DETAILED ACTION
In Response to Election filed on 06/22/2026, claims 1-11 are pending. Claim 10 is withdrawn based on the Restriction requirement. Claims 1-9 and 11 are considered in the current Office 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 06/22/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a reasonable number of species are permitted in a single application as the examination of all the species together will not place an undue burden on the Examiner. Furthermore, the subject matter of all claims is sufficiently related that a thorough search for the subject matter of any one species would encompass a search for the subject matter of the remaining claims. This is not found persuasive because the species are mutually exclusive. In other words, claims to different species are mutually exclusive if one claim recites limitations disclosed for a first species but not a second, while a second claim recites limitations disclosed only for the second species and not the first. In this case, during the manufacturing process, the pressing force can be applied to intermediate area as recited in Species A, or the pressing force can only be applied to the circumference as recited in Species B, but not simultaneously both locations during the forming process. As a result, a search burden exists as the require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries) and the restriction is proper.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 10 and Figures 7-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/22/2026.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in French Republic on 11/21/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the FR2312813 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/18/2024 was filed is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 2 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the cylindrical form" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2021/0069768 (Gaide) and US2014/0360270 (“Koenig et al” hereinafter Koenig).
Regarding Claim 1, Gaide teaches a method of manufacturing a measuring tube of a fluid measuring device (abstract), the method comprising:
- providing a tubular semi-finished product (Figure 1, tube 2) having a through-opening extending in a longitudinal direction (L) of the tubular semi-finished product (Figures 1 and 6, tube by definition has a through opening along the longitudinal direction of the tube),
- inserting the tubular semi-finished product into a forming tool (Figure 2 and [0039], tube 2 can then pass through the compression/forming cavity (also called an “enclosure”) by passing through cylindrical guides 20, 21 that are slightly larger in diameter);
- introducing at least one mandrel into the through-opening (Figure 1, two inserts are introduced into the through opening of the tube 2), an outer geometry of the at least one mandrel corresponding to an inner geometry of a fluid channel of the measuring tube to be formed from the through-opening (Figure 1 and [0039], the outer geometry of the insert corresponds to the inner geometry of the tube for the inserts to be introduced into the through opening);
- performing a forming step in which a pressing force (F) is applied to at least one axial center section of the tubular semi-finished product (Figure 1, [0037], and [0042], a pressure forces exerted radially, hence perpendicularly to the axis of the tube to be deformed) and at least the center section is plastically deformed (Figure 1, the deformed tube 7 is deformed at the center section), the through-opening being formed into the fluid channel ([0040] and Figure 1, deformed tube 7).
- removing of the at least one mandrel ([0005], withdrawn or dissolved the inserts once the deformation is accomplished is known in the art).
Gaide fails to teach a circumferential wall of the tubular semi-finished product having at least one waveguide area which, after completion of the measuring tube, forms a waveguide for surface acoustic waves of an acoustic measuring device, the waveguide area extending along a longitudinal direction (L) of the tubular semi-finished product and from an outer surface to an inner surface of the tubular semi-finished product.
However, Koenig teaches a circumferential wall of the tubular semi-finished product (Figure 1, radially outer surface 14 of the hollow body 12 is the circumferential wall) having at least one waveguide area which (Figure 1 and [0087], the surface area of the hollow body 12 below the transmitter 20 represents a waveguide), after completion of the measuring tube, forms a waveguide for surface acoustic waves of an acoustic measuring device ([0087]-[0088]), the waveguide area extending along a longitudinal direction (L) of the tubular semi-finished product and from an outer surface to an inner surface of the tubular semi-finished product ([0087]-[0088]).
Gaide and Koenig are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of manufacturing hollow tube body. Therefore, 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 as taught by Gaide such that it teaches all of the above mentioned limitations as taught by Koenig to selectively cause differences in the propagation of the surface waves ([0032]). Furthermore, utilizing one known semi-finished tube as taught by Gaide in place of another known semi-finished tube as taught by Koenig also suitability in the field of fluid measuring device is well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding Claim 2, the modified Gaide teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein prior to the forming step, the tubular semi-finished product has an outer geometry which deviates from the cylindrical form and defines waveguides (Koenig, Figure 1 and [0087], the outer geometry of the hollow body 12 deviated from the cylindrical form due to the present of the transmitter 20 and receiver 22 that define the waveguides), this outer geometry being at least partially retained during the forming step (the forming step does not alter the outer geometry structure of the semi-finished product, thus, the outer geometry is retained).
Regarding Claim 3, the modified Gaide teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the tubular semi-finished product has areas having different wall thicknesses (t1, t2, t3, t4) in the center section and/or in axially adjoining sections (Koenig, see annotated Figure 1) and wherein these different wall thicknesses (t1, t2, t3, t4) are at least partially retained during the forming step (the forming step does not alter the outer geometry structure of the semi-finished product, thus, the outer geometry is retained).
PNG
media_image1.png
680
1144
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, the modified Gaide teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein an outer geometry of the center section in the at least one waveguide area is formed from a surface rounded in a circumferential direction (U) to a surface which is a plane in the circumferential direction (U) (Koenig, Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 6, the modified Gaide teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein two mandrels are used simultaneously (Gaide, Figure 1, two inserts 1 are simultaneously applied), which are moved from axial ends of the tubular semi-finished product into and out of the through-opening (Figure 1 and [0039]).
Regarding Claim 7, the modified Gaide teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein each mandrel has a smaller cross-sectional area at an area arranged in the center section than at an axially adjoining area (Gaide, Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 8, the modified Gaide teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein in the forming step, a transition area is respectively formed from one axial end of the tubular semi-finished product to the center section (Gaide, Figure 1, deformed tube 7), in which an inner cross-section and/or an inner geometry of the axial end and of the center section merge steplessly into each other (Figure 1, deformed tube 7).
Regarding Claim 9, the modified Gaide teaches the method according to claim 1 but fails to explicitly teach wherein exactly one mandrel is introduced into the through-opening. However, Gaide discloses the claimed invention except for exactly one mandrel is introduced into the through-opening. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention to modify the two inserts piece into one single insert, since it has been held that making in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in multiple pieces involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to in order to facilitate the inserting and removing process of the mandrel. See MPEP 2144.04 (V)(B).
Regarding Claim 11, the modified Gaide teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein axial end sections of the tubular semi-finished product remain undeformed in the forming step (Gaide, Figure 1, deformed tube where the end sections remain undeformed).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2021/0069768 (Gaide) and US2014/0360270 (“Koenig et al” hereinafter Koenig) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US3,433,039 (Henriksen).
Regarding Claim 5, the modified Gaide teaches the method according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein, after removal of the at least one mandrel, the same mandrel or another mandrel is moved through the through-opening again.
However, in the same field of manufacturing tubular shaped product using pressure deformation, Henrikson teaches after removal of the at least one mandrel (Col. 3, lines 16-20, the first forming member is removed), the same mandrel or another mandrel is moved through the through-opening again (Col. 3, lines 21-25, a final forming mandrel 29 is inserted).
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 as taught by the modified Gaide such that it teaches all of the above mentioned limitations as taught by Henrikson because the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known step of shaping the tube into desired shape. MPEP 2143.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XINWEN (Cindy) YE whose telephone number is (571)272-3010. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 - 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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
XINWEN (CINDY) YE
Examiner
Art Unit 1754
/LARRY W THROWER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights