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 .
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 15-28 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 15 and 20, the limitation “wherein the measuring tube arrangement has a portion which is polished by forced electrolytic plasma polishing and which, in a region in which a flow cross section has not more than a cross section of the at least one tube, extends over at least three diameters of the at least one tube” in lines 8-11 of claim 15 and lines 9-12 of claim 20 renders the claims unclear. It is not clear from the claimed limitations what the flow cross section is referencing and where in the measuring tube arrangement the portion is in relation to the claimed limitaitons as it is unclear where in the structure the flow cross section is limited to or if the three diameters is the extent of the portion or another feature. As best understood from the disclosure this is intended to reference the length of the portion that is polished by the forced electrolytic plasma polishing near the ends of the tube. This is the interpretation that will be used in the rejections below.
Claims 16-19 and 21 depend from claims 15 and 20 respectively and inherit this issue therefrom.
Regarding claim 22, the limitation “at least one measuring tube” in line 13 renders the claims unclear. A measuring tube of the measuring tube arrangement was introduced in line 5, and the introduction of at least one measuring tube is considered to, as best understood from the disclosure, include the measuring tube of the measuring tube arrangement from above, however the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear because there is no indication that the at least one measuring tube includes the previously established measuring tube. In the rejections below it will be treated as the measuring tube being one of the at least one measuring tubes.
Claims 23-28 depend from claim 22 and inherit this issue therefrom.
Regarding claim 23, the limitation “wherein the electrolyte has a volume flow rate per flowable cross-sectional area of the measuring tube arrangement that is not less than 0.11/(min·cm 2), and/or wherein the electrolyte has a volume flow rate per flowable cross-sectional area of the measuring tube arrangement of not more than 41/(min·cm 2)” renders the claims unclear. The units given to the volumetric flow rate per flowable cross-sectional area appears to have at least one typo where it contradicts the disclosure where the same ranges were disclosed with cm2. However, even in if the interpretation of the disclosure, it is unclear how volumentric flow rate (which is measured typically in m3/s) and cross-sectional area (m2) combine to give a unit of time times a distance squared. The relationship given should result in a number with units of velocity. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear to such a degree that they cannot be examined with respect to the art until this is resolved.
Regarding claim 27, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is considered that “optionally sulfuric acid” is optional and this is the interpretation that will be used in the rejection below.
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 15, 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nortz et al. (5,095,761) in view of Menzel et al. (4,772,367).
As to claim 15, Nortz et al. teaches a measuring tube arrangement (figures 2 and 3), comprising:
two support bodies (27, 29), each with at least one bore (35, 37, 43, 45 in figures 3-5); and
at least one tube (31, 33) with a lumen for guiding a medium (figures 2-5),
wherein the at least one tube (31, 32) has a first end portion and a second end portion which are each connected to one of the support bodies (figures 2-3),
wherein the at least one bore of each of the support bodies communicates with one another via the lumen of the at least one tube (figures 2-3),
wherein the measuring tube arrangement has a portion which is polished (column 4, lines 60-65) at the ends of the tubes (31, 32).
Nortz et al. does not explicitly teach polishing by forced electrolytic plasma polishing and which, in a region in which a flow cross section has not more than a cross section of the at least one tube, extends over at least three diameters of the at least one tube, and wherein the portion polished by forced plasma polishing is followed by an etched portion that has a different surface structure from the portion polished by forced plasma polishing.
Menzel et al. teaches polishing the inner surface of a tube by forced electrolytic plasma polishing (column 1, lines 6-10) where the electrolyte stream moves past the polishing head (column 2, lines 34-45). It is considered that the arrangement taught by Menzel et al. when applied to the ends of the tubes (31, 33 of Nortz et al.) would result in a polished region which, in a region in which a flow cross section has not more than a cross section of the at least one tube, extends over at least three diameters of the at least one tube, and wherein the portion polished by forced plasma polishing is followed by an etched portion that has a different surface structure from the portion polished by forced plasma polishing, based on the position of the polishing head relative to the joint in the pipe as a result of the polishing of the ends (as explained in the instant application at page 7, line 22-page 8, line 12).
It is considered that one skilled in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to modify Nortz et al. to have polishing by forced electrolytic plasma polishing and which, in a region in which a flow cross section has not more than a cross section of the at least one tube, extends over at least three diameters of the at least one tube, and wherein the portion polished by forced plasma polishing is followed by an etched portion that has a different surface structure from the portion polished by forced plasma polishing as taught by Menzel et al. because it is a well known method for polishing pipes with the benefit of improved polishing quality and low metal content (column 2, lines 15-22 and lines 55-63) with predictable results.
As to claim 17, Nortz et al. as modified (citations to Nortz et al. unless otherwise indicated) teaches wherein the at least one tube has a metal structure (column 4, lines 28-30), and wherein the etched portion has a surface structure in which grain boundaries of the metal structure are etched free (this is considered to result from the combination and the forced electrolytic polishing taught by Nortz et al. in combination with Menzel et al.).
As to claim 18, Nortz et al. as modified (citations to Nortz et al. unless otherwise indicated) teaches wherein the at least one tube has a curved course at least in portions with at least one arc that sweeps over an angle of not less than 20° (figure2),
wherein the at least one arc has a radius of curvature of not more than 10 inner diameters of the at least one tube (figure 2), and
wherein the portion polished by forced plasma polishing includes the at least one arc over at least half a length of the at least one arc (it is considered that the arrangement taught by Menzel et al. when applied to the ends of the tubes 31, 33 of Nortz et al. would result in a polished region which has the features claimed).
As to claim 19, Nortz et al. as modified (citations to Nortz et al. unless otherwise indicated) teaches wherein the inner diameter of the at least one tube is not more than 30 mm (column 4, lines 9-11).
As to claim 20, Nortz et al. teaches a measuring sensor (figures 2 and 3), comprising:
a measuring tube arrangement (figures 2 and 3), including:
two support bodies (27, 29), each with at least one bore (35, 37, 43, 45 in figures 3-5); and
at least one tube (31, 33) with a lumen for guiding a medium (figures 2-5),
wherein the at least one tube (31, 32) has a first end portion and a second end portion which are each connected to one of the support bodies (figures 2-3),
wherein the at least one bore of each of the support bodies communicates with one another via the lumen of the at least one tube (figures 2-3),
wherein the measuring tube arrangement has a portion which is polished (column 4, lines 60-65) at the ends of the tubes (31, 32),
a base body that connects the two support bodies to one another in a rigid manner (considered to be the overall mounting structure of the pipe system represented by 63, 65; column 4, lines 44-48);
an electrodynamic exciter for exciting bending vibration modes (external magnetic drivers, column 1, lines 20-24 and column 2, lines 11-15); and
at least one vibration sensor for detecting bending vibrations of the at least one tube (motion sensors, column 1, lines 22-24 and column 2, lines 11-15).
Nortz et al. does not teach explicitly polishing by forced electrolytic plasma polishing and which, in a region in which a flow cross section has not more than a cross section of the at least one tube, extends over at least three diameters of the at least one tube, and wherein the portion polished by forced plasma polishing is followed by an etched portion that has a different surface structure from the portion polished by forced plasma polishing.
Menzel et al. teaches polishing the inner surface of a tube by forced electrolytic plasma polishing (column 1, lines 6-10) where the electrolyte stream moves past the polishing head (column 2, lines 34-45). It is considered that the arrangement taught by Menzel et al. when applied to the ends of the tubes (31, 33 of Nortz et al.) would result in a polished region which, in a region in which a flow cross section has not more than a cross section of the at least one tube, extends over at least three diameters of the at least one tube, and wherein the portion polished by forced plasma polishing is followed by an etched portion that has a different surface structure from the portion polished by forced plasma polishing, based on the position of the polishing head relative to the joint in the pipe as a result of the polishing of the ends (as explained in the instant application at page 7, line 22-page 8, line 12).
It is considered that one skilled in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to modify Nortz et al. to have polishing by forced electrolytic plasma polishing and which, in a region in which a flow cross section has not more than a cross section of the at least one tube, extends over at least three diameters of the at least one tube, and wherein the portion polished by forced plasma polishing is followed by an etched portion that has a different surface structure from the portion polished by forced plasma polishing as taught by Menzel et al. because it is a well known method for polishing pipes with the benefit of improved polishing quality and low metal content (column 2, lines 15-22 and lines 55-63) with predictable results.
As to claim 21, Nortz et al. as modified (citations to Nortz et al. unless otherwise indicated) teaches wherein the measuring tube arrangement (figures 2 and 3) includes two parallel measuring tubes (31, 32), wherein the electrodynamic exciter is configured to excite bending vibrations in at least one bending vibration mode between the measuring tubes (column 1, lines 20-24 and column 2, lines 11-15), and wherein the at least one vibration sensor is configured to detect bending vibrations between the measuring tubes (column 1, lines 20-24 and column 2, lines 11-15).
As to claim 22, Nortz et al. teaches a method for a portion-wise polishing of a measuring tube arrangement, comprising:
polishing the ends of a measuring tube arrangement (column 2, lines 44-51)
wherein the measuring tube arrangement (figures 2 and 3) includes two support bodies (27, 29), each with at least one bore (35, 37, 43, 45 in figures 3-5); and at least one measuring tube (31, 33) with a lumen for guiding a medium (figures 2-5), wherein end portions of the at least one measuring tube (31, 32) are each connected to one of the support bodies (figures 2-3), wherein at least one end portion of the measuring tube (31, 32) is polished (column 4, lines 60-65).
Nortz et al. does not explicitly teach the polishing is portion-wise plasma polishing where the polishing comprises positioning a cathode and an electrolyte supply line with respect to the measuring tube arrangement, wherein the cathode has a tip which is spaced no more than four inner diameters of a measuring tube of the measuring tube arrangement from an end face of the measuring tube arrangement;
allowing an electrolyte to flow through the measuring tube arrangement; and
applying an electrical voltage between the cathode and the measuring tube arrangement which is sufficient to maintain a plasma in a portion of the measuring tube arrangement that extends from an end face of the measuring tube arrangement over a length of not less than four inner diameters of the measuring tube into the measuring tube arrangement.
Menzel et al. teaches polishing is portion-wise plasma polishing (column 1, lines 6-10) where the polishing comprises positioning a cathode (26) and an electrolyte supply line (14) with respect to the measuring tube arrangement (figure 1 and column 3, lines 40-44), wherein the cathode has a tip which is spaced no more than four inner diameters of a measuring tube of the measuring tube arrangement from an end face of the measuring tube arrangement (figure 1, where in combination it is considered that the head is placed at the weld of Nortz et al. as suggested by Nortz et al. in column 4, lines 60-65);
allowing an electrolyte to flow through the measuring tube arrangement (column 3, lines 40-44); and
applying an electrical voltage between the cathode and the measuring tube arrangement which is sufficient to maintain a plasma in a portion of the measuring tube arrangement that extends from an end face of the measuring tube arrangement over a length of not less than four inner diameters of the measuring tube into the measuring tube arrangement (column 3, lines 45-66; it is considered that the arrangement taught by Menzel et al. when applied to the ends of the tubes (31, 33 of Nortz et al.) would result in a polished region which, in a region in which a flow cross section has not more than a cross section of the at least one tube, extends over at least three diameters of the at least one tube, and wherein the portion polished by forced plasma polishing is followed by an etched portion that has a different surface structure from the portion polished by forced plasma polishing, based on the position of the polishing head relative to the joint in the pipe as a result of the polishing of the ends as explained in the instant application at page 7, line 22-page 8, line 12).
It is considered that one skilled in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to modify Nortz et al. to have the polishing is portion-wise plasma polishing where the polishing comprises positioning a cathode and an electrolyte supply line with respect to the measuring tube arrangement, wherein the cathode has a tip which is spaced no more than four inner diameters of a measuring tube of the measuring tube arrangement from an end face of the measuring tube arrangement; allowing an electrolyte to flow through the measuring tube arrangement; and applying an electrical voltage between the cathode and the measuring tube arrangement which is sufficient to maintain a plasma in a portion of the measuring tube arrangement that extends from an end face of the measuring tube arrangement over a length of not less than four inner diameters of the measuring tube into the measuring tube arrangement as taught by Menzel et al. because it is a well known method for polishing pipes with the benefit of improved polishing quality and low metal content (column 2, lines 15-22 and lines 55-63) with predictable results.
Claims 16 and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nortz et al. (5,095,761) and Menzel et al. (4,772,367) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Rumrich (DE 202008011646 U1).
As to claim 16, Nortz et al. as modified teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as noted above for claim 15, except explicitly teaching wherein the portion polished by forced plasma polishing has a surface roughness Ra which is not more than Ra = 0.4 µm.
Rumrich teaches wherein the portion polished by forced plasma polishing has a surface roughness Ra which is not more than Ra = 0.4 µm (paragraph [0074]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nortz et al. as modified to have wherein the portion polished by forced plasma polishing has a surface roughness Ra which is not more than Ra = 0.4 µm as suggested by Rumrich because it is a well known surface roughness achievable by plasma polishing (paragraph [0074]) with predictable results.
As to claim 24, Nortz et al. as modified teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as noted above for claim 22, except wherein the applied voltage is not less than 250 V, and/or wherein the applied voltage is not more than 500 V.
Rumrich teaches wherein the applied voltage is not less than 250 V, and/or wherein the applied voltage is not more than 500 V (paragraph [0075]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nortz et al. to have wherein the applied voltage is not less than 250 V, and/or wherein the applied voltage is not more than 500 V as taught by Rumrich because it is a well known operation range of plasma polishing (paragraph [0075]) with predictable results.
As to claim 25, Nortz et al. as modified teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as noted above for claim 22, except explicitly wherein the electrolyte flows through the measuring tube at a temperature of not less than 70°C.
Rumrich teaches wherein the electrolyte flows through the measuring tube at a temperature of not less than 70°C (paragraph [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nortz et al. as modified to have wherein the electrolyte flows through the measuring tube at a temperature of not less than 70°C as taught by Rumrich because it is a well known operating temperature range for plasma polishing (paragraph [0073]) with predictable results.
As to claim 26, Nortz et al. as modified teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as noted above for claim 22, except wherein the plasma is maintained, when electrolyte is flowing, for a time period of not less than 2 minutes; and/or wherein the plasma is maintained, when electrolyte is flowing, for a time period of not more than 10 minutes.
Rumrich teaches wherein the plasma is maintained, when electrolyte is flowing, for a time period of not less than 2 minutes; and/or wherein the plasma is maintained, when electrolyte is flowing, for a time period of not more than 10 minutes (paragraph [0075] teaches processing for 2 minutes).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nortz et al. to have wherein the plasma is maintained, when electrolyte is flowing, for a time period of not less than 2 minutes; and/or wherein the plasma is maintained, when electrolyte is flowing, for a time period of not more than 10 minutes as taught by Rumrich because it is a well known processing time range for plasma polishing (paragraph [0075]) with predictable results.
As to claim 27, Nortz et al. as modified teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention, as noted above for claim 22, except explicitly teaching wherein the electrolyte includes ammonium sulfate.
Rumrich teaches wherein the electrolyte includes ammonium sulfate (paragraph [0075]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nortz et al. as modified to have wherein the electrolyte includes ammonium sulfate as taught by Rumrich because it is a well known electrolyte solution for plasma polishing (paragraph [0075]) with predictable results.
As to claim 28, Nortz et al. as modified teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention, as noted above for claim 22, except explicitly teaching wherein the electrolyte has a conductivity of not more than 500 S/cm.
Rumrich teaches the electrolyte is water with ammonium salts dissolved therein to a particular concentration leading to physical properties of the solution such that it is appropriate for carrying out the plasma polishing (paragraph [0075]) and it is considered that one skilled in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to optimize the concentration of the electrolyte in order to produce a solution with the desired polishing properties, such as wherein the electrolyte has a conductivity of not more than 500 S/cm.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nortz et al. to have wherein the electrolyte has a conductivity of not more than 500 S/cm as suggested by Rumrich because it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the concentration of the electrolyte to determine the optimal characteristics for plasma polishing with predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Palumbo et al. (US PGPub 2021/0292930 A1) and Lin et al. (US PGPub 2003/0098245 A1) teach systems with similarities to the disclosed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER E S BAHLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-3:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JENNIFER BAHLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
