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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 02/09/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-17 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amendments to independent claim(s) 1 and 13 are moot based on the new grounds of rejection below.
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.
Claim(s) 1,2,7,9-12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erhart et al. (C. Erhart, S. Lutz, J. Köhler, H. Mantz, T. Walter and R. Weigel, "Surface velocity estimation of fluids using millimetre-wave radar," 2015 European Microwave Conference (EuMC), Paris, France, 2015, pp. 566-569, doi: 10.1109/EuMC.2015.7345826.) in view of Blodt (US 20160138957 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Erhart discloses [Note: what Erhart fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
A device for measuring the surface velocity of a fluid flowing in a confined space (Intro: “In this paper, measurements in industrial as well as in natural environments will be shown and possible applications will be discussed. The measurements are taken with different probes, which are altogether adjusted for specific test environments or applications.”, where Fig. 5 depicts the use of the radar sensor with a horn antenna to determine fluid velocity in a confined flow passage), said device comprising a patch antenna with a transmitting area generating a microwave signal and a receiving area receiving the microwave signal reflected on the surface of the fluid (see Fig. 2 which depicts the radar frontend PCB where the microstrip antenna guides the radiation through a horn antenna coupled to the radar sensor (see Fig. 5) and receives the reflected waves), the device further comprising an electrically conductive tube with at least the transmitting area of the patch antenna mounted at one end of the electrically conductive tube in order to reduce the side lobes of the generated microwave signal (see Fig. 5, where the “horn antenna” is the “electrically conductive tube” and furthermore, this “horn antenna” includes an elongated cylindrical portion” (see annotated Fig. 5 below for support) which does indeed “reduce side lobes” of the generated microwave signal),
PNG
media_image1.png
756
1488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5
Blodt discloses,
the device further comprising an electrically conductive tube (see Fig. 3, horn antenna, further see paragraph 0035, “FIG. 3 an antenna arrangement comprising a horn antenna having a horn shaped component”), and wherein the electrically conductive tube consists of metal (see paragraph 0007, “Horn antennas are basically constructed such that a funnel shaped metal horn is formed on a hollow conductor in the direction facing the fill substance”, where the “funnel shaped metal horn” is the “electrically conductive rube consists of metal”, further see paragraph 0056, “The horn shaped component 2 is composed of thin sheet material, for example, brass or a conductive plastic or a plastic, which is metallized on its surface.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Blodt into the invention as disclosed by Erhart. Both of these references are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they both disclose the use of radar technology comprising a horn antenna to determine fluid characteristics in a confined space. Erhart discloses the use of an electrically conductive tube (see Fig. 5 depicting a horn antenna) to determine flow characteristic for a fluid through a channel. As seen in Fig. 5 of Erhart, it appears that the horn antenna consists entirely of metal; however, for clarity and to show that it is well-known in the art that horn antennas consist of metal funnels, Blodt is being used to disclose such a feature. Blodt discloses the use of a horn antenna to determine fluid characteristics in a confined space and further discloses that horn antennas are metal funnels (i.e. an electrically conductive tube consisting of metal). Furthermore, the lengthen portion of the horn antenna as shown in Fig. 5 of Erhart indeed “reduces” side lobes of the microwaves as its reduces edge diffraction and allows energy to be concentered at the center of the horn antenna. Therefore, the combination of would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order utilize a strong and protective material for the horn antenna design (i.e. metal) while reducing sides lobes of the transmitted microwaves and thereby increasing the accuracy of the received data.
Regarding claim 2, Erhart further discloses
The device according to claim 1, wherein a cross section of the electrically conductive tube at said one end covers both the transmitting area and the receiving area (see Fig. 2 and Fig. 5 where the cross section of the entrance to the horn antenna is coupled to the radar sensor (i.e. both the transmitting area and the receiving area)).
Regarding claim 7, Erhart further discloses
The device according to, wherein the electrically conductive tube has a circular section and cylindrical shape over its length (see annotated Fig. 5 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
756
1488
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5
Regarding claim 9, Erhart further discloses
The device according to claim 1, wherein the electrically conductive tube has a conical shape over its length with a cross section of the electrically conductive tube expanding from the patch antenna to an exit of the electrically conductive tube (see Fig. 5, which discloses a conical horn antenna shape with a cross section of the horn antenna expanding from the radar sensor (i.e. microstrip antenna) furthermore, page 567, first column indicates that different antenna geometries can be used).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Erhart and Blodt discloses [Note: what Erhart fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
Device as claimed in claim 1,
Blodt discloses,
wherein the length of the electrically conductive tube is a multiple of a wavelength of the generated microwave signal (see paragraph 0027, “In a further development, the lengthening component has a length of at least 8 times, preferably at least 16 times, the wavelength of the microwaves. Because of this dimensioning, there is present at an exit opening of the lengthening component a TE.sub.11 mode and a TM.sub.11 mode in suitable power fractions, in order interactively to build an approximately linearly polarized field distribution for increased focusing.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Blodt into the invention as disclosed by Erhart. Both of these references are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they both disclose the use of radar technology comprising a horn antenna to determine fluid characteristics in a confined space. Erhart discloses the use of an electrically conductive tube (see Fig. 5 depicting a horn antenna) to determine flow characteristic for a fluid through a channel where the horn antenna includes a lengthened portion. Erhart fail to disclose the features of the length of the electrically conductive tube to be a multiple of a wavelength of the signal. This feature is disclosed by Blodt where the length is based on an integer multiple of the wavelength of the microwaves. The combination of would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce side lobes and create a more focused microwave signal which would lead to more accurate measurements.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Erhart and Blodt discloses [Note: what Erhart fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
Device as claimed in claim 10,
Blodt discloses [Note: what Blodt fails to specifically disclose is strike-through],
wherein the length of the electrically conductive tube is equal to 8 times the wavelength of the generated microwave signal (see paragraph 0027, “In a further development, the lengthening component has a length of at least 8 times, preferably at least 16 times, the wavelength of the microwaves. Because of this dimensioning, there is present at an exit opening of the lengthening component a TE.sub.11 mode and a TM.sub.11 mode in suitable power fractions, in order interactively to build an approximately linearly polarized field distribution for increased focusing.”).
It would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the length of the electrically conductive tube to be 3,6 or 12 times the wavelength of the generated microwave signal in light the disclosed invention of Erhart in view of Blodt. Both of these references are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they both disclose the use of radar technology comprising a horn antenna to determine fluid characteristics in a confined space. Erhart discloses the use of an electrically conductive tube (see Fig. 5 depicting a horn antenna) to determine flow characteristic for a fluid through a channel where the horn antenna includes a lengthened portion. Erhart fail to disclose the features of the length of the electrically conductive tube to be a multiple of a wavelength of the signal. Blodt discloses the length is based on an integer multiple of the wavelength of the microwaves (specifically 8 times the wavelength). It would have been obvious to try by Blodt to create the length of the horn antenna to be 3,6 or 12 times the wavelength of the microwave as MPEP § 2141 provides that an invention may render a claimed limitation obvious when it would be “obvious to try” to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. In such an instance it would be obvious to try to create the length of the horn antenna to be 12 times the wavelength of the microwaves with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce side lobes and create a more focused microwave signal which would lead to more accurate measurements.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Erhart and Blodt discloses [Note: what Erhart fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The device according to claim 1,
Blodt discloses,
wherein another end of the electrically conductive tube is equipped with a microwave lens (see Fig. 6a, further see paragraph 0060, “FIG. 6a shows another embodiment of an antenna arrangement 1 of the invention with a process isolating element 13, in which a dielectric lens 18 is arranged. In this way, the antenna gain can be improved.”, further see Fig. 9, lens arranged at element 13).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Blodt into the invention as disclosed by Erhart. Both of these references are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they both disclose the use of radar technology comprising a horn antenna to determine fluid characteristics in a confined space. Erhart discloses the use of an electrically conductive tube (see Fig. 5 depicting a horn antenna) to determine flow characteristic for a fluid through a channel where the horn antenna includes a lengthened portion. Erhart fails to disclose the features of wherein another end of the electrically conductive tube is equipped with a microwave lens. This feature is disclosed by Blodt where an end of the horn antenna includes a lens. The combination of would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order create a more focused and high gain microwave signal which would lead to more accurate measurements.
Claim(s) 3,8 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erhart et al. (C. Erhart, S. Lutz, J. Köhler, H. Mantz, T. Walter and R. Weigel, "Surface velocity estimation of fluids using millimetre-wave radar," 2015 European Microwave Conference (EuMC), Paris, France, 2015, pp. 566-569, doi: 10.1109/EuMC.2015.7345826.) in view of Blodt (US 20160138957 A1) further in view of Jirskog (US 20090315758 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Erhart and Blodt discloses [Note: what the combination of Erhart and Blodt fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The device according to claim 2,
Jirskog discloses,
further comprising an electrically conductive plate extending along the electrically conductive tube to separate the transmitting area from the receiving area (see Fig. 5, electrically conductive plate 53 separate the transmitting area 51 from the receiving area 52).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Jirskog into the invention as disclosed by Erhart in view of Blodt. These references are considered analogous art to the claimed invention as they all disclose the use of radar technology comprising a horn antenna to determine fluid characteristics. Erhart in view of Blodt discloses the features of claim 1; however, Erhart in view of Blodt fails to disclose the features of: further comprising an electrically conductive plate extending along the electrically conductive tube to separate the transmitting area from the receiving area. This feature is disclosed by Jirskog where the combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to achieve high signal isolation between the transmitter part and the receiver part to generate more accurate measurement data.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Erhart and Blodt discloses [Note: what the combination of Erhart and Blodt fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The device according to claim 1, Erhart further discloses, wherein the electrically conductive tube has a conical shape over its length with a cross section of the electrically conductive tube expanding from the patch antenna to an exit of the electrically conductive tube (see Fig. 5 conical horn antenna where the radar sensor mounted on one end includes the radiating patch (see Fig. 2 for support)).
Jirskog discloses,
wherein the electrically conductive tube has a pyramidal shape over its length (see Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Jirskog into the invention as disclosed by Erhart in view of Blodt. These references are considered analogous art to the claimed invention as they all disclose the use of radar technology comprising a horn antenna to determine the fluid characteristics. Erhart in view of Blodt discloses the features of claim 1; however, Erhart in view of Blodt fails to disclose the features of: wherein the electrically conductive tube has a pyramidal shape over its length. This feature is disclosed by Jirskog where the combination of would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to focus the signal with high signal gain to generate more accurate measurements.
Regarding claim 13, Erhart discloses [Note: what Erhart fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
A non-invasive method for measuring a surface velocity of a fluid flowing a confined space (Intro: “In this paper, measurements in industrial as well as in natural environments will be shown and possible applications will be discussed. The measurements are taken with different probes, which are altogether adjusted for specific test environments or applications. An extended focus will be on a dielectric waveguide as a probe for near distance measurements, which was developed to determine the velocity of fluids inside of plastic pipes in order to achieve the volumetric flow range.”; III. Measurements, “Determining the volumetric flow rate of fluids in plastic pipes is an important industrial application. With the dielectric waveguide antenna, introduced before, it is possible to provide a good and stable setup to achieve reliable values. The flexible dielectric waveguide can be bended in various directions without increasing attenuation. Therefore it is not necessary to place the radar sensor directly nearby the pipe where the volumetric flow rate should be measured.”), comprising the steps of:
(a) generating a microwave signal (see Fig. 5 generating the microwave signal by the radar sensor)
(b) forcing the generated microwave signal through a reflector tube to modify the pattern of the generated microwave signal, (see annotated Fig. 5 below, where the radar sensor directs the signals through the elongated horn antenna (i.e. forcing the generated signal through the electrically conductive tube) which focuses the signal (i.e. modifies the pattern of the generated microwave signal) due to its elongated cylindrical portion);
(c) directing the generated microwave signal towards the surface of the fluid (see Fig. 5);
(d) detecting the microwave signal reflected from the surface of the fluid (see Fig. 5 and 6, where Fig. 6 depicts the comparison of radar measurements and calculated velocities); and
(e) determining from the generated microwave signal and the reflected microwave signal a Doppler frequency shift to calculate the surface velocity of the fluid (III. Measurements, “The comparison of these values agree very well, which can be seen in figure 6. In many applications the volumetric flow rate is the most interesting parameter to be determined. This value can be calculated out of the surface velocity if the geometry of stream bed is known, as it was done in the opposite direction in figure 6. The increasing turbulent flow at higher pump rotation speed impedes an exact calculation. In addition to this experimental validation, some computational fluid dynamics of the artificial flow channel have been calculated. The results of these simulations confirm the reliability of the velocity estimation of the sensor.”), wherein during the method, there is no contact between the electrically conductive tube and the fluid (see Fig. 5 where there is no contact between the electrically conductive tube and the fluid).
PNG
media_image1.png
756
1488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Blodt discloses [Note: what Blodt fails to disclose is strike-through],
(a) generating a microwave signal (see paragraph 0054, “The antenna arrangement 1 further includes for additional focusing of the microwaves a lengthening component 15, which lengthens the horn shaped component 2 in the radiated direction 3 of the microwaves.”)
wherein the reflector tube is an electrically conductive tube consists of metal (see paragraph 0007, “Horn antennas are basically constructed such that a funnel shaped metal horn is formed on a hollow conductor in the direction facing the fill substance”, where the “funnel shaped metal horn” is the “electrically conductive rube consists of metal”, further see paragraph 0056, “The horn shaped component 2 is composed of thin sheet material, for example, brass or a conductive plastic or a plastic, which is metallized on its surface.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Blodt into the invention as disclosed by Erhart. Both of these references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose the use of radar technology comprising a horn antenna to determine fluid characteristics in a confined space. Erhart discloses the use of an electrically conductive tube (see Fig. 5 depicting a horn antenna) to determine flow characteristic for a fluid through a channel. As seen in Fig. 5 of Erhart, it appears that the horn antenna consists entirely of metal; however, for clarity and to show that it is well-known in the art that horn antennas consist of metal funnels, Blodt is being used to disclose such a feature. Blodt discloses the use of a horn antenna to determine fluid characteristics in a confined space and further discloses that horn antennas are metal funnels (i.e. an electrically conductive tube consisting of metal). Furthermore, the lengthen portion of the horn antenna as shown in Fig. 5 of Erhart indeed “reduces” side lobes of the microwaves as its reduces edge diffraction and allows energy to be concentered at the center of the horn antenna. Therefore, the combination of would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order utilize a strong and protective material for the horn antenna design (i.e. metal) while reducing sides lobes of the transmitted microwaves and thereby increasing the accuracy of the received data.
Jirskog discloses,
(a) generating a microwave signal by using a patch antenna comprising an array of patches interconnected forming a transmitting area and another array of patches interconnected forming a receiving area (Paragraph 0052, “FIG. 4a schematically illustrates a first exemplary patch antenna 40 comprising a set or transmitter patches 41 represented by crossed boxes and a set of receiver patches 42 represented by empty boxes (only one each of these patches are denoted with reference numerals in FIG. 4a for the sake of clarity of drawing). By providing the transmitter patches 41 and the receiver patches 42 in such a way that they are galvanically separated from each other, that is, that there is no current flowing between transmitter patches 41 and receiver patches 42 when the radar level gauge system is in operation, a compact, low-cost antenna device 40 with a very high signal isolation can be achieved, which may advantageously be used in combination with the transceiver 20 in FIG. 3 to achieve a frequency-modulated radar level gauge system having a very high measurement sensitivity.”);
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Jirskog into the invention of Erhart in view of Blodt. These references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose the use of radar technology comprising a horn antenna to determine the fluid characteristics. Erhart in view of Blodt discloses the features of claim 1; however, Erhart in view of Blodt fails to disclose the features of: generating a microwave signal by using a patch antenna comprising an array of patches interconnected forming a transmitting area and another array of patches interconnected forming a receiving area. This feature is disclosed by Jirskog where the combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to achieve a high signal isolation between the transmitter part and the receiver part by utilizing a plurality of antenna patch components.
Regarding claim 14, Erhart further discloses
The non-invasive method according to claim 16, further comprising a step (f) of converting the surface velocity of the fluid to produce a mean velocity of the fluid through the pipe or the channel (see IV. Velocity Estimation, “As seen in the chapters before, the velocity of water in pipes and rivers is very inhomogeneous. Hence, the average flow velocity has to be extracted of the measured spectrum. In addition, the angular beamwidth of the used antenna has to be considered. To estimate the surface velocity of the water, the approach presented in [6] is used. At this point the velocity is estimated by first smoothing the spectrum and afterwards calculating the center of the area defined by a threshold.”, further see Fig. 5 which determines the velocity of the flow channel).
Regarding claim 15, Erhart further discloses
The non-invasive method according to claim 14, further comprising a step (g) of determining a flow rate of the fluid through the pipe or the channel, said flow rate being the mean velocity multiplied by a wet area in the pipe or the channel (III. Measurements, “In many applications the volumetric flow rate is the most interesting parameter to be determined. This value can be calculated out of the surface velocity if the geometry of stream bed is known, as it was done in the opposite direction in figure 6. The increasing turbulent flow at higher pump rotation speed impedes an exact calculation. In addition to this experimental validation, some computational fluid dynamics of the artificial flow channel have been calculated. The results of these simulations confirm the reliability of the velocity estimation of the sensor.”, further see Fig. 5 which determines the velocity of the flow channel, further see IV. Velocity Estimation, “As seen in the chapters before, the velocity of water in pipes and rivers is very inhomogeneous. Hence, the average flow velocity has to be extracted of the measured spectrum. In addition, the angular beamwidth of the used antenna has to be considered. To estimate the surface velocity of the water, the approach presented in [6] is used. At this point the velocity is estimated by first smoothing the spectrum and afterwards calculating the center of the area defined by a threshold.”).
Regarding claim 16, Erhart further discloses
The non-invasive method according to claim 13, wherein the confined space comprises a pipe or a channel (see Fig. 5 which determines the velocity of the flow channel which is confined space).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erhart et al. (C. Erhart, S. Lutz, J. Köhler, H. Mantz, T. Walter and R. Weigel, "Surface velocity estimation of fluids using millimetre-wave radar," 2015 European Microwave Conference (EuMC), Paris, France, 2015, pp. 566-569, doi: 10.1109/EuMC.2015.7345826.) in view of Blodt (US 20160138957 A1) further in view of Chou et al. (Chou, Ke-Ru, et al. "Design and simulation of a C-band pyramidal horn antenna for water-level radar sensors." Journal of Marine Science and Technology–Taiwan 23.2 (2015): 10.).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Erhart and Blodt discloses [Note: what the combination of Erhart and Blodt fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The device according to claim 1,
Chou discloses,
wherein the electrically conductive tube has a square section with parallel faces over its length (see annotated Fig. 2 below where the top face is the “square section” and the left and right sides are the parallel faces).
PNG
media_image3.png
424
580
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Chou into the invention as disclosed by Erhart in view of Blodt. These references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose the use of radar technology comprising a horn antenna to determine fluid characteristics. Erhart in view of Blodt discloses the features of claim 1; however, Erhart in view of Blodt fails to disclose the features of: wherein the electrically conductive tube has a square section with parallel faces over its length. This feature is disclosed by Chou which discloses a pyramidical horn antenna design with parallel faces along its length, where the combination of would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to focus the signal with high signal gain to generate more accurate measurements.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Erhart and Blodt discloses [Note: what the combination of Erhart and Blodt fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The device according to claim 1,
Chou discloses,
wherein the electrically conductive tube has a rectangular section with parallel faces over its length (see annotated Fig. 2 below where the entrance section of the horn antenna is the “rectangular section” and the top and bottom faces are the “parallel faces”).
PNG
media_image4.png
424
580
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Chou into the invention as disclosed by Erhart in view of Blodt. These references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose the use of radar technology comprising a horn antenna to determine fluid characteristics. Erhart in view of Blodt discloses the features of claim 1; however, Erhart in view of Blodt fails to disclose the features of: wherein the electrically conductive tube has a square section with parallel faces over its length. This feature is disclosed by Chou which discloses a pyramidical horn antenna design with parallel faces along its length, where the combination of would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to focus the signal with high signal gain to generate more accurate measurements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In reference to dependent claim 4, the prior arts made of record individually or in
any combination, failed to teach, render obvious, or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of filing the feature of “wherein a cross section of the electrically conductive tube at said one end only covers the transmitting area” of claim 4 in combination with the claimed features of claim 1. In reference to dependent claim 4, there is nothing in the prior art that would suggest modifying Erhart to have the missing elements without the improper use of hindsight. Therefore, the prior arts made of record individually or in any combination, failed to teach, render obvious, or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the combination of the claimed features of claim 4.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZRA N. WAHEED whose telephone number is (571)272-6713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8 AM - 4:30 PM).
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571)270-5144. 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.
/NAZRA NUR WAHEED/Examiner, Art Unit 3648