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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/05/2025 has been entered.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 7, and 10 are amended.
Claims 8-9 canceled.
Claims 12-16 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Arguments regarding “putting into operation”: Applicant argues that the applied references do not teach or suggest “evaluating the echo curve as acceptable for putting into operation the level measuring device” and “upon evaluating the echo curve as acceptable for putting into operation the level measuring device, putting the level measuring device into operation.” Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. While Applicant attempts to distinguish between Welle et al. (US 2019/0107426 A1)’s teaching of switching operational states of a device already in use versus initial commissioning/putting into operation, this distinction does not overcome the obviousness rejection under proper Graham v. John Deere analysis.
The Examiner also notes that Otto et al. (US 5,614,911) teaches comprehensive echo curve evaluation methods for determining measurement validity by comparing actual echo amplitudes to calculated reference values (Col. 7, lines 1-63; Col. 8, lines 1-67). Otto explicitly teaches obtaining an “undisturbed echo function” before first-time operation (Col. 6, lines 52-67) and comparing subsequent measurements against this baseline to determine acceptability. Welle teaches conditional activation/deactivation of a radar fill level measurement device based on signal evaluation criteria including amplitude of received signals ([0018]-[0021]).
The specific application of the evaluation to “putting into operation” during initial commissioning versus ongoing operational state changes. A person of ordinary skill in radar-based level measurement would understand that signal quality evaluation principles apply equally to initial device commissioning and ongoing operation. One of ordinary skill would recognize that a device should not be put into operation if signal quality indicators reveal problems such as antenna damage, deposits, or improper installation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Otto’s signal quality evaluation methodology during initial device commissioning, using the evaluation result to determine whether to put the device into operation. The motivation is clear: preventing device operation under faulty conditions (antenna damage, deposits, improper installation) that would result in unreliable measurements. This represents the predictable application of known signal evaluation techniques to device initialization—a routine engineering practice.
Applicant’s argument focuses on a narrow semantic distinction between “switching operational states” and “putting into operation” while ignoring the fundamental similarity: both involve conditional activation based on signal quality evaluation. The claimed method steps are obvious in view of Otto’s comprehensive signal evaluation teachings combined with Welle’s activation control based on signal criteria. The rejection is maintained.
Arguments regarding “calculated first amplitude as function of first distance”: Applicant argues that Otto’s reception levels P1 and P2 are “based on ideal conditions, not calculated as a function of an actually detected value.” Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and appears to mischaracterize Otto’s teachings. Otto explicitly teaches calculating expected amplitude values as a mathematical function of distance. Col. 8, lines 55-67 states: “as a result of the radar equation, a more or less square relationship exists between the power reflected back to the antenna by the surface of the material in the container and the distance.” This describes a calculated mathematical relationship where amplitude is a function of distance (specifically, a square-law relationship per the radar equation). Otto further teaches at Col. 9, lines 1-16: “The precise relationship may be determined individually when implementing the measurement arrangement in a specific container. In this way, and on the basis of the reflection properties of the material in the container, a band is defined as a function of the distance involved, in which—when taking into account any fluctuations in the power due to turbulent liquid or irregular solid surfaces—the power of the useful echo scaled to the transmission power must lie.”
This clearly teaches:
Calculating/determining amplitude as a function of distance
The function depends on the first distance (the actual measurement distance)
The calculated amplitude provides a reference band for comparison
Applicant’s characterization that P1 and P2 are merely “ideal conditions” not calculated from detected values misconstrues the claim language. The claim recites “determining a calculated first amplitude, wherein the calculated first amplitude is a function of the first distance.” The claim does not require that the calculation use the “actually detected” amplitude value. Rather, it requires calculating an expected amplitude based on the distance of the first echo. Otto teaches exactly this: using the radar equation and distance to calculate expected amplitude values (P1, P2) for comparison against actual received amplitudes. The “first distance” in the claim refers to the distance corresponding to the first echo selected from the echo curve. Otto teaches selecting the useful echo at a specific distance (Col. 5, lines 62-67; Col. 7, lines 40-46) and calculating the expected amplitude at that distance using the radar equation as a function of that distance. The rejection is maintained.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: "experience values" in paragraph [0009] "A reference point ("maximum value") of the function, from which this decrease in intensity can be calculated, can be obtained e.g. from experience values, e.g. from the characteristics of different antenna systems" appears to be a mistranslation from the German Erfahrungswerten. In a technical context the word appears to mean “empirically derived data”. Accordingly, the correct translation appears to be “empirical values”. This issue arises due to the new claim 13 element “experience values”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: "experience values" - similar to the specification objection, there appears to be mistranslation from the German to English.
Claim 16 is objected because of the following informalities: “an echo from a vessel bottom” should be “an echo from the vessel bottom” since the vessel is already introduced.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 13 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. " wherein the function of the first distance is obtained from experience values". The specification only states that a "reference point" or "maximum value" of the function can be obtained from experience/empirical values, not the entire function itself. The specification [0009] states " A reference point ("maximum value") of the function, from which this decrease in intensity can be calculated, can be obtained e.g. from experience values, e.g. from the characteristics of different antenna systems." There is no description of how the complete function as opposed to just a reference point would be obtained from experience/empirical values.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 states “wherein the function of the first distance is calculated” while Claim 13 states “wherein the function of the first distance is obtained from experience values”. It is unclear whether these are alternative methods or if claim 13 requires both calculation and empirical derivation. The understanding that “experience values” should be “empirical values” helps, but the relationship between the claims remains ambiguous.
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 1-10, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otto et al. (US 5,614,911) in view of Welle et al. (US 2019/0107426 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Otto et al. ('911) teaches: A method of putting into operation a level measuring device [Fig. 1], comprising the steps of: detecting [Fig. 1], by means of a radar sensor unit [Fig. 1] of the level measuring device, an echo curve, wherein the echo curve comprises at least a first echo (Col. 5, lines 38-43: “In performing a level measurement the digital code groups furnished in sequence by the analog-to-digital converter 46 in the course of a reception phase are entered into a computer 50 and stored in a RAM of the computer. These stored code groups represent the actual echo function of the container 10 in the course of a measurement cycle.”);
Otto et al. ('911) teaches selecting, from the echo curve, the first echo corresponding to a first distance and having a first amplitude, the first amplitude having the highest amplitude of the echo curve apart from a close range of the echo curve (Col. 5, lines 43-48: “The computer 50 obtains from the stored actual echo function the useful echo reflected by the surface of the material in the container, determines the transit time of the useful echo and computes from this transit time the level of the material in the container.” Col. 7, lines 49-55: “The actual echo function A contains the useful echo N, the maximum of which is located at point s4; this point corresponds to the location of the useful reflecting surface, i.e. the surface to be measured of the material in the container. The distance s0-s4 is thus the measurement distance which in the illustrated example amounts to roughly 2 m.”);
Otto et al. ('911) teaches determining a calculated first amplitude, wherein the calculated first amplitude is a function of the first distance (Col. 7, lines 16-22: “Also indicated in FIG. 3 is the reception level P1 to be expected under ideal measurement conditions according to the radar equation and a level P2 which is 10 dB down in comparison thereto. Level P2 defines the limit of the additional attenuation which can still be tolerated for real measurement signals.”);
Otto et al. ('911) teaches comparing the actual echo amplitude to calculated reference amplitude values and determining if the echo is acceptable, but does not explicitly teach using this determination for putting the device into operation. However, Welle et al. ('426) teaches:
if the first amplitude is higher than the calculated first amplitude, evaluating the echo curve as acceptable for putting into operation the level measuring device ([0019-0020]: “According to a further embodiment, the control circuit is designed to activate or deactivate the operating state depending on the fill level. According to a further embodiment, the control circuit is designed to activate or deactivate the operating state depending on the amplitude of the received signals.”), and
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 level measurement system of Otto et al. ('911) to use the comparison between actual and expected echo amplitudes as a basis for putting the level measuring device into operation, as suggested by Welle et al. ('426). Otto already teaches evaluating whether echo signals are acceptable based on comparing actual echo amplitudes with calculated reference values (Col. 7, lines 38-48), and Welle specifically teaches activating or deactivating the operating state of a level measuring device based on amplitude evaluation ([0020]). One would be motivated to make this combination to ensure measurement reliability by only putting the device into operation when signal quality meets acceptable thresholds, thus preventing inaccurate measurements or device malfunction due to antenna deposits or other anomalies.
Otto et al. ('911) teaches upon evaluating the echo curve as acceptable for putting into operation the level measuring device, putting the level measuring device into operation, (Col. 7-8, lines 44-63, 1: “Due to the material deposit on the antenna the amplitude of the useful echo N is roughly 5 dB down as compared to the ideal useful echo to be anticipated from the radar equation (function P1), however, this is still within the permissible band. This attenuation of the actual useful echo is still acceptable; however, at worst it could prove to be a disturbance to the distance measurement when very large measurement distances are involved, due to the finite dynamic range of the measuring equipment and the attentuation resulting from the distance involved. This is why in the case of FIG. 4 no alarm is triggered and the distance as established on the basis of the useful echo N is accepted as being correct.” This teaches evaluating whether the echo curve is acceptable based on comparing actual amplitude to calculated reference values).
Otto et al. (‘911) does not explicitly teach putting the level measuring device into operation upon determining acceptability, but Welle et al. (‘426) teaches (putting the level measuring device into operation based on signal evaluation ([0018]: “According to a further embodiment, the radar fill level measurement device comprises a control circuit which is designed to activate one of two operating states of the radar fill level measurement device, a different number of transmitting channels and/or receiving channels being used in each of the two operating states.” [0019]: “According to a further embodiment, the control circuit is designed to activate or deactivate the operating state depending on the fill level.” [0020]: “According to a further embodiment, the control circuit is designed to activate or deactivate the operating state depending on the amplitude of the received signals.” [0021]: “According to a further embodiment, the control circuit is designed to deactivate a component of the arrangement that comprises the one or more radar chips for the fill level measurement, for example depending on the previously measured fill level.” These teachings demonstrate activating and deactivating operational states based on signal evaluation criteria).
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 level measurement system of Otto et al. (‘911) to actually put the device into operation upon determining that the echo curve evaluation is acceptable, as suggested by Welle et al. (‘426). Otto already teaches comprehensively evaluating whether measurements are acceptable by comparing actual echo amplitudes with calculated reference values and determining when conditions are suitable for reliable measurement (Col. 6, lines 52-67; Col. 7, lines 46-63). Welle specifically teaches that a control circuit activates or deactivates the operating state of a radar fill level measurement device based on amplitude evaluation and other signal quality criteria (Paragraphs [0018]-[0021]). One would be motivated to make this combination to ensure measurement reliability and prevent device operation under faulty conditions such as antenna deposits, damage, or improper installation—problems explicitly recognized by Otto (Col. 1, lines 47-67 and Col. 2, lines 1-16). The combination would yield the predictable result of a commissioning process that only allows device operation when signal quality meets acceptable thresholds, thereby improving operational reliability and preventing erroneous measurements.
Otto et al. ('911) teaches wherein the level measuring device is configured to measure a level, a topology, and/or a limit level of a filling material in a container, (Col. 3, lines 55-61: “FIG. 1 in the the drawings shows a container 10, which is filled up to a height or level H with a material 12. For measuring the level H an antenna 14 is mounted above the container 10, which transmits an electromagnetic wave toward the surface of the material 12 in the container and which can receive the echo wave due to reflection at the surface.” Col. 3, lines 61-67 and Col. 4, lines 1-5: “The transmitted electromagnetic wave is produced by a transmission circuit 16, which is connected via a transmit-receive switch 18 to the antenna 14. The echo wave received by the antenna 14 is supplied via the transmit-receive switch 18 to a reception and evaluation circuit 20, which on the basis of the transmitted signal supplied by the transmission circuit 16 to the antenna 14 and the received signal supplied by the antenna 14 determines the distance E between the antenna 14 and the surface of the material 12.” This explicitly teaches a level measuring device configured to measure the level of filling material in a container).
Otto et al. ('911) teaches the level measuring device comprising: the radar sensor unit configured to transmit radar waves and to receive reflected radar waves; (Fig. 2, elements 24, 26, 28, 34, 14; Col. 4-5, lines 67, 1-13: “A generator 24 produces a continuous ultrahigh frequency oscillation having the frequency of the microwaves to be transmitted, which is supplied via a beam splitter 26 to a switch 28. This switch 28 is periodically operated by a trigger signal TR…The output of the switch 28 is connected via a directional coupler 34, which assumes the role of the transmit-receive switch in FIG. 1, to the feed pin 36 of the antenna 14. Each time the switch 28 is closed a short time a short pulse is transmitted from the antenna 14. The echo signals received as a consequence of the transmission of pulses by the antenna are supplied via the directional coupler 34 to one input of a mixer 38.” This describes a radar sensor unit comprising the generator, switch, directional coupler, and antenna that transmits microwave pulses and receives reflected echo signals), and
Otto et al. ('911) teaches an evaluation unit which is configured to convert reflected the radar waves into an echo curve and to evaluate the echo curve (Fig. 2, elements 38, 39, 40, 42, 44, 46, 50; Col. 4, lines 29-48 and Col. 5, lines 1-67: “The envelope signal obtained by the mixing of the two signals in the mixer 38 is filtered in a low pass filter 39 and then amplified in an amplifier 40, the output of which is connected to a logarithmizing circuit 42 which compensates the attentuation of the echo signals as a function of the transit time. The logarithmized and amplified envelope signal HS furnished at the output of the logarithmizing circuit 42 and representing the echo function in analog form is supplied to a sampling circuit 44 which obtains therefrom, in the course of the reception phase following the transmission pulse, under control by the clock signal CL a series of sampled values…An analog-to-digital converter 46 following the sampling circuit 44 converts each sampled value into a digital code group…In performing a level measurement the digital code groups furnished in sequence by the analog-to-digital converter 46 in the course of a reception phase are entered into a computer 50 and stored in a RAM of the computer. These stored code groups represent the actual echo function of the container 10 in the course of a measurement cycle. The computer 50 obtains from the stored actual echo function the useful echo reflected by the surface of the material in the container, determines the transit time of the useful echo and computes from this transit time the level of the material in the container.” This comprehensively teaches an evaluation unit that converts received radar signals into a digitized echo curve and evaluates it to determine the level measurement).
Regarding Claim 2, Otto et al. ('911) teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the container is either empty or at least partially filled with a liquid [Fig. 1].
Regarding Claim 3, Otto et al. ('911) teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the calculated first amplitude is a function of the first distance [Fig. 3].
Regarding Claim 4, Otto et al. ('911) teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein, for evaluating the echo curve as acceptable, the first amplitude is higher than the calculated first amplitude by a safety margin, the safety margin being 1 dB, 2 dB, 5 dB, 10 dB, 15 dB, or more (Fig.3, Col. 7, lines 55-58: “Due to the material deposit on the antenna the amplitude of the useful echo N is roughly 5 dB down as compared to the ideal useful echo to be anticipated from the radar equation (function P1), however, this is still within the permissible band.”).
Regarding Claim 5, Otto et al. ('911) teaches: The method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining at least a second echo in the echo curve, the second echo corresponding to a second distance and having a second amplitude, the second distance being less than the first distance (Col. 6, lines 25-29: “Then, when level measurements are performed, each actual echo function obtained in the antenna region and the proximity zone is compared to the stored undisturbed echo function and any differences found are analyzed and evaluated to recognize formation of a deposit or other trouble.” The comparison of echo functions in the antenna region and proximity zone represents echoes at distances less than the first distance); and
if the second amplitude is greater than a second reference amplitude of a reference echo curve at a location corresponding to the second distance, evaluating the echo curve as unacceptable for putting into operation the level measuring device (Col. 8, lines 1-5: “Possibly a warning that a material deposit is beginning to form may be given when the difference function D departs from the value 0 by more than a prescribed threshold value; this threshold value may amount to 10 dB, for example.”),
wherein the second reference amplitude of the reference echo curve at the second distance corresponds to an echo curve measured at the second distance in an infinitely long empty vessel (Col. 6, lines 5-24: “Obtaining the undisturbed echo function is done by means of the arrangement as shown in FIG. 2 in the same way as described heretofor for obtaining the actual echo functions in level measurement; the only difference being that the digitized echo function output by the analog-to-digital converter 44 is written into a non-volatile memory... Obtaining the undisturbed echo function is done under the following conditions: ... ideally the container should be empty.” The undisturbed echo function taken in an empty container serves as the reference echo curve).
Regarding Claim 6, Otto et al. ('911) teaches: The method according to claim 5, wherein the reference echo curve substantially corresponds to an echo curve measured in an infinitely long empty container (Col. 6, lines 5-24: “Obtaining the undisturbed echo function is done by means of the arrangement as shown in FIG. 2 in the same way as described heretofor for obtaining the actual echo functions in level measurement; the only difference being that the digitized echo function output by the analog-to-digital converter 44 is written into a non-volatile memory... Obtaining the undisturbed echo function is done under the following conditions: ... ideally the container should be empty.”).
Regarding Claim 7, Otto et al. ('911) teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein an echo from a close range of the level measuring device is neglected (Col. 8, lines 37-52: “In FIG. 6 the case considered is that in which the level is in the vicinity of the antenna edge, the antenna being free of any deposit. The first echo peak in the actual echo function A represents the useful echo N reflected by the surface of the material in the container... The fact that the difference function D is at a minimum slightly outside of the antenna region and the actual echo function A has a maximum slightly outside of the antenna region clearly indicates, however, that what is involved here is not a deposit but the level in the vicinity of the antenna.” This shows that echoes from the antenna region (close range) are evaluated differently or neglected when determining the actual level).
Claims 8-9 canceled.
Regarding Claim 10, Otto et al. ('911) teaches: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Col. 6, lines 17-25, [Fig.2]: “Obtaining the undisturbed echo function is done by means of the arrangement as shown in FIG. 2 in the same way as described heretofor for obtaining the actual echo functions in level measurement; the only difference being that the digitized echo function output by the analog-to-digital converter 44 is written into a non-volatile memory, for example, an electronically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), when it is entered in the computer 50”) having a program stored therein, which when executed on an evaluation unit of a level measuring device according to claim 8 and/or on another computing unit, instructs the evaluation unit and/or the computing unit to perform the method according to claim 1 [Fig. 2].
Regarding Claim 12, (New) Otto et al. (‘911) teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the function of the first distance is calculated (Col. 8, lines 55-67 and Col. 9, lines 1-12: “as a result of the radar equation, a more or less square relationship exists between the power reflected back to the antenna by the surface of the material in the container and the distance” and “The precise relationship may be determined individually when implementing the measurement arrangement in a specific container. In this way, and on the basis of the reflection properties of the material in the container, a band is defined as a function of the distance involved.” This describes calculating the expected amplitude as a mathematical function of distance using the radar equation, which inherently involves calculation of the distance-amplitude relationship).
Regarding Claim 13, (New) Otto et al. (‘911) teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the function of the first distance is obtained from experience values (Col. 9, lines 1-12: “The precise relationship may be determined individually when implementing the measurement arrangement in a specific container. In this way, and on the basis of the reflection properties of the material in the container, a band is defined as a function of the distance involved.” This describes determining the distance-amplitude function empirically through actual measurements in the specific container, which constitutes obtaining the function from experience values. Col. 9, lines 10-15 further states: “In this way, and on the basis of the reflection properties of the material in the container, a band is defined as a function of the distance involved, in which—when taking into account any fluctuations in the power due to turbulent liquid or irregular solid surfaces—the power of the useful echo scaled to the transmission power must lie.” This empirical determination based on actual reflection properties represents experience values).
Regarding Claim 14, (New) Otto et al. (‘911) teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the function of the first distance is obtained from characteristics of different antenna systems (Col. 2, describes how the undisturbed echo function, which serves as the reference for comparison, depends on antenna characteristics: Col. 2, lines 46-47: “the echo profile in the antenna region and the proximity zone” varies based on the antenna design. Cols. 6-7, lines 66-67, 1-10 explains: “The graph in FIG. 3 shows the undisturbed echo function U of an antenna in the antenna region and the proximity zone” and describes how “point s1 the location of the feed pin 36 of the horn radiator 14 and point s2 corresponding to the edge of the horn radiator. Accordingly, the distance s1-s2 corresponds to the antenna region.” The distance-amplitude relationship explicitly depends on antenna-specific features such as the horn radiator geometry, feed pin location, and antenna edge position. Additionally, Col. 8, lines 55-67 teaches that the radar equation relationship depends on “the transmission power, distance and size of the useful reflection surface area, the reflection properties of the medium, the roughness of the reflecting surface and the geometry of the container” – the transmission power and useful reflection surface area being characteristics determined by the antenna system used).
Regarding Claim 15, (New) Otto et al. (‘911) teaches: The method according to claim 1, further comprising the step of: when an increased amplitude is seen in the currently measured echo compared to a factory noise suppression, the measurement is judged as unacceptable for commissioning (Col. 6, lines 25-51: “Then, when level measurements are performed, each actual echo function obtained in the antenna region and the proximity zone is compared to the stored undisturbed echo function and any differences found are analyzed and evaluated to recognize formation of a deposit or other trouble. For this purpose it is of advantage to also form and consider the difference function between the two echo functions in the antenna region and in the proximity zone.” The stored undisturbed echo function obtained before first-time operation serves as the factory reference baseline. Col. 8, lines 1-11 teaches: “Possibly a warning that a material deposit is beginning to form may be given when the difference function D departs from the value 0 by more than a prescribed threshold value; this threshold value may amount to 10 dB, for example. The amount of the maximum deviation or also the surface integral of the absolute value of the difference function D may be established as a measure for the magnitude of the deposit formation and indicated as such.” When increased amplitude is detected compared to the factory baseline (undisturbed echo function), Otto triggers an alarm and the measurement is deemed unacceptable. Col. 8, lines 29-32 further teaches: “The computer 50 establishes the amount of maximum deviation of the difference function D from the value 0 and outputs a deposit alarm to the display 52 and/or the interface 54 when the deviation exceeds the given threshold value.” This constitutes judging the measurement as unacceptable when increased amplitude is detected).
Regarding Claim 16, (New) Otto et al. (‘911) teaches: The method according to claim 1, further comprising the step of: for an empty container, when no further echo, except an echo from a vessel bottom and from a close range, is detected, the measurement is judged as acceptable for commissioning (Col. 6, lines 17-2: “Obtaining the undisturbed echo function is done by means of the arrangement as shown in FIG. 2 in the same way as described heretofor for obtaining the actual echo functions in level measurement; the only difference being that the digitized echo function output by the analog-to-digital converter 44 is written into a non-volatile memory, for example, an electronically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), when it is entered in the computer 50.” Col. 6, lines 2-11: “So that the undisturbed echo function corresponds to an undisturbed measurement, it is obtained under the following conditions: antenna and feeder are in place and undamaged (neither by corrosion nor mechanically nor by any other effects); the antenna is unsoiled; the level is not in the immediate vicinity of the antenna or even within the antenna; ideally the container should be empty.” This describes obtaining an acceptable reference measurement with an empty container. Col. 7, describes the undisturbed echo function showing internal antenna reflections (close range echoes) and Col. 8 describes evaluating echoes from the antenna region (close range) separately from the useful echo at greater distances. When only the expected echoes from the antenna region (close range) and the container bottom are present in an empty container, with no anomalous intermediate echoes, the measurement is stored as the acceptable undisturbed reference function for commissioning).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REMASH R GUYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-0115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571) 270-5144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REMASH R GUYAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648