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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification references specific claim numbers on page 1 at line 17. The claim references should be omitted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/23/2025 contained an apparent typographical error. The reference to DROST contained an erroneous publication number. It has been corrected and the submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement filed 6/23/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein regarding the non-patent literature document has not been considered.
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 24 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.
Regarding claim 24, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claims 13-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Drost (US 2021/0396566).
Regarding Claim 13: Drost teaches a method for cleaning a flowmeter comprising at least one oscillatory measurement tube (see abstract), wherein the cleaning is performed in order to remove a coating from a wall of the at least one measurement tube [0006], wherein the method comprises: applying a cleaning medium to the measurement tube [0080]; repeatedly acquiring measurement values of a monitoring parameter which is dependent on the coating, wherein the measurement values are acquired by means of the meter [0011]; and determining a cleaning progress on the basis of the measurement values of the monitoring parameter [0011].
Regarding Claim 14: Drost further teaches wherein determining the cleaning progress comprises: comparing the measurement values with at least one threshold value of the monitoring parameter [0085].
Regarding Claims 15-17: Drost further teaches controlling the cleaning process on the basis of the determined cleaning progress [0083] including terminating the cleaning process on the basis of the cleaning progress ([0083] states the system is placed into a non-cleaning mode such as an operation routine).
Regarding Claim 18: Drost further teaches verifying the cleaning progress using a verification parameter which is different from the monitoring parameter ([0065] states other verification parameters may be used).
Regarding Claims 19 and 20: Drost further teaches wherein the flowmeter is further designed to acquire density measurement values of a medium of air or water guided in the measurement tube, wherein the verification parameter comprises a function of at least one density measurement value for at least one reference medium with a known reference density, to which the measurement tube is subjected after the cleaning process has been terminated [0067-0074, 0080].
Regarding Claim 21: Drost further teaches the monitoring parameter comprises a damping of a measurement tube oscillation [0086].
Regarding Claim 22: Drost further teaches the monitoring parameter comprises the natural frequency of a torsional oscillation of the measurement tube [0065].
Regarding Claim 23: Drost further teaches wherein the flowmeter remains operationally installed in a measurement point in a process system during the cleaning process, in which measurement point the coating to be removed by the cleaning process has formed during normal operation of the process system, wherein normal operation is interrupted during the cleaning process, and wherein the flowmeter acquires and outputs measurement data relating to the monitoring parameters and/or verification parameters during the cleaning process [0006, 0085-0087].
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.
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 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drost (US 2021/0396566) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Gloss et al. (US 2019/0011300) and Yang et al. (CN 111842358, machine translation referenced herein)
Regarding Claim 24: Drost teaches the elements of Claim 13 as discussed above, but does not expressly disclose the flowmeter is removed from a measurement point in a process system during the cleaning process, in which measurement point the coating to be removed by the cleaning process has formed during normal operation of the process system. However, Gloss teaches that a flowmeter is installed in a pipeline and removed from a measurement point in a process system during a cleaning process, in which measurement point a coating to be removed by the cleaning process has formed during normal operation of the process system [0026]. Drost does not expressly disclose the flowmeter is operationally installed in a pipeline of a cleaning system during the cleaning process and acquires and outputs measurement data relating to the monitoring parameters to the cleaning system. However, Drost teaches acquiring and outputting measurement data relating to the monitoring parameters during the cleaning process, as discussed above. Yang teaches installing a flowmeter in a pipeline of a cleaning system for flushing the meter in a cleaning process (pg. 6, Embodiment 2, Step 1). 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 of Drost and Gloss by removing the flowmeter and installing it in a pipeline of a cleaning system in order to flush the flowmeter as suggested by Yang.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7382. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM- 5:00 PM EST.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/NATASHA N CAMPBELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
