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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in France on 12/19/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the FR 2314455 application as 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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “intended to measure” appears to disclose an intended use of the transducer and does not seem to explicitly teach that the transducer is configured for performing the claimed function. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitation (see MPEP 2114 II). The claim is indefinite because the phrase does not disclose whether the transducer is configured for performing the functional language. For examination purposes, the phrase “intended to measure the three-dimensional velocity components of flow” would be interpreted as intended use. Furthermore, the phrase “the three-dimensional velocity components” lack proper antecedent basis.
The phrase “a core with high magnetic permeability” renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, any metal material will be considered as a suitable material for the core. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
The phrases “an electrical coil, called primary coil” and “six electrical coils called receiver coils” are indefinite because the claim recites the broad phrase “primary coil” and also the narrower statement of :”an electrical coil”; and the broad phrase “receiver coils” and also the narrower statement of “electrical coils”. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired (see MPEP § 2173.05(c)). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Further clarification is respectfully requested
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “intended to measure” appears to disclose an intended use of the transducer and does not seem to explicitly teach that the transducer is configured for performing the claimed function. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitation (see MPEP 2114 II). The claim is indefinite because the phrase does not disclose whether the transducer is configured for performing the functional language. For examination purposes, the phrase “intended to measure the three-dimensional velocity components of flow” would be interpreted as intended use. Furthermore, the phrase “the three-dimensional velocity components” lack proper antecedent basis.
The phrase “a core with high magnetic permeability” renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, any metal material will be considered as a suitable material for the core. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
The phrase “six electrical coils called receiver coils” is indefinite because the claim recites the broad phrase “receiver coils” and also the narrower statement of “electrical coils”. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired (see MPEP § 2173.05(c)). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Further clarification is respectfully requested
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites the broad phrase “electrically conductive fluid” and also the narrower statement of “such as a liquid metal of a nuclear reactor”. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired (see MPEP § 2173.05(c)). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Further clarification is respectfully requested
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites the broad phrase “electrically conductive fluid” and also the narrower statement of “such as a liquid metal of a nuclear reactor”. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired (see MPEP § 2173.05(c)). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Further clarification is respectfully requested
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected as being dependent on the rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In this case, claims 4 and 6 define and further limit methods of using the transducer as disclosed in the independent claims 1 and 2, respectively. Claims 4 and 6 do not appear to further define or limit the structure of the transducers in the independent claims 1 or 2, respectively. Therefore, claims 4 and 6 fail to further limit or define the subject matter of their respective independent claims. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6 are are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araseki (Pat. No. US 7,942,067) (hereafter Araseki) in view of Batey (Pat. No. US 5,852,247) (hereafter Batey) and in further view of Hogendoorn et al. (Pat. No. US 12,405,144) (hereafter Hogendoorn)
Regarding claim 1, Araseki teaches an electromagnetic transducer intended to measure the three-dimensional velocity components of a flow of an electrically conductive fluid, comprising:
a cylindrical tube forming a core (i.e., duct line 3) (see Fig. 4), which tube extends along a central axis (Z), comprising a central portion and two end portions (see Fig. 4),
on the portion, each comprising three bosses arranged relative to one another about the central axis (Z) and each delimiting a flat surface, parallel to the central axis (Z) (i.e., coil axis center 16) (see Fig. 15);
an electrical coil, called primary coil (i.e., when the magnetic flux density measuring coils 6 are wound around the annular channel 3 of the induction-type electromagnetic pump 1, the magnitude of the electromotive force is proportional to the magnitude of the magnetic flux density. For this reason, instead of the gradient of the electromotive force, the electromotive force may be measured and correlated with the flow amount) (see Column 5, line 59, to Column 6, line 56), wound around the central portion of the tube (i.e., magnetic field measuring coil 6 is wound around duct line 3) (see Column 6, line 57, to Column 7, line 15);
electrical coils called receiver coils (i.e., pick-up coils 15) (see Fig. 15), each wound around one of the flat surfaces (i.e., a magnetic flux density Br of a radial direction component is measured, a coil axis center 16 of the pick-up coil 15 is placed in a radial direction of the duct line 3 to be orthogonal to the axis center of the duct line 3, and the pick-up coil 15 is arranged around the duct line 3) (see Column 9, lines 7-55), or six Hall effect sensors, each arranged on one of the flat surfaces (i.e., an element using a Hall electromotive force or an element using a change in electric resistance due to the magnetic field may be used as the magnetic sensor) (see Column 9, lines 7-55); but does not explicitly teach the material of the tube and the arrangement of the six receiver coils.
Regarding the cylindrical metal tube, Batey teaches a cylindrical metal tube forming a core with high magnetic permeability, which tube extends along a central axis (Z), comprising a central portion and two end portions (i.e., conduit 25, standpipes 22 and end flanges 27 may preferably comprise a magnetically permeable material, such as carbon steel or other ferrous metals. Such materials are relatively strong and low cost compared to materials such as stainless steel) (see Column 7, lines 4-15). In view of the teaching of Batey, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the magnetically permeable material in order to further reduce manufacturing costs. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding the arrangement of the receiver coils, Hogendoorn teaches bosses arranged at 120° relative to one another about the central axis (Z), and six electrical coils called receiver coils, each wound around one of the flat surfaces (i.e., six coils are arranged at angle 120° to each other) (see Column 16, lines 7-45, and Fig. 7). In view of the teaching of Hogendoorn, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged the coils at 120° angle in order to improve measurement accuracy, by measuring three magnetic files in different operating direction. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)).
Regarding claim 2, Araseki teaches an electromagnetic transducer intended to measure the three-dimensional velocity components of a flow of an electrically conductive fluid, comprising:
a cylindrical tube forming a core (i.e., duct line 3) (see Fig. 4), which tube extends along a central axis (Z), comprising a central portion and two end portions (see Fig. 4), on either side of the central portion, each comprising three bosses, arranged at 120° relative to one another about the central axis (Z) and each delimiting a flat surface, parallel to the central axis (Z) (i.e., coil axis center 16) (see Fig. 15);
a permanent magnet (i.e., outside a duct line, the electromagnetic flowmeter includes a magnet applying a magnetic field to a conductive fluid flowing through the duct line) (see Column 1, lines 17-34) (Note: specification dated 12/10/2024, discloses that permanent magnet 18 replaces the primary coil 12 when DC is used instead of AC. In this case, using the permanent magnet appears to be obvious alternative to the primary coil when DC is employed) arranged around the central portion of the tube (i.e., when the magnetic flux density measuring coils 6 are wound around the annular channel 3 of the induction-type electromagnetic pump 1, the magnitude of the electromotive force is proportional to the magnitude of the magnetic flux density. For this reason, instead of the gradient of the electromotive force, the electromotive force may be measured and correlated with the flow amount) (see Column 5, line 59, to Column 6, line 56);
electrical coils called receiver coils (i.e., pick-up coils 15) (see Fig. 15), each wound around one of the flat surfaces (i.e., a magnetic flux density Br of a radial direction component is measured, a coil axis center 16 of the pick-up coil 15 is placed in a radial direction of the duct line 3 to be orthogonal to the axis center of the duct line 3, and the pick-up coil 15 is arranged around the duct line 3) (see Column 9, lines 7-55), or six Hall effect sensors, each arranged on one of the flat surfaces (i.e., an element using a Hall electromotive force or an element using a change in electric resistance due to the magnetic field may be used as the magnetic sensor) (see Column 9, lines 7-55); but does not explicitly teach the material of the tube and the arrangement of the six receiver coils.
Regarding the cylindrical metal tube, Batey teaches a cylindrical metal tube forming a core with high magnetic permeability, which tube extends along a central axis (Z), comprising a central portion and two end portions (i.e., conduit 25, standpipes 22 and end flanges 27 may preferably comprise a magnetically permeable material, such as carbon steel or other ferrous metals. Such materials are relatively strong and low cost compared to materials such as stainless steel) (see Column 7, lines 4-15). In view of the teaching of Batey, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the magnetically permeable material in order to further reduce manufacturing costs. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding the arrangement of the receiver coils, Hogendoorn teaches bosses arranged at 120° relative to one another about the central axis (Z), and six electrical coils called receiver coils, each wound around one of the flat surfaces (i.e., six coils are arranged at angle 120° to each other) (see Column 16, lines 7-45, and Fig. 7). In view of the teaching of Hogendoorn, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged the coils at 120° angle in order to improve measurement accuracy, by measuring three magnetic files in different operating direction. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)).
Regarding claim 3, Araseki as modified by Batey and Hogendoorn as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that with each boss having a T-shape as a front view, orthogonal to the central axis (Z), with the head of the T being the flat surface. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have used structures having any suitable shape to retain the coils around the tube. Furthermore, it has been held that insignificant changes to shape which do not contain critical design requirements are a matter of choice which one having of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed limitation is significant (see MPEP 2144.04 (IV-B)).
Regarding claim 4, Araseki teaches method of using of the electromagnetic transducer as claimed in claim 1 and measuring three-dimensional velocity components of a flow of an electrically conductive fluid (i.e., the flow rate and the flow amount of the electromagnetic pump can be measured using a correlative relationship between the flow amount of the conductive fluid and the magnetic flux density of the leakage magnetic field) (see Column 2, line 45, to Column 3, line 18), such as a liquid metal of a nuclear reactor.
Regarding claim 5, Araseki as modified by Batey and Hogendoorn as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that each boss having a T-shape as a front view, orthogonal to the central axis (Z), with the head of the T being the flat surface. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have used structures having any suitable shape to retain the coils around the tube. Furthermore, it has been held that insignificant changes to shape which do not contain critical design requirements are a matter of choice which one having of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed limitation is significant (see MPEP 2144.04 (IV-B)).
Regarding claim 6, Araseki teaches a method of using of the electromagnetic transducer as claimed in claim 2 and measuring three-dimensional velocity components of a flow of an electrically conductive fluid (i.e., the flow rate and the flow amount of the electromagnetic pump can be measured using a correlative relationship between the flow amount of the conductive fluid and the magnetic flux density of the leakage magnetic field) (see Column 2, line 45, to Column 3, line 18), such as a liquid metal of a nuclear reactor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAN M. TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0307. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:30am - 7:00pm.
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, Laura Martin can be reached on (571)-272-2160. 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.
/Tran M. Tran/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights