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 .
Status of the Claims
The Amendment filed September 22, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 7-9, 11, 15, and 19-20 have been amended; and claims 2-3 and 6 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 4-5, and 7-20 are currently pending and examined herein.
Status of the Rejection
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed July 1, 2026.
New grounds of claim objection are necessitated by the amendment as outlined below.
The claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is maintained.
All 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are necessitated by the amendments as outlined below.
Claim Objection
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16: please amend “wherein the working electrode comprising an inert, electrically-conductive material electrode and” to – wherein the working electrode--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 1 and 20, “an interface for outputting the potential difference”, is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) . Prong 1: an interface (uses the generic placeholder), prong 2: for outputting the potential difference (functional language), prong 3: sufficient structure for performing the function not recited. Therefore, claim 1 invokes 112(f). The corresponding structure for performing the functions is described in the specification (paragraph [0051] in PGPub) such as an interface 15, e.g., a wired bus or a wireless communications network interface.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-9, 12-14, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glauser ( US20070227248A1), and further in view of Dames et al. (US20180216978A1).
Regarding claim 1, Glauser teaches apparatus (a flow meter 10 as shown in Fig.1 [para. 0067]); and the limitation “for measuring oxidation-reduction potential of a fluid” is an intended use limitation [see MPEP 2111.02]. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, Glauser teaches the apparatus comprising a quasi-reference electrode, a working electrode and a circuit configured to measure a potential difference between the quasi-reference electrode and the working electrode, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 below. Thus, the disclosed apparatus is configured for measuring oxidation-reduction potential of a fluid by measuring a potential difference between the quasi-reference electrode and the working electrode. The apparatus comprising:
a measurement section (Fig.1 shows a measurement section located in the middle of the flow tube 20 wherein the electrodes 40a and 40b are disposed on opposite sides of the flow tube 20 [para. 0067-0071]), comprising:
a flow tube having a flow passage (flow tube 20 having a flow passage as shown in Fig.1);
a quasi-reference electrode (electrode 40a in Fig.1 [para. 0067]) in fluid communication with the flow passage (see Fig.1), wherein the quasi-reference electrode comprises a coated metal electrode consisting of a metal having a surface that at least part is coated with a layer of an insoluble salt of the metal, wherein the metal is silver and the insoluble salt is silver chloride (Electrodes fabricated from silver and silver chloride [para. 0005]; The electrode 40 as shown in Figs.3-5 comprises a metal shell 300, for example fabricated from silver, corresponding metal halide elements 310, 320, for example comprising silver chloride [para. 0078]. Thus the quasi-reference electrode comprising a coated metal electrode [silver/silver chloride electrode] consisting of a metal [silver] having a surface [silver surface] that at least part is coated with a layer of an insoluble salt of the metal [silver chloride], wherein the metal is silver and the insoluble salt is silver chloride);
a working electrode (electrode 40b in Fig.1 [para. 0067]) in fluid communication with the flow passage (see Fig.1), wherein the working electrode comprises an inert electrically-conductive material electrode at least partially disposed within a passage having a passage end that is proximate to the flow passage (the electrode comprises a porous element 330 fabricated from an at least partially electrically conductive porous material, which can include graphite or electrically conductive ceramic material [para. 0078]; Fig.3 shows the porous element 330 at least partially disposed within a passage having a passage end that is proximate to the flow passage of the fluid 120 [para. 0078]), wherein the inert electrically-conductive material comprises carbon (the electrode comprises a porous element 330 fabricated from an at least partially electrically conductive porous material, which can include graphite [para. 0078]; graphite is carbon);
a circuit (signal processing unit 90 [para. 0068]); “configured to measure a potential difference between the quasi-reference electrode and the working electrode so as to determine the oxidation-reduction potential of the fluid” is a functional recitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the disclosed circuit is configured to measure a potential difference between the quasi-reference electrode and the working electrode (differential measurement of the voltage V performed in the signal processing unit 90 [para. 0092]; Fig. 1 shows the voltage V between the quasi-reference electrode 40a and the working electrode 40b). Thus, the disclosed circuit is configured to perform the claimed function above.
Glauser is silent to an interface for outputting the potential difference.
Dames teaches an electromagnetic flow meter as shown in Fig.1 comprising a drive electronics module 29 configured to measure a voltage between two electrodes in fluid communication with a flow passage in a flow tube 7 and a display 30 (claims 45, 47; [para. 0086]; Figs. 1 and 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus in Glauser by providing a display, as taught by Dames, since it would allow to display the measurement results. The added display is configured to output the potential difference.
Regarding claim 4, modified Glauser teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and Glauser teaches wherein the quasi-reference electrode further comprises:
a porous element (the electrode comprises a porous element 330 fabricated from an at least partially electrically conductive porous material, which can include graphite or electrically conductive ceramic material [para. 0078]),
wherein the porous element is interposed between the coated metal electrode and the flow tube so as to provide a fluid path between the flow tube and the coated metal electrode (The electrode 40 comprises a metal shell 300, for example fabricated from silver, corresponding metal halide elements 310, 320, for example comprising silver chloride, and a porous element 330 fabricated from an at least partially electrically conductive porous material [para. 0078]; Fig.3 shows the porous element 330 is interposed between the coated metal electrode and the flow tube containing the fluid 120 so as to provide a fluid path between the flow tube and the coated metal electrode).
Regarding claim 5, modified Glauser teaches the apparatus of claim 4, and Glauser teaches wherein the porous element is a ceramic or graphite (the porous element 330 fabricated from an at least partially electrically conductive porous material, which can include graphite or electrically conductive ceramic material [para. 0078]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Glauser teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and Glauser teaches wherein the inert electrically-conductive material electrode comprises graphite (the porous element 330 in Fig.3 may include graphite [para. 0078]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Glauser teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and Glauser teaches wherein the inert electrically-conductive material electrode is porous (porous element 330 [para. 0078]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Glauser teaches the apparatus of claim 8, and Glauser teaches further comprising:
an electrically-conductive connector (wire 340 in Fig.3 [para.0079]) in direct contact with the inert electrically-conductive material electrode (see Fig.3), wherein the inert electrically-conductive material electrode is interposed between the electrically-conductive connector and the flow passage (Figs. 1 and 3 show the inert electrically-conductive material electrode is interposed between the electrically-conductive connector 340 and the flow passage of the fluid 120).
Regarding claim 12, modified Glauser teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and Glauser teaches wherein the flow tube includes a first aperture and a second aperture wherein the quasi-reference electrode and the working electrode are respectively disposed in the first aperture and in the second aperture (Fig.1 shows the electrodes 40a and 40b are respectively disposed in a first aperture and in a second aperture of the flow tube 20).
Regarding claim 13, modified Glauser teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and Glauser teaches wherein the circuit is provided by a processing unit of a water meter (signal processing unit 90 [para. 0068]; the transducer 10 in FIG. 1 provided with metal/metal halide electrodes including electrically conducting porous elements according to the present invention is capable of operating as a fluid flow sensor, for example a water flow sensor. When such a water flow sensor is provided with the signal processing unit 90 with a function to temporally integrate measured flow rate, the water flow sensor provided with such functionality is capable of performing as a solid-state water meter [para. 0100]; thus the circuit is provided a processing unit 90 of a water meter).
Regarding claim 14, modified Glauser teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and Glauser teaches configured as an electromagnetic flow type water meter (the transducer 10 in FIG. 1 provided with metal/metal halide electrodes including electrically conducting porous elements according to the present invention is capable of operating as a fluid flow sensor, for example a water flow sensor [para. 0100]; The sensor (10) comprises a magnetic circuit (50, 60 a , 60 b) for applying a magnetic field (70) to the region, and electrodes (40a, 40b) for sensing a potential (V) generated in operation between the electrodes (40a, 40b) in response to the fluid (120) flowing through the magnetic field (70) [abstract]. Thus, the apparatus is configured as an electromagnetic flow-type water meter).
Regarding claim 18, modified Glauser teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and Glauser teaches wherein the working electrode and the quasi-reference electrode are disposed on opposite sides of the flow tube (as shown in Fig.1, the working electrode and the quasi-reference electrode 40a/40b are disposed on opposite sides of the flow tube 20).
Regarding claim 19, modified Glauser teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and “wherein the fluid is a liquid, and the liquid is water” further limits the sample but fail to further limit the apparatus. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." See MPEP 2115. Since the claim further limits the liquid sample (material worked upon) but fails to limit the apparats (by a structure being claimed), the limitations of the claim have no patentable weight.
Examiner further notices that Glauser does teach wherein the fluid is water (, the sensor is adapted to operate as a water flow meter wherein the aforesaid fluid is water [para. 0026]).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glauser and Dames, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Sotzing et al. (US20180014780A1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Glauser teaches the apparatus of claim 9, and is silent to wherein the electrically-conductive connector comprises, or is formed of, an electrically-conductive polymer.
Sotzing teaches a wiring element in electrical communication with the electrode [para. 0009]; wherein the wiring element is a metal wire (e.g. copper, silver, etc.), or a conductive polymer coated fabric (claim 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the material of the wire element 340 in Glauser with a conductive polymer coated fabric, as taught by Sotzing, since Sotzing teaches a conductive polymer coated fabric is a suitable material for the wiring element connecting an electrode [para. 0009 and claim 11]. Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art [MPEP § 2144.07].
Regarding claim 11, modified Glauser teaches the apparatus of claim 10, and Glauser teaches wherein the electrically-conductive connector is configured to provide a fluid-tight seal in the flow passage (the shell 300 is optionally electrically connected at its rear surface to a wire 340 molded or bonded into the wall 200 of the tube 20 to provide a fluid-tight seal [para. 0079]; thus the electrically-conductive connector is configured to provide a fluid-tight seal in the flow passage).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glauser and Dames, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Knill et al. (US20070022823A1).
Regarding claim 15, modified Glauser teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and Glauser is silent to further comprising: a further electrode in fluid communication with the flow passage, wherein the working electrode and the further electrode are spaced apart for electromagnetic flow sensing.
Dames teaches the first and second electrodes are arranged to sense a voltage in response to a conductive fluid (such as water) flowing through the passage [para. 0007], and further teaches each PCB 44 has electrodes 60, 61, and 62 spaced apart as shown in Fig.4. Multiple electrodes can be used, for example, to improve the flow measurement performance, to act as reference or bias electrodes and/or to detect when the sensor is full of water or not [para. 0091-0093; Fig.4].
Knill also teaches a magnetic transducer for measuring the flow of a fluid, wherein the transducer comprises two measuring electrodes 601 and 602, and a further electrode (a third electrode 604) in fluid communication with the flow passage of the fluid 603 in a flow tube. Electrode 604 need not be made of the same material as 601 and 602 (e.g. graphite or steel would suffice). At intervals determined by control electronics 605, a substantial potential is applied between electrode 604, and the measuring electrodes 601 and 602. For the silver chloride system described above, the measuring electrodes 601 and 602 would both be held at a positive potential with respect to electrode 604 (see Fig.6 and [para. 0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of modified Glauser by adding a further electrode in fluid communication with the flow passage, wherein the further electrode is spaced apart from the working electrode, as taught by both Dames and Knill, since multiple electrodes can be used to improve the flow measurement performance, to act as reference or bias electrodes [para. 0093 in Dames] and the added further electrode would act as a reference (the measuring electrodes 601
and 602 would both be held at a positive potential with respect to electrode 604 [para. 0036 in Knill]).
The limitation “for electromagnetic flow sensing” is an intended use limitation [see MPEP 2111.02]. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, modified Glauser teaches the further electrode spaced apart from the working electrode, and the disclosed multiple electrodes can be used to improve the electromagnetic flow measurement performance [para. 0093 in Dames], thus the disclosed electrodes are configured for performing the intended use.
Regarding claim 16, modified Glauser teaches the apparatus of claim 15, and Glauser teaches wherein the working electrode comprising an inert electrically-conductive material electrode (as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, the electrode 40 comprises a metal shell 300, for example fabricated from silver, corresponding metal halide elements 310, 320, for example comprising silver chloride, and a porous element 330 fabricated from an at least partially electrically conductive porous material; the porous material can include graphite [para. 0078]; graphite is an inert electrically-conductive material electrode [see instant claim 7]).
Glauser is silent to the further electrode comprising an inert electrically-conductive material electrode, and the working electrode and the further electrode are disposed on opposite sides of the flow tube.
Knill further teaches electrode 604 need not be made of the same material as 601 and 602 (e.g. graphite or steel would suffice) [para. 0036]. Thus, Knill teaches wherein the further electrode 640 comprising an inert electrically-conductive material electrode made of graphite.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the further electrode comprising an inert electrically-conductive material electrode, as taught by Knill, since Knill teaches graphite would be suffice for the further electrode [para. 0036].
Given the teachings of Glauser regarding wherein the working electrode and the quasi-reference electrode 40a and 40b are disposed on opposite sides of the flow tube (see Fig.1), and the further electrode acting as a reference electrode (see rejection of claim 15 above), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the further electrode disposed in a 3rd aperture of the fluid tube wherein the further electrode is in fluid communication of the flow passage in the same way as the other two electrodes, and further rearrange the positions of the quasi-reference electrode and the further electrode by having the working electrode and the further electrode disposed on opposite sides of the flow tube. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) [see MPEP 2144.04 (VI)].
Regarding claim 17, modified Glauser teaches the apparatus of claim 15, wherein the quasi-reference electrode is a first quasi-reference electrode (as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, the quasi-reference electrode can serve as a first quasi-reference electrode) and the further electrode is a second quasi-reference electrode (as outlined in the rejection of claim 15 above, the further electrode serves as a reference electrode, thus can serve as a second quasi-reference electrode).
Glauser is silent to wherein the further electrode consisting of a metal electrode having a surface which at least part of which is coated with a layer of an insoluble salt of the metal, wherein the first and second quasi-reference electrodes are disposed on opposite sides of the flow tube.
Dames teaches all electrodes 60, 61, 62 are preferably anodised silver/silver chloride (Ag/AgCl) half-cell electrodes. The electrodes 60, 61, 62 may be protected by an ion-permeable coating, such as graphite. Multiple electrodes can be used, for example, to improve the flow measurement performance, to act as reference or bias electrodes [para. 0092-0093]. Thus, Dames teaches all electrodes are made of the same material, and each electrode comprises a coated metal electrode (silver/silver chloride electrode) consisting of a metal electrode (silver) having a surface (silver surface) which at least part of which is coated with a layer of an insoluble salt of the metal (silver chloride).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the further electrode to comprise a coated metal electrode (silver/silver chloride electrode) consisting of a metal electrode having a surface (silver surface) which at least part of which is coated with a layer of an insoluble salt of the metal (silver chloride), as taught by Dames, since Dames teaches the electrode comprising a coated metal electrode (silver/silver chloride electrode) consisting of a metal electrode having a surface (silver surface) which at least part of which is coated with a layer of an insoluble salt of the metal (silver chloride) would be suitable to act as reference or bias electrode to improve the flow measurement performance [para. 0093].
Since Glauser teaches the electrodes 40a and 40b disposed on wall of the flow tube 20 as shown in Fig.1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the further electrode serving as the second reference electrode disposed on the wall of the fluid tube in the same way as the other two electrodes, and further rearrange the positions of the working electrode, the first quasi-reference electrode and the second quasi-reference electrode by having the first and second quasi-reference electrodes disposed on opposite sides of the flow tube. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) [see MPEP 2144.04 (VI)].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glauser ( US20070227248A1), and further in view of Dames et al. (US20180216978A1) and Batey (US5708212A) .
Regarding claim 20, Glauser teaches a water meter (a flow meter 10 as shown in Fig.1 [para. 0067]; the sensor is adapted to operate as a water flow meter [para. 0026]) comprising:
apparatus (a flow meter 10 as shown in Fig.1 [para. 0067]), and the limitation “for measuring oxidation-reduction potential of a fluid” is an intended use limitation [see MPEP 2111.02]. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, Glauser teaches the apparatus comprising a quasi-reference electrode, a working electrode and a circuit configured to measure a potential difference between the quasi-reference electrode and the working electrode, as outlined in the rejection of claim 20 below. Thus, the disclosed apparatus is configured for measuring oxidation-reduction potential of a fluid by measuring a potential difference between the quasi-reference electrode and the working electrode. The apparatus comprising:
a measurement section (Fig.1 shows a measurement section located in the middle of the flow tube 20 wherein the electrodes 40a and 40b are disposed on opposite sides of the flow tube 20 [para. 0067-0071]), comprising:
a flow tube having a flow passage (flow tube 20 having a flow passage as shown in Fig.1);
a quasi-reference electrode (electrode 40a in Fig.1 [para. 0067]) in fluid communication with the flow passage (see Fig.1), wherein the quasi-reference electrode comprises a coated metal electrode consisting of a metal having a surface that at least part is coated with a layer of an insoluble salt of the metal, wherein the metal is silver and the insoluble salt is silver chloride (Electrodes fabricated from silver and silver chloride [para. 0005]; The electrode 40 as shown in Figs.3-5 comprises a metal shell 300, for example fabricated from silver, corresponding metal halide elements 310, 320, for example comprising silver chloride [para. 0078]. Thus the quasi-reference electrode comprising a coated metal electrode [silver/silver chloride electrode] consisting of a metal [silver] having a surface [silver surface] that at least part is coated with a layer of an insoluble salt of the metal [silver chloride], wherein the metal is silver and the insoluble salt is silver chloride);
a working electrode (electrode 40b in Fig.1 [para. 0067]) in fluid communication with the flow passage (see Fig.1), wherein the working electrode comprises an inert electrically-conductive material electrode at least partially disposed within a passage having a passage end that is proximate to the flow passage (the electrode comprises a porous element 330 fabricated from an at least partially electrically conductive porous material, which can include graphite or electrically conductive ceramic material [para. 0078]; Fig.3 shows the porous element 330 at least partially disposed within a passage having a passage end that is proximate to the flow passage of the fluid 120 [para. 0078]), wherein the inert electrically-conductive material comprises carbon (the electrode comprises a porous element 330 fabricated from an at least partially electrically conductive porous material, which can include graphite [para. 0078]; graphite is carbon);
a circuit (signal processing unit 90 [para. 0068]); “configured to measure a potential difference between the quasi-reference electrode and the working electrode so as to determine the oxidation-reduction potential of the fluid” is a functional recitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the disclosed circuit is configured to measure a potential difference between the quasi-reference electrode and the working electrode (differential measurement of the voltage V performed in the signal processing unit 90 [para. 0092]; Fig. 1 shows the voltage V between the quasi-reference electrode 40a and the working electrode 40b). Thus, the disclosed circuit is configured to perform the claimed function above.
Glauser is silent to wherein the apparatus for measuring oxidation-reduction potential further comprises an interface for outputting the potential difference.
Dames teaches an electromagnetic flow meter as shown in Fig.1 comprising a drive electronics module 29 configured to measure a voltage between two electrodes in fluid communication with a flow passage in a flow tube 7 and a display 30 (claims 45, 47; [para. 0086]; Figs. 1 and 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus in Glauser by providing a display, as taught by Dames, since it would allow to display the measurement results. The added display is configured to output the potential difference.
As outlined in the rejection above, modified Glauser teaches the apparatus which is configured for measuring oxidation-reduction potential (ORP). Glauser further teaches wherein the disclosed sensor is adapted to operate as a water flow meter [para. 0026 ], and the flow sensor (10) for sensing a flow of a fluid (120) through a region, the sensor (10) comprising a magnetic circuit (30) for applying a magnetic field (70) to at least a part of the region, and a configuration of electrodes (40 a, 40 b) for sensing a potential generated in operation between the electrodes (40 a, 40 b) in response to the fluid (120) flowing through the magnetic field (120) (abstract). Thus, the disclosed apparatus in modified Glauser is an apparatus adapted for measuring ORP as well as an electromagnetic flow type water meter for measuring the fluid flow through the flow tube.
Modified Glauser is silent to wherein the water meter comprises both the apparatus for measuring ORP and the apparatus for measuring fluid flow through the flow tube.
Batey teaches an electromagnetic flow sensor for measuring the fluid flow through a flow tube (abstract; claim 1 and Fig.1), which further comprises at least one additional sensor extending into the interior of said conduit, and wherein said at least one additional sensor comprises one of a pH sensor, a salinity sensor, an oxidation reduction potential sensor, a dissolved oxygen sensor, and a turbidity sensor (claim 17). An additional sensor 28 may also extend through an opening in the wall of the conduit 25, such as for measuring or sensing one of a number of other parameters or characteristics related to the liquid within the conduit. For example, the additional sensor 28 may be one of a pH sensor, a salinity sensor, an oxidation reduction potential sensor, a dissolved oxygen sensor, and a turbidity sensor (Col. 8 Ln 10-16). Thus, Batey teaches a water meter comprising apparatus for measuring fluid flow through the flow tube (claim 1) and an additional apparatus for measuring ORP of the fluid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the water meter in Modified Glauser by adding another apparatus for measuring fluid flow through the flow tube, wherein the apparatus for measuring the fluid flow through the flow tube is an electromagnetic flow type water meter, as taught by Batey. Doing so, the modified water meter would allow to measure both the flow rate and ORP of the liquid (Col. 8 Ln 10-16 and claim 17 in Batey).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks Pgs. 7-17, filed 9/22/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been fully considered, and all 102 and 103 rejections from the previous office action have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Applicant’s Argument #1:
Regarding claim interpretation, Applicant argues at pages 9-10 that interface is a known structure element, and does not invoke 112(f).
Examiner’s Response #1:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive since interface is a generic placeholder and could be anything.
Applicant’s Argument #2:
Regarding 102 rejection for claim 1, Applicant argues at pages 11-12 that the electrodes of Dames comprise the same material, namely silver/silver chloride. In amended claim 1, the electrodes comprise different materials.
Examiner’s Response #2:
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (the electrodes comprises different materials) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Note that the amended claim 1 does not recite that the materials for the working electrode and the quasi-reference electrode are different. Claim 1 recites wherein the quasi-reference electrode “comprises” and the working electrode “comprises”, wherein the “comprises” transitional phrase is open ended and thus allows for additional elements to be present outside of those expressly claimed.
Applicant’s Argument #3:
Regarding the 103 rejections, applicant argues at pages 12-15 that the electrodes of Glauser comprise the same material, Ag/AgCl. Glauser clearly teaches using a Ag/AgCl for one electrode and a metal such as palladium, platinum or gold for another electrode would be potentially detrimental to operation. Therefore, Glauser teaches away from using a Ag/AgCl electrode in combination with an electrode made of one or more of palladium, platinum or gold. Thus, one would not modify the apparatus of Glauser by using one electrode comprising Ag/AgCl and another electrode comprising a noble metal. One would not modify one electrode by using a different material, namely an inert electrically-conductive material comprising a noble metal or carbon based on the teachings of Dames.
Examiner’s Response #3:
As explained in the Examiner’s Response #2 above, the amended claim 1 does not recite that the materials for the working electrode and the quasi-reference electrode are different. Claim 1 recites wherein the quasi-reference electrode “comprises” and the working electrode “comprises”, wherein the “comprises” transitional phrase is open ended and thus allows for additional elements to be present outside of those expressly claimed. Claim 1 does not recite that the quasi-reference electrode is an Ag/AgCl electrode while the working electrode is made of a noble metal or carbon.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIZHI QIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3487. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Luan V Van can be reached on 571-272-8521. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SHIZHI QIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
