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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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.
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 1, 4, 18, 19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 3,520,186 issued to Adams (“Adams”) in view of U.S. Patent 6,367,324 issued to Nozawa et al. (“Nozawa”), U.S. Patent EP 3588021 by van der Stigchel (“van der Stigchel”) and U.S. Patent 4,535,628 issued to Hope (“Hope”).
As for claim 1, Adams discloses a liquid level sensor tube (30) for use in determining a level of a liquid (12) in a vessel (10), the liquid level sensor tube comprising:
a housing (30) configured to be disposed in the vessel (10), the housing (Adams: 30) comprising an outer housing portion (Adams: portion of 30 away from 40) connected to an inner housing portion (Adams: portion of 30 that defines 40), wherein the housing (30) has an outer surface (outer surface of 30) configured to be in direct contact with the liquid (12), the housing outer surface comprising an open channel (40) that projects radially inwardly into the housing and that extends substantially an entire vertical length of the housing (col. 7, lines 30-36), wherein the housing outer surface is formed from a metallic material (stainless steel; col. 6, lines 46-58); and
at least one pair of ultrasonic sensors (36, 38) disposed in an environment inside the housing and comprising a first sensor (36 and rubber feet) in direct contact with the housing (col. 5, lines 47-49; see Fig. 3 where the rubber feet contact the housing) and positioned opposite (see Fig. 3) from a second sensor (38 and rubber feet) in direct contact with the housing (col. 5, lines 47-49; see Fig. 3 where the rubber feet contact the housing), wherein the at least one pair of sensors is configured to determine the level of the liquid in the open channel from within the environment inside of the housing without contacting the liquid (Abstract),
wherein the at least one pair of sensors are in direct contact with opposite inside wall surfaces of the inner housing portion that form the open channel therebetween (see Fig. 3).
Adams does not explicitly disclose that the housing comprises a sealed and dry environment inside the housing protected from the liquid.
However, Nozawa discloses a housing that comprises a sealed and dry environment inside the housing protected from a liquid (col. 3, lines 31-48). Also, van der Stigchel discloses a housing that comprises a sealed and dry environment inside the housing protected from a liquid (paragraph [0056]).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the environment of Adams to be a sealed and dry environment as disclosed by Nozawa and van der Stigchel in order to protect the sensors from environmental light, dust and moisture (van der Stigchel: paragraph [0056]).
Adams as modified by Nozawa and van der Stigchel does not disclose that the housing is configured to extend from a top rim of the vessel toward a bottom of the vessel because Adams as modified by Nozawa and van der Stigchel does not disclose that the housing includes multiple pairs of ultrasonic sensors to detect different levels of the liquid. Instead, Adams discloses a pair of sensors that moves to determine different liquid levels (Adams: col. 7, lines 46-49).
However, Hope discloses a housing (19; Fig. 3) that is configured to extend from a top rim of a vessel toward a bottom of the vessel (see Fig. 3) and that includes multiple pairs of ultrasonic sensors to detect different levels of the liquid (see Fig. 5 and col. 3, lines 18-22 and col. 5, lines 9-12). Hope discloses that using several fixed pairs is an alternative to using movable pairs of sensors (Hope: col. 4, lines 22-30).
Because Adams and Hope both disclose arrangements of sensors to determine a liquid level, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute housing including the at least two pairs of fixed sensors of Hope for the housing including at least one pair of movable sensors of Adams to achieve the predictable result of providing sensors to determine a liquid level.
Adams as presently modified by Nozawa, van der Stigchel and Hope does not disclose that the housing outer surface comprises a rounded cross-sectional shape that forms the open channel. Instead, Adams discloses that the housing outer surface comprises rectangular cross-sectional shapes that form the open channel and allow ultrasonic sensors to oppose each other and measure a liquid level (Adams: see Fig. 3).
However, Hope discloses a housing outer surface that comprises a rounded cross-sectional shape that forms an open channel (Hope: see Fig. 11). Hope discloses that a housing outer surface that comprises a rounded cross-sectional shape that forms an open channel can be substituted for a housing outer surface that comprises rectangular cross-sectional shapes that form the open channel and allow ultrasonic sensors to oppose each other and measure a liquid level (Hope: see Figs. 3, 4, and 9 and col. 3, lines 31-55).
Because Adams and Hope both disclose housing outer surfaces that define an open channel, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the rounded cross-sectional shape of Hope for the rectangular cross-sectional shapes of Adams to achieve the predictable result of providing a housing that allow ultrasonic sensors to oppose each other and measure a liquid level.
Adams as modified by Nozawa, van der Stigchel and Hope discloses at least two pairs of ultrasonic sensors (Adams: 36, 38 and Hope: Fig. 5; col. 4, lines 22-30 and col. 5, lines 9-12) disposed in the sealed and dry environment inside the housing at particular vertical locations along the liquid level sensor tube that are associated with different determined levels of the liquid in the vessel (Hope: Fig. 5; col. 4, lines 22-30 and col. 5, lines 9-12).
As claim 4, Adams as modified by Nozawa, van der Stigchel and Hope discloses that the open channel is U-shaped (Adams: see Fig. 3).
As for claim 18, Adams as modified by Nozawa , van der Stigchel and Hope (see the rejection of claim 21 below) discloses that the plurality of ultrasonic sensors comprises at least one pair of sensors (Adams: 36, 38), wherein a first sensor and a second sensor of the pair of sensors are positioned win the interior cavity (Adams: see Fig. 3).
As for claim 19, Adams as modified by Nozawa, van der Stigchel and Hope discloses that the plurality of ultrasonic sensors comprises at least two pairs of sensors (Fig. 5; col. 4, lines 22-30 and col. 5, lines 9-12), wherein each pair of sensors comprises two sensors and is positioned at different vertical locations within the interior cavity (Fig. 5; col. 4, lines 22-30 and col. 5, lines 9-12).
As for claim 21, Adams discloses a liquid level sensor (Fig. 3) comprising:
a housing wall (30) having a total length and comprising:
a first wall section (portion of 30 away from 40), formed from a metallic material (stainless steel; col. 6, lines 46-58), extending along the total length of the housing wall (see Fig. 3); and
a second wall section (portion of 30 that defines 40), formed from the metallic material (stainless steel; col. 6, lines 46-58), extending along the total length of the housing wall and connected to the first wall section (see Fig. 3),
wherein the firs wall section and the second wall second form an interior cavity (32, 34); and
an ultrasonic sensor (36, 38, and rubber feet) disposed (see Fig. 3) in the interior cavity (32, 34),
wherein the ultrasonic sensor is in direct contact with an inside surface of the second wall section (col. 5, lines 47-49; see Fig. 3 where the rubber feet contact the housing).
Adams does not explicitly disclose that the interior cavity is a sealed and dry environment.
However, Nozawa suggests that an environment inside a housing of an ultrasonic liquid level sensor is sealed and dry (col. 3, lines 31-22 and col. 3, lines 44-48). Also, van der Stigchel discloses an environment that is a sealed and dry environment (paragraph [0056]).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the interior cavity of Adams to be a sealed and dry environment as disclosed by Nozawa and van der Stigchel in order to protect the sensors from environmental light, dust and moisture (van der Stigchel: paragraph [0056]).
Adams as modified by Nozawa and van der Stigchel does not explicitly disclose that the first wall section has a curved cross-section and that the second wall section has a curved cross-section that extends inwards towards the first wall section. Instead, Adams discloses that the housing wall comprises rectangular cross-sectional shapes that form the open channel and allow ultrasonic sensors to oppose each other and measure a liquid level (Adams: see Fig. 3).
However, Hope discloses a housing wall that comprises a first wall section that has a curved cross-section and a second wall section that has a curved cross-section that extends inwards towards the first wall section (see Fig. 11). Hope discloses that the housing wall that comprises curved cross-sectional shapes that form an open channel can be substituted for a housing wall that comprises rectangular cross-sectional shapes that form the open channel and allow ultrasonic sensors to oppose each other and measure a liquid level (Hope: see Figs. 3, 4, and 9 and col. 3, lines 31-55).
Because Adams and Hope both disclose housing walls that define an open channel, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the housing walls comprising rounded cross-sectional shapes of Hope for the hosing walls comprising rectangular cross-sectional shapes of Adams to achieve the predictable result of providing housing walls that allow ultrasonic sensors to oppose each other and measure a liquid level.
Adams as presently modified by Nozawa, van der Stigchel and Hope does not explicitly disclose a plurality of ultrasonic sensors as recited. Instead, Adams discloses a pair of sensors that moves to determine different liquid levels (Adams: col. 7, lines 46-49).
However, Hope discloses a plurality of sensors (Hope: Fig. 5; col. 4, lines 22-30 and col. 5, lines 9-12) disposed in an interior cavity at particular vertical locations along the liquid level sensor tube that are associated with different determined levels of the liquid in a vessel (Hope: Fig. 5; col. 4, lines 22-30 and col. 5, lines 9-12). Hope discloses that using several fixed pairs is an alternative to using movable pairs of sensors (Hope: col. 4, lines 22-30).
Because Adams and Hope both disclose arrangements of sensors to determine a liquid level, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the plurality of sensors of Hope for movable sensors of Adams to achieve the predictable result of providing sensors to determine a liquid level at different heights.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the ultrasonic sensor of Adams, Nozawa, van der Stigchel and Hope to be part of a set of ultrasonic sensors as suggested by Hope in order to allow multiple levels of liquid to be monitored (Hope: col. 4, lines 22-30 and col. 5, lines 9-12)
As for claim 22, Adams as modified by Nozawa, van der Stigchel and Hope discloses that the metallic material comprises stainless steel (Adams: stainless steel; col. 6, lines 46-58).
As for claim 23, Adams as modified by Nozawa, van der Stigchel and Hope discloses the liquid level sensor of claim 21 (see the rejection of claim 21 above).
Adams as presently modified by Nozawa, van der Stigchel and Hope does not disclose that a first edge of the first wall section and a first edge of the second wall section form a first seam, and a second edge of the first wall and a second edge of the second wall form a second seam.
However, Hope discloses a first edge of a first wall section and a first edge of a second wall section that form a first seam, and a second edge of the first wall and a second edge of the second wall that form a second seam (see Fig. 9 and col. 3, lines 45-48).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the housing wall of Adams, Nozawa, van der Stigchel and Hope to include the edges and seams as disclosed by Hope in order to allow the housing to be constructed using the well-known technique of welding (Hope: col. 3, lines 45-48).
Claims 5-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0133955 by Peters (“Peters”) in view of U.S. Patent 6,367,324 issued to Nozawa et al. (“Nozawa”), U.S. Patent EP 3588021 by van der Stigchel (“van der Stigchel”) and U.S. Patent 4,535,628 issued to Hope (“Hope”).
As for claim 5, Peters discloses a chemical vessel, comprising:
a vessel housing (4) comprising a liquid level sensor port (at top of 2) and a bottom recess (3) recessed into a bottom surface of the vessel housing; and
a liquid level sensor tube (2) extending from a top of the vessel housing into the vessel housing, wherein a portion of the liquid level sensor tube is disposed within the bottom recess of the vessel housing (see Fig. 1); and
an ultrasonic sensor located at a particular vertical location along the liquid level sensor tube (paragraph [0050]).
Peters does not disclose that the liquid level sensor tube comprises the liquid level sensor tube housing and that the ultrasonic sensor is disposed in direct contact with the liquid level sensor tube housing.
Instead, Peters discloses that the liquid level sensor tube houses an ultrasonic sensor that detects a liquid level (paragraph [0050]).
However, Adams discloses a liquid level sensor tube comprising:
a liquid level sensor tube housing (30) comprising:
an outer surface (outer surface of 30) configured to be in direct contact with a liquid chemical precursor disposed in the vessel housing and an environment inside the liquid level sensor tube housing (30) that is protected from the liquid chemical precursor, and
a slot (40) that extends a length of the liquid level sensor tube housing (see Fig. 3; col. 7, lines 30-36);
wherein the housing outer surface is formed from a metallic material (stainless steel; col. 6, lines 46-58); and
an ultrasonic sensor (36, 38 and rubber feet) is disposed within the liquid level sensor tube housing, in direct contact with the liquid level sensor tube housing (see Fig.3 where the rubber feet contact the housing).
Adams discloses that the liquid level sensor tube houses an ultrasonic sensor that detects a liquid level (Abstract).
Because Peters and Adams both disclose liquid level sensor tubes that house ultrasonic liquid level sensors, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the liquid level sensor tube and ultrasonic sensor of Adams for the liquid level sensor tube and ultrasonic sensor of Peters to achieve the predictable result of providing a liquid level sensor tube and an ultrasonic liquid level sensor that can detect a liquid level.
Peters as modified by Adams does not explicitly disclose that the environment is a sealed and dry environment.
However, Nozawa suggests that an environment inside a housing of an ultrasonic liquid level sensor is sealed and dry (col. 3, lines 31-22 and col. 3, lines 44-48). Also, van der Stigchel discloses an environment that is a sealed and dry environment (paragraph [0056]).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the environment of Peters and Adams to be a sealed and dry environment as disclosed by Nozawa and van der Stigchel in order to protect the sensors from environmental light, dust and moisture (van der Stigchel: paragraph [0056]).
Peters as modified by Adams, Nozawa and van der Stigchel does not explicitly disclose that the slot has a rounded cross-sectional shape. Instead, Adams discloses a slot that has a rectangular cross-sectional shape and allows ultrasonic sensors to oppose each other and measure a liquid level (Adams: see Fig. 3).
However, Hope discloses a slot that has a rounded cross-sectional shape (Hope: see Fig. 11). Hope discloses that the rounded cross-sectional shape forming an open channel can be substituted for a rectangular cross-sectional shape forming an open channel to allow ultrasonic sensors to oppose each other and measure a liquid level (Hope: see Figs. 3, 4, and 9 and col. 3, lines 31-55).
Because Adams and Hope both disclose housing outer surfaces that define an open channel, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute slot having a rounded cross-sectional shape of Hope for the slot having a rectangular cross-sectional shape of Adams to achieve the predictable result of providing a slot that allows ultrasonic sensors to oppose each other and measure a liquid level.
Peters as presently modified by Adams, Nozawa, van der Stigchel and Hope does not explicitly disclose a plurality of ultrasonic sensors located at particular vertical locations as recited.
However, Hope discloses a plurality of sensors (Hope: Fig. 5; col. 4, lines 22-30 and col. 5, lines 9-12) located at particular vertical locations that are associated with different determined levels of the liquid in a vessel (Hope: Fig. 5; col. 4, lines 22-30 and col. 5, lines 9-12).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the ultrasonic sensor of Peters, Adams, Nozawa, van der Stigchel and Hope to be part of a set of ultrasonic sensors as suggested by Hope in order to allow multiple levels of liquid to be monitored (Hope: col. 4, lines 22-30 and col. 5, lines 9-12).
Peters as modified by Adams, Nozawa, van der Stigchel and Hope discloses that one of the plurality of sensors in the liquid level sensor tube is disposed in the bottom recess of the vessel housing (Peters: paragraph [0049]).
Peters as modified by Adams, Nozawa, van der Stigchel and Hope does not explicitly disclose that another of the plurality of sensors is disposed outside of, and vertically adjacent to, the bottom recess of the vessel housing.
However, Peters discloses the need to measure a liquid level in the recess (Peters: paragraphs [0013] and [0014]) and Hope discloses the need to measure a liquid level at several different vertical locations (Hope: col. 4, lines 22-30 and col. 5, lines 9-12). One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that in the liquid level sensor tube of Peters, sensors could be located in the bottom recess and above the bottom recess in order to measure determine when the liquid level is in the recess and when the liquid level is at various heights above the recess. Therefore, for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to try to dispose a pair of ultrasonic sensors in the bottom recess and another pair above the bottom recess to achieve the predictable result of providing sensors that can measure the liquid level at various heights of the chemical vessel.
As for claim 6, Peters as modified by Adams, Nozawa, van der Stigchel and Hope discloses that the slot extends a majority of an entire length of the liquid level sensor tube housing (Peters: see Fig. 1 and Adams: the pair of sensors moves to determine different liquid levels; col. 7, lines 46-49).
As for claim 7, Peters as modified by Adams, Nozawa, van der Stigchel and Hope discloses that the slot (Adams: 40) extends substantially the entire length (Adams: see Fig. 3) of the liquid level sensor tube housing (Peters: see Fig. 1 and Adams: the pair of sensors moves to determine different liquid levels; col. 7, lines 46-49).
As for claim 9, Peters as modified by Adams, Nozawa, van der Stigchel and Hope discloses that the liquid level sensor tube housing (Adams: 30) comprises an outer housing portion (Adams: portion of 30 away from 40) connected with an inner housing portion (Adams: portion of 30 that defines 40).
As for claim 10, Peters as modified by Adams, Nozawa, van der Stigchel and Hope discloses that the plurality of sensors comprises at least one pair of sensors (Adams: 36, 38), wherein a first sensor and a second sensor of the pair of sensors are positioned at opposite sides of the slot (Adams: see Fig. 3).
As for claim 11, Peters as modified by Adams, Nozawa, van der Stigchel and Hope discloses the chemical vessel of claim 5 (see the rejection of claim 5 above).
Peters as presently modified by Adams, Nozawa, van der Stigchel and Hope does not disclose at least two pairs of sensors as recited. Instead, Adams discloses a pair of sensors that moves to determine different liquid levels (Adams: col. 7, lines 46-49).
However, Hope discloses at least two pairs of sensors (Fig. 5; col. 4, lines 22-30 and col. 5, lines 9-12), wherein each pair of sensors comprises two sensors and is positioned at different vertical locations along a liquid level sensor tube that are associated with different determined levels of the chemical precursor in the chemical vessel (Fig. 5; col. 4, lines 22-30 and col. 5, lines 9-12). Hope discloses that using several fixed pairs is an alternative to using movable pairs of sensors (Hope: col. 4, lines 22-30).
Because Adams and Hope both disclose arrangements of sensors to determine a liquid level, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the at least two pairs of fixed sensors of Hope for the at least one pair of movable sensors of Adams to achieve the predictable result of providing sensors to determine a liquid level.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/7/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 6-8 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Adams does not disclose ultrasonic sensors that are in direct contact with the housing. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner has interpreted the ultrasonic sensor structure to include the rubber feet described in col. 5, lines 47-49 and shown in Fig. 3 of Adams. Although the examiner acknowledges that Adams discloses that the crystal is isolated from the housing, the ultrasonic sensor still contacts the housing because the rubber feet of the ultrasonic sensor contacts the housing. The examiner notes that the claims do not recite the structure of the ultrasonic sensors; therefore, the examiner has determined that the broadest reasonable interpretation of ultrasonic sensors includes structures used for housing and mounting the vibrating portions of the sensors; i.e. the structures of ultrasonic sensors are not limited to the vibrating portions of the sensors.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JUSTIN N OLAMIT whose telephone number is (571)270-1969. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am - 5 pm (Pacific).
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JUSTIN N OLAMIT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853