling means (110) being configured to provide a sensor input to the microcalorimetry sensor (106; Fig. 1B) to set a sensitivity of the microcalorimetry sensor (106) based on a control input corresponding to a property of fluid (Fig. 1A; Col. 9, line 11 to Col. 10, line 3).
Regarding claim 2, Nelson further discloses the controlling means (110-114) being operable as non-feedback controlling means “non -limiting” for provision of the sensor input to the microcalorimetry sensor (Col. 8, lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 3, Nelson further discloses the sensor input to the microcalorimetry sensor (106, 108) is selectable from a plurality of constant values (Col. 18, lines 8-13; “an adjustment factor may include a predetermined adjustment…measured by second sensor 108 for the type of the identified fluid”).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Nelson further discloses the sensor input is an electrical signal (Col. 9, lines 15-24).
Regarding claim 5, Nelson further discloses controlling means (110-114) being configured to set the sensitivity of the microcalorimetry sensor (106, 108) by providing the sensor input to set a power consumption of the microcalorimetry sensor (106, 108; Col. 9, lines 27-39).
Regarding claim 6, Nelson further discloses the sensor input is a voltage or a current (resistive heater RH; see Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 7, Nelson further discloses the electrical signal are a supply voltage for the microcalorimetry sensor (resistive heater RH; see Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 8, Nelson further discloses the property of the fluid is a type of the fluid. (see clam 4).
Regarding claim 9, Nelson further discloses the microcalorimetry sensor (108, Fig. 1B) having a heating element (resistive heater RH; see Fig. 1B); a first sensing element (“a first resistive temperature detector (RTD) layer or thermopile”; configured to measure a first temperature and disposed in a fluid flow direction upstream of the heating element; and a second sensing element “second RTD layer or thermopile” configured to measure a second temperature and disposed in a fluid flow direction downstream of the heating element (Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 10, Nelson further discloses each of the first sensing element (106) and the second sensing element (108) having a resistance temperature detector (RTD) or thermopile “temperature with the RTD layers or thermopiles to determine the first measurement including the thermal diffusivity of a fluid in fluid flow path 10”.
Regarding claim 11, Nelson further discloses the controlling means (10-14) being further configured to receive a first output from the microcalorimetry sensor (106, 108), the first output being indicative of a flow rate of fluid flowing in the fluid flow channel (see claim 1 and Fig. 1B).
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.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al. [herein after Nelson] (US 11,385,086) in view of PRETRE [herein after Pretre] (US 2016/0138951) “Submitted by applicant on IDS”.
Regarding claims 12-13, Nelson discloses a fluid flow controlling apparatus (see abstract) having: a first fluid flow channel (104) having an inlet and an outlet, a microcalorimetry sensor disposed in the first fluid flow channel, a controlling means (110-114) for the microcalorimetry sensor, the controlling means (110-114) being configured to provide a sensor input to the microcalorimetry sensor (106, 108) to set a sensitivity of the microcalorimetry sensor (106, 108) based on a control input corresponding to a property of fluid (Fig, 1B).
Nelson fails to explicitly disclose a second fluid flow channel having a respective inlet and a respective outlet, the fluid flow controlling apparatus being configured to split a fluid flow between the second fluid flow channel and the first fluid flow channel such that the first fluid flow channel is configured to receive a predefined proportion of fluid flowing through the second fluid flow channel.
Pretre discloses a second fluid flow channel (1) having a respective inlet and a respective outlet (Fig. 6), the fluid flow controlling apparatus (10) being configured to split a fluid flow between the second fluid flow channel (1; Fig. 5) and the first fluid flow channel (3) such that the first fluid flow channel being configured to receive a predefined proportion of fluid flowing through the second fluid flow channel (Fig. 6).
Pretre further discloses a mass flow controller (11, Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicants invention was filed in the field of a fluid flow sensing apparatus, to modify Nelson, to include a second fluid flow channel, as taught by Pretre, for the benefit of providing a device which can determine specific quantities for the gas quality or energy consumption in domestic and industrial areas to more accurately identify the calorific value and the energy flow from the volumetric flow, thermal diffusivity and thermal conductivity.
Conclusion
See PTO- 892 Notice of References Cited for relevant references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDI N HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)270-7042. The examiner can normally be reached M & F 9-5 and T-TH, 6-4.
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/BRANDI N HOPKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights