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 Status
Claims 1-13 and 22 are pending:
Claims 1-13 and 22 are rejected.
Claims 14-21 have been cancelled.
Response to Amendments
Amendments filed 10/06/2025 have been entered. Amendments have the claims have overcome claim objections but do not overcome §112 and §103 rejections as previously set forth in non-final Office Action mailed 04/04/2025.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed 10/06/2025 have been entered. Arguments were fully considered.
On pgs. 6-8 of Applicant’s arguments, Applicant argues:
Newman is a very different structure and does not disclose applicant's structure as claimed. The other references do not supply the deficiencies of Newman. Applicant's invention as claimed distinguishes over Newman and all the other references cited for each of the reasons below and particularly for these reasons collectively: " Claim 1 specifies that a tank includes an inlet along one side of the tank and an outlet along an opposing side of the tank. Newman's structure in contrast discloses an inlet in the top (1) and multiple outlets (142, 144, 146) spread along a top of the tank.
This structure alone differentiates applicant's structure as claimed. The structure of Newman would frustrate applicant's purpose and would prevent the flow through of effluent, and would completely disrupt the F.O.G. mat that occurs on top of the fluid.
" Further, in Claim 1, the entering F.O.G.-laden effluent flow enters a stored tank contents below a separated F.O.G. mat. In Newman, as Newman explicitly explains, "In operation, wastewater is provided to base tank 110 via conduit and/or piping system 1 either in a continuous process or in a batch by batch process in irregular intervals" [0030], thus in Newman's structure, the flow enters the tank at the top of the tank. Again, this structure is almost exactly opposite of Applicant's structure as claimed.
" Also in claim 1, the examiner recognizes correctly that in Newman
"sensor 151 emits signals that travel the entire vertical distance [to the bottom of the tank], see 34" (office action pg. 9). Newman is using a sensor (151) that travels all the way to the bottom of the tank, necessarily because of the various multiple layers of materials (125, 125, 123, 122, 121) that are being monitored all the way to the bottom of the tank.
Newman is a different system entirely and Newman's overly complicated system would not work for applicant's tank and vice versa. Instead, as claimed, Applicant includes a sensor that that is reflected off the top of a top of the F.O.G. without a need to sense or send signal to the bottom of the tank, information of which is not used in applicant's distance determinations.
" In claim 22 as well, it is claimed - the outlet including an invert below the outlet so that the water exiting the tank comes from the water that is at a low part of the tank, below an accumulated F.O.G. mat.
Newman's structure includes variable retrieval systems (142, 144, 146) that retrieve fluids from variable layers in the tank above, below, in between, without concern for disruption of a F.O.G. layer, F.O.G. layer disruption, or effluent flow below the F.O.G. layer from the inlet to the invert, and to the outlet. Newman nor the other references disclose this structure and system.
The office action points to para. 34 of Newman as meeting the limitation as claimed of - knowing the distance of the static water level from the sensor, receiving a reflected signal from the top of a F.O.G. layer, inputting a displacement factor as a differential property, and determining an amount of F.O.G. housed currently in the singular tank - however para. 34 of Newman discusses comparing the sizing of the various layers to each other and does not discuss at all: Determining or knowing the static water level
Inputting a displacement factor as a differential property
Determining a displacement factor, Or using the static water level and the top of a F.O.G. layer for determining the amount of F.O.G. accumulated in the F.O.G. layer. " It is also recognized that Newman does not teach: 1. the inlet is configured to connect to a source of F.O.G.-laden effluent; 2. with the outlet connecting to a sewer pipe; and/or 3. The outlet opposing the inlet in the tank. The office action points to Mantyla as suppling these deficiencies, however, as claimed, Mantyla fails to disclose curved walls and also describes an outlet 48 and "at least one further side outlet 24 present and connected in a perpendicular orientation to primary outlet 48 and penetrating the side wall of the vessel" (Mantyla [0044]). Mantyla includes a different structure that does not supply the claimed structure of Applicant.
These arguments are not persuasive because Newman and Mantyla teaches the claimed limitations.
Newman teaches wherein the sensor sends a signal (i.e. emits signals) that is reflected off the top of the F.O.G. mat (signals encounter or hit different phases, layers or components, the signals are reflected back to sensor 151, see ¶34; the sensor may be laser or radar, see ¶14 because Newman teaches that the sensor can be laser or radar, these types of sensors are configured to detected a top of a layer) and determines the distance of the F.O.G. from the sensor (i.e. determining the height of the fluid layers), and the non-contact sensor system including: a control board (control system 150 or control system 310) and software controls (software programs and/or databases, see ¶45) (computer systems (with any necessary programming and instructions, see ¶50) and is configured to: be a non-emersed sensor in the tank (sensor 151 in Fig. 1 and sensor 411 in Fg. 4) know the distance of the static water level from the sensor (when sensor 151 and/or control system 150 determines a predetermined amount of oil layer height (such as eight inches, see ¶38), receive a reflected signal from the top of a F.O.G layer (the sensor may be laser or radar, see ¶14 because Newman teaches that the sensor can be laser or radar, these types of sensors are configured to detected a top of a layer), input (input/output (I/O) controllers, see ¶45) a displacement factor as a differential property, and determine an amount of … housed currently in the tank (various control logics or predetermined parameters may be used to determine the amount or time of fluid removed from an individual layer, see ¶37).
While Newman does not limit the tank to a particular shape and/or form, Newman does not explicitly teach the tank having curved walls, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shape of the tank of Newman to have curved walls because it achieves a predictable result, obviously resulting in a tank having a natural shape for distributing internal liquid pressure evenly and preventing stress points with a reasonable expectation of success. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.04).
Mantyla teaches an invert below the outlet (Mantyla, standpoint 82 below outlet 48, 49), so water exiting the tank is obtained from a low part of the tank below the outlet and an accumulated F.O.G. mat (Mantyla, see Fig. 3).
Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 04/02/2024 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of 11,708,691 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “electronics unit” in claims 7-9 and 12; “data analysis module” in claims 12-13. Based on the instant specification the electronics unit is reference number 28 shown Fig. 1, therefore it is interpreted that the structure shown in Fig. 1 or an equivalent structure thereof meets the claimed limitation; based on the instant specification the data analysis module is associated with the electronics unit (see pg. 14, lines 1-15) and the electronics unit 28 contains electronics to analyze data (see pg. 9, lines 8-20) therefore it is interpretated that the structure of said data analysis module is part of the electronics unit structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-13 and 22 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. Dependent claims are hereby rejected due to dependency from rejected claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the singular isolated tank includes a volume sufficient to slow the entering F.O.G.-laden effluent flow that enters a stored singular tank contents below a separated F.O.G. mat”; it is unclear how the “volume” slows the entering flow? Additionally, is the “volume” referring to the size of the tank or contents within the tank or something else? It is unclear what is required for prior art purposes.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, 10, 12-13 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman (US 2016/0122209) in view of Mantyla (US 2017/0072340).
Regarding claim 1, Newman teaches an apparatus for containing…layer on water (“for containing…” is recited as an intended use) comprising:
a tank (tank 110 or 410 is a singular isolated tank because it is separate, enclosed structure and not integrally joined with another tank, see Figs. 1 and 4, also see ¶60 for further evidence of an isolated separate structure) and having an inlet (corresponds to inlet via conduit/piping system1 or corresponds to inlet via conduit 2) along one side of the
wherein the tank includes a volume sufficient to slow the entering F.O.G.-laden effluent flow that enters a stored singular tank contents below a separated F.O.G. mat (see §112b),
a non-contact sensor system (sensor 151 or sensor 411) including a sensor mounted above the static water level (see Figs. 1 and 4) and configured to determine a distance from the sensor to a top … within the singular tank (sensor 151 emits signals that travel the entire vertical distance, see ¶34), so that a thickness of the …. in the tank can be determined (sensors for determining the height of the fluid layers) (see ¶33, Figs. 1 and 4),
wherein the sensor sends a signal (i.e. emits signals) that is reflected off the top of the F.O.G. mat (signals encounter or hit different phases, layers or components, the signals are reflected back to sensor 151, see ¶34; the sensor may be laser or radar, see ¶14 because Newman teaches that the sensor can be laser or radar, these types of sensors are configured to detected a top of a layer) and determines the distance of the F.O.G. from the sensor (i.e. determining the height of the fluid layers), and the non-contact sensor system including:
a control board (control system 150 or control system 310) and software controls (software programs and/or databases, see ¶45) (computer systems (with any necessary programming and instructions, see ¶50) and is configured to: be a non-emersed sensor in the tank (sensor 151 in Fig. 1 and sensor 411 in Fg. 4) know the distance of the static water level from the sensor (when sensor 151 and/or control system 150 determines a predetermined amount of oil layer height (such as eight inches, see ¶38), receive a reflected signal from the top of a F.O.G layer (the sensor may be laser or radar, see ¶14 because Newman teaches that the sensor can be laser or radar, these types of sensors are configured to detected a top of a layer), input (input/output (I/O) controllers, see ¶45) a displacement factor as a differential property, and determine an amount of … housed currently in the tank (various control logics or predetermined parameters may be used to determine the amount or time of fluid removed from an individual layer, see ¶37).
While Newman does not limit the tank to a particular shape and/or form, Newman does not explicitly teach the tank having curved walls, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shape of the tank of Newman to have curved walls because it achieves a predictable result, obviously resulting in a tank having a natural shape for distributing internal liquid pressure evenly and preventing stress points with a reasonable expectation of success. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.04).
Figs. 1 & 4 of Newman
PNG
media_image1.png
408
1184
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Newman does not teach: (1) the inlet is configured to connect to a source of F.O.G.-laden effluent and the outlet configured to connect to a sewer pipe; and (2) the outlet opposing the inlet on the singular tank.
In a related field of endeavor, Mantyla teaches a waste water separation vessel (see ABS) comprising the inlet (inlet 70) configured to connect to a source of F.O.G.-laden effluent (fats, oils and grease from a flow of wastewater, see ¶21) and the outlet (corresponds to the outlet of stand pipe 82) configured to connect to a sewer pipe (primary outlet 48) (wastewater outflow line to the sewer system, see ¶50); an outlet opposing the inlet on a singular tank (see Fig. 3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the inlet and outlet of Newman by configuring said inlet for F.O.G. laden source and configuring said outlet to connect to a sewer pipe and opposite of the inlet as disclosed by Mantyla because it is applying a known treatment configuration to a known separator obviously resulting in achieving the predictable result of treating a known waste water source with an expectation of success; and for the benefit of ensuring hydraulic flows occur as intended through the vessel (Mantyla, see ¶51). Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP §2143, D.).
Regarding claim 4, Newman and Mantyla teach the apparatus as claimed in claim 1 wherein the sensor is an ultrasonic sensor (Newman, ultrasonic, see ¶34).
Regarding claim 5, Newman and Mantyla teach the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the signal is subject to a dynamic gain analysis to discern the F.O.G. from other floating objects (the system of Newman is capable of performing the process/method limitation, see ¶34).
Regarding claim 10, Newman and Mantyla teach the apparatus as claimed in claim 1 wherein the tank has a tank top (Newman, see Figs. 1 and 4)…
Newman does not teach an extension collar extending upward and supported by the tank top, and an extension top resting on the extension collar, the extension top, extension collar and tank top having aligned openings enabling a suction pipe to pass through the aligned openings for suctioning of F.O.G., and a cover fitting on the opening in the extension top to close the aligned openings when suctioning is not needed.
Mantyla further discloses an extension collar (Mantyla, Fig. 2, extension collar 26 (Fig. 2, riser 26); see ¶40) extending upward and supported by the tank top (see Fig. 2), and an extension top resting on the extension collar (see Fig. 2), the extension top, extension collar and tank top having aligned openings enabling a suction pipe to pass through the aligned openings for suctioning of F.O.G. (the structure is capable of performing the process/method limitation, see ¶22), and a cover fitting on the opening in the extension top (cover 29) to close the aligned openings when suctioning is not needed (see Fig. 2).
Annotated Fig. 3
PNG
media_image2.png
821
837
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the top tank of Newman by incorporating the riser stack (extension collar) of Mantyla because said riser stack (extension collar) provides the desired length during installation (Mantyla, see ¶40). The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.04).
Regarding claim 12, Newman and Mantyla teach the apparatus as claimed in claim 1 comprising an electronics unit (Newman, corresponds to electronics portion of control system) and a data analysis module (Newman, data received by the sensor and various calculations/programs performed by the control system, see ¶34) associated with the electronics unit configured to deal with deviations from normal static water levels (Newman, the control system is configured to provide guidance and/or information, see ¶44).
Regarding claim 13, Newman and Mantyla teach the apparatus as claimed in claim 12 wherein the data analysis module includes a set of acceptable thresholds specific to time travel intervals for the signal (Newman, a water layer or other non-oil layer reaches a certain height or predetermined threshold, see ¶55), the data analysis module able to detect a signal that is outside of the time travel interval (Newman, control system stops the pumping once the fluid layer reaches a minimum threshold, see ¶37), and the data analysis module able to report the signal that is outside of the time travel interval to initiate a pumping alarm (Newman, alarm 324, see ¶42).
Regarding claim 22, Newman and Mantyla teach the apparatus as claimed in claim 1 including an invert below the outlet (Mantyla, standpoint 82 below outlet 48, 49), so water exiting the tank is obtained from a low part of the tank below the outlet and an accumulated F.O.G. mat (Mantyla, see Fig. 3).
Claims 2-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman (US 2016/0122209) in view of Mantyla (US 2017/0072340) and further in view of Babin (USPN 7,635,854).
Regarding claim 2, Newman and Mantyla teach the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the sensor is a radar (Newman, see ¶34) however the combination of references does not teach that the radar is a LIDAR sensor.
In a related field of endeavor, Babin teaches optical level sensing of agitated fluid surfaces (see Entire Abstract) wherein the sensing is LIDAR sensing (“LIDAR”) (see C8/L55-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the radar sensor of Newman with the LIDAR sensor of Babin because LIDAR devices are generally less expensive than counterparts (Babin, see C2/L28-32) and Newman is open to any non-contact sensing means.
Regarding claim 3, Newman and Mantyla teach the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the sensor is a radar however the combination of references does not teach that the radar is LIDAR sensor operating at about 940 nm.
In a related field of endeavor, Babin teaches optical level sensing of agitated fluid surfaces (see Entire Abstract) wherein LIDAR operates at about 940 nm (“near-infrared 905-nm wavelength”, see C8/L55-65; it is interpreted that 905-nm is reasonably close to 940-nm because said wavelengths are in the same spectrum and therefore would have similar performance, see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the radar sensor of Newman with the LIDAR sensor of Babin because LIDAR devices are generally less expensive than counterparts (Babin, see C2/L28-32) and Newman is open to any non-contact sensing means.
Regarding claim 6, Newman and Mantyla teach the apparatus as claimed in claim 1.
While the sensor of Newman is located above the water level (see Fig. 1); however the combination of references does not teach wherein the sensor is a non- contact sensor and is located between 300mm to 1000mm above the static water level, wherein the distance between the sensor and a liquid surface is filled with air.
In a related field of endeavor, Babin teaches optical level sensing of agitated fluid surfaces (see Entire Abstract) wherein the sensor is a non- contact sensor and is located above the static water level (the lidar device is placed at a height H of about 11.7 m, see C7/L1-15; the distance of the sensor to water level is D; D = H-L therefore D is <11.7 m which overlaps with the claimed range). Babin further discloses the vertical distance D that separates the surface 80 of stored liquid from the front panel of the optical unit 30, wherein the vertical D is computed (see C8/L20-30 and see Fig. 1).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of < 11.7 meter (<11,700 mm) overlaps the claimed range of 300-1000 mm. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sensor location of Newman by positioning said sensor at a distance of < 11.7 meter as disclosed by Babin because said positioning provides the benefit of performing accurate and reliable measurements without any contact with the fluids (Babin, see C5/L40-50); hence it would have been obvious to select a distance in the range of 300-1000 mm because it is a sufficient height to avoid interference from atmospheric elements and close enough to accurately measure the fluid surface for effective operation of the non-contact sensor.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman (US 2016/0122209) in view of Mantyla (US 2017/0072340) and further in view of Platbardis (SE 1230114).
Regarding claim 7, Newman and Mantyla teach the apparatus as claimed in claim 5.
The combination of references does not teach wherein the sensor includes a sensor unit mounted in a low part of the extension collar and a battery and electronics unit mounted at a higher part of the extension collar.
In a related field of endeavor, Platbardis teaches a system and method for measuring and reporting fluid level in oil and grease separators (see Entire Abstract) wherein the sensor includes a sensor unit (Fig. 1, measuring head 30a; see pg. 18) mounted in a low part and wherein a battery (inherent) and an electronics unit (a part of measuring unit 20a) (see Fig. 1) are mounted at a higher part (see annotated Fig. 1) of the extension collar (Fig. 1, collar 12; see pg. 6).
Annotated Fig. 1
PNG
media_image3.png
475
634
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the location of the sensor, control system (electronics)/battery and extension collar of Newman (as modified by Mantyla) by locating the sensor at lower part of the extension collar and the electronics at a higher part of the extension collar such that the sensor unit is a lower part and the electronics is at higher part as disclosed by Platbardis because by doing so provides a good place for the electronics (measuring unit) (Platbardis, see pg. 6) and places the sensor at a suitable location for measuring (Platbardis, see Fig. 1, pgs. 6 and 18).
Regarding claim 8, Newman, Mantyla and Platbardis teach the apparatus as claimed in claim 7, wherein the electronics unit (Newman, corresponds to electronics portion of control system) includes a transmitter (Newman, transmitters for local and/or remote monitoring, see ¶59) to transmit a signal indicative of a F.O.G. level in the tank (this is an inherent characteristic of the transmitter).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman (US 2016/0122209) in view of Mantyla (US 2017/0072340) in view of Platbardis (SE 1230114) in view of Stronzcek (US 2016/0207801) and further in view of Fryda (USPN 4,807,201).
Regarding claim 9, Newman, Mantyla and Platbardis teach the apparatus as claimed in claim 7. Newman further discloses linking electronics by an electrical cord (an electrical line coupled to each of the electronic components, see ¶42).
The combination of references does not teach wherein the sensor and battery and electronics unit are linked by a coiled electrical cord, and a tether having tensile strength sufficient to pull the sensor upwardly through an extension collar for service.
In a related of endeavor, Stronzcek teaches conditioning water (see Entire Abstract) comprising a coiled wire (coiled wire, see ¶32 and Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shape of the electrical cord (i.e. electrical line) of Newman by changing the shape of the electrical cord to a coiled electrical cord as disclosed by Stronzcek because the coiled shaped provides a determined length which provides a desired resistance and current (Stronzcek, see ¶32 and ¶34).
The previous combination of references does not teach a tether having tensile strength sufficient to pull the sensor upwardly through the extension collar for service extends up the extension collar.
In a related field of endeavor, Fryda teaches groundwater pressure measurement (see Entire Abstract) comprising a tether (Fig. 1, tether 12 (Fig. 1, cable 12); see C5/L9-15) having tensile strength sufficient (cable have sufficient strength to support the probe) (see C5/L35-55) to pull the sensor (probe) (see C5/L10-15) upwardly through the extension collar (the probe is raised or lowered) (see C5/L10-15) for service extends up the extension collar (the cable of Fryda is capable of “for service…”, see C5/L9-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sensor of Newman by incorporating a tether (cable) of Fryda because said tether (cable) provides the benefit of raising and lowering of said sensor (probe) (Fryda, see C4/L14-20).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman (US 2016/0122209) in view of Mantyla (US 2017/0072340) and further in view of Gellaboina (US 2012/0281096).
Regarding claim 11, Newman and Mantyla teach the apparatus as claimed in claim 1.
The combination of references does not teach wherein the sensor operates using computer vision.
In a related field of endeavor, Gellaboina teaches a storage tank inspection system (see Entire Abstract) comprising a sensor operating using computer vision (provided on a computer and IR sensor/camera configuration, see ¶23 and ¶35).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the senor of Newman by incorporating computer vision (camera) of Gellaboina to said sensor because said computer vision (camera) provides the benefit of visualizing on a computer (Gellaboina, see ¶23) which is desirable for providing a reliable and accurate solution for inspection of storage tanks (Gellaboina, see ¶7).
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 EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7849. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7 am - 6 pm EST.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached on (571) 272-0475. 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.
/EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1778