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 statement (IDS) submitted on 10/11/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objection
Claims 6-9, 11, 15-16 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 6-9 and 16: please amend “inert, electrically-conductive material electrode” to – inert[[,]] electrically-conductive material electrode--.
Claim 9: please amend “the electrically-conductive material electrode” to -- the inert electrically-conductive material electrode--.
Claim 11: please amend “the passage” to -- the flow passage--.
Claim 15: please amend “the working electrode and further electrode” to -- the working electrode and the further electrode--.
Claim 20: please amend “wherein the apparatus for measuring fluid flow” to -- wherein the apparatus for measuring the fluid flow--.
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.
Claim 1, “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 § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 claim 1, claim 1 recites “the potential difference between the quasi-reference electrode and the working electrode” wherein “the potential difference” lacks antecedent basis. Furthermore, “the metal” lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, the scope of claim 1 is indefinite. Claims 2-20 are further rejected by virtue of their dependence upon and because they fail to cure the deficiencies of indefinite claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites “wherein the inert, electrically-conductive material comprises a noble metal, optionally platinum or gold, carbon, optionally graphite”, and it is unclear if the inert, electrically-conductive material comprises either “a noble metal, optionally platinum or gold” or “carbon, optionally graphite” or the inert, electrically-conductive material comprises both “a noble metal, optionally platinum or gold” and “carbon, optionally graphite”. Thus, the scope of claim 7 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites “the fluid” lacks antecedent basis. Thus, the scope of claim 19 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites “the apparatus of claim 1; and apparatus for measuring fluid flow through the flow tube, optionally wherein the apparatus for measuring fluid flow through the flow tube is an electromagnetic flow type water meter”, and it is unclear if “the apparatus of claim 1” is the same as or different than “the apparatus for measuring fluid flow through the flow tube”. Thus, the scope of claim 20 is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 13-14, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dames et al. ( US20180216978A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dames teaches apparatus (an electromagnetic flow meter 1 as shown in Fig.1 [para. 0078]), comprising:
a measurement section (Fig.1 shows a measurement section located in the middle of the tubular fluid housing 6 where the flow meter sub-assembly 2 is inserted [para. 0080]), comprising:
a flow tube having a flow passage (tubular fluid housing 6 comprises a pipe wall 82 which runs between first and second open ends 83, 84 and provides a tubular space 85 [para. 0101]; the inner wall surface 94 provides a flow passage 96 [para. 0105; Fig.2d ]);
a quasi-reference electrode (Each PCB 44 supports first, second and third rectangular electrodes 60, 61, 62 on a lower portion of its inward face 46. The second electrode 61 is interposed between the first and third electrodes 60, 62 and provides a ground electrode. The electrodes 60, 61, 62 are preferably anodised silver/silver chloride [Ag/AgCl] half-cell electrodes . 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]; one of the three electrodes such as the lower electrode 60 on left PCB 44 in Fig. 5 is deemed as the quasi-reference electrode) in fluid communication with the flow passage (the flow measuring element 5 is removably insertable into the generally tubular fluid housing 6 having an inner conditioning tube 7. The fluid may be water or other form of conductive fluid [para. 0080; Fig.1]; Fig.4 shows the three electrodes 60, 61, and 62 located on one PCB 44 of the measuring element 5; and Figs.5-6 show the measuring element 5 inserted into the flow passage. Thus, all electrodes on both PCBs are in fluid communication with the flow passage);
a working electrode (the silver/silver chloride electrode located on the other PCB 44 facing the corresponding quasi-reference electrode is deemed as the working electrode [para. 0091-0093; Figs. 4-5]; wherein the first and second electrodes are spaced apart along a third direction [the direction perpendicular to the two PCBs 44] which is perpendicular to the first direction [the vertical direction of the body or frame extending between the lower end 50 and upper end 51 in Fig.1] and the second direction [the direction of the flow passage] [para. 0014; claims 1, 9-10]; for example the lower electrode 60 located on the right PCB 44 in Fig.5 facing the lower electrode 60 located on the left PCB 44 is deemed as the working electrode) in fluid communication with the flow passage (as explained above, all electrodes on both PCBs of the measuring element are in fluid communication with the flow passage since the measuring element is inserted into the flow passage as shown in Figs. 1 and 5-6);
a circuit (drive electronics module 29 includes a register printed circuit board 31 which supports drive electronics components and a AA battery 33 which is held in place by [para. 0086]) configured to measure the potential difference between the quasi-reference electrode and the working electrode (the at least first and second electrodes arranged to sense a voltage in response to an conductive fluid flowing through the passage [claim 1; para. 0007]; an electronics module operationally connected to the flow sensor so as to process signals from the flow sensor [para. 0031]; thus, the electronics module is configured to measure a potential difference [voltage] between the quasi-reference electrode and the working electrode); and
an interface (display 30 [para. 0086]) for outputting the potential difference (the display 30 is configured for performing the claimed function of outputting the potential difference);
wherein the quasi-reference electrode comprises:
a coated metal electrode consisting of a metal electrode having a surface that at least part is coated with a layer of an insoluble salt of the metal (The electrodes 60, 61, 62 on each PCB are preferably anodised silver/silver chloride (Ag/AgCl) half-cell electrodes formed on the inwardly-facing surface 46 of the circuit board 44 using standard plating and etching processes [para. 0092]; the electrodes may be electrochemical half cells, such as Ag/AgCI formed by anodising a silver surface [para. 0043]; thus the quasi-reference electrode comprising a coated metal electrode [silver/silver chloride electrode] consisting of a metal electrode [silver] having a surface [silver surface] that at least part is coated with a layer of an insoluble salt of the metal [silver chloride]).
Regarding claim 2, Dames teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the metal is silver (as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, the metal is silver; The electrodes 60, 61, 62 are preferably anodised silver/silver chloride (Ag/AgCl) half-cell electrodes [para. 0092]; the electrodes may be electrochemical half cells, such as Ag/AgCI formed by anodising a silver surface [para. 0043]).
Regarding claim 3, Dames teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the insoluble salt is silver chloride (as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, the insoluble salt is silver chloride; The electrodes 60, 61, 62 are preferably anodised silver/silver chloride (Ag/AgCl) half-cell electrodes [para. 0092]; the electrodes may be electrochemical half cells, such as Ag/AgCI formed by anodising a silver surface [para. 0043]).
Regarding claim 4, Dames teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the quasi-reference electrode further comprises:
a porous element (the electrodes 60, 61, 62 may be protected by an ion-permeable coating, such other porous materials, which may be conductive, such as graphite, or insulating such as ceramic [para. 0092]),
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 (since the silver/silver chloride electrodes are protected by an ion-permeable coating of the porous material, and the electrodes are in fluid communication of the flow passage [see claim 1], the porous element is interposed between the coated metal electrode [silver/silver chloride] and the flow tube so as to provide a fluid path between the flow tube and the coated metal electrode).
Regarding claim 5, Dames teaches the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the porous element is a ceramic or graphite (as outlined in the rejection of claim 4 above, the porous element is a ceramic or graphite [para. 0092]).
Regarding claim 13, Dames teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the circuit is provided by a processing unit of a water meter (an electronics module operationally connected to the electromagnetic flow sensor so as to process signals from the electromagnetic flow sensor [claim 45]; the meter may be a whole-flow flow meter; a new way of making a range of sizes of water meter can be provided [para. 0036, 0038]; thus the electronics module is provided by a processing unit of a water meter).
Regarding claim 14, Dames teaches the apparatus of claim 1, configured as an electromagnetic flow type water meter (An electromagnetic flow sensor for an electromagnetic flow meter [claim 1]; the meter may be a whole-flow flow meter; a new way of making a range of sizes of water meter can be provided [para. 0036, 0038]; thus the apparatus is configured as an electromagnetic flow type water meter).
Regarding claim 19, Dames teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and “wherein the fluid is a liquid, and optionally, 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 Dames does teach wherein the fluid is water (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]; water meter [para. 0038]).
Regarding claim 20, Dames teaches a water meter (water meter [para. 0038]; An electromagnetic flow meter [claim 49]) comprising:
the apparatus of claim 1 (Dames teaches the apparatus of claim 1, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above); and
apparatus for measuring fluid flow through the flow tube (Fig.1 shows the apparatus for measuring fluid flow through the flow tube) , optionally wherein the apparatus for measuring fluid flow through the flow tube is an electromagnetic flow type water meter (electromagnetic flow meter [claim 49]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 6-9, 12 and 18 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]), 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);
a working electrode (electrode 40b in Fig.1 [para. 0067]) in fluid communication with the flow passage (see Fig.1);
a circuit (signal processing unit 90 [para. 0068]) configured to measure the 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);
wherein the quasi-reference electrode comprises:
a coated metal electrode consisting of a metal electrode having a surface that at least part is coated with a layer of an insoluble salt of the metal (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 electrode [silver] having a surface [silver surface] that at least part is coated with a layer of an insoluble salt of the metal [silver chloride]).
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 flow meter 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 6, modified Glauser teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and Glauser teaches 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]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Glauser teaches the apparatus of claim 6, and Glauser teaches wherein the inert, electrically-conductive material comprises carbon, optionally graphite (the porous element 330 in Fig.3 may include graphite [para. 0078]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Glauser teaches the apparatus of claim 6, 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 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 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).
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 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 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 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 the 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]).
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 (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)].
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Mcpeak (US20090205400A1) teaches electromagnetic fluid flow meter. Goegge et al. (US20120146634A1) teaches a magnetically inductive flowmeter. Shanahan (US20100107776A1) teaches a magnetic flowmeter comprising a pair of electrodes 18 disposed on opposite side of the flow tube (see Fig.2)
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.
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, 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 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.
/SHIZHI QIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights