DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objection
1. Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, line 6, “a having a particular size” should be changed to --- having a particular size ---. Regarding claim 6, in line 1, “The method of clam 1” should be changed to --- The method of claim 5 ---. Claim 6 is further limitation of claim 5, thus its dependency should be depended on claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “comparing said measured inductance of said media within said coil to determine a size of said media within said coil” is vague and indefinite. The step of said comparing such as “comparing said measured inductance of said media”, but does not provide information on which a reference is used for “said measured inductance of said media” being compared to. Clarification is requested. Similarly for the limitation “comparing said measured impedance of said media within said coil to determine a material composition of said media within said coil” is vague and indefinite. The step of said comparing such as “comparing said measured impedance of said media”, but does not provide information on which a reference is used for “said measured impedance of said media” being compared to. Clarification is requested.
Claims 2-7 are also rejected as they inherit the deficiencies in claim 1.
Examiner Notes
4. Examiner cites particular paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhe et al. (US. Pub. 2010/0109686; hereinafter “Zhe”).
Regarding claim 1, Zhe discloses a method for sensing granular media characteristics (a method for detection of wear particles in a lubricant, see abstract) including the steps of: a providing a coil of wire wound around a pipe for containing granular media (a coil 200 wound around a channel 34 for containing metal particles. See Figs. 9-13); providing a driver (an oscillator such as a AC source 201 in Fig. 9A) for driving an oscillating current through said coil, said driver maintaining a voltage (see paragraphs [0056-57]); providing a table listing known properties of inductance and impedance for media made of a predetermined material and a having a particular size (see at least in [0046, 102]); retaining said granular media within said coil (see [0047]); driving said oscillating current through said coil in the presence of said media (see at least in [0056-57]); measuring inductance of said media within said coil (see [0008] and Fig. 9A); comparing said measured inductance of said media within said coil to determine a size of said media within said coil (see at least in [0068, 70, 108]); measuring impedance of said media, comparing said measured impedance of said media within said coil to determine a material composition of said media within said coil (see at least in [0054-57, 65-66, 102-105]).
Regarding claim 2, Zhe discloses the method of claim 1, wherein said inductance of said media within said coil is determined by measuring a shift in oscillating frequency of said oscillating current through said coil when said media is present in said coil (see [0063, 63, 66, 74, 97]).
Regarding claim 3, Zhe discloses the method of claim 2, wherein said impedance of said media within said coil is determined by measuring a change in current required to maintain a constant voltage for said oscillating current within said coil (see at least in [0065-66]).
Regarding claim 6, Zhe discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising the steps of, providing various types of media, each of said types of media having particular properties of particle size and material type, retaining each of said types of media within said valve to generate tables of impedance and inductance for each said type of media (see at least in [0068, 70, 108]).
Regarding claim 7, Zhe discloses the method of claim 6, wherein said tables are stored and compared to values of impedance and inductance for subsequent measurements of media after said tables have been generated (see at least in [0102]).
7. Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Becker et al. (US. Pub. 2009/0051350; hereinafter “Becker”).
Regarding claim 1, Becker discloses a method for sensing granular media characteristics (a method for detection of wear particles in a lubricant, see abstract) including the steps of: a providing a coil of wire wound around a pipe for containing granular media ( coils 12, 14, 18 wound around a pipe 10 for containing metal particles 20. See Figs. 3-4); providing a driver (“the signal for the transmitter coil 18 is produced with a waveformer 40”, see [0077] and Fig. 3) for driving an oscillating current through said coil, said driver maintaining a voltage (see {0052, 56-57] and claim 8); providing a table listing known properties of inductance and impedance for media made of a predetermined material and a having a particular size (see at least in [0082-85]); retaining said granular media within said coil (see Fig. 3); driving said oscillating current through said coil in the presence of said media (see at least in [0056]); measuring inductance of said media within said coil (see [0014] and Figs. 3-4); comparing said measured inductance of said media within said coil to determine a size of said media within said coil (see at least in [0050 and 79-85]); measuring impedance of said media (see [0053]), comparing said measured impedance of said media within said coil to determine a material composition of said media within said coil (see at least in [80-85]).
Regarding claim 2, Becker discloses the method of claim 1, wherein said inductance of said media within said coil is determined by measuring a shift in oscillating frequency of said oscillating current through said coil when said media is present in said coil (see [0060, 69-71]).
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 8-15 are allowed over the prior arts of record.
9. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8, the cited references, alone or in combination, do not disclose nor fairly suggest:
“ … retaining a different granular media within said coil and measuring the shift in natural frequency of said of said oscillating current through said coil in the presence of said different granular media within said coil and determining the inductance of said different media when retained in said coil, measuring said current oscillating through said coil to maintain said particular voltage in the presence of said different media within said coil and determining the impedance of said coil in the presence of said different media within said coil; comparing said impedance and inductance values determined when said different media is retained within said coil said values of inductance and impedance for said various media to determine a particle size and a material type of said different media” in combination with all other elements as claimed in claim 8.
As to claim(s) 9-11, the claims are allowed as they further limit allowed claim 8.
Regarding claim 12, the cited references, alone or in combination, do not disclose nor fairly suggest:
“ … retaining a different granular media within said coil and measuring the shift in natural frequency of said of said oscillating current through said coil in the presence of said different granular media within said coil and determining the inductance of said different media when retained in said coil, measuring said current oscillating through said coil to maintain said particular voltage in the presence of said different media within said coil and determining the impedance of said coil in the presence of said different media within said coil; comparing said impedance and inductance values determined when said different media is retained within said coil said values of inductance and impedance for said various media to determine a particle size and a material type of said different media” in combination with all other elements as claimed in claim 12.
As to claim(s) 13-15, the claims are allowed as they further limit allowed claim 12.
Comments
10. The prior art of record found as a result of the search, does not teach alone or in combination all of the elements recited in claim 4. Therefore, no prior art rejection for claim 4 is presented in this action. However, claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANG LE whose telephone number is (571)272-9349. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday 7:30AM-5:00PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Phan can be reached on (571) 272-7924. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THANG X LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
6/22/2026
Prosecution Insights