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
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “clamp-on” (claims 13,22,25) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 13-26 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.
As to claim 13, “in the central region” (line 9) is confusing, as the magnet 14.1 is not “in” the arm 13. Maybe, it’s - - along - - the central region. What defines the “central region” of the arm such that the magnet is “in” the arm?
As to claim 13, it’s not clear how the “points” are really points. Consider that Figures 1a and 1c show that the contact portion of an individual point 11.2 is an extended line. As such, it not clear how such 11.2 is “a point”. What is Applicant’s understanding of the meaning of the term “point”? Are the drawings not representative of a point?
PNG
media_image1.png
250
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 13, what does “exactly one” (line 9) mean? Is there - - only one - - , - - at least one - - , - - device comprising one - - , - - device consistent of one - - ? How does the term “exactly” limit the “one”?
As to claim 18, “each arranged mirror-symmetrically” (italics added) is problematic in regard to the “one” second contact point, as there is no additional second contact point to satisfy the “mirror” limitation. The claim is internally inconsistent. (Claim 19 is not rejected on this point, as it corrects the inconsistency of claim 18)
As to claim 20, it’s not clear what the contact lines physical are, or exactly what they represent. Are they actually lines that are visible to the naked eye? The bottom of the magnet 14.1 appears to be planar, so no individual “line” is apparent. The bottom of the transducer element 12 is certainly planar (as shown below), so no individual “line” is apparent there.
PNG
media_image2.png
198
582
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 20, the drawings suggest that the transducer element and magnet are aligned along a single path (line, if you will) that is parallel to the longitudinal axis of the tube, suggestive that the transducer element and magnet are in contact along a single existing line along the tube. As such, how are there “respective lines” (i.e. one for the transducer, and a second line for the magnet), when there would seem to be only one line? The claim is not consistent with the drawings to that extent.
As to claim 24, “the magnet and the transducer element” is uncertain as to whether “the magnet and the transducer element” should be - - each magnet and each transducer element - - . Contrast “where the”(line 1, claim 24) with “wherein each” (line 1, claim 23). Is claim 23 further limiting one magnet and one transducer?
As to claim 24, it’s not clear what each “contact line” physically is, or exactly what they represent. Are they actually lines that are visible to the naked eye? The bottom of the magnet 14.1 appears to be planar, so no individual “line” is apparent. The bottom of the transducer element 12 is certainly planar (as shown above), so no individual “line” is apparent there.
As to claim 25, “either” is confusing, and an alternative is not apparent.
As to claim 25, “the magnet” is confusing because there are at least 2 magnets. Does claim 25 further limit just one or at least one of the two magnets, or was it intended to limit - - each - - magnet?
As to claim 25, the “wherein” (lines 3-last) lacks antecedent basis, as there is no structure that provides for clamping (“clamp-on ultrasonic flowmeter” (italics added, line 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 13,14,20,21,22,24,25,26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joerg et al DE 10147175.
Joerg et al DE 10147175 teach an ultrasonic transducer of a clamp-on ultrasonic flowmeter for measuring a measurement variable of a medium in a magnetic measuring tube, the ultrasonic transducer comprising:
a transducer element (within housing 5) configured to generate and detect ultrasonic signals;
a housing 5 including a housing chamber in which the transducer element is disposed;
an extension arm 4,2 including at least two first contact points, which are configured to contact the measuring tube (pipes, ABSTRACT; visible in drawing), wherein the extension arm includes a central region, a first end, and a second end opposite the first end, and wherein the first end is connected to the housing via slide 6
PNG
media_image3.png
334
602
media_image3.png
Greyscale
;
and a magnetic device (magnet, ABSTRACT), which includes exactly one magnet, disposed
The Reference does not state where the magnets are positioned.
The drawing illustrates straps between the points and housing.
As to claim 13, it would have been obvious to position the magnets where the straps would otherwise have been because the Reference teaches effective mounting locations to secure the device to the tube. No structure provides for any clamping per preamble, or in the alternative, the Reference is as much clamp on as claimed.
As to claim 14, it would have been obvious to couple the magnet to the device with a fascinating element because one of ordinary skill recognizes that an attachment mechanism is necessary to assure that the device is fixed to the pipe.
As to claims 20,21, dotted lines show line of travel transducer, and where magnet is affixed to where strap would otherwise be.
PNG
media_image4.png
144
564
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to claim 22,24,25, it is well known to position a second (calibrating/testing) flowmeter along the same fluid line as a flowmeter to be calibrated/tested, suggestive of employing a second ultrasonic flowmeter on the pipe to permit for calibration.
As to claim 26, it is well known that pipes with outer diameter of at least 200 millimeters employ flowmeters (and even UT flowmeters).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 15,16,17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joerg et al DE 10147175 as applied against claim 14, and further in view of Abdul ‘951.
As to claim 15, it would have been obvious to employ a fastening device with rod and magnet, as Abdul teaches (Figure 2) that sound will allow for effectively holding a flow test device magnet to a flowmeter.
As to claims 16,17, the knob (Figure 2) suggest any twist element to hold magnets 120.
Prior Art cited/ Not applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Moon et al KR ‘2683 teach many magnets.
Murray ‘482 (Figure 4) teaches an arm 42 and spring 46 to provide clamping force to a pipe.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT R RAEVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2204. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon to Fri from 8am to 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ROBERT R RAEVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights