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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C 102 based on Borsig and the of respective dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, the applicant states that the prior art fails to anticipate “a fill level radar unit comprising a first antenna configured to detect a fill level of a container; a topology radar unit comprising a plurality of second antennas” or “and control circuitry configured to adjust a timing of measurements of the fill level radar unit and the topology radar unit taking into account available energy” of independent claim 14. The examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains the art rejection.
The term “adjust a timing of measurements” is broad in nature and the examiner finds no definition further clarifying what specifically is meant by this limitation. Further the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation may include processes that begin and end a measurement period as this would influence the timing of the measurement. Borsig states on [0072 & 0073] that available energy is taken into account before the system is able to carry out a measurement, thus controlling the time when a measurement is conducted. Therefore, the limitation as recited in the amended claim 1 “control circuitry configured to adjust a timing of measurements of the fill level radar unit and the topology radar unit taking into account available energy” is taught by Borsig.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim 14 and the limitation “a fill level radar unit comprising a first antenna configured to detect a fill level of a container; a topology radar unit comprising a plurality of second antennas” have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely solely 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
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.
Claims 14, 17-18, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boersig (US20180328774A1) in view of WELLE(WO2015120885A1) herein after referred to as WELLE1.
Regarding claim 14, Boersig discloses
A fill level radar for fill level and topology detection, comprising: a fill level radar unit comprising a first antenna configured to detect a fill level of a container (“FIG. 1 shows essential components of a radar fill level measurement device 101 ” [0045]) […] an energy management unit configured to monitor available energy (“The measurement device 101 comprises a power supply unit 103 which generally also comprises energy management components, such as an energy store”[0050]); and control circuitry configured to adjust a timing of measurements of the fill level radar unit and the topology radar unit taking into account available energy (“In step 807, a check is carried out as to whether there is sufficient energy available within the programmable logic component 602 in order to start the signal processing”[0073]).
Boersig discloses both a topology unit and a fill level unit, but does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the units comprise separate antenna. WELLE1 discloses wherein, a topology radar unit (“The control device is configured to evaluate the structure or topology of the object along a linear region” [0014]) comprising a plurality of second antennas configured to detect the topology of a product surface (“The at least one second transmitting device is arranged in the same plane as the first transmitting device” [0077])
WELLE1 teaches in the same field of topology measuring radar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boersig with the teachings of WELLE1 to incorporate the features of a separate topology unit so as to gain the advantage of reducing computation [0083, Welle]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 17, Boersig as modified by Welle1 discloses all of the limitations of claim 14. Boersig discloses the fill level radar wherein, the energy management unit comprises an energy storage and is configured to charge the energy storage during a plurality of successive measurements of the fill level radar unit (“The measurement device 101 comprises a power supply unit 103 which generally also comprises energy management components, such as an energy store. The power supply unit 103 is connected to a processor 104 which is designed for controlling the sensor sequence, for evaluating the signals, and for energy management”[0050]).
Regarding claim 18, Boersig as modified by Welle1 discloses all of the limitations of claim 14. Boersig discloses the fill level radar wherein, the fill level radar is configured for connection to a 4 mA - 20 mA interface (“At this point, the use of 4-20 mA technology is widespread”[0049] & “modern sensors are generally supplied with a specified power via a two-conductor interface”[0047]. See claim 10 and paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 23, Boersig discloses
A method for measuring a fill level of a container and a topology of a product surface, comprising the following steps: detecting the fill level of the container once or several times with a fill level radar unit and a first antenna of a fill level radar (“During a measurement cycle T 201, the fill level measurement device continuously emits high-frequency signals 108 towards a filling material surface.”[0054]); monitoring available energy (“The measurement device 101 comprises a power supply unit 103 which generally also comprises energy management components, such as an energy store”[0050]); deciding whether, taking into account the available energy (“When a previously defined amount of energy is available, the measuring system then switches back into a state having an activated processor and activated intermediate memory unit.”[0032]),
Boersig discloses both a topology unit and a fill level unit, but does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the units comprise separate antenna. WELLE1 discloses the method wherein the topology is now to be acquired (“The control device is configured to evaluate the structure or topology of the object along a linear region” [0014]); and detecting the topology of the product surface with a topology radar unit and a plurality of second antennas of the fill level radar (“The at least one second transmitting device is arranged in the same plane as the first transmitting device” [0077]).
WELLE1 teaches in the same field of topology measuring radar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boersig with the teachings of WELLE1 to incorporate the features of a separate topology unit so as to gain the advantage of reducing computation [0083, Welle]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 25, Boersig discloses
A nontransitory computer-readable storage medium comprising computer program instructions stored therein (“Programmable logic components that are designed accordingly are capable of obtaining the memory contents, which represent the logic program “[0068] & Claim 2), which when executed on a processor of a level meter, instructs the level meter to perform the following steps: detecting the fill level of the container once or several times with a fill level radar unit and a first antenna of a fill level radar (“During a measurement cycle T 201, the fill level measurement device continuously emits high-frequency signals 108 towards a filling material surface.”[0054]); monitoring available energy (“The measurement device 101 comprises a power supply unit 103 which generally also comprises energy management components, such as an energy store”[0050]); deciding whether, taking into account the available energy (“When a previously defined amount of energy is available, the measuring system then switches back into a state having an activated processor and activated intermediate memory unit.”[0032]),
Boersig discloses both a topology unit and a fill level unit, but does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the units comprise separate antenna. WELLE1 discloses wherein, the topology is now to be acquired (“The control device is configured to evaluate the structure or topology of the object along a linear region” [0014]); and detecting the topology of the product surface with a topology radar unit and a plurality of second antennas of the fill level radar (“The at least one second transmitting device is arranged in the same plane as the first transmitting device” [0077]).
WELLE1 teaches in the same field of topology measuring radar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boersig with the teachings of WELLE1 to incorporate the features of a separate topology unit so as to gain the advantage of reducing computation [0083, Welle]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claims 15, 20 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boersig (US20180328774A1) as modified by WELLE1(WO2015120885A1) in view of Welle(US20180335332A1) herein after referred to as WELLE.
Regarding claim 15, Boersig as modified by Welle1 discloses all of the limitations of claim 14. Boersig as modified by Welle1 fails to set forth the radar of claim 15. Welle discloses the fill level radar wherein, the control circuitry is further configured to adjust a time sequence of the measurements of the fill level radar unit and the topology radar unit (“The control unit may activate the transmitter units according to a timing pattern corresponding to the time-division multiplexing pattern”[0018]) taking into account the last measured fill level (“If the quality measure deviates from a specifiable threshold or in the case of an error, at least two of the available transmitter elements can be activated simultaneously”[0052]).
WELLE teaches in the same field of FMCW radar units configured to measure container fill level and container topology. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boersig as modified by WELLE1 with the teachings of WELLE to incorporate the features of a separate topology unit so as to gain the advantage of improving the energy efficiency of the system. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 20, Boersig as modified by Welle1 discloses all of the limitations of claim 14. Boersig discloses the fill level radar wherein, control circuitry comprises: taking into account the available energy (“When a previously defined amount of energy is available, the measuring system then switches back into a state having an activated processor and activated intermediate memory unit.”[0032]).
Boersig as modified by Welle1 does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein control units configured to control fill, topology, and timing units. WELLE1 discloses wherein, a first control unit configured to control the fill level radar unit (“the control unit is actuated such that the analysis unit determines a distance of the surface of the object from the transmitter unit and/or from the receiver unit”[0056]), a second control unit configured to control the topology radar unit (“The analysis unit 123 can determine echo curves from a plurality of specifiable spatial directions or from a plurality of main reception directions”[0045]) , and a third control unit configured to adjust the timing of the measurements of the fill level radar unit and the topology radar unit (“The transmitter elements 202 or the transmitter units 202 are actuated by the control unit 111”[0033])
WELLE teaches in the same field of FMCW radar units configured to measure container fill level and container topology. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boersig as modified by WELLE1 with the teachings of WELLE to incorporate the features of control units configured to control fill, topology, and timing units so as to gain the advantage of improving the energy efficiency of the system. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 24, Boersig as modified by Welle1 discloses all of the limitations of claim 23. , Boersig as modified by Welle1 fails to disclose or limit the method of claim 24. Boersig discloses the method wherein , the deciding whether the topology is to be acquired is made taking into account the last measured fill level or a last measured rate of change of the fill level (“If the quality measure deviates from a specifiable threshold or in the case of an error, at least two of the available transmitter elements can be activated simultaneously”[0052]).
WELLE teaches in the same field of FMCW radar units configured to measure container fill level and container topology. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boersig as modified by WELLE1 with the teachings of WELLE to incorporate the features of a separate topology unit so as to gain the advantage of improving the energy efficiency of the system. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boersig (US20180328774A1) as modified by WELLE1(WO2015120885A1) in view of Welle(US20180335332A1) and in further view of Skell(US20010050116A1).
Regarding claim 16, Boersig as modified by Welle1 discloses all of the limitations of claim 14. Boersig as modified by Welle1 fails to set forth the radar of claim 16. Welle discloses the radar wherein, the control circuitry is further configured to adjust the timing of the measurements of the fill level radar unit and the topology radar unit (“The control unit may activate the transmitter units according to a timing pattern corresponding to the time-division multiplexing pattern”[0018]).
WELLE teaches in the same field of FMCW radar units configured to measure container fill level and container topology. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boersig as modified by WELLE1 with the teachings of WELLE to incorporate the features of time sequence adjusting control circuitry so as to gain the advantage of improving the energy efficiency of the system. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Boersig as modified by Welle1 and further modified by Welle does not explicitly disclose nor limit control circuitry that accounts rate of flow change. Skell discloses wherein taking into account a last measured rate of change of the fill level (“This rate of change is used to define the product fill rate and the product level in the container at any time, and is used to establish a variable fill rate to stop dispensing before the container is full”[0062])
Skell teaches in the same field of systems to measure the fluid level in a container. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boersig as modified by WELLE1 and further modified by Welle with the teachings of Skell to incorporate the features of control circuitry that accounts rate of flow change so as to gain the advantage of improving the energy efficiency of the system. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boersig (US20180328774A1) as modified by WELLE1(WO2015120885A1) in view of EchoPod(NPL document: EchoPod® DL24 Multi-Function Ultrasonic Liquid Level Sensor Transmitter) .
Regarding claim 19, Boersig as modified by Welle1 teaches all of the limitations of claim 18. Boersig as modified by Welle1 fails to set forth the radar of claim 19. EchoPod discloses wherein the fill level radar is further configured for inverse operation such that when the container is empty the current draw is 20 mA, and when the container is full the current draw is 4 mA (The Figure on page 9 discloses a configuration window. The orange box to the left of the configuration window contains configuration options. The last option in the list allows for the configuration of the system current output when the tank is empty. See the figure below and “signal invert” in the table on page 3.)
EchoPod teaches in the same field of 4-20mA fluid level sensing devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boersig as modified by WELLE1 with the teachings of EchoPod to incorporate the features of inverted 4-20mA interface outputs so as to gain the advantage of improving the energy efficiency of the system. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
PNG
media_image1.png
552
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure in reference to claim 19
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boersig (US20180328774A1) as modified by WELLE1(WO2015120885A1) in view of Cheng(WO2019120513A1).
Regarding claim 21, Boersig as modified by Welle1 discloses all of the limitations of claim 14. Boersig discloses the fill level radar wherein the first antenna is a first antenna configuration configured to detect the fill level(“FIG. 3 shows the frequency response curve 301 of the emitted signal fT and the frequency response curve 302 of the signal reflected from a reflector following a delay time 2*T 303”[0055]);,
Boersig discloses both a topology unit and a fill level unit, but does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the units comprise separate antenna. WELLE1 discloses wherein the plurality of second antennas is a second antenna configuration configured to detect the topology (“The control device is configured to evaluate the structure or topology of the object along a linear region” [0014]).
WELLE1 teaches in the same field of topology measuring radar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boersig with the teachings of WELLE1 to incorporate the features of a separate topology unit so as to gain the advantage of reducing computation [0083, Welle]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Boersig as modified by Welle1 does not explicitly disclose nor limit separate antenna configurations. WELLE1 discloses wherein the first antenna configuration is an array antenna having an array of radiator elements arranged around the second antenna configuration (“The beam steerable phased-array antenna 700 in the embodiment of Figure 2A may be switched into two distinct operative modes by a first switch 860.”[Pg.14, Par.2]).
Cheng teaches in the same field of radar antenna systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boersig as modified by Welle1 with the teachings of Cheng to incorporate the features of separate antenna configurations so as to gain the advantage of reducing design and circuit complexity. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 22, Boersig as modified by Welle1 and further modified by Cheng discloses all of the limitations of claim 21. Boersig discloses the fill level radar wherein the fill level radar is further configured to transmit an FMCW radar signal with the second antenna configuration (“[0054] FIG. 2 shows a modulation pattern for operating a measurement device in accordance with the FMCW principle”[0054]) and an FMCW radar signal or a pulse signal with the first antenna configuration(“[0054] FIG. 2 shows a modulation pattern for operating a measurement device in accordance with the FMCW principle”[0054]).
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Klofer(US20120265486A1) is considered analogous art to the instant application as it discloses in paragraph [0037] “FIG. 2 shows a pulse radar, fill level measuring device 1 shown”.
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 CLAYTON PAUL RIDDER whose telephone number is (571)272-2771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday ET.
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, Jack Keith can be reached on (571) 272-6878. 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.
/C.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights