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 § 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.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (US 11,635,315, hereafter Williams) in view of Madsen. (US 3,286,109)
With respect to claim 1, Williams teaches a fluid flow sensing system comprising: a light source and a light sensor; an optical fiber (54) including a fiber core exposed at a face of the optical fiber such that light from the light source can pass out of and into the fiber core; an anemometer for measuring a fluid flow, the anemometer including: a stator (66); a rotor (58) including one or more blades having a reflective surface for reflecting light from the fiber core back into the fiber core for measurement by the light sensor; and a gap between the stator and the rotor, wherein the anemometer is positioned at the face of the optical fiber such that, as the rotor rotates, the blades of the rotor pass the fiber core reflecting light from the light source back into the fiber core, the fiber core receives the light reflected by the reflective surface and transmits it to the light sensor. (col. 3, lines 45-65, Fig. 1)
Williams does not explicitly teach a stabilizing agent is filled in the gap between the stator and the rotor.
However, it is known in the art to provide a stabilizing agent between a stator and a rotor to dampen vibrations. For example, Madsen teaches an apparatus having a rotor and a stator and a stabilizing agent filling the space between the two. (col. 2, lines 10-24)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the structure of Williams to include a stabilizing agent, as taught by Madsen, in order to reduce the oscillations occurring in the rotating assembly.
With respect to claims 2-4, although Williams, as modified by Madsen, does not explicitly teach the type of stabilizing agent, these are known materials which would perform appropriately and therefore would have been obvious choices to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.
With respect to claims 5-6 and 10, although Williams, as modified by Madsen, does not explicitly discuss microfluidic channels these are known in the art and therefore would have been an obvious choice of design in order to provide the material into the gap of Williams.
With respect to claims 7-9, although Williams, as modified by Madsen, does not explicitly discuss the function of the stabilizing agent this would be a function of the stabilizing agent that is chosen and therefore It would have been obvious to one spelled out having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use known materials having predictable effects on the structure.
With respect to claim 11, Williams teaches an anemometer (50) for measuring a fluid flow comprising: a stator (66); a rotor (58) including one or more blades having a reflective surface for reflecting light from a fiber core back into the fiber core for measurement by a light sensor; and a gap between the stator and the rotor. (col. 3, lines 45-65, Fig. 1)
Williams does not explicitly teach a stabilizing agent is filled in the gap between the stator and the rotor.
However, it is known in the art to provide a stabilizing agent between a stator and a rotor to dampen vibrations. For example, Madsen teaches an apparatus having a rotor and a stator and a stabilizing agent filling the space between the two. (col. 2, lines 10-24)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the structure of Williams to include a stabilizing agent, as taught by Madsen, in order to reduce the oscillations occurring in the rotating assembly.
With respect to claim 12, Williams teaches the reflective surface is a gold coating coated on a bottom surface of the one or more blades.
With respect to claim 13, although Williams does not explicitly teach the reflective surface is coated on all the blades of the rotor, this would have been an obvious modification in order to provide complete reflectance as the rotor turns.
With respect to claims 14-16, although Williams, as modified by Madsen, does not explicitly teach the type of stabilizing agent, these are known materials which would perform and appropriately and therefore would have been obvious choices to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.
With respect to claim 17, Williams teaches a flow sensing system comprising: a light source; a light sensor; and a micro, optomechanical anemometer comprising: an optical fiber including a fiber core exposed at a face of the optical fiber (54) such that light from the light source can pass out of and into the fiber core; a stator (66); a rotor (58) including one or more blades having a reflective surface for reflecting light from the fiber core back into the fiber core for measurement by the light sensor; and a gap between the stator and the rotor, wherein the micro, optomechanical anemometer is positioned at the face of the optical fiber such that, as the rotor rotates, the blades of the rotor pass the fiber core reflecting light from the light source back into the fiber core, the fiber core receives the light reflected by the reflective surface and transmits it to the light sensor. (col. 3, lines 45-65, Fig. 1)
Williams does not explicitly teach a stabilizing agent is filled in the gap between the stator and the rotor.
However, it is known in the art to provide a stabilizing agent between a stator and a rotor to dampen vibrations. For example, Madsen teaches an apparatus having a rotor and a stator and a stabilizing agent filling the space between the two. (col. 2, lines 10-24)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the structure of Williams to include a stabilizing agent, as taught by Madsen, in order to reduce the oscillations occurring in the rotating assembly.
With respect to claims 18-20, although Williams, as modified by Madsen, does not explicitly teach the type of stabilizing agent, these are known materials which would perform appropriately and therefore would have been obvious choices to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 3,680,378; US 4,851,666; and WO 0146662 each teach an invention having similarities to the claimed subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jill E Culler whose telephone number is (571)272-2159. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/JILL E CULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
