DETAILED ACTION
Claims 22-39 are pending in the present application.
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 submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/28/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement 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.
Claims 22-36 and 38 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.
Regarding claim 22, there is a lack of antecedent basis within the claim for the phrase “the at least two oscillating torques are less than the largest of the at least two oscillating torques”. However, this rejection may be overcome by relocating the phrase “, wherein a sum of the at least two oscillating torques are less than the largest of the at least two oscillating torques” after the phrase “at least one electromagnetic actuator system configured to apply at least two oscillating torques to the flexible plate sufficient to vibrate the flexible plate in torsion;”, wherein the claim 22 has been read as such for the purpose of examination.
Regarding claim 23, it is unclear what is included or excluded by the phrase “substantially zero”. This phrase renders the claim unclear because the Examiner was unable to find a clear definition within the specification for the term “substantially” such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to ascertain what is included or excluded by the phrase. For the purpose of examination, the phrase has been omitted.
Regarding claim 38, it is unclear what is included or excluded by the phrase “substantially zero”. This phrase renders the claim unclear because the Examiner was unable to find a clear definition within the specification for the term “substantially” such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to ascertain what is included or excluded by the phrase. For the purpose of examination, the phrase has been omitted.
Regarding claims 24-35, these claims are rejected for failing to remedy the rejection of claim 22 above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-36 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action, of claims 22 and 23 as described above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 22-36, Lew et al. (US Pat. No. 5,392,656, hereinafter Lew) represents the best art of record. However, Lew fails to encompass all of the limitations of independent claim 22 as best understood.
Regarding claim 22, Lew teaches a mass flow meter (see Fig. 1, all elements; see also Abstract), comprising: a tubular housing extending along a longitudinal axis and configured to receive a flow of fluid therethrough (see Fig. 1 and 2, tubular housing 1 extending along axis 9 and configured to receive fluid flow); a flexible plate (3) extending along at least a part of the tubular housing and at least partially coupled to an interior wall of the tubular housing at opposed longitudinal ends of the flexible plate (see Fig. 1, plate 3 coupled to the interior wall of the tubular housing 1 at opposing ends via edge portions via 5/6 and 7/18, respectively) such that the flexible plate is able to vibrate in torsion (see col. 7, lines 8-24, description of vibrational torsion of plate 3); at least one electromagnetic actuator system configured to apply at least two oscillating torques to the flexible plate sufficient to vibrate the flexible plate in torsion (see Fig. 2, electromagnetic actuator system includes electromagnet pairs 33/34 and 35/36 configured to apply torsional vibration to the plate 3 via ferromagnetic buttons 31 and 32, respectively; see also col. 8, lines 3-24, description of application of torsional vibrations to the plate 3); and at least two sensor systems configured to measure oscillations of the flexible plate as a function of time at locations arising from the at least two applied oscillating torques (see Fig. 1 and 2 and col. 7, lines 25-37, sensor systems 14/15/16/17 measure the torsional vibrations of the plate 3 over time during the application of the oscillating torques).
However, Lew critically fails to teach that a sum of the at least two oscillating torques are less than the largest of the at least two oscillating torques.
Hence the best prior art or record fails to teach the invention as set forth in independent claim 22 and the examiner can find no teachings for a mass flow meter wherein at least two oscillating torques are applied to the flexible plate as particularly claimed such that the sum of the at least two oscillating torques are less than the largest of the at least two oscillating torques, nor reasons within the cited prior art or on his own to combine the elements of these references other than the applicant's own reasoning to fully encompass the current pending claims.
Claim 38 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action, of claim 38 as described above and in view of the allowability of claim 37 as presented below.
Claims 37 and 39 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 37 and 39, Lew et al. (US Pat. No. 5,392,656, hereinafter Lew) represents the best art of record. However, Lew fails to encompass all of the limitations of independent claim 37.
Regarding claim 37, Lew teaches a method for measuring mass flow through at least one tubular housing (see Fig. 1, tubular housing 1 extending along axis 9 and configured to receive fluid flow; see also Abstract; see also col. 7, lines 8-63, discussion of method of measuring mass flow), comprising: receiving a flow of fluid through the at least one tubular housing (see Fig. 1 and 2, tubular housing 1 extending along axis 9 and configured to receive fluid flow), wherein the tubular housing comprises a flexible plate (3) extending along at least a part of the tubular housing and at least partially coupled to an interior wall of the tubular housing at opposed longitudinal ends of the flexible plate (see Fig. 1, plate 3 coupled to the interior wall of the tubular housing 1 at opposing ends via edge portions via 5/6 and 7/18, respectively) such that the flexible plate is able to vibrate in torsion (see col. 7, lines 8-24, description of vibrational torsion of plate 3); driving by at least one electromagnetic actuator system the flexible plate within the at least one tubular housing to vibrate in a torsional mode at a selected frequency by applying at least two oscillating torques to the flexible plate in torsion (see Fig. 2, electromagnetic actuator system includes electromagnet pairs 33/34 and 35/36 configured to apply torsional vibration to the plate 3 via ferromagnetic buttons 31 and 32, respectively; see also col. 8, lines 3-24, description of application of torsional vibrations at a selected frequency to the plate 3); measuring a plurality of oscillations of the flexible plate by at least two sensor systems configured to measure oscillations of the flexible plate as a function of time at locations arising from the at least two applied oscillating torques (see Fig. 1 and 2 and col. 7, lines 25-37, sensor systems 14/15/16/17 measure the torsional vibrations of the plate 3 over time during the application of the oscillating torques); and determining a mass flow of the fluid flowing within the at least one tubular housing based on a phase shift between the oscillations measured at the at least two locations (see Abstract and col. 7, lines 8-63, determination of mass flow based on phase shifts between the measured oscillations described).
However, Lew critically fails to teach that a sum of the at least two oscillating torques are less than the largest of the at least two oscillating torques.
Hence the best prior art or record fails to teach the invention as set forth in independent claim 37 and the examiner can find no teachings for a method for measuring mass flow through at least one tubular housing wherein at least two oscillating torques are applied to the flexible plate as particularly claimed such that the sum of the at least two oscillating torques are less than the largest of the at least two oscillating torques, nor reasons within the cited prior art or on his own to combine the elements of these references other than the applicant's own reasoning to fully encompass the current pending claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL T WOODWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0704. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Patrick Assouad can be reached at (571) 272-2210. 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.
/NATHANIEL T WOODWARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights