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 28 October 2025 was previously not fully considered based upon non-English documents being included. The Applicant did, at the time of filing, provide equivalent documents to the non-English language documents. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 20, 22-25, 27-28, 34-35 and 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 37 is the lone independent claim in this application. Claim 37 recites, A system for distributed determination of a filling level or limit level of a fill material, the system comprising: a sensor; and a server, the system being configured to perform the steps of: mounting the sensor at a measuring point, transmitting, by the sensor, a measurement signal receiving, by the sensor, the reflected measurement signal and calculating an echo curve, by converting the reflected and received measurement signal into digital sample points, determining, by the sensor, characteristic values of significant reflection points of an echo curve, the significant reflection points being local maxima of the echo curve, the characteristic values comprising distance values and/or amplitude values characterizing the significant reflection points; transmitting, by the sensor, the characteristic values of significant reflection points to a server, the characteristic values being usable for determining the filling level or the limit level in a decision process receiving, by the server, the characteristic values of significant reflection points; and determining. by the server, a selected subset of the characteristic values of significant reflection points, the selected subset being highest amplitude maxima of the echo curve, transmitting, by the server, the selected subset of characteristic values of significant reflection points to the sensor. receiving, by the sensor, the selected subset of characteristic values of significant reflection points, refining, by the sensor, the selected subset of characteristic values of significant reflection points, and transmitting, by the sensor, refined characteristic values of the selected subset of characteristic values of significant reflection points. The claims, as disclosed, are not enabled by the specification. How are the characteristic values usable for determining fill level or the limit level? What is the decision process being used with this data? None of this information is disclosed in the specification as filed. There is disclosed a decision process used, but it is not quite disclosed what that process actually is. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could not use this invention as claimed. The characteristic values are claimed to be usable for determining the fill level, or the limit level in a decision process, yet there is no disclosure how these values are usable or what exactly being usable actually means. In addition, the claims have been amended to include that the selected subset being highest amplitude maxima of the echo curve. The specification states that “The distinguished subset may be determined by one or more highest amplitude maxima and/or by exceeding a minimum spatial distance from a transmitter of the measurement signal. The distinguished subset may be a true subset, and in this way may further reduce the amount of data transmitted. For example, a pre-selection of significant reflection points - e.g., by position and amplitude - may be made. For example, if a plurality of highest amplitude maxima has been measured, the highest amplitude maxima may be selected.“ How can there be a plurality of highest maxima values? There should only be a single highest maximum value. Even if there are to be a plurality of maximum values, how one selects a highest maximum value from a plurality of highest maximum values is unclear. Therefore, the value to be used to obtain the subset, as in the amended claim, is simply not clear. Finally, it is claimed that there is a refining, by the sensor, of the selected subset of characteristic values. First, there is no disclosure as to what the refinement actually is or how it might be performed. Second, there are numerous subsets in the disclosure, but the selected subset is not defined. Is it the excellent subset? The distinguished subset? The true subset? Some other subset all together? Whichever subset it is, it’s not quite disclosed what it is or how one of ordinary skill in the art might select it.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is "undue." These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
A conclusion of lack of enablement means that, based on the evidence regarding each of the above factors, the specification, at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557,1562, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With respect to the case of the present invention, there is no existence of any working examples that one of ordinary skill in the art could compare the present invention to in order to determine specifics of how to expect the present invention to function (Wands Factor G), there is not enough direction as to what would be usable versus non usable, what is the refining process and how to execute it, or what the decision process is to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make or use the invention (Wands Factor F), and the amount of experimentation in order to figure out what the decision process to use actually is would be very high (Wands Factor H). For at least these reasons, claim 37 lacks enablement. Since claim 37 19 lacks enablement, then claims 20, 22-25, 27-28, 31, 34-35, 38, and 39, which can depend from claims 37, would lack enablement as well.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, with respect to the applicant requesting an updated IDS sheet, the updated sheet is included. The Examiner would like to note that since the Applicant did include other reference documents that are in English, the references are being considered. The Applicant noted: “ Submission of an English language abstract of a reference may fulfill the requirement for a concise explanation. Where the information listed is not in the English language, but was cited in a search report or other action by a foreign patent office in a counterpart foreign application, the requirement for a concise explanation of relevance can be satisfied by submitting an English-language version of the search report or action which indicates the degree of relevance found by the foreign office. This may be an explanation of which portion of the reference is particularly relevant, to which claims it applies, or merely an "X". "Y", or "A" indication on a search report. (Emphases added.)
While emphasis is added, the Applicant seemed to ignore that this is allowed for “an English-language version of the search report” (Emphasis added). There was no English language version submitted. Thus, the report alone was not adequate. However, as there were noted other references in English that were equivalent, those references were reviewed and the references have been considered.
With respect to the arguments to the 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(a) and 112(b), the 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(b) have been resolved. With respect to the 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(a), rejection, the Applicant’s argument that Figures 1-7 and paragraph [0062] answer the Wands factor issues raised by the Examiner is not adequate. The Applicant asserts that “ Applicant respectfully disagrees, as at least some of the assertions regarding the Wands factors are quite generic. For instance, the person of ordinary skill in the art knows what an "echo curve" is. So, such a person also knows what the terms "local maxima", "distance values", and "amplitude values" mean. And, such a person would fully understand the following recitation in claim 37: "determining, by the sensor, characteristic values of significant reflection points of an echo curve, the significant reflection points being local maxima of the echo curve, the characteristic values comprising distance values and/or amplitude values characterizing the significant reflection points.” The Examiner didn’t argue knowing what "local maxima", "distance values", and "amplitude values" mean. The Examiner asserts that the characteristic values usable for determining fill level or the limit level are not disclosed. What is the decision process being used with this data? None of this information is disclosed in the specification as filed. There is disclosed a decision process used, but it is not quite disclosed what that process actually is. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could not use this invention as claimed. The Examiner also argues that the claims have been amended to include that the selected subset being highest amplitude maxima of the echo curve. The specification states that “The distinguished subset may be determined by one or more highest amplitude maxima and/or by exceeding a minimum spatial distance from a transmitter of the measurement signal. The distinguished subset may be a true subset, and in this way may further reduce the amount of data transmitted. For example, a pre-selection of significant reflection points - e.g., by position and amplitude - may be made. For example, if a plurality of highest amplitude maxima has been measured, the highest amplitude maxima may be selected.“ How can there be a plurality of highest maxima values? There should only be a single highest maximum value. Even if there are to be a plurality of maximum values, how one selects a highest maximum value from a plurality of highest maximum values is unclear. Paragraph [0062], cited by the Applicant states:” [0062] FIG. 1 schematically shows a measuring device 100 according to one embodiment. The measuring device 100 may comprise a high frequency front end, an ultrasonic front end and/or a laser front end. A high frequency front end, e.g. for radar waves, is schematically shown; however, this is only for clarification and is not to be considered as a limitation. The measuring device 100 may, for example, be designed as an autonomously operating radar level measuring device and/or comprise another of the aforementioned front ends.”That paragraph discloses nothing about the issues raised by the Examiner. The Applicant requesting “If anything is not clear to the Examiner in the description of the working examples in 1 [0062] ff., Applicant respectfully requests a statement from the Examiner of exactly what passages of this description are not understood and why, i.e., what aspect of these passages require further explanation from Applicant”, isn’t relevant to the arguments being raised by the Examiner. A radar system is fully understood, which is what paragraph [0062] given an example of. However, the Applicant asserting determinations are made without stating how, even in paragraph [0062], is still unclear. There is nothing in paragraph [0062] that mentions anything about any maxima values, so that is still unclear as well. Nothing in paragraph [0062] discloses anything about a refinement or how it would be performed. Therefore, the specific questions raised by the Examiner are not answered or addressed by the Applicant and thus the rejection of the claims is being maintained.
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 RODNEY T FRANK whose telephone number is (571)272-2193. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at (571) 272-2375. 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.
RODNEY T. FRANK
Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
March 4, 2026