DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 8, 2025 has been entered.
2. Claims 2, 11-12, and 14 are canceled.
3. Claims 1, 3-10, 13, and 15-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed on 12/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
a) In regard to 101 rejection, the Applicant has provided arguments (pages 10-11).
a) In Response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Foremost, the decision of the Supreme Court in regard to Alice vs CLS Bank is succinctly discussed as follows. In their decision, Supreme Court has stated that the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract ideas (such as algorithms) into a patent eligible invention. Because the algorithm was an abstract idea, the claim had to supply a “new and useful" application of the idea in order to be patent eligible (Alice, Page 12). Furthermore, the additional limitations had to be significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself (Alice, page 7, 15).
Regarding independent Claim 1, we recognize that the limitations “…parameterize the fill level measurement radar sensor, …determine, at least via a digital twin stored in the measuring system, a target position of fill level measurement radar sensor in a measuring site, …determine a current position of the fill level measurement radar sensor by retrieving the current position of the fill level measurement radar sensor from the fill level measurement radar sensor, verify whether the fill level measurement radar sensor is located at the target position, and parameterize the fill level measurement radar sensor in the site”, as abstract ideas. The abstract idea of claim 1 can be characterized as processes, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes and/or mathematical concepts. As stated in the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility: In contrast, claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.
Beyond the abstract idea, we next look at additional elements that can be considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “a fill level measurement radar sensor; and a control device, wherein the control device and/or the fill level measurement radar sensor includes a user interface, and wherein the control device includes processing circuitry configured… transmit the determined target position to the measuring system and/or to a user… request a user to input position information of the fill level measurement radar sensor via the interface, if the sensor is not located at the target position”. Regarding the limitation “a fill level measurement radar sensor,” but said limitations is recited at a high level of generality, and is nothing more than a conventional sensor previously known in the industry. As shown in the prior art, Yates et al. US 2020/0150637 (hereinafter, Yates), ([0028], [0081], Fig. 1), and Dieterle et al. WO 2020/025744 A1 (hereinafter, Dieterle), (page 6), both show that a sensor is well-understood and purely conventional in the relevant art and would be routinely used by those of ordinary skill in the art in order to apply the abstract idea(s) and/or activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Further, the claim recites addition elements of “a control device, wherein the control device and/or the fill level measurement radar sensor includes a user interface, and wherein the control device includes processing circuitry configured… transmit the determined target position to the measuring system and/or to a user… request a user to input position information of the fill level measurement radar sensor via the interface, if the sensor is not located at the target position”, but these limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer structures performing a generic computer function of such as, processing, transmitting, requesting, and outputting information) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. As shown in the prior art, Yates ([0028], [0081], Fig. 1), and Dieterle, (pages 6, 7, and 9), both show that “a control device, wherein the control device and/or the fill level measurement radar sensor includes a user interface, and wherein the control device includes processing circuitry configured… transmit the determined target position to the measuring system and/or to a user… request a user to input position information of the fill level measurement radar sensor via the interface, if the sensor is not located at the target position” are well-understood and purely conventional in the relevant art and would be routinely used by those of ordinary skill in the art in order to apply the abstract idea(s) and/or activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the combination of these additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to “significantly more” than the identified abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the 101 rejection is maintained.
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-10, 13, and 15-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground rejection necessitate by applicant amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
6. Claims 1, 3-10, 13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The representative claim 1 recites:
A measuring system comprising:
a fill level measurement radar sensor; and
a control device configured to parameterize the fill level measurement radar sensor, wherein the control device and/or the fill level measurement radar sensor includes a user interface, and wherein the control device includes processing circuitry configured to:
determine, at least via a digital twin stored in the measuring system, a target position of fill level measurement radar sensor in a measuring site,
transmit the determined target position to the measuring system and/or to a user,
determine a current position of the fill level measurement radar sensor by retrieving the current position of the fill level measurement radar sensor from the fill level measurement radar sensor,
verify whether the fill level measurement radar sensor is located at the target position,
request a user to input position information of the fill level measurement radar sensor via the interface, if the sensor is not located at the target position, and
parameterize the fill level measurement radar sensor in the site.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claims are considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation that fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations in the claim are: a fill level measurement radar sensor; and
a control device, wherein the control device and/or the fill level measurement radar sensor includes a user interface, and wherein the control device includes processing circuitry configured… transmit the determined target position to the measuring system and/or to a user… request a user to input position information of the fill level measurement radar sensor via the interface, if the sensor is not located at the target position. The limitation “a fill level measurement radar sensor” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic sensor) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic sensor.
Further, the claim limitations “a control device, wherein the control device and/or the fill level measurement radar sensor includes a user interface, and wherein the control device includes processing circuitry configured… transmit the determined target position to the measuring system and/or to a user… request a user to input position information of the fill level measurement radar sensor via the interface, if the sensor is not located at the target position”, are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer structures performing a generic computer functions of processing information) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, the additional limitations recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic sensor, and processing, transmitting, requesting, and outputting information using a computer components). Further, the additional elements are conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Yates et al. US 2020/0150637 (hereinafter, Yates), ([0028], [0081], Fig. 1), and Dieterle et al. WO 2020/025744 A1 (hereinafter, Dieterle), (pages 6, 7, and 9). Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3-10, 13, and 16-20, add further details of the identified abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 15, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
9. Claims 17-19 are exactly the same as claims 5-7, respectively. In addition, claim 20 is the same as claim 13. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
10. Claim 3 recites the limitations “wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the current position of the fill level measurement radar sensor based at least in part on being configured to determine signal strengths from further fill level measurement radar sensors; and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to the current position of the fill level measurement radar sensor based at least in part on current positions of the further fill level measurement radar sensors known from the digital twin.” However, the meaning of “wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to the current position of the fill level measurement radar sensor based at least in part on current positions of the further fill level measurement radar sensors known from the digital twin” is unclear. It is not clear what is being configured, may be configured to determine the current position of the sensor and/or some other parameters associated with the sensor. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claim Objection
11. Claims 1, 3-10, 13, and 16-20 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 limitation “…via the interface, if the sensor is not…” should read “…via the user interface, if the sensor is not…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7 and 19 limitation “ request, via a user interface, …” should read “request, via [[a]] the user interface, …”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 limitation “ a user interface configured …” should read “[[a]] the user interface is configured …”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
12. Claims 1, 4-10, 13, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yates et al. US 2020/0150637 (hereinafter, Yates), in view of Yoshii et al. US 2006/0132631 (hereinafter, Yoshii), in further view of Dieterle et al. WO 2020/025744 A1 (hereinafter, Dieterle).
13. Regarding Claim 1, Yates teaches: a measuring system [Fig.1 and ¶0038], comprising:
a sensor, and to a controller device configured to parameterize the sensor [¶0040, ¶0051 facilitate configuring the sensors in accordance with the selected settings],
wherein the control device and/or the sensor includes a user interface [¶0063, ¶0064], and
wherein the control device includes processing circuitry configured to: determine, at least via a digital twin stored in the measuring system, a target position of the sensor in a measuring site [Abstract and ¶0051]: simulation analysis on the digital twin that determines sensor realignments and configuration settings],
transmit the determined target position to the measuring system and/or to a user[see ¶0051 sends the desired sensor configuration data to sensors for realignment and configuration];…[Further] the sensor uses markers around it to determine if the sensor is properly located, and provides feedback on whether it is properly located and aligned to match the digital twin design with the expected view (the desired detection zone) [see ¶0089]; and
request a user to input position information of the sensor via the interface, if the sensor is not located at the target position [¶0063, ¶0063, and ¶0081]
parameterize the sensor in the site [¶0090 system interface component (612) configured to deliver sensor configuration data to respective sensors (112); ¶0051 facilitate configuring the sensors in accordance with the selected settings].,
Yates does not teach:
fill level measurement radar sensor, and determine a current position of the fill level measurement radar sensor by retrieving the current position of the fill level measurement radar sensor from the fill level measurement radar sensor, verify whether the fill level measurement radar sensor is located at the target position.
However, Yoshii teaches:
“a controller obtaining the current position of a CCD from a CCD position sensor and comparing it with the target position; sending a driving pulse to move the CCD to the target position” [see ¶0054].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yates to use determine a current position of the sensor by retrieving the current position of the sensor from the sensor, verify whether the sensor is located at the target position as taught by Yoshii. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to apply the determining sensor position methodology of sensor position detecting system as known in the art and as taught by Yoshii in a monitoring sensor system such as that of Yates, thereby verifying the current position of a sensor (Yoshii, ¶0054).
Yates in view of Yoshii does not teach:
fill level measurement radar sensor.
However, Dieterle teaches:
fill level measurement radar sensor [pages 6 and 9].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yates in view of Yoshii to use fill level measurement radar sensor as taught by Dieterle. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to apply measuring fill level methodology of radar sensor system as known in the art and as taught by Dieterle in a monitoring sensor system such as that of Yates and Yoshii, thereby determining a fill level of a medium (Dieterle, page 6).
14. Regarding Claim 15, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 1.
15. Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Yates, Yoshii, and Dieterle render obvious the measuring system according claim 1 as disclosed above.
Yates further teaches: wherein the current position and/or the target position includes a position, an orientation, one or more position parameters, and/or a setting angle [see ¶0051 desired locations, orientations, and monitored field of view].
16. Regarding Claims 5 and 17, the combination of Yates, Yoshii, and Dieterle render obvious the measuring system according claim 1 as disclosed above.
Yates further teaches: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: transmit, by the sensor and/or by the user, the current position of the sensor to the measuring system [see ¶0069 designer puts known location of sensors into the system], and match the current position of the sensor with the target position of the sensor [see ¶0051 and ¶0081 relocate or realign the sensor to more closely match defined detection zone].
Yates in view of Yoshii does not teach:
fill level measurement radar sensor.
However, Dieterle teaches:
fill level measurement radar sensor [pages 6 and 9].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yates in view of Yoshii to use fill level measurement radar sensor as taught by Dieterle. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to apply measuring fill level methodology of radar sensor system as known in the art and as taught by Dieterle in a monitoring sensor system such as that of Yates and Yoshii, thereby determining a fill level of a medium (Dieterle, page 6).
17. Regarding Claims 6 and 18, the combination of Yates, Yoshii, and Dieterle render obvious the measuring system according claim 1 as disclosed above.
Yates further teaches: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: transmit, by the sensor, sensor-specific information to the measuring system; and/or match the sensor-specific information [see ¶0050 monitored field of view, detection zone distance, etc.] with sensor-specific information of the digital twin [see ¶0051 determines a suitable set configuration settings for the sensors based on and retrieved from the digital twin].
Yates in view of Yoshii does not teach:
fill level measurement radar sensor.
However, Dieterle teaches:
fill level measurement radar sensor [pages 6 and 9].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yates in view of Yoshii to use fill level measurement radar sensor as taught by Dieterle. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to apply measuring fill level methodology of radar sensor system as known in the art and as taught by Dieterle in a monitoring sensor system such as that of Yates and Yoshii, thereby determining a fill level of a medium (Dieterle, page 6).
18. Regarding Claims 7 and 19, the combination of Yates, Yoshii, and Dieterle render obvious the measuring system according claim 1 as disclosed above.
Yates further teaches: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: request, via a user interface, position information that at least partially defines the target position and/or the current position, and/or verify the current position of the sensor [¶0003, ¶0081, and ¶0054 user interface used to obtain detection zone].
Yates in view of Yoshii does not teach:
fill level measurement radar sensor.
However, Dieterle teaches:
fill level measurement radar sensor [pages 6 and 9].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yates in view of Yoshii to use fill level measurement radar sensor as taught by Dieterle. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to apply measuring fill level methodology of radar sensor system as known in the art and as taught by Dieterle in a monitoring sensor system such as that of Yates and Yoshii, thereby determining a fill level of a medium (Dieterle, page 6).
19. Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Yates, Yoshii, and Dieterle render obvious the measuring system according claim 6 as disclosed above.
Yates further teaches: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to when matching: determine a deviation between the current position of the sensor and the determined target position of the sensor, query, via an interface of the sensor and/or the measuring system, based on the determination of the deviation, position information that at least partially defines the target position, and/or the current position, and/or parameterize and/or attach the sensor to the target position based on interrogation [see ¶0077 determines if estimated detecting zone deviates from desired detection zone],…[Further] [see ¶0063, ¶0064], ¶0081]. The configuration component is able to use a simulation-based analysis to optimize values of sensor configuration settings, and the results of this can be rendered by the user interface component], (i.e., wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to when matching: determine a deviation between the current position of the sensor and the determined target position of the sensor).
Yates in view of Yoshii does not teach:
fill level measurement radar sensor.
However, Dieterle teaches:
fill level measurement radar sensor [pages 6 and 9].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yates in view of Yoshii to use fill level measurement radar sensor as taught by Dieterle. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to apply measuring fill level methodology of radar sensor system as known in the art and as taught by Dieterle in a monitoring sensor system such as that of Yates and Yoshii, thereby determining a fill level of a medium (Dieterle, page 6).
20. Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Yates, Yoshii, and Dieterle render obvious the measuring system according claim 1 as disclosed above.
Yates further teaches: wherein the digital twin is a digital twin of a site having a plurality of sensors [abstract – multiple sensors; Fig. 4.].
Yates in view of Yoshii does not teach:
fill level measurement radar sensor.
However, Dieterle teaches:
fill level measurement radar sensor [pages 6 and 9].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yates in view of Yoshii to use fill level measurement radar sensor as taught by Dieterle. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to apply measuring fill level methodology of radar sensor system as known in the art and as taught by Dieterle in a monitoring sensor system such as that of Yates and Yoshii, thereby determining a fill level of a medium (Dieterle, page 6).
21. Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Yates, Yoshii, and Dieterle render obvious the measuring system according claim 1 as disclosed above.
Yates further teaches: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to when parameterizing the sensor: retrieve, via the measuring system and/or via the digital twin, sensor-specific data for parameterizing, calibrating and/or controlling the sensor [see ¶0051 determines a suitable set configuration settings for the sensors based on and retrieved from the digital twin], and/or match, via the measuring system and/or via the digital twin, sensor-specific data for parameterizing, calibrating and/or controlling the sensor [see ¶0081 relocate or realign the sensor to more closely match defined detection zone].
Yates in view of Yoshii does not teach:
fill level measurement radar sensor.
However, Dieterle teaches:
fill level measurement radar sensor [pages 6 and 9].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yates in view of Yoshii to use fill level measurement radar sensor as taught by Dieterle. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to apply measuring fill level methodology of radar sensor system as known in the art and as taught by Dieterle in a monitoring sensor system such as that of Yates and Yoshii, thereby determining a fill level of a medium (Dieterle, page 6).
22. Regarding Claims 13 and 20, the combination of Yates, Yoshii, and Dieterle render obvious the measuring system according claim 1 as disclosed above.
Yates further teaches: a user interface configured to communicate and/or interact with the digital twin, with the sensor, and/or with the control device [see ¶0054 user interface displays can include interactive graphical representations based on imported digital twin data].
Yates in view of Yoshii does not teach:
fill level measurement radar sensor.
However, Dieterle teaches:
fill level measurement radar sensor [pages 6 and 9].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yates in view of Yoshii to use fill level measurement radar sensor as taught by Dieterle. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to apply measuring fill level methodology of radar sensor system as known in the art and as taught by Dieterle in a monitoring sensor system such as that of Yates and Yoshii, thereby determining a fill level of a medium (Dieterle, page 6).
23. Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yates, in view Yoshii, in view of Dieterle, in further view of Santarone et al. US 20200370994 (hereinafter, Santarone).
24. Regarding claim 3, the combination of Yates, Yoshii, and Dieterle renders obvious the measuring system according to claim 1 as disclosed above.
Yates further teaches configuring position of the sensor based at least in part of the digital twin [Abstract and ¶0051].
Yates in view of Yoshii does not teach:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the current position of the fill level measuring radar sensor based at least in part on being configured to determine signal strengths from further fill level measuring radar sensors; and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to the current position of the fill level measuring radar sensor based at least in part on current positions of the further fill level measuring radar sensors known.
However, Dieterle teaches:
fill level measurement radar sensor [pages 6 and 9].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yates in view of Yoshii to use fill level measurement radar sensor as taught by Dieterle. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to apply measuring fill level methodology of radar sensor system as known in the art and as taught by Dieterle in a monitoring sensor system such as that of Yates and Yoshii, thereby determining a fill level of a medium (Dieterle, page 6).
Yates in view of Yoshii in view of Dieterle does not teach:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the current position of the sensor based at least in part on being configured to determine signal strengths from further sensors; and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to the current position of the sensor based at least in part on current positions of the further sensors known.
However, Santarone teaches:
“a method of determining the current position of devices by relative signal strengths received from wireless transmissions of at least 3 reference devices” [see ¶0322-0323].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yates in view of Yoshii in view of Dieterle to use wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the current position of the sensor based at least in part on being configured to determine signal strengths from further sensors; and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to the current position of the sensor based at least in part on current positions of the further sensors known as taught by Santarone. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to apply the determining sensor position methodology of sensor position detecting system as known in the art and as taught by Santarone in a monitoring sensor system such as that of Yates, Yoshii, and Dieterle, thereby determining current sensor position accurately (Santarone, ¶0087).
25. Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Yates, Yoshii, Dieterle, and Santarone render obvious the measuring system according claim 3 as disclosed above.
Yates further teaches: wherein the current position and/or the target position includes a position, an orientation, one or more position parameters, and/or a setting angle [see ¶0051 desired locations, orientations, and monitored field of view].
Conclusion
26. Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, and/or paragraphs, and/or pages in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
27. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYOB HAGOS whose telephone number is (571)272-3508. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Shelby Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Eyob Hagos/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857