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 .
Summary
Claims 1-17 are pending. Claims 1-17 are rejected herein. This is a First Action on the Merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 15-17 is/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 claims 6 and 15: These claims use the term "and/or." This term is indefinite and the Examiner recommends using "or" which avoids ambiguity and has the same patentable scope as that sought to be covered by "and/or." The Applicant may also consider using phrasing such as "at least one of."
Regarding claims 16 and 17: These claims are rejected as indefinite for depending from an indefinite claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as being anticipated by NAGAREDA et al. (WO 2011001536). Please note that a machine translation of NAGAREDA has been included with this office action. All references to text in NAGAREDA are to the attached machine translation.
Regarding claim 1: NAGAREDA discloses: An apparatus for sensing cavitation in liquid flowing through a liquid conduit (This is a statement of intended use. Because the invention of NAGAREDA has all of the following structure, it can be used to sense cavitation. Please note that bubble detection is explicitly recited on page 1 line 52-page 2 line 4.), the apparatus comprising: an ultrasonic transducer system (FIG. 1) including one or more ultrasonic transducers (17 and 18 in FIG. 1) each arranged in acoustic communication with the liquid flowing through the conduit (FIG. 1); and control electronics (13) connected to the ultrasonic transducer system (arrow to 17 and from 18 in FIG. 1), the control electronics being configured to drive the ultrasonic transducer system to send an ultrasonic signal through liquid flowing through the conduit (dotted arrow from 17 to 18), wherein the ultrasonic transducer system receives the ultrasonic signal (at 18) and generates an electronic cavitation detection signal representing a strength of the ultrasonic signal as received by the ultrasonic transducer system (at ultrasonic wave receiving circuit 22; page 6 lines 42-57); the control electronics (13) being further configured to process the cavitation detection signal (One such signal is shown in FIG. 2.) to i) provide a cavitation measurement signal indicative of whether or not the ultrasonic signal interacted with one or more cavitation bubbles in liquid flowing through the conduit (at bubble detection calculation unit 14; page 6 line 52-page 7 line 9) ii) evaluate the cavitation measurement signal to determine if one or more cavitation alarm conditions is met (page 7 lines 29-48), and iii) output an alarm signal when each of the one or more cavitation alarm conditions is met (by abnormality warning output unit 15; page 7 lines 29-48).
Regarding claim 3: NAGAREDA discloses: the one or more ultrasonic transducers (17 and 18 in FIG. 1) of the ultrasonic transducer system includes a first ultrasonic (17) transducer and a second ultrasonic transducer (18) facing the first ultrasonic transducer across the conduit (FIG. 1), wherein the control electronics (13) is configured to drive the first ultrasonic transducer to send the ultrasonic signal (dotted arrow from 17 to 18) through liquid flowing through the conduit (FIG. 1), and wherein the second ultrasonic transducer receives the ultrasonic signal and generates the electronic cavitation detection signal (page 6 lines 33-35).
Regarding claim 4: NAGAREDA discloses: the one or more ultrasonic transducers of the ultrasonic transducer system includes a single ultrasonic transducer (61 in FIG. 11), wherein the control electronics is configured to drive the single ultrasonic transducer to send the ultrasonic signal through liquid flowing through the conduit such that the ultrasonic signal is retro-reflected by the housing back to the single ultrasonic transducer, and wherein the single ultrasonic transducer receives the ultrasonic signal and generates the electronic cavitation detection signal (page 11 lines 15-22).
Regarding claim 5: NAGAREDA discloses: a user interface connected to the control electronics (well-known computer on page 6 lines 52-57; Setting the size of the detection threshold on page 7 lines 11-18 inherently requires an interface to input the value.).
Regarding claim 7: NAGAREDA discloses: the control electronics (13 in FIG. 1) has a cavitation alarm set point (set point Pt of signal intensity Pt that determines the threshold for bubble detection as discussed on page 7 lines 11-18), and the one or more cavitation alarm conditions includes a cavitation occurrence condition that is met when a strength of the cavitation measurement signal falls below the cavitation alarm set point (page 7 lines 37-48).
Regarding claim 8: NAGAREDA discloses: the user interface is configured to receive a first variable user input for establishing the cavitation alarm set point (set point Pt on page 7 lines 11-18).
Regarding claim 9: NAGAREDA discloses: the control electronics has a cavitation error count setting (in bubble detection rate counting means 26; page 7 lines 20-27), the control electronics is configured to register a cavitation error count corresponding to a consecutive number of times the cavitation occurrence condition has been met (100 times on page 7 lines 20-27), and the one or more cavitation alarm conditions includes a cavitation error count condition that is met when the cavitation error count equals the cavitation error count setting (page 7 lines 20-27).
Regarding claim 10: NAGAREDA discloses: the user interface is configured to receive a second variable user input for establishing the cavitation error count setting (100 counts in 10 ms is specified on page 7 lines 20-27, therefore these values had to have been entered into the electronics using a user interface at some point.).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAGAREDA.
Regarding claim 6: NAGAREDA discloses: a display (page 9 lines 32-35), but does not specify that the cavitation measurement signal or a value representing an instantaneous strength of the signal is one of the values displayed. The cavitation measurement signal is shown in FIG. 2 (page 7 lines 1-9), therefore one skilled in the art would be motivated to display this data along with any other data for the user to be able to understand how the invention is working and change input parameters, such as Pt shown on FIG. 2 (page 7 lines 11-18).
Claim(s) 2, 12, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAGAREDA in view of BOBER (US 20240393155).
Regarding claims 2 and 12: NAGAREDA does not disclose a housing.
BOBER however does teach a housing (4 in FIG. 2) for their invention (FIG. 1) that uses ultrasonic transducers (11, 22) to send a signal (12) through a pipe (100) to detect bubbles (para. 59). BOBER also teaches that the electronics are mounted on the housing (para. 81), thus meeting the limitations of claim 12.
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to mount the transducers of NAGAREDA in a housing as taught by BOBER so that the transducers are fixed in place with respect to the pipe (para. 75 of BOBER).
Regarding claim 14: NAGAREDA discloses: A method for sensing bubbles in liquid flowing through a conduit, the method comprising the steps of: arranging a first ultrasonic transducer (17 in FIG. 1) in acoustic communication with the liquid flowing through the conduit (2); arranging a second ultrasonic transducer (18) in acoustic communication with the liquid flowing through the conduit (FIG. 1), wherein the second ultrasonic transducer (18) faces the first ultrasonic transducer (17) across the conduit (2; FIG. 1); driving the first ultrasonic transducer (from ultrasonic transmitter circuit 21; page 8 lines 36-44) to send an ultrasonic signal through liquid flowing through the conduit (the dotted arrow in FIG. 1); receiving, by the second ultrasonic transducer, the ultrasonic signal (page 6 lines 33-35); generating, by the second ultrasonic transducer, an electronic bubble detection signal representing a strength of the ultrasonic signal as received by the second ultrasonic transducer (at ultrasonic wave receiving circuit 22; page 6 lines 42-57); processing the cavitation detection signal to provide a bubble measurement signal indicative of whether or not the ultrasonic signal interacted with one or more bubbles in liquid flowing through the conduit (at bubble detection calculation unit 14; page 6 line 52-page 7 line 9); evaluating the bubble measurement signal to determine if one or more bubble alarm conditions is met (page 7 lines 29-48); and outputting an alarm signal when each of the one or more cavitation alarm conditions is met (by abnormality warning output unit 15; page 7 lines 29-48).
NAGAREDA does not disclose that the detected bubbles are a result of cavitation. The bubbles could come from another source such as a leaking pump (page 7 lines 20-27).
BOBER however does teach an invention (FIG. 1) that uses ultrasonic transducers (11, 22) to send a signal (12) through a pipe (100) to detect bubbles (para. 59), and teaches that one application of this invention is to monitor or measure cavitation in pumps (para. 126).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the invention of NAGAREDA to detect bubbles caused by cavitation as taught by BOBER because cavitation can damage pumps, pipes, and other equipment.
Regarding claim 15: NAGAREDA discloses: a display (page 9 lines 32-35), but does not specify that the cavitation measurement signal or a value representing an instantaneous strength of the signal is one of the values displayed. The cavitation measurement signal is shown in FIG. 2 (page 7 lines 1-9), therefore one skilled in the art would be motivated to display this data along with any other data for the user to be able to understand how the invention is working and change input parameters, such as Pt shown on FIG. 2 (page 7 lines 11-18).
Regarding claim 16: NAGAREDA discloses: the one or more cavitation alarm conditions includes a cavitation occurrence condition (Presence/absence of bubbles is determined by threshold Pt as discussed on page 7 lines 11-18), and wherein the step of evaluating the cavitation measurement signal includes comparing a strength of the cavitation measurement signal to a predetermined cavitation alarm set point (page 7 lines 11-18), and determining that the cavitation occurrence condition is met when a strength of the cavitation measurement signal falls below the cavitation alarm set point (page 7 lines 11-18).
Regarding claim 17: NAGAREDA discloses: the one or more cavitation alarm conditions includes a cavitation error count condition (in bubble detection rate counting means 26; page 7 lines 20-27), and wherein the step of evaluating the cavitation measurement signal includes registering a cavitation error count corresponding to a consecutive number of times the cavitation occurrence condition has been met (100 times on page 7 lines 20-27), and determining that the cavitation error count condition is met when the cavitation error count equals a predetermined cavitation error count setting (page 7 lines 20-27).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAGAREDA in view of LODERER et al. (US 20180110913).
Regarding claim 11: NAGAREDA does not specify a housing or the location of the electronics.
LODERER however does teach ultrasonic transducers (para. 34; FIG. 2) that can be used to detect bubbles (abstract) and has a housing (3) that surrounds a tube or pipe (T; para. 1), and wherein LODERER states that processor can be located in the housing or remote from the housing with its own separate housing (para. 31).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to have the electronics of NAGAREDA located remote from a housing that holds the transducers so that the same electronics can be used with multiple sensors thus saving material costs and making the sensor housing smaller and easier to install. Furthermore, have the control unit of a sensor located with the sensor or in a remote location is an obvious rearrangement of parts. Regarding the rearrangement of parts, MPEP 2144.04 VI C states:
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). However, “The mere fact that a worker in the art could rearrange the parts of the reference device to meet the terms of the claims on appeal is not by itself sufficient to support a finding of obviousness. The prior art must provide a motivation or reason for the worker in the art, without the benefit of appellant’s specification, to make the necessary changes in the reference device.” Ex parte Chicago Rawhide Mfg. Co., 223 USPQ 351, 353 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1984).
In the present case, the invention will function identically no matter where the processor is located, and having it one place or another does not produce any new or unexpected results.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAGAREDA in view of HOPPER et al. (US 20180217101).
Regarding claim 13: NAGAREDA does not specify a housing arrangement.
HOPPER however does teach a fluid sensor (abstract) that has a housing which includes a section of pipe segment (housing 440 in FIG. 13) that connects between pipe ends 444.
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the pipe segment housing of HOPPER to monitor the fluid of NAGAREDA so that it can be installed with standard threaded pipe fittings (para. 76 of HOPPER; FIG. 13) thus making installation easier and reducing labor costs.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: NUECKEL et al (DE 19533303). Please note that a machine translation of NAGAREDA has been included with this office action. All references to text in NAGAREDA are to the attached machine translation. NUECKEL discloses an apparatus (FIG. 1) for sensing cavitation in liquid flowing through a liquid conduit (This is a statement of intended use, however detection of gas bubbles is explicitly recited in para. 27.), the apparatus comprising: an ultrasonic transducer system (FIG. 3) including one or more ultrasonic transducers (USW1 and USW2) each arranged in acoustic communication with the liquid flowing through the conduit (FIG. 3); and control electronics (Evaluation unit AE and control unit SE in FIG. 1; para. 26) connected to the ultrasonic transducer system (FIG. 1), the control electronics being configured to drive the ultrasonic transducer system to send an ultrasonic signal through liquid flowing through the conduit (shown as central large arrow in FIG. 2), wherein the ultrasonic transducer system receives the ultrasonic signal (at USW2 in FIG. 3) and generates an electronic cavitation detection signal representing a strength of the ultrasonic signal as received by the ultrasonic transducer system (ultrasound signal in para. 30); the control electronics being further configured to process the cavitation detection signal to i) provide a cavitation measurement signal indicative of whether or not the ultrasonic signal interacted with one or more cavitation bubbles in liquid flowing through the conduit (attenuation of ultrasound signal indicating gas bubbles in para. 29), ii) evaluate the cavitation measurement signal to determine if one or more cavitation alarm conditions is met (determine attenuation is discussed in para. 29, change in signal amplitude in para. 42).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)270-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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 M 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.
/NATHANIEL J KOLB/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights