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 .
Preliminary Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the preliminary amendment filed on 09/27/2024.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed inventio is directed to “a computer program product”, which is a signal carrying instructions or program, which is not inherently non-transitory (see MPEP § 2106.03 and 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D)). In this case, the instant specification does not appear to disclose that the claimed “a computer program product” explicitly excludes transitory signals. Since the claim could be interpreted to include transitory forms of signal, the claimed invention is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 15-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 15, the claim recites “exciting the first and second measuring electrodes with contradirectional measuring currents”, “exciting the first and second measuring electrodes with equidirectional measuring currents”, “detecting at least one first measured value”, “detecting a second measured value”, “ascertaining a fill level”, “a voltage induced in the fluid by a magnetic field” and “to measure flow” without disclosing the device or components for exciting the electrodes with the measuring currents, the device or component for detecting the measured values, the device or components for performing the ascertaining, the device or component for generating the magnetic field, and the device or component to measure the flow from the induced voltage. The claim is incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements (see MPEP § 2172.01). The omitted elements are: the devices or components for exciting the electrodes, for ascertaining the fill level, for generating the magnetic field, and for measuring flow.
The claim recites the step of “ascertain a fill level of the pipe based on at least the first and second measured values obtained” without explaining how the fill level is ascertained through the first and second measured values. The claim is incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps (see MPEP § 2172.01). The omitted steps are: the calculating step for ascertaining the fill level from the measured values.
Furthermore, the claim recites the phrase “a fill level” without explicitly disclosing that the claimed invention is configured to detect the actual levels of the fluid within the pipe. The specification, dated 09/27/2024, states that the fill level is determined based on whether the pipe is full or not. For examination purposes, the phrase “fill level” will be understood as either an empty pipe, a full pipe, and/or a less than full but not empty pipe.
The claim recites the step of “detecting” without explaining how the “detecting” and the flow measurement is related to the ascertaining of the fill level in the pipe. The claim is incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps (see MPEP § 2172.01). The omitted steps are: the method step of relating the measured flow in the pipe to the ascertaining of the fill level of the pipe.
Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites “a first impedance” and “a second impedance” without disclosing the device or component for generating or inducing these impedances. The claim is incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements (see MPEP § 2172.01). The omitted elements are: the devices or components for generating or inducing the impedances. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 28, the claim recites that “the evaluation unit is configured to: a) provide the pipe in a state at least in part filled with a fluid” without explaining whether the evaluation unit is actually configured to fill the pipe with fluid, or the pipe is filled by something else. The claim is incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements (see MPEP § 2172.01). The omitted elements are: the mechanism or device allowing the evaluation unit to fill the pipe with fluid.
The claim recites “an evaluation unit for ascertaining a fill level of a pipe” without describing the structural cooperation between the evaluation unit and the pipe. The claim is incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections (see MPEP § 2172.01). The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the structural cooperation between the evaluation unit and the pipe.
The claim recites “an evaluation unit”, “a first measuring electrode”, “a second measuring electrode”, and “a first grounding electrode” without disclosing the structural cooperation between the electrodes and the evaluation unit and between the pipe and the electrodes. The claim is incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections (see MPEP § 2172.01). The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the structural cooperation between the evaluation unit and the electrodes and the structural cooperation between the electrodes and the pipe.
The claim recites “a magnetic field” without disclosing the device or component for generating the magnetic field. The claim is incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements (see MPEP § 2172.01). The omitted elements are: the devices or components for generating the magnetic field.
Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 30, the claim recites “a computer program product for simulating an operation behavior of a flow measuring system […] includes a digital model” without explicitly disclosing any devices or components associated with the computer program product and the digital model, which are transitory forms of signals. The claim is incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements (see MPEP § 2172.01). The omitted elements are: the devices or components associated with the computer program product and the digital model. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claims 17-27, and 29 are rejected as being dependent on the rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 29, the claim recites “a flow measuring system” without further limiting or defining the actual evaluation unit of the independent claim 28. The instant claim only limits the subject matter of its own flow measuring system.
Regarding claim 30, the claim recites “a computer program product” without further limiting or defining the flow measuring system on claim 29. The instant claim only limits the subject matter of its own computer program product.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 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.
Claims 15, 17-18, 20-26, 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foss et al. (Pat. No. US 7,921,734) (hereafter Foss) in view of Matzen (Pat. No. US 8,408,070) (hereafter Matzen).
Regarding claim 15, Foss teaches a method for ascertaining a fill level of a pipe upon which first and second drivable measuring electrodes are arranged and which is provided with at least one grounding electrode, the method comprising:
a) providing the pipe in a state at least in part filled with a fluid (i.e., a flow tube 124 that has an insulated tube or liner 126 adapted to carry a flowing liquid 128) (see Column 3, lines 45-55);
b) exciting the first and second measuring electrodes with contradirectional measuring currents (i.e., the circuitry within the transmitter housing 328 can monitor differential mode line noise to detect a poor electrical ground connection) (see Column 6, line 53, to Column 7, line 47) and detecting at least one first measured value at each of the first and/or second measuring electrodes (i.e., diagnostic procedure can include measuring differential mode line noise to infer which conductor may have the poor electrical ground connection) (see Column 8, lines 1-22);
c) exciting the first and second measuring electrodes with equidirectional measuring currents (i.e., the circuitry within the transmitter housing 328 can monitor common mode line noise to detect a poor electrical ground connection) (see Column 6, line 53, to Column 7, line 47) and detecting a second measured value at each of the first and/or second measuring electrodes (i.e., the circuitry can execute the diagnostic procedure during operation to detect a poor electrical ground connection based on common mode line noise) (see Column 8, lines 1-22);
d) ascertaining a fill level of the pipe (i.e., electrodes 308 and 310 contact the fluid in the passage 304 (when liquid is present), and the fluid completes a circuit between the electrodes 308 and 310. When fluid is not present, the electrodes 308 and 310 represent an open circuit) (see Column 6, line 53, to Column 7, line 47); and
j) detecting, by the first and/or second measuring electrodes (i.e., the circuitry within the transmitter housing 328 measures the voltage potential across electrodes 308 and 310) (see Column 6, line 53, to Column 7, line 47), a voltage induced in the fluid by a magnetic field to measure flow in the pipe (i.e., the magnetic coils 316 and 318 are excited to generate a magnetic field, which induces a voltage in the process fluid flow within the flow tube section 302. Process monitoring circuitry, such as the electrode circuitry with the transmitter housing 328, measures the voltage potential between the two electrodes 308 and 310, which can be used to determine a rate of fluid flow) (see Column 6, line 53, to Column 7, line 47); but does not explicitly teach the step of
d) ascertaining a fill level of the pipe based on at least the first and second measured values obtained in accordance with steps b) and c)
Regarding the ascertaining, Matzen teaches
b) exciting the first and second measuring electrodes with contradirectional measuring currents ((i.e., the magnetic field is a quasi stationary DC magnetic field having a frequency of 6. Hz for a mains supply of 50 Hz, or a frequency of 7.5 Hz for a mains supply of 60 Hz. Due to this magnetic field, charge carriers in the medium 12 migrate to the electrodes 24 and 26 of opposite polarity) (see Column 3, lines 20-37) and detecting at least one first measured value at each of the first and/or second measuring electrodes (i.e., the potential difference which builds up across the electrodes 24 and 26 is proportional to the flow velocity of the medium 12 averaged over the cross-sectional area of the measuring pipe 14. A differential amplifier 36 amplifies this potential difference (i.e., the difference in the signals 54 and 52 from the electrodes 24 and 26, respectively) and provides the amplified output 60 to flow detection circuitry 64) (see Column 3, lines 20-37);
c) exciting the first and second measuring electrodes with equidirectional measuring currents (i.e., a test signal 32 is passed to the electrodes 24 and 26 as a common mode signal, for example, by two capacitors (constant current source)) (see Column 3, line 44, to Column 4, line 33) and detecting a second measured value at each of the first and/or second measuring electrodes (i.e., test signal 32 passed to the electrodes 24 and 26 is transformed into voltage in the medium 12, which appears as a response signal 56 at the top electrode 28. Since the test signal 32 appears at the electrodes 24 and 26 as a common mode signal that is rejected by the differential amplifier 36, the output 60 of the differential amplifier 36 comprises essentially a flow velocity measurement signal) (see Column 3, line 44, to Column 4, line 33);
d) ascertaining a fill level of the pipe based on at least the first and second measured values obtained in accordance with steps b) and c) (i.e., to ensure a higher reliability in detecting a full pipe with media having different conductivities, the full pipe detection is performed based on a comparison of the electrode-to-ground impedance determined for the top electrode 28 with the electrode-to-ground-impedances of at least one of the electrodes 24 and 26. If the electrode-to-ground impedance of the top electrode 28 is comparable to, or lies within predetermined tolerances around electrode-to-ground impedance of the electrodes 24 and 26, it is an indication that the top electrode 28 is in contact with the medium (if the measuring pipe 14 is completely filled). If the electrode-to ground impedance of the top electrode 28 is significantly lesser than the electrode-to-ground impedance of the first and second electrodes 24 and 26, it is an indication that the top electrode 28 is not in contact with the medium 12 (i.e., the measuring pipe 14 is not completely filled)) (see Column 4, line 34, Column 5, line 35). In view of the teaching of Matzen, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further determine the fullness of the pipe order to further ascertain the process fluid leakage.
Regarding claim 17, Foss as modified by Matzen as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach e) detecting a measured value at at least one of the first grounding electrode and a second grounding electrode to identify a fall in the fill level. However, Matzen teaches e) detecting a measured value at at least one of the first grounding electrode and a second grounding electrode to identify a fall in the fill level (i.e., to ensure a higher reliability in detecting a full pipe with media having different conductivities, the full pipe detection is performed based on a comparison of the electrode-to-ground impedance determined for the top electrode 28 with the electrode-to-ground-impedances of at least one of the electrodes 24 and 26. If the electrode-to-ground impedance of the top electrode 28 is comparable to, or lies within predetermined tolerances around electrode-to-ground impedance of the electrodes 24 and 26, it is an indication that the top electrode 28 is in contact with the medium (if the measuring pipe 14 is completely filled). If the electrode-to ground impedance of the top electrode 28 is significantly lesser than the electrode-to-ground impedance of the first and second electrodes 24 and 26, it is an indication that the top electrode 28 is not in contact with the medium 12 (i.e., the measuring pipe 14 is not completely filled)) (see Column 4, line 34, Column 5, line 35). In view of the teaching of Matzen, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further determine the fullness of the pipe order to further ascertain the process fluid leakage.
Regarding claim 18, Foss as modified by Matzen as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach e) detecting a measured value at at least one of the first grounding electrode and a second grounding electrode to identify a fall in the fill level. However, Matzen teaches e) detecting a measured value at at least one of the first grounding electrode and a second grounding electrode to identify a fall in the fill level (i.e., to ensure a higher reliability in detecting a full pipe with media having different conductivities, the full pipe detection is performed based on a comparison of the electrode-to-ground impedance determined for the top electrode 28 with the electrode-to-ground-impedances of at least one of the electrodes 24 and 26. If the electrode-to-ground impedance of the top electrode 28 is comparable to, or lies within predetermined tolerances around electrode-to-ground impedance of the electrodes 24 and 26, it is an indication that the top electrode 28 is in contact with the medium (if the measuring pipe 14 is completely filled). If the electrode-to ground impedance of the top electrode 28 is significantly lesser than the electrode-to-ground impedance of the first and second electrodes 24 and 26, it is an indication that the top electrode 28 is not in contact with the medium 12 (i.e., the measuring pipe 14 is not completely filled)) (see Column 4, line 34, Column 5, line 35). In view of the teaching of Matzen, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further determine the fullness of the pipe order to further ascertain the process fluid leakage.
Regarding claim 20, Foss teaches f) exciting measuring currents in the first and/or second measuring electrodes which are non-identical in magnitude and at least one comparison measured value is detected at the first and/or second measuring electrodes (i.e., the saturation/common mode noise detection diagnostics module 216 is adapted to monitor the common mode line noise and to compare it to a noise threshold to detect a poor electrical ground connection) (see Column 5, lines 26-53).
Regarding claim 21, Foss teaches g) forming an expected value based on the first and second measured values from the first pass, the expected value being compared with a comparison measured value (i.e., the memory 162 stores a saturation detection algorithm 168 that is executable by the processor 164 to monitor a common mode signal and a differential mode signal related to the electrodes 138 and 140 at particular frequencies to detect line noise associated with a poor connection to the electrical ground 130) (see Column 4, lines 21-42).
Regarding claim 22, Foss teaches g) forming an expected value based on the first and second measured values from the first pass, the expected value being compared with a comparison measured value (i.e., the memory 162 stores a saturation detection algorithm 168 that is executable by the processor 164 to monitor a common mode signal and a differential mode signal related to the electrodes 138 and 140 at particular frequencies to detect line noise associated with a poor connection to the electrical ground 130) (see Column 4, lines 21-42).
Regarding claim 23, Foss as modified by Matzen as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach h) detecting at least one of a time gradient of the fall, a rise in the fill level and a duration between the fall and rise, and identifying multiphase flow based on at least one of the time gradient and the duration. However, Matzen teaches h) detecting at least one of a time gradient of the fall, a rise in the fill level and a duration between the fall and rise, and identifying multiphase flow based on at least one of the time gradient and the duration (i.e., electrode impedance of the top electrode can be further used for detecting small air bubbles gathered at the top of the flowmeter) (see Column 5, line 36, to Column 6, line 3). In view of the teaching of Matzen, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have additionally detect air bubbles in order to improve the accuracy of fill level detection.
Regarding claim 24, Foss as modified by Matzen as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach i) detecting a difference between the measured values of the first and second grounding electrodes to ascertain the presence of multiphase flow. However, Matzen teaches i) detecting a difference between the measured values of the first and second grounding electrodes to ascertain the presence of multiphase flow (i.e., electrode impedance of the top electrode can be further used for detecting small air bubbles gathered at the top of the flowmeter) (see Column 5, line 36, to Column 6, line 3). In view of the teaching of Matzen, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have additionally detect air bubbles in order to improve the accuracy of fill level detection.
Regarding claim 25, Foss as modified by Matzen as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that i) a position of a foreign phase in a pipe cross-section of the pipe is identified based on least one of first measured values from step b) and second measured values from step c) together with at least one measured value at the first and/or second grounding electrodes. However, Matzen teaches i) a position of a foreign phase in a pipe cross-section of the pipe is identified based on least one of first measured values from step b) and second measured values from step c) together with at least one measured value at the first and/or second grounding electrodes (i.e., electrode impedance of the top electrode can be further used for detecting small air bubbles gathered at the top of the flowmeter) (see Column 5, line 36, to Column 6, line 3). In view of the teaching of Matzen, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have additionally detect air bubbles in order to improve the accuracy of fill level detection.
Regarding claim 26, Foss as modified by Matzen as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that signal noise is detected for the first and/or second measured values and the fill level is ascertained based on the signal noise. However, Matzen teaches that signal noise is detected for the first and/or second measured values and the fill level is ascertained based on the signal noise (i.e., electrode impedance of the top electrode can be further used for detecting small air bubbles gathered at the top of the flowmeter. This will show as an increased noise level in the top electrode impedance measurement) (see Column 5, line 36, to Column 6, line 3). In view of the teaching of Matzen, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have additionally detect air bubbles in order to improve the accuracy of fill level detection.
Regarding claim 28, Foss teaches an evaluation unit for ascertaining a fill level of a pipe which is configured to receive and process measurement signals from measuring devices and which is couplable with a first measuring electrode, a second measuring electrode, and a first grounding electrode; wherein the evaluation unit is configured to:
a) provide the pipe in a state at least in part filled with a fluid (i.e., a flow tube 124 that has an insulated tube or liner 126 adapted to carry a flowing liquid 128) (see Column 3, lines 45-55);
b) excite the first and second measuring electrodes with contradirectional measuring currents (i.e., the circuitry within the transmitter housing 328 can monitor differential mode line noise to detect a poor electrical ground connection) (see Column 6, line 53, to Column 7, line 47) and detect at least one first measured value at each of the first and/or second measuring electrodes (i.e., diagnostic procedure can include measuring differential mode line noise to infer which conductor may have the poor electrical ground connection) (see Column 8, lines 1-22);
c) excite the first and second measuring electrodes with equidirectional measuring currents (i.e., the circuitry within the transmitter housing 328 can monitor common mode line noise to detect a poor electrical ground connection) (see Column 6, line 53, to Column 7, line 47) and detect a second measured value at each of the first and/or second measuring electrodes (i.e., the circuitry can execute the diagnostic procedure during operation to detect a poor electrical ground connection based on common mode line noise) (see Column 8, lines 1-22);
d) ascertain a fill level of the pipe (i.e., electrodes 308 and 310 contact the fluid in the passage 304 (when liquid is present), and the fluid completes a circuit between the electrodes 308 and 310. When fluid is not present, the electrodes 308 and 310 represent an open circuit) (see Column 6, line 53, to Column 7, line 47); and
j) received a voltage induced in the fluid by a magnetic field to measure flow in the pipe (i.e., the magnetic coils 316 and 318 are excited to generate a magnetic field, which induces a voltage in the process fluid flow within the flow tube section 302. Process monitoring circuitry, such as the electrode circuitry with the transmitter housing 328, measures the voltage potential between the two electrodes 308 and 310, which can be used to determine a rate of fluid flow) (see Column 6, line 53, to Column 7, line 47), said voltage being detected by the first and/or second measuring electrodes (i.e., the circuitry within the transmitter housing 328 measures the voltage potential across electrodes 308 and 310) (see Column 6, line 53, to Column 7, line 47); but does not explicitly teach d) ascertain a fill level of the pipe based on at least the first and second measured values obtained in accordance with steps b) and c).
Regarding the ascertaining, Matzen teaches that the evaluation unit is configured to
b) excite the first and second measuring electrodes with contradirectional measuring currents (i.e., the magnetic field is a quasi stationary DC magnetic field having a frequency of 6. Hz for a mains supply of 50 Hz, or a frequency of 7.5 Hz for a mains supply of 60 Hz. Due to this magnetic field, charge carriers in the medium 12 migrate to the electrodes 24 and 26 of opposite polarity) (see Column 3, lines 20-37) and detect at least one first measured value at each of the first and/or second measuring electrodes (i.e., the potential difference which builds up across the electrodes 24 and 26 is proportional to the flow velocity of the medium 12 averaged over the cross-sectional area of the measuring pipe 14. A differential amplifier 36 amplifies this potential difference (i.e., the difference in the signals 54 and 52 from the electrodes 24 and 26, respectively) and provides the amplified output 60 to flow detection circuitry 64) (see Column 3, lines 20-37);
c) excite the first and second measuring electrodes with equidirectional measuring currents (i.e., a test signal 32 is passed to the electrodes 24 and 26 as a common mode signal, for example, by two capacitors (constant current source)) (see Column 3, line 44, to Column 4, line 33) and detect a second measured value at each of the first and/or second measuring electrodes (i.e., test signal 32 passed to the electrodes 24 and 26 is transformed into voltage in the medium 12, which appears as a response signal 56 at the top electrode 28. Since the test signal 32 appears at the electrodes 24 and 26 as a common mode signal that is rejected by the differential amplifier 36, the output 60 of the differential amplifier 36 comprises essentially a flow velocity measurement signal) (see Column 3, line 44, to Column 4, line 33);
d) ascertain a fill level of the pipe based on at least the first and second measured values obtained in accordance with steps b) and c) (i.e., to ensure a higher reliability in detecting a full pipe with media having different conductivities, the full pipe detection is performed based on a comparison of the electrode-to-ground impedance determined for the top electrode 28 with the electrode-to-ground-impedances of at least one of the electrodes 24 and 26. If the electrode-to-ground impedance of the top electrode 28 is comparable to, or lies within predetermined tolerances around electrode-to-ground impedance of the electrodes 24 and 26, it is an indication that the top electrode 28 is in contact with the medium (if the measuring pipe 14 is completely filled). If the electrode-to ground impedance of the top electrode 28 is significantly lesser than the electrode-to-ground impedance of the first and second electrodes 24 and 26, it is an indication that the top electrode 28 is not in contact with the medium 12 (i.e., the measuring pipe 14 is not completely filled)) (see Column 4, line 34, Column 5, line 35). In view of the teaching of Matzen, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further determine the fullness of the pipe order to further ascertain the process fluid leakage.
Regarding claim 29, Foss teaches a flow measuring system comprising a first measuring electrode (i.e., electrode 138) (see Fig. 1), a second measuring electrode (i.e., electrode 140) (see Fig. 1), and a first grounding electrode (i.e., electrical ground 130) (see Fig. 1) which are coupled with an evaluation unit for ascertaining flow in a pipe (i.e., processor system 156) (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 30, Foss teaches a computer program product for simulating an operational behavior of a flow measuring system which is mounted on a pipe in a measuring portion, and which includes a digital model at least of the measuring portion with a first measuring electrode (i.e., electrode 138) (see Fig. 1), a second measuring electrode (i.e., electrode 140) (see Fig. 1), and a first grounding electrode of the flow measuring system (i.e., electrical ground 130) (see Fig. 1).
Claims 16, 19 and 27 are objected to as being dependent on the rejected base claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAN M. TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0307. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:30am - 7:00pm.
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 Martin can be reached on (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.
/Tran M. Tran/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights