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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 26 September 2024 and 24 February 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
Figure 1: The different views should be identified as their own Figure (1A-1C).
Figure 1: Numbers, letters, and reference characters must be at least .32 cm (1/8 inch) in height. See 37 C.F.R. 1.84(p)(3).
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 Objections
Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Re claim 1, claim line 5: The phrase “the gas” lacks antecedent basis.
Re claim 1, claim line 7: The term – characterized – has been misspelled.
Re claim 1, claim line 7: The terms -- volume and – should be inserted prior to the term “flow.”
Re claim 2, claim line 5: The phrase “the flow cell compartment movement” lacks antecedent basis.
Re claim 9, claim line 1: The term – wherein – should be inserted prior to the term “said.”
Re claim 9, claim line 3: The phrase “the total gas volume and flow” lacks antecedent basis.
Re claim 10, claim line 1: The term – wherein – should be inserted prior to the term “said.”
Re claim 11, claim line 1: The term – wherein – should be inserted prior to the term “said.”
Re claim 12, claim line 1: The term – wherein – should be inserted prior to the term “said.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Re claim 3, claim line 4: The claim recites the limitation “any kind of light emitting diode and receiver”; however, it is the position of the Examiner that the specification does not provide support for any and all kinds of light emitting diodes and receivers, even though the specification may recite this phrase. Applicant may state this condition; but clearly Applicant doesn’t have possession of any and all kinds of light emitting diodes and receivers currently in the market as well as those in the past and the future. Thus, it is the position of the Examiner that the claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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 1-13 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.
Re claim 1, claim line 6: It is unclear what the term “its” represents.
Re claim 1, claim line 7: The phrase “the leverage effect” lacks antecedent basis.
Re claim 3, claim line 4: It is unclear what is meant by the phrase “any kind of light emitting diode and receiver.” What is any kind reference? Does it only reference current light emitting diodes or any light emitting diode from the past or future?
Re claim 3, claim lines 5 and 6: The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Re claim 5, claim line 3: It is unclear what is meant by the phrase “more or less perpendicular.” The definition of the term “more or less” is unknown; and it is also unknown how far away from perpendicular the bubble counter unit can be from a gas bubble generation position and still be deemed to be more or less perpendicular to each other. Since the metes and bounds of the phrase more or less is unknown, the phrase, as well as the claim are deemed to be indefinite.
Re claim 6, claim line 3: It is unclear what is meant by the phrase “more or less perpendicular.” The definition of the term “more or less” is unknown; and it is also unknown how far away from perpendicular the bubble counter unit can be from the gas inlet and still be deemed to be more or less perpendicular to each other. Since the metes and bounds of the phrase more or less is unknown, the phrase, as well as the claim are deemed to be indefinite.
Re claim 10, claim line 2: It is unclear what is meant by an “average” gas bubble. The claim fails to disclose what distinguishes one gas bubble from an average gas bubble. What factors are utilized to establish that one gas bubble is average and others are not average?
Re claim 13, claim line 2: It is unclear what is meant by an “average” gas bubble. The claim fails to disclose what distinguishes one gas bubble from an average gas bubble. What factors are utilized to establish that one gas bubble is average and others are not average?
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/200464 (Liu) in view of US 5,092,181 (Kuss et al.).
With respect to the limitations of claim 1, Liu disclose a gas volume and flow measurement device comprising a flow cell/gas compartment with a definite and predefined inner geometric volume (page 1, page line 29-30), the flow cell/gas compartment having one gas accumulating end and one lifting end and having a pivoting element enabling the flow cell/gas compartment to pivot upwards to release the gas contained therein and then downwards again to its initial position and operating by liquid displacement and according to the leverage effect (page 2, lines 1-4). Liu fails to disclose that the gas flow measurement device also comprises a bubble counter unit.
Kuss et al. disclose a method and apparatus for measuring gas flow using bubble volume whereby a gas flow is introduced into a volume liquid in which gas bubbles of predictably determinable size are formed, whereupon the number of bubbles formed are counted to identify its gas flow volume or gas flow rate as a function of the number of bubbles counted per unit of time (col. 1, lines 28-34). The counting of bubbles is performed by a bubble sensor (36,38) (Figure 3). Modifying Liu with a bubble counter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing as a means accurately measuring small gas flow rates and/or volumes on a continuous basis and/or in small increments (Kuss et al. – col. 1, lines 23-27).
With respect to the limitation of claim 2, the combination (Kuss et al.) further disclose that the bubble counter unit is arranged to count the number of gas bubbles generated and/or calculate the average size of at least some of the gas bubbles generated and/or the size of each individual bubble for each cycle of the flow cell compartment movement from its initial position to its gas releasing position (light emitting source (36) and light detector (38) count the number of gas bubbles generated).
With respect to the limitations of claim 3, the combination (Kuss et al.) disclose that the bubble counter unit (36, 38) comprises one or more of a conductivity sensor, capacitive sensor, ultrasound, camera, optical coupler or any kind of light emitting diode and receiver, IR infrared emitter and receiver and LED- photo diode and photo transistor, preferably at least a pair of light-emitting diode and receiver, more preferably such a pair of light-emitting diode and receiver is arranged on a pathway from a bubble creation point to a bubble releasing point (light emitting source (36) and light detector (38) acts as the bubble sensor – col. 3, lines 39-43).
With respect to the limitation of claim 4, the combination appears to disclose that the flow cell compartment is positioned in a closed container compartment where said closed container compartment is connected to the outside only via a gas inlet and a gas outlet (both references appear to disclose closed systems when provided to perform their intended functions).
With respect to the limitation of claim 5, the combination appears to disclose that the bubble counter unit is arranged more or less perpendicular to a gas bubble generation position. Alternatively, the positioning of the bubble counter with respect to a bubble generation position is a choice of design that would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the position of the bubble counter to maximize the accuracy of the system.
With respect to the limitation of claim 6, the combination appears to disclose that the bubble counter unit is arranged more or less perpendicular to the gas inlet (Kuss et al. show the bubble counter (36,38) perpendicular to the gas inlet (28) – Figure 3).
With respect to the limitation of claim 7, the combination (Kuss et al.) appears to disclose that the bubble counter unit (36, 38) is a pair of light-emitting diode (36) and receiver (38) positioned to ensure no contact with liquid media in the closed container compartment (light source (36) and receiver (38) are located outside of tube (16) containing the liquid where bubbles are counted – Figure 3).
With respect to the limitation of claim 8, the combination discloses a method for performing a gas analysis measurement or a gas volume and/or flow measurement, said method comprising directing a gas flow or gas sample to a gas volume and flow measurement device (see argument regarding claim 1 for a method utilizing a device described with respect to claim 1).
With respect to the limitation of claim 9, the combination discloses a method involving using both the flow cell compartment and the bubble counter unit (36, 38) to measure the total gas volume and flow (see argument regarding claim 1).
With respect to the limitation of claim 11, the combination appears capable of estimating the size of a bubble by measuring the time length for blocking a light beam, said blocking caused by a bubble. This process would appear to involve routine skill in the art that would be within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention.
With respect to the limitation of claim 12, the combination appears capable of measuring a time range between two successively released gas bubbles. Moreover, this process would appear to involve routine skill in the art that would be within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention.
With respect to the limitation of claim 13, the combination appears capable of calculating the volume of an average gas bubble to self-calibrate the gas flow measurement device. Moreover, this process would appear to involve routine skill in the art that would be within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior art was not relied upon to reject claim 10 because the prior art of record fails to teach and/or make obvious all of the limitations of claim 10 in combination with all of the limitations of base claim 1 and intervening claim 8.
Claim 10 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL SEAN LARKIN whose telephone number is 571-272-2198. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 5:30 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, Laura Sweeney can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/DANIEL S LARKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights