DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the phrase “A system for monitoring fluids in separator vessels is disclosed”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 Shannon et al. (10,962,509, hereinafter Shannon). Regarding claim 1, Shannon discloses a method and apparatus comprising a processing unit 100 comprising a signal processor 75 and a display unit 105 (See Fig. 1), and a plurality of ultrasonic transducers 115, 116, 117 in communication with the signal processor, wherein the signal processor is configured to store only the maximum amplitudes of the signals among those received from the plurality of ultrasonic transducers (See Col. 3, lines 29 – 60 and Col. 4, lines 1 – 44). 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shannon (10,962,509) in view of Bekher et al. (RU2704146, hereinafter Bekher).
Regarding claim 2, Shannon discloses a method and apparatus comprising a processing unit 100 comprising a signal processor 75 and a display unit 105 (See Fig. 1), and a plurality of ultrasonic transducers 115, 116, 117 in communication with the signal processor, wherein the signal processor is configured to store only the maximum amplitudes of the signals among those received from the plurality of ultrasonic transducers (See Col. 3, lines 29 – 60 and Col. 4, lines 1 – 44). Shannon fails to disclose that the signal processor further comprises an experimental database; a simulated database; and a similarity generator with or without gain adjustment for the transducers. However, Bekher discloses a method for monitoring vessels using acoustic emission sensors comprising a control device that includes comparable databases and a similarity determining device (See Pg. 3, Paras. 1 – 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Shannon according to the teachings of Bekher for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device allows the detection of sources of acoustic emission at lower load values which reduces the likelihood of destruction of a controlled object in pneumatic tests (See Bekher, Pg. 4, Para. 4).10. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shannon and Bekher, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hashimoto (CN1493258).
Regarding claim 3, Shannon and Bekher fail to disclose that the display unit further comprises an electronic screen generator; a matrix electronic screen for displaying the image of maximum amplitudes; and a vector electronic screen for displaying the profiling in layers. However, Hashimoto discloses an apparatus comprising an image processing and display device 102 having an electronic screen generator 32, a matrix electronic screen generator 33 and a vector electronic screen unit 34 (See Fig. 9, See Pg. 22, Paras. 6 – 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Shannon and Bekher according to the teachings of Hashimoto for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device provides a three-dimensional inspection of a thin wall tissue and organ using ultrasonic sensors (See Hashimoto, Pg. 4, Para. 3). Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure.12. Al-Huwaider et al. (11,460,443) disclose fluid analysis systems and methods in oil and gas applications. Takata et al. (CN113301854) disclose an image analysis device. Black et al. (10,088,347) disclose a flow data acquisition and telemetry processing system.13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at 5712724107. 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.
/OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 9/3/26
Prosecution Insights