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 . 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 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 18 recites “ the manipulation path according to claim 10, wherein the flow sensor is integrated in the manipulation path, and wherein the flow sensor is disposed between an end of the manipulation section and the second end region of the manipulation path.”
- ¶0022-0025 1 states the second variant exists — "the flow sensor is integrated in the manipulation path, and wherein the flow sensor is arranged between the end of the manipulation path and the second end region."
- ¶0040: "Alternatively, the thermal flow sensor 2 is part of the manipulation path 1 or is integrated therein." That's the *only* substantive description of this variant in the entire detailed description.
- **Fig. 1 is the only figure**, and it shows the *separate-component* version explicitly — a manipulation path 1 with manipulation section 130, connected via the second end region 120 to a downstream flow sensor 2. There's no separate figure, no separate embodiment walkthrough, no structural detail showing *how* the sensor would be integrated within the path, where exactly it would sit relative to the helical/spiral geometry, how the connection or transition zone would work, etc. Unlike the first variant — which gets a full embodiment description, an actual figure (Fig. 1), and experimental data (Figs. 2 and 3, showing measured values with/without the manipulation path) — the second (integrated) variant is mentioned only in passing, twice, as a one-sentence alternative. There's no embodiment actually built, tested, or illustrated for it. would a person of ordinary skill be able to actually *build* the integrated variant without undue experimentation, based on what's disclosed? Given that the manipulation section's whole function depends on precise geometry (helical diameter, tube diameter ratio — per claim 13 — positioned to generate secondary flow), inserting a sensor *into* that structure without any guidance on where, how, or what modifications that requires to preserve the secondary-flow effect is a nontrivial engineering problem the spec simply doesn't address for this variant.
Turning to MPEP 2164.01(a), i.e. the Wands factors, Examiner finds the nature of the invention and the amount of direction provided by the inventor are sufficient evidences that the disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement, and undue experimentation would be required.
Claims 19-21 are rejected at least due to dependency on claim 18.
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 18-21 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 18 depends on claim 10. Claim 10 recites “a first end region, a second end region, and a manipulation section disposed between the first end region and a second end region of the manipulation path,” claim 18 recites “ the manipulation path according to claim 10, wherein the flow sensor is integrated in the manipulation path, and wherein the flow sensor is disposed between an end of the manipulation section and the second end region of the manipulation path.” First there is no antecedent basis for the system at the first claim line. Second: Claim 18 is claiming an alternative architecture (sensor-integrated variant) onto the exact same structural framework (claim 10) that was written to describe the *other* alternative (path terminating cleanly at a second end region, with the sensor as a separate downstream unit per claim 14). The instant application spec's2 own "either/or" framing suggests these should arguably have been drafted as **two independent, parallel claim sets** — not as two divergent dependent branches hanging off the same parent claim whose own second-end-region language was really written with the *separate-sensor* variant. More specifically, it is not clear whether "the second end region" in claim 18's own sensor-integrated architecture still functionally means the same thing it meant in claim 10 or it is other end? a person of ordinary skill in the art might not be able to determine with reasonable certainty what structure "the second end region" refers to once claim 18 relocates the sensor into the path itself, especially compounded by claims 19/20 building further limitations on that same undefined boundary. For examination, and since claim 10 is broad enough, it covers *either* the separate-sensor architecture or the integrated-sensor architecture — and the two dependent branches (14 vs. 18) each pick one interpretation. Since claims 19 and 20 depend from claim 18, they inherit this same structural ambiguity, plus add their own connections to "a primary pipe" at "the first end region" and "the second end region" of the manipulation path.
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 10-11 and 18, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Otani, JP 2006105847 A.
Claim10
Otani3 in e.g., fig.7 teaches:
A manipulation path for monitoring the flow profile at the inlet of a flow sensor
(Pipe 74 with heater 71 (heating means) and dual temp sensors — this is itself the flow-sensing mechanism see ¶0048-0053 ), wherein the manipulation path is configured to conduct a fluid measuring medium flowing therethrough (flow-sensing mechanism), the manipulation path comprising:
a first end region (Upstream pipe wall location, measurement point 74a (temp sensor 72), positioned sufficiently far from heater so it reads undisturbed fluid temperature), a second end region (Measurement point 74b (temp sensor 73), positioned immediately inside the heater), and a manipulation section disposed between the first end region and a second end region of the manipulation path (The spiral tube portion itself, which is *at least* the part heated by heater 71),
wherein the manipulation section is configured such that secondary flows are formed within the measuring medium due to the measuring medium flowing through the manipulation section (e.g., ¶0020,0053 Explicitly stated: "the fluid flowing in the spiral tube is disturbed (a swirl flow)" — swirl flow is precisely a transverse/rotational velocity component superimposed on the main flow).
Claim11
Otani teaches the manipulation path according to claim 10, wherein the manipulation path is tubular (74).
Claim 18
Otani teaches the system, comprising:
a flow sensor (thermal flow sensor, Pipe 74 with heater 71 (heating means) and dual temp sensors — this is itself the flow-sensing mechanism) configured to detect at least one parameter (e.g.., heat transfer coefficient h) relating to the flow rate of a fluid measuring medium (water); and
the manipulation path 74 according to claim 10, wherein the flow sensor(thermal flow senso) is integrated in the manipulation path 74, and wherein the flow sensor (thermal flow sensor, Pipe 74 with heater 71 (heating means) and dual temp sensors — this is itself the flow-sensing mechanism) is disposed between an end 72 of the manipulation section 74 and the second end region 73 of the manipulation path 74.
Claim 21
Otani teaches the system according to claim 18, wherein the flow sensor is a thermal flow sensor (e.g., ¶0003).
Claims 10, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Rother, EP1876427A1.
Claim10
Rother4 in figs. 1-3 teaches:
A manipulation path (18 in tubular 22,alternative 20 in fig.3 in tubular 28) for monitoring the flow profile at the inlet of a flow sensor 2, wherein the manipulation path 18 is configured to conduct a fluid measuring medium flowing therethrough, the manipulation path 18 comprising:
a first end region (entry to region 6 into 18 before tubular/ alterative in fig.3 flow zone 18), a second end region (exit of 18 into zone 29 and then flow meter 2/alternative in fig.3 exit 20 to sensor 2), and a manipulation section 18 disposed between the first end region 18 and a second end region 18 of the manipulation path 18 (tubular component 22 sits within flow zone 18 or 20 between pipe connection and measuring section),
wherein the manipulation section is configured such that secondary flows are formed within the measuring medium due to the measuring medium flowing through the manipulation section (tubular component with tilt swirling walls 23/29/36 designed to generate turbulence with a tangential velocity component , swirl, as fluid passes through separated partial inlet channels).
Claim 14
Rother in figs.1-2 teaches:
A system, comprising:
a flow sensor 2 configured to detect at least one parameter relating to the flow rate of a fluid measuring medium (flow measurement sensor); and
the manipulation path (e.g., tubular 18 positioned in region 6 )according to claim 10, wherein the second end region (exit 18: fluid exits the tubular’s partial inlet channels and flows into flow measurement 2) of the manipulation path 18 is connected to an intake of the flow sensor 2.
Claim 15
Rother teaches the system according to claim 14, further comprising a primary pipe through which the measuring medium flows (see e.g., ¶0021: the external pipe system, not part of housing 5 that the flow meter housing is installed into for water circuit5), wherein the first end region (inlet region 6 containing the tubular receives flow from external pipe system) of the manipulation path 18 is connected to the primary pipe, and wherein an outlet of the flow sensor 2 is connected to the primary pipe (discharge zone 7, downstream of 2 returns flow to external pipe system).
Claim 16
Rother teaches the system according to claim 14, wherein the first end region (inlet region 6 receives flow from external pipe system) of the manipulation path 18 is configured to be connected to a first section of a primary pipe through which the measuring medium flows (external pipe system, not part of housing 5) , and wherein an outlet of the flow sensor 2 is connected to a second section of the primary pipe (upstream of 2 receives flow from external pipe system) .
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.
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otani, JP 2006105847 A.
Claim 12
Otani teaches the manipulation path according to claim 11, wherein the manipulation path 74 is curved helically (at least fig.7¶0052), although it does not specifically teach with at least one full revolution in the manipulation section, however, first : A "coil" formed by winding a wire into a spiral shape, and a "spiral pipe," are terms that in ordinary engineering usage almost always imply multiple wraps around an axis — a single partial turn wouldn't typically be described as a "coil" or "spiral" at all; it would just be called a "bend" or "curve." Therefore this is *inherent* in the ordinary meaning of "coil"/"spiral," not a separate inventive contribution. Secondly: It's a classic result-effective variable.** The number of revolutions in a helical/spiral flow-disturbance structure is exactly the kind of parameter that determines the *degree* of the effect (more turns → stronger secondary flow / turbulence), not a structural feature that changes the fundamental mechanism. Under *In re Aller*-type reasoning (routine optimization of a result-effective variable through nothing more than routine experimentation), choosing "at least one full revolution" to achieve sufficient turbulence/secondary flow, when Otani already teaches coiling/spiraling for that exact purpose, is the kind of design choice a person of ordinary skill would arrive at without inventive effort — absent some showing of a *criticality* or unexpected result specifically tied to the one-revolution threshold, finally: Sen, US5311932 (see claim 13) directly plugs this specific hole.** Sen explicitly and repeatedly discloses **multiple full coil revolutions** — "first coil," "downstream coils," each forming complete loops (2πR circumference per coil, per its own geometry description), with alternating-axis and constant-axis configurations built from **21 full 180° return bends** in the tested embodiments. Sen leaves zero ambiguity that its coils are multi-revolution helical structures, expressly built for secondary-flow (Dean vortex) generation. Combined with Otani 's teaching that coiling/spiraling a flow-sensor's conduit induces useful turbulence/swirl, a combination rejection citing both references would have little trouble supplying "at least one full revolution" explicitly.
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otani, JP 2006105847 A in view of Sen, US 5311932 A.
Claim 13
Otani teaches the manipulation path according to claim 12, wherein the manipulation path has a tube diameter, and Sen teaches the at least one full revolution has a helical diameter R, wherein a ratio of the tube diameter a to the helical diameter R (col.6 lines 27) although not specifically cites greater than 0.01, nonetheless, Sen works with (tube radius/coil radius) and teaches how coil geometry governs the character of Dean-vortex secondary flow and laminar turbulent transition). It's again a classic result-effective variable.** The ratio is exactly the kind of parameter that determines the *degree* of the effect (less a/R → less Re number and other impacts on flow regime as cited in col.7), The specific claimed greater than 0.01, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” a/R disclosed by Sen that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired secondar flow, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the “greater than 0.01”is used, as already suggested by Otani modified with Sen. Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the ratio stated and since these ratios are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use these values in the device of Otani modified with Sen. Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed greater than 0.01 or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rother, EP1876427A1 in view of Otani, JP 2006105847 A.
Claim 17
Rother teaches the system according to claim 14, and Otani teaches wherein the flow sensor is a thermal flow sensor (e.g., ¶0003,0008). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Otani‘s thermal flow sensor for Rother‘s flow sensor. One of ordinary skill in the art thermal flow sensors as a standard interchangeable choice, substituting ultrasonic sensor of Rother with thermal flow sensor of OTANI, based on MPEP 2143 (B), courts have ruled that Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 19-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otani, JP 2006105847 A in view of Rother, EP1876427A1.
Claim 19
Otani teaches the system according to claim 18, further comprising 74 through which the measuring medium flows (water), wherein the first end region 72 of the manipulation path 74 is connected to the 74, and wherein the manipulation path 74 is connected to the pipe 74 at the second end region (73), Otani does not teach a primary pipe, but Rother teaches a primary pipe (external pipe system, not part of housing 5 as cited in claim 15-16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Rother‘s primary pipe for Otani‘s tube further comprising a primary pipe through which Otani’s measuring medium flows, wherein the first end region of the manipulation path is connected to modified Otani’s primary pipe, and wherein the manipulation path is connected to modified Otani’s primary pipe at the second end region. One of ordinary skill in the art knows a thermal flow meter is useless unless it is plumbed into something would have been motivated to make this modification in order to deploy device as an unavoidable consequence of using deice for its stated purpose.
Furthermore, Examiner holds there is no way to build a functioning inline flow conditioner6 or flow meter that doesn't connect to pipe sections on both ends — the "primary pipe" is a structural necessity dictated by the problem domain itself. This is squarely the kind of limitation that falls under the In re Sinex / "obvious to try when there are a finite number of predictable solutions" line of reasoning, or even more basically, the *KSR* principle that combining known elements according to their established function, to yield a predictable result, is not patentable — connecting a flow-conditioning device to upstream and downstream piping sections is about as "predictable result of ordinary engineering" as it gets. Under an obviousness theory, the primary-pipe limitations in claims 15, 16, 19, and 20 don't need explicit prior art support with matching language at all — they can be dismissed as the routine, predictable, and practically unavoidable consequence of deploying any conditioning-plus-sensing structure (which Otani and Rother do fully teach) into a real fluid system.
Claim 20
Otani teaches the system according to claim 18, wherein the first end region 72 of the manipulation path 74 is configured to be connected to a first section of 74 through which the measuring medium flows (water), and wherein the second end region 73 of the manipulation path 74 is connected to a second section of the 74, Otani does not teach a primary pipe, but Rother teaches a primary pipe (external pipe system, not part of housing 5 as cited in claim 15-16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Rother‘s primary pipe for Otani‘s tube wherein the modified Otani’s first end region of modified Otani’s manipulation path is configured to be connected to a first section of a primary pipe through which the measuring medium flows, and wherein modified Otani’s second end region of the manipulation path is connected to a second section of modified Otani’s primary pipe. One of ordinary skill in the art knows a thermal flow meter is useless unless it is plumbed into something would have been motivated to make this modification in order to deploy device as an unavoidable consequence of using deice for its stated purpose.
Furthermore, Examiner holds there is no way to build a functioning inline flow conditioner or flow meter that doesn't connect to pipe sections on both ends — the "primary pipe" is a structural necessity dictated by the problem domain itself. This is squarely the kind of limitation that falls under the In re Sinex / "obvious to try when there are a finite number of predictable solutions" line of reasoning, or even more basically, the *KSR* principle that combining known elements according to their established function, to yield a predictable result, is not patentable — connecting a flow-conditioning device to upstream and downstream piping sections is about as "predictable result of ordinary engineering" as it gets. Under an obviousness theory, the primary-pipe limitations in claims 15, 16, 19, and 20 don't need explicit prior art support with matching language at all — they can be dismissed as the routine, predictable, and practically unavoidable consequence of deploying any conditioning-plus-sensing structure (which Otani and Rother do fully teach) into a real fluid system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatemeh E. Nia whose telephone number is (469)295-9187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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.
/FATEMEH ESFANDIARI NIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
1 referring to Pg-pub of instant application
2 See ¶0040 of PG-PUB
3 Prior art of record
4 Prior art of record
5 Housing 5 is cited as: formed separately from the pipe system…in which the medium otherwise spreads---confirming an inline installation with defined upstream and downstream pipe connections (see English translation provided by the office for citations)
6 See for example: US 20170370385 A1
Prosecution Insights