DETAILED ACTION
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 submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/22/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 3 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3: Claim 2, on which claim 3 depends, recites “the diaphragms” (plural) whereas claim 3 recites details of “the diaphragm” (singular). It is unclear if the structure of claim 3 attributed to “the diaphragm” applies to both diaphragms or merely one diaphragm.
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.
(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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Strom et al. (US 20140260658 A1).Regarding claim 1:Strom teaches (e.g., FIGS. 2-4; other equivalent and alternative disclosed embodiments may be relied upon as they map to generally the same components) a fluid measurement apparatus, comprising:
a pressure sensing element (e.g., FIG. 3) and a data processing element (e.g., FIG. 2 - 34 / 34 + 36), wherein the pressure sensing element is disposed in direct contact with a measured fluid ([0016]-[0017], [0033], [0071], [0077]), the pressure sensing element is a sealed element, and comprises a first surface (surface to which 60L is mounted) and a second surface (one of the surfaces on which one of the 60Ts are mounted) that are disposed opposite to each other, the measured fluid directly impacts the first surface and the second surface, and pressure values generated when the first surface and the second surface are impacted by the measured fluid are detected (e.g., [0025]-[0026], [0071], [0077]); and the data processing element is connected to the pressure sensing element, and a flow velocity and/or a flow rate of the measured fluid are/is calculated by using the pressure value detected by the pressure sensing element ([0054]-[0055], etc.)
Regarding claim 4:Strom teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Strom also teaches:
wherein a first included angle is formed between the first surface (surface to which 60L is mounted) and a flow direction (e.g., left->right direction relative to FIG. 4) of the measured fluid, a second included angle is formed between the second surface (one of the surfaces on which one of the 60Ts are mounted) and the flow direction of the measured fluid, and the first included angle and the second included angle are less than or equal to 90 degrees(The first angle of Strom is approximately 90 degrees and the second angle of Strom is less than 90 degrees)
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strom et al. (US 20140260658 A1) in view of Wang (US 20020178827 A1).Regarding claim 2:Strom teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Strom fails to teach:
wherein the pressure sensing element further comprises a body, diaphragms, and a separator; a sealed first accommodating space is formed inside the body, and the first accommodating space is filled with an insulating medium; the separator is movably disposed through the first accommodating space to divide the first accommodating space into a first cavity and a second cavity; and the diaphragms are respectively disposed on the first surface and the second surface, and are respectively connected to two opposite surfaces of the separator through connection partsWang teaches (FIGS. 3-4):
wherein the pressure sensing element further comprises a body (generally indicated by 114, 118, etc.), diaphragms (the two 90s in FIG. 3), and a separator (102 in FIG. 4); a sealed first accommodating space is formed inside the body, and the first accommodating space is filled with an insulating medium (fill fluid 95 - [0025]); the separator is movably disposed through the first accommodating space to divide the first accommodating space into a first cavity and a second cavity (the cavities to each side of 102 in FIG. 4); and the diaphragms (the two 90s in FIG. 3) are respectively connected to two opposite surfaces of the separator (102 in FIG. 4) through connection parts (FIGS. 3-4)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the isolation diaphragms and separator of Wang instead of the separate, independent upstream and downstream pressure sensors of Strom as they are each art-recognized equivalents for the purposes of sensing differential pressure.
The examiner notes that “the diaphragms are respectively disposed on the first surface and the second surface” is met upon combination with Strom.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strom et al. (US 20140260658 A1) in view of Ned et al. (US 20160011065 A1).
Claims 6-7 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strom et al. (US 20140260658 A1) in view of Ned et al. (US 20160011065 A1) and Green et al. (US 6571645 B1).Regarding claim 5:Strom teaches all the limitations of claim 4, as mentioned above.Strom fails to teach:
wherein the first included angle and the second included angle are less than 90 degrees and the first included angle is the same as the second included angleNed teaches:
wherein the first included angle and the second included angle are less than 90 degrees and the first included angle is the same as the second included angle (e.g., FIGS. 1, 3, 5, and 7-8; [0022])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the body shape / angles of Ned instead of the body shape of Strom as it is an art-recognized shape for a flow rate/velocity measurement device based on upstream and downstream pressure sensing of a flow-disturbing body. The examiner notes that [0022] of Ned explicitly teaches that the “shape of a front portion of the probe 100 may be angled, conical, wedge-shaped, pointed, pyramidal, spherical, tapered or the like. Further, the shape of the front portion of the probe 100 may not impact dimensions of the probe 100. Depending on, for instance, a desired frequency response, a minimal probe size and shape may be obtained using the configuration of the probe 100. A person of ordinary skill in the art will recognize the utility of various shapes of the front portion of a probe for specific applications”.
Regarding claim 6:Strom and Ned teach all the limitations of claim 5, as mentioned above.Ned fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the first included angle and the second included angle are less than or equal to 80 degrees and are greater than or equal to 60 degrees
However the examiner holds this to be routine optimization. Ned shows various angles but fails to explicitly set forth exact values.
Alternatively, claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strom et al. (US 20140260658 A1) in view of Ned et al. (US 20160011065 A1) and Green et al. (US 6571645 B1). Green explicitly teaches the claimed angle range (Green - Column 4, Lines 29-32). The motivation to use such angles is due to Ned’s silence on the specific bevel angles and/or due to Green teaching what angles may be preferable.
Regarding claim 7:Strom and Ned (and, alternatively, Green) teach all the limitations of claim 6, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 6 rejection above, Ned and/or Green teach or render obvious:
wherein the first included angle and the second included angle are 70 degrees
Ned renders this obvious via routine optimization and the reasoning set forth in the claim 6 rejection above. Green teaches the angle in at least Column 4, Lines 29-32.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Strom et al. (US 20140260658 A1).Regarding claim 8:Strom teaches all the limitations of claim 4, as mentioned above.Strom renders obvious:
wherein the first included angle and the second included angle are less than 90 degrees, and the first included angle is different from the second included angle
In FIG. 4 (in the context of FIG. 2 and the disclosure), for example, the first angle of Strom appears to be approximately 90 degrees. It is clear that the first and second angles are different and the second angle is less than 90 degrees. The limitation of the first angle being “less than 90 degrees” is rendered obvious / un-patentable over Strom because the body of Strom (shown in, for example, FIG. 4) cannot be “perfectly” installed to be
90
.
0
-
°. Since it cannot be perfectly installed to
90
.
0
-
°, it inherently has some variance that makes it less than 90 degrees (the “first angle” can be measured from the top of the left surface of FIG. 4 or the bottom of the left surface of FIG. 4 and, thus, one would be <90° if the surface is not perfectly installed at
90
.
0
-
°). Further, the direction of fluid flow has slight variations, even if it generally trends parallel to some pipe or conduit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 9-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3: The prior art, alone or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious a fluid measurement apparatus, wherein the diaphragm is of a hollow structure and forms a second accommodating space, and the connection part comprises a first portion and a second portion, wherein the first portion is connected to the separator, and together with the separator, forms a third accommodating space; two ends of the second portion are respectively connected to the diaphragm and the first portion, the second portion is of a hollow structure and forms a fourth accommodating space, and the fourth accommodating space connects the second accommodating space and the third accommodating space; and the second accommodating space, the third accommodating space, and the fourth accommodating space are filled with an insulating medium, in conjunction with the remaining claim limitations.
Regarding claim 9: The prior art, alone or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious a fluid measurement apparatus wherein the first included angle is less than or equal to 80 degrees and is greater than or equal to 60 degrees, and the second included angle is less than or equal to 20 degrees and is greater than 0 degrees, in conjunction with the remaining claim limitations.
Regarding claims 10: This claim is allowable due to at least its dependency on claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Herbert Keith Roberts whose telephone number is (571)270-0428. The examiner can normally be reached 10a - 6p MT.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at (571) 272-2375. 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.
/HERBERT K ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights