DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-13 are pending.
Drawings
3. The drawings are objected to because, where only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation "FIG." must not appear (see 37 C.F.R. 1.84(u)(1) and MPEP § 608.02(V)).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Per claim 1, it is unclear if the limitation “the aeriation level” line 12 refers to the limitation “the aeration level” recited in line 1. Appropriate correction is required. For the purpose of examination, the limitation “the aeriation level” is interpreted as referring to “the aeration level.” Claims 2-6 are consequently rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Aspelund et al. (US 6,655,221 – hereinafter “Aspelund”) in view of Fougere (US 2010/0188111).
Per claim 1, Aspelund teaches a device for measuring the aeration level of a fluid comprising:
a fluid entrance and fluid exit (A pipe 11 has an entrance for fluid flow and an exit for fluid flow arranged in a flow direction (Fig. 1; col. 10, line 48));
a first dielectric separator (Fig. 1; entrance section 2; col. 10, lines 48-49) wherein fluid can impinge upon said first dielectric separator and proceed into an annular space (Fig. 2; spaced formed between electrode 12 and electrode 7a; col. 11, line 63 – col. 12, line 3) and a second dielectric separator (Fig. 1; exit section 4; col. 10, line 52) that merges fluid received from said annular space when exiting said device;
a cylindrical shaped outer electrode (Fig. 2; electrode 12; col. 11, line 64) having an inner diameter and a cylindrical shaped inner electrode (Fig. 2; electrode 7a; col. 11, lines 14-15) having an outer diameter wherein said annular space for fluid flow is provided between said outer electrode inner diameter and said inner electrode outer diameter (An annular space is formed between a cylindrical electrode 12 and a sensor body 1 formed of cylindrical elements 6 made from an electrically insulating material, and cylindrical, metallic electrodes 7a-d. Fluid 14 may flow through the annular space (Fig. 2; col. 11, line 63 – col. 12, line 3));
wherein said electrodes are configured to measure the conductivity or capacitance of said fluid to determine the aeriation level of said fluid (An electric field is measured between the electrodes 12 and 7a to determine the electrical characteristics of a flowing medium 14. The electrical characteristics of the flowing medium 14 depend on the fraction ratio between oil, water, and gas in the flowing medium 14. Conductivity may be used to represent the measured electrical characteristics. A gas fraction of the flowing medium 14 can be calculated (col. 12, line 3 – col. 13, line 10)).
However, Aspelund does not explicitly teach the device wherein said outer electrode and said inner electrode provide a cell constant value in the range of 0.1 to 0.001. In contrast, Fougere teaches a sensor 50 of measuring the electrical conductivity and dielectric constant of high impedance fluids comprising coaxial electrodes 6, 7 that form a measurement cell 52 that holds a fluid F to be measured. The cell constant of the measurement sensor 50 is about 0.1 or lower (Fig. 1; ¶22 and 28).
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 device of Aspelund such that the outer electrode and the inner electrode provide a cell constant value in the range of 0.1 to 0.001. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of providing a measurement cell suitable for measuring electrical properties of high impedance fluids (Fougere; ¶22).
Per claim 2, Aspelund in view of Fougere teaches the device of claim 1, wherein said annular space for fluid flow defines a cross-sectional area that does not vary by more than +/−5.0% (An annular space is formed between a cylindrical electrode 12 and a sensor body 1 that is coaxial with respect to the cylindrical electrode 12. Therefore, the annular space is defined by uniform cross-sectional areas that are arranged in the direction of fluid flow (Aspelund; col. 11, lines 30-36)).
Per claim 3, Aspelund in view of Fougere teaches the device of claim 1, wherein said electrodes measure a conductivity in the range of 1×10-15 S/m to 1×10-4 S/m (Fougere states that the sensor 50 can measure the conductivity of lubricating oils in the range of 0 to 2000 pS/cm (¶22). 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 device of Aspelund in view of Fougere such that the electrodes measure a conductivity in the range of 1×10-15 S/m to 1×10-4 S/m. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of measuring a conductivity of a lubricating oil (Fougere; ¶9)).
Per claim 4, Aspelund in view of Fougere teaches the device of claim 1, wherein said electrodes measure a capacitance in the range of 1 pF to 100 pF (Fougere states that the sensor 50 can have a cell bulk capacitance of greater than 4 pF with hydrocarbon fluid inside (¶35). 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 device of Aspelund in view of Fougere such that the electrodes measure a capacitance in the range of 1 pF to 100 pF. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of measuring a dielectric constant of a hydrocarbon fluid (Fougere; Abstract)).
Per claim 6, Aspelund in view of Fougere teaches the device of claim 1, wherein said annular space has a cross-sectional area that does not vary by more than +/−5.0% (An annular space is formed between a cylindrical electrode 12 and a sensor body 1 that is coaxial with respect to the cylindrical electrode 12. Therefore, the annular space is defined by uniform cross-sectional areas that are arranged in the direction of fluid flow (Aspelund; col. 11, lines 30-36)).
Per claim 7, Aspelund teaches a method for measuring the aeration level of a fluid comprising:
supplying a device having a fluid entrance and fluid exit (A pipe 11 has an entrance for fluid flow and an exit for fluid flow arranged in a flow direction (Fig. 1; col. 10, line 48)),
a first dielectric separator (Fig. 1; entrance section 2; col. 10, lines 48-49) wherein fluid can impinge upon said first dielectric separator and proceed into an annular space (Fig. 2; spaced formed between electrode 12 and electrode 7a; col. 11, line 63 – col. 12, line 3) and a second dielectric separator (Fig. 1; exit section 4; col. 10, line 52) that merges fluid received from said annular space when exiting said device;
a cylindrical shaped outer electrode (Fig. 2; electrode 12; col. 11, line 64) having an inner diameter and a cylindrical shaped inner electrode (Fig. 2; electrode 7a; col. 11, lines 14-15) having an outer diameter wherein said annular space for fluid flow is provided between said outer electrode inner diameter and said inner electrode outer diameter (An annular space is formed between a cylindrical electrode 12 and a sensor body 1 formed of cylindrical elements 6 made from an electrically insulating material, and cylindrical, metallic electrodes 7a-d (Fig. 2; col. 11, line 63 – col. 12, line 3));
introducing fluid to said annular space between said electrodes (Fluid 14 may flow through the annular space (Fig. 2; col. 11, line 63 – col. 12, line 3);
measuring the conductivity or capacitance of said fluid in said annular space between said electrodes and determining the level of aeration of said fluid (An electric field is measured between the electrodes 12 and 7a to determine the electrical characteristics of a flowing medium 14. The electrical characteristics of the flowing medium 14 depend on the fraction ratio between oil, water, and gas in the flowing medium 14. Conductivity may be used to represent the measured electrical characteristics. A gas fraction of the flowing medium 14 can be calculated (col. 12, line 3 – col. 13, line 10)).
However, Aspelund does not explicitly teach the method wherein said outer electrode and said inner electrode provide a cell constant value in the range of 0.1 to 0.001. In contrast, Fougere teaches a device of measuring the electrical conductivity and dielectric constant of high impedance fluids comprising coaxial electrodes 6, 7 that form a measurement cell 52 that holds a fluid F to be measured. The cell constant of the measurement sensor 50 is about 0.1 or lower (Fig. 1; ¶22 and 28).
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 method of Aspelund such that the outer electrode and the inner electrode provide a cell constant value in the range of 0.1 to 0.001. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of providing a measurement cell suitable for measuring electrical properties of high impedance fluids (Fougere; ¶22).
Per claim 8, Aspelund in view of Fougere teaches the method of claim 7, wherein said annular space for fluid flow defines a cross-sectional area that does not vary by more than +\−5.0% (An annular space is formed between a cylindrical electrode 12 and a sensor body 1 that is coaxial with respect to the cylindrical electrode 12. Therefore, the annular space is defined by uniform cross-sectional areas that are arranged in the direction of fluid flow (Aspelund; col. 11, lines 30-36)).
Per claim 9, Aspelund in view of Fougere teaches the method of claim 7, wherein said electrodes measure a conductivity in the range of 1×10 -15 S/m to 1×10-4 S/m (Fougere states that the sensor 50 can measure the conductivity of lubricating oils in the range of 0 to 2000 pS/cm (¶22). 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 method of Aspelund in view of Fougere such that the electrodes measure a conductivity in the range of 1×10-15 S/m to 1×10-4 S/m. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of measuring a conductivity of a lubricating oil (Fougere; ¶9)).
Per claim 10, Aspelund in view of Fougere teaches the method of claim 7, wherein said electrodes measure a capacitance in the range of 1 pF to 100 pF (Fougere states that the sensor 50 can have a cell bulk capacitance of greater than 4 pF with hydrocarbon fluid inside (¶35). 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 method of Aspelund in view of Fougere such that the electrodes measure a capacitance in the range of 1 pF to 100 pF. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of measuring a dielectric constant of a hydrocarbon fluid (Fougere; Abstract)).
8. Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Aspelund in view of Fougere, in further view of Williams et al. (US 2008/0053842 – hereinafter “Williams”).
Per claim 5, Aspelund in view of Fougere does not explicitly teach the device of claim 1, wherein said first and second dielectric separators are composed of poly(etheretherketone) (Aspelund states that the entrance and exit sections 2, 4 are made of a material having the property of high resistance toward mechanical wear (col. 10, lines 61-66)).
In contrast, Williams teaches a conductivity cell formed from two cell blocks halves 10 made of a corrosion resistance polymer material such as polyetheretherketone (PEEK) (Fig. 1; ¶19).
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 device of Aspelund in view of Fougere such that the said first and second dielectric separators are composed of poly(etheretherketone). One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of providing a corrosion resistant material in a flow path (Williams; ¶19).
Per claim 13, Aspelund in view of Fougere does not explicitly teach the method of claim 7, wherein said first and said second dielectric separators are composed of poly(etheretherketone).
In contrast, Williams teaches a conductivity cell formed from two cell blocks halves 10 made of a corrosion resistance polymer material such as polyetheretherketone (PEEK) (Fig. 1; ¶19).
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 method of Aspelund in view of Fougere such that the said first and second dielectric separators are composed of poly(etheretherketone). One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of providing a corrosion resistant material in a flow path (Williams; ¶19).
9. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Aspelund in view of Fougere, in further view of Fang (US 5,518,590).
Per claim 11, Aspelund in view of Fougere does not explicitly teach the method of claim 7, wherein said fluid introduced into said device has a viscosity in the range of 4 cSt to 100 cSt.
In contrast, Fang teaches an electrochemical sensor for determining properties of motor oil and other lubricants having, for example, a viscosity of 6 centistokes (col. 6, lines 23-30). The
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 method of Aspelund in view of Fougere such that the fluid introduced into the device has a viscosity in the range of 4 cSt to 100 cSt. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of determining a degree of deterioration of motor oil (Fang; Abstract).
10. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Aspelund in view of Fougere, in further view of Matsumoto et al. (US 5,690,895 – hereinafter “Matsumoto”).
Per claim 12, Aspelund in view of Fougere does not explicitly teach the method of claim 7, wherein said fluid flow has a velocity that does not vary by more than +/−5.0%.
In contrast, Matsumoto teaches a flow cell apparatus wherein stable flow is achieved to enable accurate measurements (col. 3, lines 50-63 and col. 18, lines 28-31).
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 method of Aspelund in view of Fougere such that the fluid flow has a velocity that does not vary by more than +/−5.0%. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of enabling accurate measurements of a liquid (Matsumoto; col. 3, lines 50-63).
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAS A. SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-4787. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, alt. Fri, 8-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, WALTER LINDSAY can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/JAS A SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights