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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because ref. # 91 and 92 should be 91 and 92 respectively, as shown in Fig. 3–4, and para. [0151–0154] of the published specification. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 15 and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 15, the claimed, “the blocking member” lacks antecedent basis in the claims. It appears as though claim 15 should depend from one of claim 9–13, where “blocking member” is first introduced.
Regarding claim 24, the claimed, “each flow deflecting member” lacks antecedent basis in the claims. It appears as though claim 24 should depend from claim 23, where first and second “flow deflecting member(s)” are introduced.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1–5, 9, 11–13, 16, and 23–28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bi (CN 213779147 U).
Regarding claims 1, 25, and 26, Bi teaches, “An ultrasonic meter (claim 25: “insert”; notably, details of the “meter” are not required for the details of the “insert”) for measuring a flow-rate of a fluid (Fig. 2), comprising: a flow conduit (1) for the fluid (water), the flow conduit extending along a first axis between a first opening (at first flange plate 2) and a second opening (at second flange plate 2); two or more pairs of ultrasonic transducers (7’s as shown in Fig. 2), each pair of ultrasonic transducers configured to define a corresponding beam path intersecting the flow conduit within a measurement region of the flow conduit, wherein substantially every part of each beam path makes a non-zero angle with the first axis, and wherein when viewed projected onto a plane perpendicular to the first axis, a projection of a first beam path intersects a projection of a second beam path; a flow deflecting member (3, 4 and 5 as shown in Fig. 3) supported between the first opening and the measurement region, wherein when viewed projected onto the plane perpendicular to the first axis, a projection of the flow deflecting member at least partially overlaps the intersection of the projections of the first and second beam paths; wherein the flow deflecting member is configured such that swirl is not introduced in response to a straight fluid flow passing the flow deflecting member (see para. [0017]).”
Regarding claim 2, Bi teaches, “wherein when viewed projected onto the plane perpendicular to the first axis, the projection of the flow deflecting member does not divide a projection of the flow conduit into two separate regions (see Fig. 2–3, ref. # 4, 5, when viewed projected onto the plane as claimed, does not divide a projection of the flow conduit into two separate regions).”
Regarding claim 3, Bi teaches, “wherein when viewed projected onto the plane perpendicular to the first axis, the projection of the flow deflecting member divides a projection of the flow conduit into two or more separate regions including a primary region, wherein an area of the primary region in the projection accounts for 75% or more of the total projected area of the two or more separate regions (see Fig. 2–3, ref. # 4, 5, when viewed projected onto the plane as claimed, among plural arbitrary regions (including one with greater than 75% of openings), includes a primary region accounting for greater than 75% of total projected area as claimed).”
Regarding claims 4 and 26, Bi teaches, “wherein when viewed projected onto the plane perpendicular to the first axis, the projection of the flow deflecting member at least partially overlaps a peak flow region of the plane: wherein the peak flow region is defined relative to a projection onto the plane of a flow conduit of a reference ultrasonic meter which is identical to the ultrasonic meter except for omitting the flow deflecting member; wherein the peak flow region corresponding to a region of the plane in which a flow speed through the reference ultrasonic meter is above a mean flow speed in response to passing a steady state fluid flow through the reference ultrasonic meter at a Reynolds number of approximately 3000 (projection of flow deflecting member 4, 5 at least partially overlaps peak flow region of plane (downstream of 4 and 5 in measuring region between 7’s; notably, “reference flow meter” not required by the claimed “ultrasonic meter” set forth in the claims), and the peak flow speed (no matter the number) is downstream of 4, 5 in the measuring region between 7’s).”
Regarding claim 5, Bi teaches, “wherein the flow deflecting member is separated from the measurement region by a distance along the first axis which is between zero and 5 times a maximum dimension of the flow conduit perpendicular to the first axis (4, 5 separated from 7’s by a distance between zero and 5 times a maximum dimension as claimed).”
Regarding claim 9, Bi teaches, “wherein the flow deflecting member comprises a blocking member disposed within the fluid conduit and held in place by a supporting member (one of 4 or 5 front surface before flow of fluid goes through, and 4, 5 are held in place by 3).”
Regarding claim 11, Bi teaches, “wherein the flow deflecting member (4, 5) comprises: a radial member (4) extending inwards from an inner surface of the flow conduit; a blocking member (front surface of 5, best seen in Fig. 3) disposed within the fluid conduit and offset along the first axis away from the first opening relative to the radial member (5 offset from first opening of 2 where 4 exists), the blocking member held in place by a rod or wire extending along the first axis from the radial member to the blocking member (5 and front surface thereof held in place by “rod” 3, which extends along first axis from radial member 4 to the blocking member 5).”
Regarding claim 12, Bi teaches, “wherein the flow deflecting member comprises a blocking member disposed within the fluid conduit and held in place by two or more supporting members (3 inside 1 and held in place by at least 1, 4 and 5).”
Regarding claim 13, Bi teaches, “wherein the flow deflecting member comprises a blocking member disposed within the fluid conduit and held in place by a mesh (5 with 3 for example).”
Regarding claim 16, Bi teaches, “wherein the flow deflecting member (5) does not include any portions which are conical, frustoconical, pyramidal, or frustopyramidal.”
Regarding claim 23, Bi teaches, “wherein the flow deflecting member is a first flow deflecting member, and wherein when viewed projected onto the plane perpendicular to the first axis, a projection of a third beam path intersects a projection of a fourth beam path; the ultrasonic meter further comprising: a second flow deflecting member supported between the first opening and the measurement region; wherein, when viewed projected onto the plane perpendicular to the first axis, a projection of the second flow deflecting member at least partially overlaps the intersection of the projections of the third and fourth beam paths (7’s as configured intersect in center area of 1 (at first, second, third, and fourth beam paths) and projection of 4, 5 at least partially overlap this intersection; see Fig. 1–3).”
Regarding claim 24, Bi teaches, “wherein for each flow deflecting member supported between the first opening and the measurement region, an identical flow deflecting (4, 5) member is supported between the second opening and the measurement region (interpreted as opening holes of each 4 and 5, seen in Fig. 3, the openings thereof at the surface of each are identical).”
Regarding claim 27, Bi teaches, “wherein: when viewed projected onto the plane perpendicular to the first axis, the result of subtracting the projection of the flow deflecting member from the projection of the flow conduit is a continuously connected second region (looking along plane through openings in 4, 5, continuous connected second region exists as a result of subtracting the projection as claimed).”
Regarding claim 28, Bi teaches, “wherein when viewed projected onto the plane perpendicular to the first axis, the result of subtracting the projection of the flow deflecting member from the projection of the flow conduit is two or more separate regions including a primary region, wherein an area of the primary region in the projection accounts for 75% or more of the total projected areas of the two or more separate regions (looking along plane through openings in 4, 5, continuous connected second region exists as a result of subtracting the projection as claimed, among plural arbitrary regions (including one with greater than 75% of openings), includes a primary region accounting for greater than 75% of total projected area).”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 10, 15, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed, “wherein at least one of: a leading side of the flow deflecting member facing towards the first opening has a rounded bevel profile around at least part of its perimeter and/or tapers towards the first opening; wherein a trailing side of the flow deflecting member facing towards the measurement region has a sharp edge around at least part of its perimeter; and when viewed projected onto a plane parallel to the first axis, the flow deflecting member has a quadrilateral shape.”
Regarding claim 10, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed, “wherein when viewed projected onto the plane perpendicular to the first axis, a projection of the supporting member connects to a projection of the blocking member along a connection direction, and a maximum dimension of the projection of the blocking member perpendicular to the connection direction is greater than a maximum dimension of the projection of the supporting member perpendicular to the connection direction.”
Regarding claim 15, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed, “wherein a length of the blocking member along the first axis is between 0.2 and 2 times a maximum dimension of the blocking member perpendicular to the first axis.”
Regarding claim 18, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed, “wherein a pressure drop across the flow deflecting member is 0.15 Pa or less in response to an average flow velocity in the flow conduit of 0.15 m.s-1 of fluid in the form of water at 20°C.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO–892 form. The references cited herewith teach flow conduits with ultrasonic flow meters configured similarly to the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:30pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/RYAN D WALSH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights