NON-FINAL REJECTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings Objection
The drawings are objected because-
(1) The drawings are objected to because Fig.11 of the drawings are blurred. The figure 11 of PGPub and the originally filed drawings are not readable. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning (See MPEP 1.84 (l)).
(2) The drawings are objected to because of the font size of fig.11 being too small. Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height (see MPEP 1.84(p)).
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 § 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 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)(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.
Claims 1-3, 6-12, 14, 19-21 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Cobb (5,473,934, cited by Applicants, “Cobb”).
Regarding Claim 1, Cobb teaches a method of monitoring a mixing ratio of a mixture of materials flowing through a conduit in a composite material production process (col.2; lines 15-25), the conduit being arranged between an inlet for receiving the mixture and a curing assembly (col.1; lines 59-64 discloses - “the wide range of potential applications for composition monitoring of fluids flowing in a conduit in various industries such as food, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, petroleum, waste treatment, and paper.” Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art may arrange the conduit between an inlet for receiving the mixture and a curing assembly, as required.), wherein the method comprises: obtaining (via receiving transducer 12) an acoustic signature of the mixture of materials (col.4; lines 3-15 and 61-66); controlling (via pulser 41) a transducer to emit an acoustic wave into the conduit (col.3; lines 35-39, col.5; lines 33-40); controlling (via microcomputer 45; Fig.3) a receiver to detect the acoustic wave after propagation of the acoustic wave through the conduit (col.5; lines 33-56); and comparing an acoustic signature of the detected acoustic wave with the obtained acoustic signature to obtain monitoring data (col.7; line 66 – col.8; line 6).
Regarding Claim 2, the method of claim 1 is taught by Cobb.
Cobb further teaches wherein the acoustic signature comprises an individual acoustic signature for each of the materials from the mixture of materials (col.5; lines 36-39: “A multiplexer 40 selects which of several transducers, located at different composition measurement locations on the conduit, is used as the transmitter for a given measurement.” Col.5; line 57 – col.6; line 9 indicates that the each of the transducers, located at different composition measurement locations on the conduit, measures ultrasonic signals. Fluid mixture composition is calculated in the microcomputer 45 based on the received ultrasonic waves.).
Regarding Claim 3, the method of claim 1 is taught by Cobb.
Cobb further teaches wherein the acoustic signature is a value for the time of flight of the acoustic signal, and wherein comparing the acoustic signature of the detected acoustic wave with the obtained acoustic signature comprises at least one of: comparing values of the time of flight of the detected acoustic wave with an obtained time of flight (comparison of transit times is disclosed in col.6; line 23- col.8; line 6); comparing values of acoustic attenuation derived from the detected acoustic wave and the obtained acoustic signature; or comparing a frequency spectrum derived from the detected acoustic wave and the obtained acoustic signature (col.6; line 23- col.8; line 6).
Regarding Claim 6, the method of claim 1 is taught by Cobb.
Cobb further teaches wherein controlling the transducer to emit the acoustic wave comprises: emitting one or more of an acoustic pulse and a continuous acoustic wave (via acoustic pulser 41, col.5; lines 33-56).
Regarding Claim 7, the method of claim 1 is taught by Cobb.
Cobb further teaches wherein the transducer and receiver are a singular transceiver, the acoustic wave being emitted by the transceiver to be reflected from an interior wall of the conduit back to the transceiver (col.5; lines 39-43).
Regarding Claim 8, the method of claim 1 is taught by Cobb.
Cobb further teaches wherein the transducer is controlled to transmit the acoustic wave to the receiver through the flowing mixture of materials (col.5; lines 22-32, Fig.1).
Regarding Claim 9, the method of claim 1 is taught by Cobb.
Cobb further teaches wherein the transducer is controlled to emit the acoustic wave across an outer wall of the conduit to the flowing mixture therein (shown in Fig.1, col.3; lines 35-37).
Regarding Claim 10, the method of claim 1 is taught by Cobb.
Cobb further teaches wherein the receiver is controlled to detect the acoustic wave at each of a plurality of measurement time intervals, and wherein the method further comprises: determining a mean parameter or average parameter of the acoustic wave across the plurality of measurement time intervals for comparison with the acoustic signature (col.6; line 23- col.7; line 7 and 66-67).
Regarding Claim 11, the method of claim 1 is taught by Cobb.
Cobb further teaches determining a value of the mixing ratio based on the monitoring data (col.1; lines 28-30, col.7; lines 56-65).
Regarding Claim 12, the method of claim 11 is taught by Cobb.
Cobb further teaches further comprising at least one of: controlling a pressure sensor to detect the pressure of the mixture of materials, and wherein the value of the mixing ratio is additionally determined based on the detected pressure; or controlling a temperature sensor (element 19 and/or 24) to detect the temperature of the mixture of materials, wherein the value of the mixing ratio is additionally determined based on the detected temperature (col.4; lines 17-20 and 43-47).
Regarding Claim 14, the method of claim 1 is taught by Cobb.
Cobb further teaches wherein the acoustic wave is emitted into the conduit at a location proximal the curing assembly (col.1; lines 59-64 discloses - “the wide range of potential applications for composition monitoring of fluids flowing in a conduit in various industries such as food, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, petroleum, waste treatment, and paper.” Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art may arrange the system to emit the acoustic wave into the conduit at a location proximal the curing assembly.).
Regarding Claim 19, Cobb teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium (non-volatile memory (col.7; lines 56-60)) comprising instructions which, when executed by a processor (implicit in microcontroller 45), cause an apparatus comprising the processor to carry out the method of claim 1 as taught by Cobb (col.7; lines 43-60).
Regarding Claim 20, Cobb teaches an assembly (Fig.3) arranged to monitor a mixing ratio of a mixture of materials flowing through a conduit in a composite material production process (col.2; lines 15-25), the conduit being arranged between an inlet for receiving the mixture and a curing assembly (col.1; lines 59-64 discloses - “the wide range of potential applications for composition monitoring of fluids flowing in a conduit in various industries such as food, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, petroleum, waste treatment, and paper.” Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art may arrange the conduit between an inlet for receiving the mixture and a curing assembly.), wherein the assembly comprises: a transducer (element 11) configured to emit an acoustic wave into the conduit (col.3; lines 35-41); a receiver (element 12) configured to detect the acoustic wave after propagation of the acoustic wave through the conduit (col.3; lines 35-41); and a processor (element 45) configured to compare an acoustic signature of the detected acoustic wave with an earlier obtained acoustic signature to obtain monitoring data (col.7; line 43 - col.8; line 6).
Regarding Claim 21, the assembly of claim 20 is taught by Cobb.
Cobb further teaches wherein the transducer is arranged to emit one or more of an acoustic pulse and a continuous acoustic wave (col.6; lines 45-47: “parameter is continuously monitored by the apparatus.” Thus, the system of Cobb implicitly teaches the limitation as continuous monitoring requires emitting one or more of an acoustic continuous acoustic pulse/wave).
Regarding Claim 23, the assembly of claim 20 is taught by Cobb.
Cobb further teaches wherein the transducer and receiver are spatially separated from each other along the circumferential and/or the longitudinal direction of the conduit (shown in fig.1a).
Regarding Claim 24, the assembly of claim 20 is taught by Cobb.
Cobb further teaches a plurality of transducers and/or receivers distributed along the conduit (col.5; lines 36-39: several transducers located at different composition measurement locations on the conduit).
Regarding Claim 25, the assembly of claim 20 is taught by Cobb.
Cobb further teaches wherein the conduit is arranged between a mixing assembly and the curing assembly (col.1; lines 59-64 discloses - “the wide range of potential applications for composition monitoring of fluids flowing in a conduit in various industries such as food, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, petroleum, waste treatment, and paper.” Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art may arrange the conduit between an inlet for receiving the mixture and a curing assembly, as required, and the limitation is implicitly taught by Cobb.).
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cobb in view of Jang et al. (US 8,597,453 B2, “Jang”).
Regarding Claim 15, the method of claim 1 is taught by Cobb.
Cobb does not explicitly teach wherein the mixture of materials comprises a resin and a catalyst for curing in the curing assembly to a solid composite component.
Cobb discloses a fluid mixture includes at least one fluid, such as a liquid, and at least one additional component that may be a different fluid or a solid. Thus, the limitation is implicitly taught by Cobb.
In any event, Jang teaches a method of producing a highly conductive SMC composition and a fuel cell flow field plate or bipolar plate made from this SMC composition. The SMC composition, prior to shaping and curing into a flow field or bipolar plate, is a laminated structure comprising a top sheet, a bottom sheet and a core layer sandwiched between these two sheets. After molding, the SMC-based bipolar plate, schematically shown in FIG. 3(a), comprises a top sheet 71, a bottom sheet 73, and a resin mixture 75 sandwiched between the top sheet and the bottom sheet. The resin mixture 75 comprises a thermoset resin (with or without a catalyst) and a conductive filler (Fig.4(b), col.7; lines 29-56)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the mixture of Jang in the method of Cobb since such mixture of a resin and a catalyst is known in the art for curing, and this is similar to Cobb’s fluid mixture.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cobb in view of Gregg et al. (US 2009/0158849 A1, “Gregg”).
Regarding Claim 16, the method of claim 1 is taught by Cobb.
Cobb does not explicitly teach wherein obtaining the acoustic signature of the mixture of materials comprises; emitting a test acoustic wave through each of the materials comprising the mixture of materials and receiving corresponding acoustic waves defining the acoustic signature.
However, Gregg teaches wherein obtaining the acoustic signature of the mixture of materials comprises; emitting a test acoustic wave through each of the materials comprising the mixture of materials and receiving corresponding acoustic waves defining the acoustic signature [0061].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cobb’s method with the teaching of Gregg since emitting a test acoustic wave through the test materials to interrogate the test material is well-known in the art.
Regarding Claim 17, the method of claim 1 is taught by Cobb.
Cobb does not explicitly teach regarding transmitting the monitoring data to a remote processing device.
However, Gregg teaches regarding transmitting the monitoring data to a remote processing device [0023].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cobb’s method with the teaching of Gregg since transmitting the monitoring data to a remote processing device is well-known in the art which would process data remotely.
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon, are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Mahoutian et al. (US 2021/0170631 A1). Maoutian teaches a system for curing a precast concrete product having a cavity therein, comprising: a base sized to receive the precast concrete product thereon and to cover the bottom end of the cavity, a source of carbon dioxide gas (CO2), and a CO2 conduit fluidly connected to the source of CO2 and being configured to fluidly connect to the cavity ([0024]; Fig.1).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAN NATH whose telephone number is (571)270-1443. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F 9:00 am to 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, JOHN BREENE can be reached on 571-272-4107. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUMAN K NATH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights