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 .
Election/Restrictions
The applicant elected the species of fig. 2-3 in the reply received 30 June 2025. Applicant stated that claims 1-17 correspond thereto. However, a review of the specification finds that claim 13 (relating to the angle of the foot portion being selectively adjustable) is not associated with the species of fig. 2-3, but instead is associated with the non-elected species of fig. 4. See [0195] of the as-published specification. Accordingly, claims 13 and 18-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 30 June 2025.
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.
Claims 12, 16, and 17 are 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.
Claims 12, 16, and 17 recite the limitation "said second-raised-level electrical contact."
Both claims 12 and 17 of these claims depend from claim 1, but there is no antecedent basis for this limitation in any of claims 1, 12, or 17. For the purpose of examination, claims 12 and 17 will be read as if depending from claim 4.
Claim 16, in its claim dependency chain, also lacks antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 16 must retain its dependency from claim 15, and cannot be treated in the same manner as claims 12 and 17. For the purpose of examination, the second-raised-level electrical contact with be treated as a new, unspecified contact in this claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 7,561,057 to Kates.
With regards to claim 1, Kates discloses a liquid level sensor (see fig. 10A-10F, fig. 10A is reproduced below) comprising:
a main body (the main unit containing sensors, etc. in the figures);
a common electrical contact (common probe 1021);
a base-level electrical contact (probe 1020);
wherein said common electrical contact and said base-level electrical contact together define a base liquid sensing level (col. 17, ll. 53-61);
a first-raised-level electrical contact (probe 1022);
wherein said common electrical contact and said first-raised-level electrical contact together define a first raised liquid sensing level (col. 17, ll. 53-61); and,
electronic circuitry responsive to a path between said common electrical contact and said base-level electrical contact being electrically closed by moisture and to generate a base-level alarm signal, and responsive to a path between said common electrical contact and said first-raised-level electrical contact being electrically closed by moisture and to generate a second-level alarm signal (the electronic portion of moisture sensor unit 1010 that is responsive to the probes as per at least col. 17, l. 62 to col. 18, l. 21);
wherein, in use, when moisture closes a path between said common electrical contact and said base-level electrical contact, said base-level alarm signal is generated to thereby indicate said base liquid sensing level, and when moisture closes a path between said common electrical contact and said first-raised-level electrical contact, said second-level alarm signal is generated (as per at least col. 17, l. 62 to col. 18, l. 21).
PNG
media_image1.png
271
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 2, Kates discloses the liquid level sensor according to claim 1. Kates further discloses a ground contact portion of said main body (feet 1011, and optionally part of the case of the sensor located nearby), and wherein said common electrical contact, said base-level electrical contact, and said ground contact portion of said main body together define a ground contact plane (these are depicted in a common ground contact plane in at least fig. 10A).
With regards to claim 3, Kates discloses the liquid level sensor according to claim 2. Kates further discloses said first-raised-level electrical contact being disposed in offset relation from said ground contact plane by a first offset distance (probe 1022 is offset from the ground contact plane in fig. 10A).
With regards to claim 5, Kates discloses the liquid level sensor according to claim 2. Kates further discloses said main body extending between a first end and a second end (i.e., between the left and right ends in fig. 10A), and wherein said ground contact portion is disposed adjacent said first end of said main body (there is a foot 1011 adjacent to the left end of the main body in fig. 10A).
With regards to claim 6, Kates discloses the liquid level sensor according to claim 5. Kates further discloses said ground contact portion comprising a foot portion disposed adjacent said first end of said main body (the mapped "ground contact portion" is one or more feet 1011; alternatively, this foot portion may correspond to an entire edge of the case of the sensor and one or more feet 1011).
With regards to claim 11, Kates discloses the liquid level sensor according to claim 1. Kates further discloses said first-raised-level electrical contact being disposed in offset relation from a line extending between said common electrical contact and said base-level electrical contact by a third offset distance (in fig. 10A, a line extending vertically between probes 1020 and 1021 is horizontally offset from probe 1022 by this distance).
With regards to claim 14, Kates discloses the liquid level sensor according to claim 1. Kates further discloses said common electrical contact and said base-level electrical contact together define a ground contact plane (these are depicted in a common ground contact plane with feet 1011 in at least fig. 10A).
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.
Claims 4, 12, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kates.
With regards to claim 4, Kates teaches the liquid level sensor according to claim 3. Kates does not expressly teach a second-raised-level electrical contact, wherein said second-raised-level electrical contact is disposed in offset relation from said ground contact plane by a second offset distance. However, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second-raised-level electrical contact, wherein said second-raised-level electrical contact is disposed in offset relation from said ground contact plane by a second offset distance, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In the instant case, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to detect water or a rate of water level change over a greater range and/or with greater granularity. Also, the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). The addition of another probe for measuring a third water level would not produce any new or unexpected result, and is accordingly not patentably significant.
With regards to claim 12, Kates teaches the liquid level sensor according to claim 4. In Kates as applied, said second-raised-level electrical contact would be disposed in offset relation from a line extending between said common electrical contact and said base-level electrical contact by a fourth offset distance (like stated in relation to claim 11, a line extending vertically between probes 1020 and 1021 would be horizontally offset from a second-raised-level probe 1023 by this distance).
With regards to claim 15, Kates teaches the liquid level sensor according to claim 6. Kates does not expressly teach a portion of the bottom of said main body being sloped downwardly from said foot portion to said second end of said main body. However, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the shape of a portion of the bottom of the main body of the sensor would result in a difference of function. Further, courts have held that changes to shape are matters of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration (shape) of a device was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed downward sloping bottom shape solves any stated problem, and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the shape as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of a portion of the bottom of said main body being so as to slope downwardly from said foot portion to said second end of said main body as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
With regards to claim 17, Kates teaches the liquid level sensor according to claim 1. Kates further teaches said common electrical contact projecting externally to said main body, said base-level electrical contact projects externally to said main body, said first-raised-level electrical contact projects externally to said main body, and said second-raised-level electrical contact projects externally to said main body (the depicted probes extend from the case as per col. 17, ll. 52-57, as would second-raised-level probe 1023).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kates as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US 9,432,763 to Scharf.
With regards to claim 7, Kates teaches the liquid level sensor according to claim 6. However, Kates does not expressly teach said ground contact portion comprising a foot portion disposed at said first end of said main body.
Scharf teaches a related liquid level sensor comprising a ground contact portion comprising a foot portion disposed at ends of a main body (see fig. 1, here, protruding elements 130 are positioned at the all ends of a main body 10). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid level sensor of Kates such that said ground contact portion similarly comprises a foot portion disposed at said first end of said main body (at the edges of the body, as opposed to being set inwardly). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to do so because rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70), and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so because placing the feet at the edges of the main body would provide greater stability comparted to inwardly-set feet.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kates as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US 10,490,047 to Nardi.
With regards to claim 8, Kates teaches the liquid level sensor according to claim 6. Kates does not teach a grasping handle extending outwardly from said main body.
Nardi teaches an alarm unit for detecting a condition, that is to be located in a desired location (see fig. 1), and that has a handle 36 extending outwardly from a main body 12.
Kates similarly relates to a sensor that is to be placed in a desired location to detect a water level condition. In light hereof, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly modify the sensor of Kates to comprise a grasping handle extending outwardly from said main body. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to facilitate carrying, moving, and placing the sensor where desired.
With regards to claim 9, the combination of Kates and Nardi teaches the liquid level sensor according to claim 8. In this combination, the grasping handle is substantially “U”-shaped as per fig. 1 of Nardi. As for the location of the handle, the location of such handle would not have modified the operation of the sensor, merely the ease by which it could be picked up/moved, and, as noted above, rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate said grasping handle adjacent said first end of said main body. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order provide the handle at an easy-to-see grasp location, or to satisfy any other related functional, aesthetic, or structural requirements.
With regards to claim 10, the combination of Kates and Nardi teaches the liquid level sensor according to claim 9. Again, with respect to the location of the handle, the location of such handle would not have modified the operation of the sensor, merely the ease by which it could be picked up/moved, and, as noted above, rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have said grasping handle extends outwardly from said foot portion (i.e., from the side of the case near a ground-contacting foot 1011). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order provide the handle at an easy-to-see grasp location, or to satisfy any other related functional, aesthetic, or structural requirements.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kates as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of US 4,939,908 to Ewing et al. (hereinafter referred to as Ewing) and US 2,869,368 to Rowland.
With regards to claim 16, Kates teaches the liquid level sensor according to claim 15. Regarding said common electrical contact, said base-level electrical contact, said first-raised-level electrical contact and said second-raised-level electrical contact all being on said downwardly sloped portion of the bottom of said main body, Kates does not expressly teach this. However, what this requires is that the contacts protrude from a sloped surface instead of a level surface in order to give the contacts their staggered configuration for detecting water level. Both such configurations are known in the art. Kates teaches the latter. Ewing teaches a related configuration in which probes are made to protrude from stepped surfaces in order to locate probes at their proper positions (see fig. 2 and 4). Rowland teaches configuration in which probes are made to protrude from a sloped surface in order to provide the probes at respective positions to detect a water level (see fig. 1). Clearly, it is known in the art of fluid level sensing that probes can positions by adjusting the shape of the surface to which they are mounted rather than by varying the amount that a given probe protrudes from an unchanging surface, and in light hereof, having said common electrical contact, said base-level electrical contact, said first-raised-level electrical contact and said second-raised-level electrical contact all being on said downwardly sloped portion of the bottom of said main body would merely be providing the contacts in a known configuration for detecting a fluid level. The result of this combination would thus be predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, and this combination accordingly amounts to no more than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions. One of ordinary skill in the art would moreover be motivated to do so to achieve the benefit of being able to use common probes at all probe positions, rather than having each probe be unique. This would simplify the device by reducing the unique part count.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10,935,508 to Zhang et al. discloses a related liquid detection device having electrodes of varying heights and ground-contacting feet.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Split whose telephone number is (571)270-1524. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 to 3:30.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-2258. 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.
/JS/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/FEBA POTHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2858