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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/13/2022, 11/23/2022, 12/26/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
To help the reader, examiner notes in this detailed action claim language is in bold, strikethrough limitations are not explicitly taught and language added to explain a reference mapping are isolated from quotations via square brackets.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/10/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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.
Claim(s) 25-28, 30, 34-34, 36, 39, 41-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fehrenbach et al. (US 20170162928 hereinafter Fehrenbach ‘928) in view of Fehrenbach et al. (US 20160282168 hereinafter Fehrenbach ‘168), and in further view of Fromme et al. (US 20040031335 hereinafter Fromme).
Regarding claim 25, Fehrenbach ‘928 teaches A radar sensor configured to measure a level or a limit level of a product in a container, and a mounting device, comprising a hollow sphere or at least a hollow sphere segment, configured for rotatably supporting the radar sensor, the radar sensor comprising (0011 “detecting fill levels”; fig 1; 0054 “In the present exemplary embodiment it is embodied such that a center point M of the sphere underlying the spherical section of the antenna fastening 7 is located in the spherical layer of the antenna fastening 7”):
a sensor housing, an outer contour of which has a shape of a sphere segment at least in a first partial region of the sensor housing (Abstract “antenna holder is in the form of a spherical layer of a sphere”),
which is configured to rotatably support the radar sensor in the corresponding hollow sphere segment of a mounting device, such that an antenna unit of the radar sensor (0054 “In the present exemplary embodiment it is embodied such that a center point M of the sphere underlying the spherical section of the antenna fastening 7 is located in the spherical layer of the antenna fastening 7.”; Abstract “an antenna holder for pivotably fastening the antenna to a fastening apparatus for the purpose of arranging the antenna”);
electronic circuitry configured to generate a measurement signal; and an antenna configured to radiate the measurement signal and to receive the measurement signal reflected from a product surface (0049 “measuring signal generated in a measuring electronic 4.”; fig 1),
Fehrenbach ‘928 does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Fehrenbach ‘168 teaches wherein the electronic circuitry and the antenna are arranged in the sensor housing (0013 “The limit level sensor unit can thus be accommodated in the same housing as the radar antenna or the sensor electronics.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Fehrenbach ‘168 with the teachings of Fehrenbach ‘928. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve antenna function (Fehrenbach ‘168 0040). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Fehrenbach ‘168 merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular housing features. Since both Fehrenbach ‘928 and Fehrenbach ‘168 disclose similar radars level gauges, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
While Fehrenbach ‘928 discloses within Abstract “an antenna holder for pivotably fastening the antenna to a fastening apparatus for the purpose of arranging the antenna array on a container or another fastening possibility” does not explicitly teach the remaining strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Fromme teaches radar sensor can be rotated into all positions (Abstract “The gimbaled AIP vertical mounting bracket rotates in an approximate 360.degree. azimuth”; 0002 “The present invention relates to volume measurement, component identification, condition monitoring and safety systems for bulk materials such as grains stored in silos, other large containers and/or on the ground”; 0328 “The instrument 1900 contains the radar rangefinder, control and processor electronics, rotation stage mounting”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Fromme with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve costs and management (Fromme 0009). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Fromme merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular housing features. Since both the cited prior art and Fromme disclose similar radars level gauges, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 26, the cited prior art teaches The radar sensor and mounting device according to claim 25, wherein the outer contour of the sensor housing is completely spherical (Fehrenbach ‘928 Abstract “wherein the antenna holder is in the form of a spherical layer of a sphere wherein the spherical layer has top and bottom surfaces running parallel to one another, and contains the center of the sphere, and the emission surface is arranged inside the spherical layer.”).
Regarding claim 27, the cited prior art teaches The radar sensor and mounting device according to claim 25, wherein the sensor housing is completely closed (Fehrenbach ‘928 fig 3).
Regarding claim 28, the cited prior art teaches The radar sensor and mounting device according to claim 25, wherein the sensor housing is made of plastic at least in a region of the antenna (Fehrenbach ‘168 0074 “The housing 20 being produced from a plastics material for example”), configured such that the measurement signal can be radiated through the sensor housing (Fehrenbach ‘928 Abstract “wherein the antenna holder is in the form of a spherical layer of a sphere wherein the spherical layer has top and bottom surfaces running parallel to one another, and contains the center of the sphere, and the emission surface is arranged inside the spherical layer.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Fehrenbach ‘168 with the teachings of Fehrenbach ‘928. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve antenna function (Fehrenbach ‘168 0040). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Fehrenbach ‘168 merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular housing features. Since both Fehrenbach ‘928 and Fehrenbach ‘168 disclose similar radars level gauges, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 30, the cited prior art teaches The radar sensor and mounting device according to claim 25, wherein the radar sensor is configured as a stand-alone radar sensor with its own power supply (Fehrenbach ‘928 fig 1).
Regarding claim 33, the cited prior art teaches The radar sensor and mounting device according to claim 25, wherein a portion of the sensor housing is made of a translucent material, configured such that a display of the radar sensor can be read through the sensor housing (Fromme 0195 “FIG. 7E is a left view plan of the preferred embodiment of the GSU showing sensors within the sensor housing (transparent).”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Fromme with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve costs and mangement (Fromme 0009). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Fromme merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular housing features. Since both the cited prior art and Fromme disclose similar radars level gauges, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 34, the cited prior art teaches The radar sensor and mounting device according to claim 25, wherein the radar sensor is configured for non-contact measurement of a filling level or the limit level (Fehrenbach ‘168 fig 1).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Fehrenbach ‘168 with the teachings of Fehrenbach ‘928. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve antenna function (Fehrenbach ‘168 0040). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Fehrenbach ‘168 merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular housing features. Since both Fehrenbach ‘928 and Fehrenbach ‘168 disclose similar radars level gauges, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 36, the cited prior art teaches The radar sensor and mounting device according to claim 25, wherein the mounting device is a closed hollow sphere (Fehrenbach ‘928 Abstract “wherein the antenna holder is in the form of a spherical layer of a sphere wherein the spherical layer has top and bottom surfaces running parallel to one another, and contains the center of the sphere, and the emission surface is arranged inside the spherical layer.”).
Regarding claim 38, the cited prior art teaches The radar sensor and mounting device according to claim 25, wherein the hollow sphere is at least partially made of a translucent material, configured such that a display of the radar sensor can be read through the hollow sphere(0195 “FIG. 7E is a left view plan of the preferred embodiment of the GSU showing sensors within the sensor housing (transparent).”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Fromme with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve costs and mangement (Fromme 0009). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Fromme merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular housing features. Since both the cited prior art and Fromme disclose similar radars level gauges, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 39, the cited prior art teaches The radar sensor and mounting device according to claim 25, further comprising a mounting flange configured to attach to an opening of the container (Fehrenbach ‘928 0017 “the antenna array (1) as described herein, characterized in that the clamping arrangement (11) is formed by the fastening apparatus (9) and a clamping flange (13).”).
Regarding claim 41, the cited prior art teaches The radar sensor and mounting device according to claim 25, further comprising a locking element configured to fix the radar sensor in the mounting device (Fehrenbach ‘928 0053 “In the present exemplary embodiment the clamping flange 13 is connected via clamping screws 14 to the fastening apparatus 9. By tightening the clamping screws 14, the clamping flange 13 is stressed in the direction of the fastening apparatus 9 and thus the antenna fastening 7 is fixed in reference thereto.”).
Regarding claim 42, the cited prior art teaches The radar sensor and mounting device according to claim 25, further comprising an alignment member configured to align the radar sensor in the mounting device (Fehrenbach ‘928 0049 “An emission surface 5 of the horn antenna 3 is defined in the exemplary embodiment shown in FIG. 1 by a front edge of the antenna horn and aligned perpendicular in reference to a primary direction of emission A of the horn antenna 3.”).
Regarding claim 43, the cited prior art teaches The radar sensor and mounting device according to claim 25, further comprising a sensor disposed therein (Fehrenbach ‘928 fig 1).
Regarding claim 44, the cited prior art teaches The radar sensor and mounting device according to claim 43, wherein the sensor is a level meter, a point level sensor, a pressure sensor, or a flow sensor (Fehrenbach ‘928 0009 “fill level”).
Regarding claim 45, the cited prior art teaches The radar sensor and mounting device according to claim 25, the mounting device being configured to selectively mount a sensor on a side wall of the container or a ceiling of the container (Fehrenbach ‘168 fig 1).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Fehrenbach ‘168 with the teachings of Fehrenbach ‘928. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve antenna function (Fehrenbach ‘168 0040). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Fehrenbach ‘168 merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular housing features. Since both Fehrenbach ‘928 and Fehrenbach ‘168 disclose similar radars level gauges, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 46, the cited prior art teaches A container having a mounting device attached thereto according to claim 25 (Fehrenbach ‘168 fig 1).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Fehrenbach ‘168 with the teachings of Fehrenbach ‘928. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve antenna function (Fehrenbach ‘168 0040). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Fehrenbach ‘168 merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular housing features. Since both Fehrenbach ‘928 and Fehrenbach ‘168 disclose similar radars level gauges, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fehrenbach et al. (US 20170162928 hereinafter Fehrenbach ‘928) in view of Fehrenbach et al. (US 20160282168 hereinafter Fehrenbach ‘168) and further in view of Fromme et al. (US 20040031335 hereinafter Fromme) as applied to claim 25, and further in view of Meure (US 20040182151).
Regarding claim 29, the cited prior art teaches The radar sensor and mounting device according to claim 25,
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Meure teaches wherein the sensor housing is further configured such that it cannot be opened non-destructively (0014 “It is highly advantageous if the position sensor is provided in a housing, which is sealed off by a seal from the tank and the liquid located in the tank, since because of this encapsulation, no liquid penetrates the housing, and hence deposits no longer occur on the printed circuit board of the potentiometer.”’ 0035 “the housing 8 can also be effectively sealed off by adhesive bonding or welding.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Unger with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously have reliable measurements (Unger 0009). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Unger merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular alignment features. Since both the cited prior art and Unger disclose similar radars level gauges, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fehrenbach et al. (US 20170162928 hereinafter Fehrenbach ‘928) in view of Fehrenbach et al. (US 20160282168 hereinafter Fehrenbach ‘168), and further in view of Fromme et al. (US 20040031335 hereinafter Fromme) as applied to claim 25, and further in view of Allgaier et al. (US 20160170394 hereinafter Allgaier).
Regarding claim 31, the cited prior art teaches The radar sensor and mounting device according to claim 25, further
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Allgaier teaches comprising a radio interface configured for wireless transmission of radar sensor data to an external receiver (Abstract “a transmission device transmitting the raw data that have been identified to an external evaluation device.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Allgaier with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce on-site computing complexity (Allgaier 0008). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Allgaier merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular receiver features. Since both the cited prior art and Allgaier disclose similar radars level gauges, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fehrenbach et al. (US 20170162928 hereinafter Fehrenbach ‘928) in view of Fehrenbach et al. (US 20160282168 hereinafter Fehrenbach ‘168), and further in view of Fromme et al. (US 20040031335 hereinafter Fromme) as applied to claim 25, and further in view of Unger (US 20110083504).
Regarding claim 32, the cited prior art teaches The radar sensor and mounting device according to claim 25,
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Unger teaches wherein a center of gravity of the radar sensor is located below a center point of the spherical segment, configured such that the radar sensor aligns itself perpendicular to the product surface by means of gravity (0009 “By means of an inventive pendulum bearing, the fill level sensor is always, because of its weight, oriented in the direction of gravity and perpendicular to the surface of the liquid, so that regardless of the inclination of the container at the time, the same measurement conditions always exist at the fill level sensor.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Unger with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously have reliable measurements (Unger 0009). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Unger merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular alignment features. Since both the cited prior art and Unger disclose similar radars level gauges, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fehrenbach et al. (US 20170162928 hereinafter Fehrenbach ‘928) in view of Fehrenbach et al. (US 20160282168 hereinafter Fehrenbach ‘168), and further in view of Fromme et al. (US 20040031335 hereinafter Fromme) as applied to claim 25, and further in view of Pride et al. (US 20210262849 hereinafter Pride).
Regarding claim 37, the cited prior art teaches The radar sensor and mounting device according to claim 25,
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Pride teaches wherein the at least one hollow sphere segment is made of opaque plastic (0042 “At least a portion of the interior space of the housing 310 may be an opaque color or material designed to reduce light pollution for a camera module of the inspection device 300.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Pride with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce light pollution (Pride 0042). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Pride merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular housing features. Since both the cited prior art and Pride disclose similar radars level gauges, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fehrenbach et al. (US 20170162928 hereinafter Fehrenbach ‘928) in view of Fehrenbach et al. (US 20160282168 hereinafter Fehrenbach ‘168), and further in view of Fromme et al. (US 20040031335 hereinafter Fromme) as applied to claim 25, and further in view of Hagen et al. (US 20120234074).
Regarding claim 40, the cited prior art teaches The radar sensor and mounting device according to claim 25,
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Hagen teaches further comprising a retaining arm or an internal thread configured to attach a retaining arm (0028 “FIG. 1 shows, in a schematic diagram, an undeformed fuel tank for a vehicle, with a fill level sensor, wherein a float of the fill level sensor is coupled to a signal transducer via an arm”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Hagen with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve fill level determination (Hagen 0042). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Hagen merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular retaining arm features. Since both the cited prior art and Hagen disclose similar radars level gauges, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 47-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unger (US 20110083504) in view of Fehrenbach et al. (US 20170162928 hereinafter Fehrenbach ‘928) and further in view of Fromme et al. (US 20040031335 hereinafter Fromme).
Regarding claim 47, Unger teaches A method of mounting a sensor to a container (fig 1; 0027 “The rotary/pivot bearing 40 is formed by a mount 46, which is supported freely rotatably about the first rotary axis 42 which is oriented vertically in FIG. 3a”), the method comprising the steps of: providing a sensor, an outer contour of the sensor having the shape of a sphere or a sphere segment (Abstract “antenna holder is in the form of a spherical layer of a sphere”); placing the sensor in a fully enclosed mounting device (fig 3a [mounting deviced is enclosed with respect to the container]), which has a shape of a hollow sphere and is configured for rotatably supporting the radar sensor (0011 “detecting fill levels”; fig 1; 0054 “In the present exemplary embodiment it is embodied such that a center point M of the sphere underlying the spherical section of the antenna fastening 7 is located in the spherical layer of the antenna fastening 7”), (fig 1);
Unger does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Fehrenbach ‘928 teaches aligning the sensor (0033 “In the present invention a surface, aligned perpendicular in reference to the primary direction of emission of the antenna, is considered the emission surface of the antenna, which geometrically limits the antenna towards the front in the primary direction of emission.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Fehrenbach ‘928 with the teachings of Unger. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve antenna function (Fehrenbach ‘928 0013). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Unger merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular housing features. Since both Unger and Fehrenbach ‘928 disclose similar radars level gauges, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
While Fehrenbach ‘928 discloses within Abstract “an antenna holder for pivotably fastening the antenna to a fastening apparatus for the purpose of arranging the antenna array on a container or another fastening possibility” does not explicitly teach the remaining strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Fromme teaches radar sensor can be rotated into all positions (Abstract “The gimbaled AIP vertical mounting bracket rotates in an approximate 360.degree. azimuth”; 0002 “The present invention relates to volume measurement, component identification, condition monitoring and safety systems for bulk materials such as grains stored in silos, other large containers and/or on the ground”; 0328 “The instrument 1900 contains the radar rangefinder, control and processor electronics, rotation stage mounting”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Fromme with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve costs and management (Fromme 0009). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Fromme merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular housing features. Since both the cited prior art and Fromme disclose similar radars level gauges, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 48, the cited prior art teaches The method according to claim 47, wherein the aligning of the sensor is performed by gravity (Unger 0009 “By means of an inventive pendulum bearing, the fill level sensor is always, because of its weight, oriented in the direction of gravity and perpendicular to the surface of the liquid, so that regardless of the inclination of the container at the time, the same measurement conditions always exist at the fill level sensor.”).
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
Cheng et al. (US PAT 9404787) discloses “A level measuring device with an integratable lens has a radar level meter and an angle adjusting assembly (See abstract)”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAAEEL A SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, William Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648