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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In the statement: “a return magnetic-path auxiliary member that is arranged on at least one of an outer diameter side and an inner diameter side in the direction perpendicular to the tube axis of the excitation coil, and that complements a function of the return magnetic path,” the applicant does not disclose which part of the apparatus “side” refers to. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as “an outer diameter side and an inner diameter side of the excitation coil…”
PNG
media_image1.png
674
810
media_image1.png
Greyscale
An Annotated Figure 2 showing how this office action interprets outer diameter and inner diameter.
Claims 2-6 are rejected for depending on Claim 1.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zing (U.S. 2005/0000300).
Regarding Claim 1, Zing teaches:
An electromagnetic flow meter that measures a flow rate of a conductive fluid flowing through a measuring tube, comprising (see [0031]):
an excitation coil that is arranged in the measuring tube, and that generates a magnetic field in a direction perpendicular to a tube axis of the measuring tube (see [0015], [0035]);
a return magnetic path that is arranged on a side surface in a circumferential direction of a tube axis including the excitation coil in the measuring tube, and that concentrates the magnetic field generated by the excitation coil to an inside of the measuring tube (see [0040]);
and a return magnetic-path auxiliary member that is arranged on at least one of an outer diameter side and an inner diameter side in the direction perpendicular to the tube axis of the excitation coil, and that complements a function of the return magnetic path (see [0044], parts 17-22 in Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding Claim 2, Zing teaches:
Wherein the return magnetic-path auxiliary member is arranged on the outer diameter side in the direction perpendicular to the tube axis of the excitation coil, and blocks movement of a magnetic flux of the magnetic field to the outer diameter side (see [0044], [0047], parts 17-20 in Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding Claim 3, Zing teaches:
Wherein the return magnetic-path auxiliary member is arranged to extend inwardly to a gap of the excitation coil, and reinforces the magnetic field generated by the excitation coil (see parts 171, 181, 191, and 201 in Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 4, Zing teaches:
Wherein the return magnetic-path auxiliary member is arranged on the inner diameter side in the direction perpendicular to the tub axis of the excitation coil, and absorbs a magnetic flux of the magnetic field toward the outer diameter side (see [0040], [0043], [0049], parts 21 and 22 in Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Zing teaches:
Wherein the return magnetic-path auxiliary member arranged on the inner diameter side except a position at which the excitation coil is arranged in the measuring tube, and passes a magnetic flux of the magnetic field toward the inner diameter side, and reinforces the magnetic field generated by the excitation coil (see [0040], parts 21 and 22 in Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Zing teaches:
Wherein the return magnetic-path auxiliary member is a plate of a ferromagnetic material (see [0057]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. 2015/0268075 (Rovner) is considered relevant to the disclosure but is not used in this rejection. Rovner discloses a similar electromagnetic flow meter and magnetic return path assembly.
Furthermore, Zing teaches a further embodiment that could be considered relevant to this objection, but was not relied upon. Figure 7 teaches magnetic auxiliary members (31) within a metallic flow tube (11), which could be considered relevant to Claims 4 and 5. This, however, was not relied upon based on this office action’s claim interpretations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN SCOTT CRAVEN whose telephone number is (571)272-0884. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Th 0700- 17 00.
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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/Colin S Craven/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855 8/19/26
Prosecution Insights