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) were submitted on 11/01/2024 and 08/08/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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 16-33 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.
Claim 16 states “a first and a second connection, by means of which the device can be connected to the fluid-conducting line” and “a measurement region which is arranged between the first connection and the second connection and which can be coupled to the flowmeter”. However, the term “can be” renders the limitations in question unclear because said term does not positively the limitation that it follows. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the limitations in question as “a first and a second connection, by means of which the device is connected to the fluid-conducting line” and “a measurement region which is arranged between the first connection and the second connection and which is coupled to the flowmeter”.
Claims 17-33 are also rejected due to dependency on claim 1.
Claim 16 states “the fluid flowing into the device via the first connection has a substantially laminar flow and a substantially turbulent flow in the measurement region”. It is unclear what sort of fluid flow is to be considered to have a “substantially laminar flow” and a “substantially turbulent flow”. It is unclear what sort of fluid flow is to be considered a “substantially laminar flow” and a “substantially turbulent flow” since the claim or the specification have not provided any meets or bound to each term. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the limitations in question as “the fluid flowing into the device via the first connection has a laminar flow and a turbulent flow in the measurement region”.
Claims 17-33 are also rejected due to dependency on claim 16.
Claim 17 states “wherein the flow path along the first connection has at least in sections a substantially circular cross-section, and/or wherein the flow path along the second connection has at least in sections a substantially circular cross-section, and/or wherein the flow path along the measurement region has at least in sections a substantially rectangular or a substantially hexagonal cross-section”. It is unclear what is to be considered a “substantially circular cross-section”, “a substantially circular cross-section” and “a substantially rectangular or a substantially hexagonal cross-section” since the claim or the specification have not provided any meets or bound to each term. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the limitations in question as “wherein the flow path along the first connection has at least in sections a circular cross-section, and/or wherein the flow path along the second connection has at least in sections a circular cross-section, and/or wherein the flow path along the measurement region has at least in sections a rectangular or a hexagonal cross-section”.
Claim 18 states “wherein the cross-sectional area of the flow path of the flow-influencing element is approximately 6% to 20% smaller than the cross-sectional area of the flow path”. It is unclear what numerical percentage is considered to be approximate to either 6% or 20% since the claim or the specification have not provided any meets or bound to said percentages. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the limitations in question as “wherein the cross-sectional area of the flow path of the flow-influencing element is 6% to 20% smaller than the cross-sectional area of the flow path”.
Claim 19 states “wherein the cross-sectional area of the flow path of the flow-influencing element is approximately 8% to 15% smaller than the cross-sectional area of the flow path”. It is unclear what numerical percentage is considered to be approximate to either 8% or 15% since the claim or the specification have not provided any meets or bound to said percentages. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the limitations in question as “wherein the cross-sectional area of the flow path of the flow-influencing element is 8% to 15% smaller than the cross-sectional area of the flow path”.
Claim 20 states “wherein the cross-sectional area of the flow path of the flow-influencing element is approximately 8.5% to 12% smaller than the cross-sectional area of the flow path”. It is unclear what numerical percentage is considered to be approximate to either 8.5% to 12% since the claim or the specification have not provided any meets or bound to said percentages. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the limitations in question as “wherein the cross-sectional area of the flow path of the flow-influencing element is 8.5% to 12% smaller than the cross-sectional area of the flow path”.
Claim 23 states “wherein the flow-influencing element is designed as a substantially annular constriction”. It is unclear what sort of annular constriction is to be considered a “substantially annular constriction” since the claim or the specification have not provided any meets or bound to each term. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the limitations in question as “wherein the flow-influencing element is designed as an annular constriction”.
Claim 26 states “wherein the channel has at least in sections a substantially circular cross-section”. It is unclear what sort of circular cross section is to be considered a “substantially circular cross-section” since the claim or the specification have not provided any meets or bound to each term. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the limitations in question as “wherein the channel has at least in sections a circular cross-section”.
Claim 27 states “wherein the first connection and/or the second connection are configured so that the fluid-conducting line can be arranged in a self-locking manner on the first connection and/or the second connection”. However, the term “can be” renders the limitations in question unclear because said term does not positively the limitation that it follows. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the limitations in question as “wherein the first connection and/or the second connection are configured so that the fluid-conducting line is arranged in a self-locking manner on the first connection and/or the second connection”.
Claim 28 is also rejected due to dependency on claim 27.
Claim 29 states “wherein the measurement region has at least two contact surfaces which extend at least in sections along the flow path, wherein the contact surfaces can be coupled to the flowmeter”. However, the term “can be” renders the limitations in question unclear because said term does not positively the limitation that it follows. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the limitations in question as “wherein the measurement region has at least two contact surfaces which extend at least in sections along the flow path, wherein the contact surfaces are coupled to the flowmeter”.
Claim 30 states “wherein the first connection can be detachably connected to the measurement region, and/or wherein the second connection can be detachably connected to the measurement region”. However, the term “can be” renders the limitations in question unclear because said term does not positively the limitation that it follows. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the limitations in question as “wherein the first connection is detachably connected to the measurement region, and/or wherein the second connection is detachably connected to the measurement region”.
Claim 31 states “wherein the first connection and/or the second connection can be secured to the measurement region by means of a securing element”. However, the term “can be” renders the limitations in question unclear because said term does not positively the limitation that it follows. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the limitations in question as “wherein the first connection and/or the second connection is secured to the measurement region by means of a securing element”.
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 16-25 and 27-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muraki et al. (JP5815437; hereinafter “Muraki”; English translation provided by the Examiner) in view of Regen et al. (US 2015/0300861; hereinafter “Regen”).
Regarding claim 16, Muraki teaches a device (Figures 8 and 11) for attaching an ultrasonic flowmeter (2 and 3; Figure 11; [0002]) for detecting a measurement variable of the fluid (fluid velocity and/or fluid flow rate; [0002]), wherein the device comprises:
a first and a second connection (1-1 and 1-2; Figure 11; [0032]);
a measurement region (region of the device where measurement elements 2 and 3 are located/placed; See Figure 11) which is arranged between the first connection and the second connection (Figure 11 demonstrates the region of the device where measurement elements 2 and 3 are located/placed being between elements 1-1 and 1-2) and which is coupled to the flowmeter (2 and 3) in order to detect the measurement variable (fluid velocity and/or fluid flow rate; [0002]), wherein the first connection (1-1), the measurement region (region of the device where measurement elements 2 and 3 are located/placed; See Figure 11) and the second connection (1-2) define a flow path for the fluid through the device ([0030]; See Figure 11); and
a flow-influencing element (7A; Figures 8 and 11; [0043]) which is arranged in and/or on the flow path (Figure 11 demonstrates the element 7A arranged in the flow path of the device) and which is arranged in front of the measurement region in a provided flow direction of the fluid along the flow path and at a distance therefrom (per Figures 8 and 11, the element 7A is arranged upstream of the measurement region of elements 2 and 3 and at a distance of said measurement region of elements 2 and 3),
wherein the flow-influencing element (7a) is integrally formed with the first connection or the second connection (Figure 11 demonstrates that the element 7a is placed in the portion 1-1 of the device and paragraph [0043] states that the element 7A is integrated into the measuring tube 1), and
wherein the flow-influencing element (7a) is configured so that the fluid flowing into the device via the first connection (1-1) has a laminar flow (Figure 14B; [0036]) and a turbulent flow (Figure 13B; [0035]) in the measurement region ([0035-0036]).
Muraki teaches the device having the first and second connections but does not expressly teach the device for arranging on a fluid-conducting line, the fluid conducted by the line, and the first and the second connection connecting the device to the fluid-conducting line.
However, Regen teaches the device (7-9; Figures 1-5) for arranging on a fluid-conducting line (13 and 14; [0010-0011, 0040]), the fluid conducted by the line ([0020, 0050-0051, 0054]), and the first and the second connection (7 and 8; Figures and 4; [0010-0011, 0025-0026, 0058]) connecting the device (7-9; Figures 1-4) to the fluid-conducting line (13-14; Figure 4; [0058, 0061]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Regen’s first and second connections along with the fluid-conducting line as the first and second connection of Muraki in order to provide simple handling of the connecting structure that aids in feasible connection and disconnection of the device to any desired fluid system, this increases the reliability and efficiency of the device (See Regen [0047]).
Regarding claim 17, Muraki teaches wherein the flow path along the first connection (1-1) has at least in sections a circular cross-section (Figure 11 demonstrates that the flow path along the first connection 1-1 has a circular cross section).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Muraki and Regen teaches the cross sectional area of the flow path of the flow-influencing element being smaller than the cross-sectional area of the flow path immediately in front of and immediately after the flow-influencing element (Figures 8 and 11: Regen) but does not expressly teach wherein the cross-sectional area of the flow path of the flow-influencing element is 6% to 20% smaller than the cross-sectional area of the flow path immediately in front of and immediately after the flow-influencing element.
However, the Examiner takes the position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have the requisite skill to modify the cross-sectional area of the flow path of the flow-influencing element, including the cross-sectional area of the flow path of the flow-influencing element being 6% to 20% smaller than the cross-sectional area of the flow path immediately in front of and immediately after the flow-influencing element, in order to produce the desired adequate amount of laminar flow and of turbulence flow and thus enabling high precision flow rate measurement over a wide flow rate range (See [0019] of Muraki).
Furthermore, the courts have ruled that the configuration of a claimed structure is a matter of choice with a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular structural configuration is significant. In the instant case, the applicant has failed to provide criticality in regards to the cross-sectional area of the flow path of the flow-influencing element being 6% to 20% smaller than the cross-sectional area of the flow path immediately in front of and immediately after the flow-influencing element. See MPEP 2144.04, Section IV, Subsection B.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Muraki and Regen teaches the cross sectional area of the flow path of the flow-influencing element being smaller than the cross-sectional area of the flow path immediately in front of and immediately after the flow-influencing element (Figures 8 and 11: Regen) but does not expressly teach wherein the cross-sectional area of the flow path of the flow-influencing element is 8% to 15% smaller than the cross-sectional area of the flow path immediately in front of and immediately after the flow-influencing element.
However, the Examiner takes the position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have the requisite skill to modify the cross-sectional area of the flow path of the flow-influencing element, including the cross-sectional area of the flow path of the flow-influencing element being 8% to 15% smaller than the cross-sectional area of the flow path immediately in front of and immediately after the flow-influencing element, in order to produce the desired adequate amount of laminar flow and of turbulence flow and thus enabling high precision flow rate measurement over a wide flow rate range (See [0019] of Muraki).
Furthermore, the courts have ruled that the configuration of a claimed structure is a matter of choice with a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular structural configuration is significant. In the instant case, the applicant has failed to provide criticality in regards to the cross-sectional area of the flow path of the flow-influencing element being 8% to 15% smaller than the cross-sectional area of the flow path immediately in front of and immediately after the flow-influencing element. See MPEP 2144.04, Section IV, Subsection B.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Muraki and Regen teaches the cross sectional area of the flow path of the flow-influencing element being smaller than the cross-sectional area of the flow path immediately in front of and immediately after the flow-influencing element (Figures 8 and 11: Regen) but does not expressly teach wherein the cross-sectional area of the flow path of the flow-influencing element is 8.5% to 12% smaller than the cross-sectional area of the flow path immediately in front of and immediately after the flow-influencing element.
However, the Examiner takes the position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have the requisite skill to modify the cross-sectional area of the flow path of the flow-influencing element, including the cross-sectional area of the flow path of the flow-influencing element being 8.5% to 12% smaller than the cross-sectional area of the flow path immediately in front of and immediately after the flow-influencing element, in order to produce the desired adequate amount of laminar flow and of turbulence flow and thus enabling high precision flow rate measurement over a wide flow rate range (See [0019] of Muraki).
Furthermore, the courts have ruled that the configuration of a claimed structure is a matter of choice with a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular structural configuration is significant. In the instant case, the applicant has failed to provide criticality in regards to the cross-sectional area of the flow path of the flow-influencing element being 8.5% to 12% smaller than the cross-sectional area of the flow path immediately in front of and immediately after the flow-influencing element. See MPEP 2144.04, Section IV, Subsection B.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Muraki and Regen teaches the measurement region being spaced from the flow-influencing element in the flow direction by a distance (See Figures 8 and 11: Muraki) but does not expressly teach the distance being between 5 and 60 times the diameter of the flow influencing element.
However, the Examiner takes the position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have the requisite skill to modify the distance between the measurement region and the flow-influencing element, including the distance being between 5 and 60 times the diameter of the flow influencing element, in order for the measurement region to receive the desired adequate amount of produced laminar flow and of turbulence flow and thus enabling high precision flow rate measurement over a wide flow rate range (See [0019] of Muraki).
Furthermore, the courts have ruled that the configuration of a claimed structure is a matter of choice with a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular structural configuration is significant. In the instant case, the applicant has failed to provide criticality in regards to the distance being between 5 and 60 times the diameter of the flow influencing element. See MPEP 2144.04, Section IV, Subsection B.
Regarding claim 22, Muraki teaches wherein the flow-influencing element (7a) comprises a protrusion extending from a wall surrounding the flow path into the flow path (Figures 8 and 11 demonstrate that element 7a placed within the inner wall surface of the flow path portion of element 1-1).
Regarding claim 23, Muraki teaches wherein the flow-influencing element (7a) is designed as an annular constriction (the element 7a reduces the annular space of the cross section of portion 1-1; therefore, element 7a is considered an annular constriction).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Muraki and Regen teaches wherein the cross-sectional area of the flow path in front of and after the flow-influencing element (7a: Muraki) is larger than the cross-sectional area of the flow path in the region of the flow-influencing element (by implementing the connection regions of Regen in the device of Muraki, the resulting structure will have the cross-sectional area of Regen’s flow path in front of and after Muraki’s flow-influencing element 7a larger than the cross-sectional area of the flow path in the region of the flow-influencing element 7a).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Muraki and Regen teaches wherein the first connection (7: Regen and 1-1: Muraki) has a channel which forms at least part of the flow path (See Figures 1 and 5: Regen and Figures 8 and 11: Muraki), wherein the fluid flows in at a first end of the channel and the measurement region is arranged at a second end of the channel (Figure 1 and 4-5 of Regen demonstrates the channel created by connection region 7, wherein said channel permits fluid to enter through a first end of the channel and the measurement region 2 being arranged at a second end of the channel), and wherein the first connection has the flow-influencing element (the combination of Muraki and Regen will result in a structure that has the flow-influencing element 7a of Muraki within the connection region 7 of Regen).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Muraki and Regen teaches wherein the first connection (7: Regen) is configured so that the fluid-conducting line (14; Figure 4: Regen) is arranged in a self-locking manner (the distal portion, i.e. hose olive, of connection 7 permits locking of the hose 14 to the connection 7; See Figure 4) on the first connection (7: Regen).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Muraki and Regen teaches wherein the first connection (7: Regen) is configured as a hose olive (See Figure 4: Regen).
Regarding claim 29, Muraki teaches wherein the measurement region (region of the device where measurement elements 2 and 3 are located/placed; See Figure 11) has at least two contact surfaces (surfaces where the ultrasonic transceivers 2 and 3 are placed located) which extend at least in sections along the flow path (See Figure 11), wherein the contact surfaces (surfaces where the ultrasonic transceivers 2 and 3 are placed located) is coupled to the flowmeter (2 and 3; Figure 11).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Muraki and Regen teaches wherein the first connection (7: Regen) is detachably connected to the measurement region (Paragraph [0027] states that the three individual components, i.e. elements 2, 7 and 8, are connected to each other through screwing; therefore, the screw can permit detachable connection between first connection 7 and measurement region 2: Regen).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Muraki and Regen teaches wherein the first connection (7; Figures 1 and 4-5: Regen) is secured to the measurement region (2; Figures 1 and 4-5: Regen) by means of a securing element (through screws; [0027-0028]: Regen).
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Muraki and Regen teaches a method for detecting a measurement variable (fluid velocity and/or fluid flow rate; [0002]: Muraki) of a fluid conducted by a line (fluid velocity and/or fluid flow rate; [0002]), comprising:
arranging a device according to claim 16 (see the rejection of claim 16 above) on a fluid-conducting line (13-14; Figure 4; [0058, 0061]: Regen);
arranging a flowmeter (2 and 3; Figure 11; [0002]: Muraki) at the measurement region (region of the device where measurement elements 2 and 3 are located/placed; See Figure 11: Muraki);
passing the fluid through the flow path ([0030]; See Figure 11: Muraki); and
performing the flow measurement ([0002, 0030, 0034, 0037]).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Muraki and Regen a use ([0002, 0037]) of a device according to claim 16 (See rejection of claim 16 above) for measuring the flow of a fluid (fluid velocity and/or fluid flow rate; [0002]: Muraki).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 26 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.
In claim 26, the specific limitations of "wherein the first connection has a channel which forms at least part of the flow path, wherein the fluid flows in at a first end of the channel and the measurement region is arranged at a second end of the channel, and wherein the first connection has the flow-influencing element" in combination with the remaining limitations as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY W MEGNA FUENTES whose telephone number is (571)272-6456. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-4PM.
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 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.
/ANTHONY W MEGNA FUENTES/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/LAURA MARTIN SWEENEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights