DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/12/2023 and 02/20/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
To help the reader, examiner notes in this detailed action claim language is in bold, strikethrough limitations are not explicitly taught and language added to explain a reference mapping are isolated from quotations via square brackets.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/23/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-14, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laun (US 20230296422) in view of Kageyama et al. (CN 105936242 hereinafter Kageyama).
Regarding claim 1, Laun A distance sensor module, comprising (0037 “Sensors based on optical measurement methods using lasers, LEDs, 2D cameras or 3D cameras that measure distances according to the time-of-flight (ToF) principle can be used for this purpose.”):
a distance sensor (0037 “Sensors based on optical measurement methods using lasers, LEDs, 2D cameras or 3D cameras that measure distances according to the time-of-flight (ToF) principle can be used for this purpose.”); and
a housing, the distance sensor including: a sensor body (fig 1); and
a transmission and reception section connected to the sensor body and configured to
emit a detection signal toward a measurement target and receive the detection signal as reflected by the measurement target (0015 “According to a further embodiment, the radar sensor comprises a radio interface, arranged for wireless transmission of the radar sensor data, which the sensor acquires or calculates”),
the distance sensor being of a non-contact type such that the sensor body is configured to measure a distance between the distance sensor and the measurement target as a result of the transmission and reception section receiving the detection signal (0015 “According to a further embodiment, the radar sensor comprises a radio interface, arranged for wireless transmission of the radar sensor data, which the sensor acquires or calculates”),
the housing including: a sensor container section containing the distance sensor (0016 “radar sensor”; 0037 “Sensors based on optical measurement methods using lasers, LEDs, 2D cameras or 3D cameras that measure distances according to the time-of-flight (ToF) principle can be used for this purpose.”); and
an attachment section configured to attach the sensor container section to an external attachment target (0063 “If no opening in the container is desired, the attachment device 300 can also be mounted to the container, for example, by means of a rod 310, so that it “floats” above the container (see FIG. 2).”),
the sensor container section being configured to keep the transmission and reception section so oriented due to gravity as to have a vertically downward detection direction with the attachment section attached to the attachment target (0027 “The sensor and mounting can be designed so that the sensor aligns itself via gravity so that it always radiates vertically downward, or, alternatively, vertically, regardless of the orientation of the mounting device”).
Laun does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Kageyama teaches the distance sensor being suspended from the housing with use of a holder plate (figs 2-3).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Kageyama with the teachings of Laun. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously maintain reliability of the overall system (Kageyama p.9). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Kageyama merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the housing structure for a radar. Since both Laun and Kageyama disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, The cited prior art teaches The distance sensor module according to claim 1, wherein the transmission and reception section faces the measurement target, and the distance sensor has a center of gravity on a central axis of the transmission and reception section (Laun claim 8 “Radar sensor (100) according to any one of the preceding claims, where the center of gravity of the radar sensor is located below the center point of the sphere segment, so that the radar sensor aligns itself perpendicular to the product surface by means of gravity.”).
Regarding claim 3, The cited prior art teaches The distance sensor module according to claim 1, wherein the sensor container section contains the distance sensor in such a manner that allows the distance sensor to change an orientation within a predetermined space (Laun 0054 “Also, the radar sensor can have a tilt sensor that detects the current orientation of the sensor. This data can help to detect or calculate the level more accurately.”).
Regarding claim 4, The cited prior art teaches The distance sensor module according to claim 2, wherein the sensor container section contains the distance sensor in such a manner that allows the distance sensor to change an orientation within a predetermined space (Laun 0054 “Also, the radar sensor can have a tilt sensor that detects the current orientation of the sensor. This data can help to detect or calculate the level more accurately.”).
Regarding claim 5, The cited prior art teaches The distance sensor module according to claim 1, wherein the sensor container section has a lower end protruding downward by such an amount that when the distance sensor has changed an orientation within a predetermined space, no portion of the distance sensor protrudes downward from the lower end in a side view (Laun fig 1).
Regarding claim 6, The cited prior art teaches The distance sensor module according to claim 2, wherein the sensor container section has a lower end protruding downward by such an amount that when the distance sensor has changed an orientation within a predetermined space, no portion of the distance sensor protrudes downward from the lower end in a side view (Laun fig 1).
Regarding claim 7, The cited prior art teaches The distance sensor module according to claim 3, wherein the sensor container section has a lower end protruding downward by such an amount that when the distance sensor has changed an orientation within a predetermined space, no portion of the distance sensor protrudes downward from the lower end in a side view (Laun fig 1).
Regarding claim 8, The cited prior art teaches The distance sensor module according to claim 4, wherein the sensor container section has a lower end protruding downward by such an amount that when the distance sensor has changed an orientation within a predetermined space, no portion of the distance sensor protrudes downward from the lower end in a side view (Laun fig 1).
Regarding claim 9, The cited prior art teaches The distance sensor module according to claim 1, further comprising: a restrictor configured to limit a change of an orientation of the distance sensor relative to the sensor container section (Laun 0064 “the sensor is aligned so that it emits the measurement signal perpendicular to the product surface. The alignment can be done automatically by gravity. In step 4, the sensor is locked in place, whereupon the level measurement takes place.”).
Regarding claim 10, The cited prior art teaches The distance sensor module according to claim 2, further comprising: a restrictor configured to limit a change of an orientation of the distance sensor relative to the sensor container section (Laun 0064 “the sensor is aligned so that it emits the measurement signal perpendicular to the product surface. The alignment can be done automatically by gravity. In step 4, the sensor is locked in place, whereupon the level measurement takes place.”).
Regarding claim 11, The cited prior art teaches The distance sensor module according to claim 3, further comprising: a restrictor configured to limit a change of an orientation of the distance sensor relative to the sensor container section (Laun 0064 “the sensor is aligned so that it emits the measurement signal perpendicular to the product surface. The alignment can be done automatically by gravity. In step 4, the sensor is locked in place, whereupon the level measurement takes place.”).
Regarding claim 12, The cited prior art teaches The distance sensor module according to claim 4, further comprising: a restrictor configured to limit a change of an orientation of the distance sensor relative to the sensor container section (Laun 0064 “the sensor is aligned so that it emits the measurement signal perpendicular to the product surface. The alignment can be done automatically by gravity. In step 4, the sensor is locked in place, whereupon the level measurement takes place.”).
Regarding claim 13, The cited prior art teaches The distance sensor module according to claim 1, further comprising: a fixing member configured to fix the distance sensor in such a manner as to prevent the distance sensor from changing an orientation (Laun 0044 “The mounting device 300 is attached to the opening of the container 200, for example by means of a flange mounting 313, but other mounting may also be provided and the invention is not limited to a flange mounting”).
Regarding claim 14, The cited prior art teaches The distance sensor module according to claim 1, wherein the distance sensor is contained in the sensor container section in such a manner as to be capable of swinging to change an orientation relative to the housing (Laun Abstract “Radar sensor with an at least sectionally spherical sensor housing, which is rotatably mounted in a mounting device. For example, the sensor housing is spherical.”), a first one of the distance sensor and the housing includes a swing axis section, whereas a second one of the distance sensor and the housing includes a swing support holding the swing axis section (Laun fig 2 [310 holds the housing used for rotating the sensor corresponding to a swing motion]), and that one of the swing axis section and the swing support which the distance sensor includes has a center vertically upward of a center of gravity of the distance sensor (Laun fig 2 [rod 310 is holding the sensor vertically upwards]).
Regarding claim 19, The cited prior art teaches The distance sensor module according to claim 1, wherein the distance sensor is a millimeter-wave radar sensor that uses a millimeter wave as the detection signal (Laun 0045 “radar sensor 100”), and the distance sensor includes a portion covering the transmission and reception section which portion is made of an insulator (Laun 0050 “First, a hemisphere or hollow sphere segment 301 in the lower region that is transparent to radar beams and an upper hollow sphere segment 302 in the upper region that are detachably or non-detachably connected to each other”; 0057 “the outer housing sphere 301, 302, which is made of plastic.”).
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1. Kageyama further teaches a coil spring holding a portion of the distance sensor (figs 2-3).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laun (US 20230296422) in view of Kageyama et al. (CN 105936242 hereinafter Kageyama) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Chen (US 20210257140).
Regarding claim 15, The cited prior art teaches The distance sensor module according to claim 14, wherein the housing includes the swing axis section at the attachment section whereas the distance sensor includes the swing support (Laun fig 2), the swing axis section protrudes upward (Laun fig 2 [rod 310 holds sensor upwards])
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Chen teaches the swing axis section protrudes upward and has a gradually smaller diameter toward an upper end thereof and the swing support is a depressed surface section open downward and in contact with the upper end of the swing axis section (0043 “The support shaft 1121 is designed to be the arc-shaped shaft so as to guarantee omnidirectional swinging of the swinging rod 13 on the support shaft 1121. Correspondingly, the diameter of the support shaft 1121 may be adjusted to be smaller than the diameter of the first through hole 132, thereby allowing for more flexible swinging of the swinging rod 13.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Chen with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously accuracy reflections (Chen 0029). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Chen merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular swinging features. Since Laun and Chen disclose similar level detection sensors, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laun (US 20230296422) in view of Kageyama et al. (CN 105936242 hereinafter Kageyama) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Unger (US 20110083504).
Regarding claim 16, The cited prior art teaches The distance sensor module according to claim 14, wherein the distance sensor includes the swing axis section whereas the housing includes the swing support at the attachment section (Laun fig 2 [attachment 310]),
the swing axis section protrudes downward (Laun fig 2 [sensor protrudes down])
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Unger teaches and has a gradually smaller diameter toward a lower end thereof, and the swing support is a depressed surface section open upward and in contact with the lower end of the swing axis section (0029 “The guide rod 54 is secured, swinging freely on all sides, via a ball joint (ball-and-socket receptacle) 56 on the top portion 18 of the liquid container 14. As a result, because of its weight, the fill level sensor 20 with its guide rod 54 is always oriented in the direction of gravity 30”; fig 6 [the ball joint to rod corresponds to a narrowing of the diameter]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Unger with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve measurement reliability (Unger 0009). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Unger merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular ball and socket receptacle for a fill level sensor. Since both Laun and Unger disclose similar level detection sensors, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laun (US 20230296422) in view of Kageyama et al. (CN 105936242 hereinafter Kageyama) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Hengstler (US 20230130890).
Regarding claim 17, The cited prior art teaches The distance sensor module according to claim 1, further comprising:
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Hengstler teaches a cushion disposed in contact with the housing and the distance sensor and configured to prevent vibration of the attachment section from being transmitted to the distance sensor (Hengstler 0043 “According to another embodiment, the sensor arrangement comprises an absorber device made of an absorber material and arranged in the first portion of the sensor housing.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Hengstler with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce spurious reflections (Hengstler 0044). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Hengstler merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular dampening features. Since Laun and Hengstler disclose similar level detection sensors, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 18, The cited prior art teaches The distance sensor module according to claim 14, further comprising:
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Hengstler teaches a cushion system on a level detection sensor system (Hengstler 0043 “According to another embodiment, the sensor arrangement comprises an absorber device made of an absorber material and arranged in the first portion of the sensor housing.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Hengstler with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce spurious reflections (Hengstler 0044). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Hengstler merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular dampening features. Since Laun and Hengstler disclose similar level detection sensors, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
Gelada et al. (US 20190056258) discloses “The method comprising attaching a 3D sensor (20) on a top part of the container (10) in a position (P) and with an orientation (O) such that its field of view (FOV) is oriented towards the content (11) stored in the container (10); acquiring, by the 3D sensor (20), a depth map (DM) (See abstract)”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAAEEL A SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, William Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648