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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Valtierra et al. (US 20190234777).
Regarding claim 1, Valtierra et al. teach A fluid detection system, comprising:
a pipe coupling member (174, Fig. 5) having a perforated portion having one or more openings formed in the perforated portion, the one or more openings being dimensioned to allow fluid to pass through the perforated portion from an interior surface of the pipe coupling member; (Note par. 0020, FIGS. 5-6 may consist of or include an in-line fluid sensor 110 in a housing 170, where the sensor is operatively coupled or plumbed, for example via couplings 174, to receive the fluid output of a pumpjack 220 connected to a wellhead.) a sensor ring (110, Fig. 5) disposed about the perforated portion; and a sensor controller (240, Fig. 5) configured to detect a capacitance within of the sensor ring and to provide a detection signal indicative of a detected capacitance of fluid flowing through the one or more openings and contacting the sensor ring.(par. 0021)
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 (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 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.
Claims 2, 3, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valtierra et al. (US 20190234777) in view of Sweeney (US 4723441).
Regarding claim 2, Valtierra et al. does not teach wherein the pipe coupling member further comprising a first and second slot on either side of the perforated portion.
Sweeney et al. teach wherein the pipe coupling member further comprising a first and second slot on either side of the perforated portion. (Note column 4, lines 48-58)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Valtierra et al. to include the teaching of pipe coupling member further comprising a first and second slot on either side of the perforated portion to support an O’ring. (Note column 4, lines 48-58)
Regarding claim 3, Valtierra et al. does not teach a first O-Ring disposed in the first slot and a second O-Ring disposed in the second slot; the first and second O-Ring surrounding a periphery of the pipe coupling member.
Sweeney teach a first O-Ring disposed in the first slot and a second O-Ring disposed in the second slot; the first and second O-Ring surrounding a periphery of the pipe coupling member. (Note column 4, lines 48-58)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Valtierra et al. to include the teaching of a first O-Ring disposed in the first slot and a second O-Ring disposed in the second slot; the first and second O-Ring surrounding a periphery of the pipe coupling member to prevent leakage.
Regarding claim 4, Valtierra et al. does not teach wherein the sensor ring is disposed about the perforated portion and over the first and second O-Rings to form a fluid-tight seal of the one or more openings.
Sweeney et al. teach wherein the sensor ring is disposed about the perforated portion and over the first and second O-Rings to form a fluid-tight seal of the one or more openings. (Note column 4, lines 48-58)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Valtierra et al. to include the teaching of wherein the sensor ring is disposed about the perforated portion and over the first and second O-Rings to form a fluid-tight seal of the one or more openings to prevent fluid leakage.
Regarding claim 5, Valtierra et al. does not teach wherein the pipe coupling member further comprising a first threaded portion on one end thereof and a threaded portion on another end thereof.
Sweeney et al. teach wherein the pipe coupling member further comprising a first threaded portion on one end thereof and a threaded portion on another end thereof. (Note the bolts 50, Fig. 3)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Valtierra et al. to include the teaching of the pipe coupling member further comprising a first threaded portion on one end thereof and a threaded portion on another end thereof to secure at least to parts together.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valtierra et al. (US 20190234777) in view of Sweeney (US 4723441) further in view of Yamagishi et al. (JP 2002340837.
Regarding claim 6, Valtierra et al. teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Valtierra et al. does not teach wherein the controller is configured to: determine the detected capacitance at least in part from the detection signal; compare the detected capacitance to a capacitance threshold; and determine whether liquid is present within the pipe coupling member based at least in part on comparing the detected capacitance to the capacitance threshold, and to determine whether a wet event has occurred based on said determination.
Yamagishi et al. teach wherein the controller (MPU 45, par. 0032) is configured to: determine the detected capacitance at least in part from the detection signal; compare the detected capacitance to a capacitance threshold; and determine whether liquid is present within the pipe coupling member based at least in part on comparing the detected capacitance to the capacitance threshold,(Note par. 0032, Furthermore, the MPU 45 compares the detected change in capacitance with the stored change in capacitance to determine the flow state of the beer flowing through the passage inside the pipe 1. )and to determine whether a wet event has occurred based on said determination.( [0034] The MPU 45 determines, based on the comparison results, whether the flow state of the beer through the passage is liquid or foamy.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Valtierra to include the teaching of determine the detected capacitance at least in part from the detection signal; compare the detected capacitance to a capacitance threshold; and determine whether liquid is present within the pipe coupling member based at least in part on comparing the detected capacitance to the capacitance threshold, and to determine whether a wet event has occurred based on said determination to determine if the flow state is liquid or foamy. (Note Yamagishi et al. par. 0034)
Regarding claim 7, Valtierra et al. does not teach wherein the controller wherein the controller is configured to determine that a wet event has occurred when the detected capacitance is less than or equal to the capacitance threshold.
Yamagishi et al. teach wherein the controller wherein the controller is configured to determine that a wet event has occurred when the detected capacitance is less than or equal to the capacitance threshold. (This detection indicates that while liquid beer is flowing through the tube 1, the change in capacitance is minimal or less than the set value.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Valtierra et al. to include the teaching of the controller is configured to determine that a wet event has occurred when the detected capacitance is less than or equal to the capacitance threshold to indicate flow of the liquid, (Note par. 0036)
Claim 11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (US 5080047) in view of Valtierra et al. (US 20190234777).
Regarding claim 1, Williams et al. teach A boiler system, (Note Fig. 2) comprising:
a boiler; (14, Fig. 2)
a discharge valve coupled to the boiler; (20, Fig. 2)
a pipe coupling member coupled to the discharge valve, the pipe coupling member (16, Fig. 2) having a perforated portion having one or more openings formed in the perforated portion,(16 has a hole and is interpreted as perforated) the one or more openings being dimensioned to allow fluid to pass through the perforated portion from an interior surface of the pipe coupling member; a sensor ring (22, Fig. 2) disposed about the perforated portion; and
Williams et al. does not teach a sensor controller configured to detect a capacitance within of the sensor ring and to provide a detection signal indicative of a detected capacitance of fluid flowing through the one or more openings and contacting the sensor ring.
Valtierra et al. teach a sensor controller (240, Fig. 5) configured to detect a capacitance within of the sensor ring and to provide a detection signal indicative of a detected capacitance of fluid flowing through the one or more openings and contacting the sensor ring. (par. 0021)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Williams et al. to include the teaching of a sensor controller configured to detect a capacitance within of the sensor ring and to provide a detection signal indicative of a detected capacitance of fluid flowing through the one or more openings and contacting the sensor ring to allow for the characterization of the flowing fluid. (Note par. 0003)
Regarding claim 21, Williams et al. teach wherein the pipe coupling member being disposed at an angle with respect to a vertical reference. Note left side of 22, Fig. 2)
Claims 12, 13, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (US 5080047) in view of Valtierra et al. (US 20190234777) in view of Sweeney (US 4723441).
Regarding claim 12, Williams et al. does not teach wherein the pipe coupling member further comprising a first and second slot on either side of the perforated portion.
Sweeney et al. teach wherein the pipe coupling member further comprising a first and second slot on either side of the perforated portion. (Note column 4, lines 48-58)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Williams et al. to include the teaching of pipe coupling member further comprising a first and second slot on either side of the perforated portion to support an O’ring. (Note column 4, lines 48-58)
Regarding claim 13, Williams et al. does not teach a first O-Ring disposed in the first slot and a second O-Ring disposed in the second slot; the first and second O-Ring surrounding a periphery of the pipe coupling member.
Sweeney teach a first O-Ring disposed in the first slot and a second O-Ring disposed in the second slot; the first and second O-Ring surrounding a periphery of the pipe coupling member. (Note column 4, lines 48-58)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Williams et al. to include the teaching of a first O-Ring disposed in the first slot and a second O-Ring disposed in the second slot; the first and second O-Ring surrounding a periphery of the pipe coupling member to prevent leakage.
Regarding claim 14, Williams et al. does not teach wherein the sensor ring is disposed about the perforated portion and over the first and second O-Rings to form a fluid-tight seal of the one or more openings.
Sweeney et al. teach wherein the sensor ring is disposed about the perforated portion and over the first and second O-Rings to form a fluid-tight seal of the one or more openings. (Note column 4, lines 48-58)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Williams et al. to include the teaching of wherein the sensor ring is disposed about the perforated portion and over the first and second O-Rings to form a fluid-tight seal of the one or more openings to prevent fluid leakage.
Regarding claim 15, Williams et al. does not teach wherein the pipe coupling member further comprising a first threaded portion on one end thereof and a threaded portion on another end thereof.
Sweeney et al. teach wherein the pipe coupling member further comprising a first threaded portion on one end thereof and a threaded portion on another end thereof. (Note the bolts 50, Fig. 3)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Williams et al. to include the teaching of the pipe coupling member further comprising a first threaded portion on one end thereof and a threaded portion on another end thereof to secure at least to parts together.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (US 5080047) in view of Valtierra et al. (US 20190234777) further in view of Yamagishi et al. (JP 2002340837).
Regarding claim 16, Williams et al. teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Williams et al. does not teach wherein the controller is configured to: determine the detected capacitance at least in part from the detection signal; compare the detected capacitance to a capacitance threshold; and determine whether liquid is present within the pipe coupling member based at least in part on comparing the detected capacitance to the capacitance threshold, and to determine whether a wet event has occurred based on said determination.
Yamagishi et al. teach wherein the controller (MPU 45, par. 0032) is configured to: determine the detected capacitance at least in part from the detection signal;(Note par. 0032) compare the detected capacitance to a capacitance threshold; and determine whether liquid is present within the pipe coupling member based at least in part on comparing the detected capacitance to the capacitance threshold,(Note par. 0032, Furthermore, the MPU 45 compares the detected change in capacitance with the stored change in capacitance to determine the flow state of the beer flowing through the passage inside the pipe 1. )and to determine whether a wet event has occurred based on said determination.( [0034] The MPU 45 determines, based on the comparison results, whether the flow state of the beer through the passage is liquid or foamy.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Williams et al. to include the teaching of determine the detected capacitance at least in part from the detection signal; compare the detected capacitance to a capacitance threshold; and determine whether liquid is present within the pipe coupling member based at least in part on comparing the detected capacitance to the capacitance threshold, and to determine whether a wet event has occurred based on said determination to determine if the flow state is liquid or foamy. (Note Yamagishi et al. par. 0034)
Regarding claim 17, Williams et al. et al. does not teach wherein the controller wherein the controller is configured to determine that a wet event has occurred when the detected capacitance is less than or equal to the capacitance threshold.
Yamagishi et al. teach wherein the controller wherein the controller is configured to determine that a wet event has occurred when the detected capacitance is less than or equal to the capacitance threshold. (This detection indicates that while liquid beer is flowing through the tube 1, the change in capacitance is minimal or less than the set value.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Williams et al. to include the teaching of the controller is configured to determine that a wet event has occurred when the detected capacitance is less than or equal to the capacitance threshold to indicate flow of the liquid (Note par. 0036)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Upon conclusion of a comprehensive search of the pertinent prior art, the Office indicates that the claims are allowable.
Regarding independent claim 8, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of:
compare a total number of wet events occurring within a measurement period to a threshold number of wet events for said measurement period; and determine that a flood event has occurred when the total number of wet events occurring within a measurement period meets or exceeds the threshold number of wet events for said measurement period.
Regarding independent claim 18, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of:
wherein the controller is further configured to: compare a total number of wet events occurring within a measurement period to a threshold number of wet events for said measurement period; and determine that a flood event has occurred when the total number of wet events occurring within a measurement period meets or exceeds the threshold number of wet events for said measurement period.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMETRIUS R PRETLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-3441. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 5:30-1:30.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/DEMETRIUS R PRETLOW/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights