DETAILED ACTION
This Final Action is in reply to the After Final response filed 1/13/25.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 1/13/25, have been fully considered.
Applicant’s argument, pages 6-7, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 being improper, is fully persuasive. However, a new rejection is made herein under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant argues, pages 5-6, that Fehrenbach teaches the evaluation unit is connected during calibration and that a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would not make the structural and functional changes to Fehrenbach without hindsight.
The examiner agrees that Fehrenbach’s evaluation unit is connected during calibration. Fehrenbach teaches [0044, 0202] an adjustment process when the sensor is first operated at its location of use. The adjustment process “determines” vessel-specific information to be input via the input and output unit 13 at/during the sensor’s first use. Therefore, while the units may have different labels, the principle, required electronics, and process is the same: pre-calibrate the sensor at manufacture and enter vessel-specific information at first use to correspond operation and detection with the vessel. Separating the units achieves no new or unexpected results. Fehrenbach suggests that division of units does not have to correlate with the division into respective software modules [0109, also 0180-0181]. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 9-11 are directed to the arguments regarding claim 8 and are believed to have been addressed. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 8, 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by, or in the alternative, 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fehrenbach (20040183550).
Claim 8: Fehrenbach teaches a method for manufacturing and calibrating (Title, [0116-0118, 0176-0177, 0202-0203, 0220, 0222]) a modular fill-level gauge, comprising: providing the fill-level gauge that is based on a capacitive, an ultrasonic, or a radar-based measuring principle (Fig. 2 and Table 1: radar filling level sensor 43, ultrasonic filling level sensor 42, capacitive sensor 44), the fill-level gauge including:
a transmission module (Fig. 1, sensor element 4) into which an alternating voltage signal (power supply unit 16; 4-20mA, [0212]) is coupled such that the signal is transmitted in a direction of a reflector ([0173] medium 5) and after reflection is received as a corresponding received variable (electrical signal 6);
a sensor module (sensor electronics unit 7), including:
a signal production unit ([0030] sensor electronics unit and its components for each measuring technique [0033] radar, [0034] ultrasonic, [0038] capacitive) designed to produce the alternating voltage signal (excitation signal 9) according to the appropriate measuring principle; and
an evaluation unit (evaluation unit 10 [0116] The measured value standardized by the sensor electronics unit is then converted by the evaluation unit into the desired information about the process quantity and forwarded to the output unit as an electrical signal. For this purpose, sensor specific calibration and adjustment values are stored in the evaluation unit's EEPROM, allows the microprocessor to determine the physical process quantity.) designed to convert the received variable via a calibration function (sensor specific calibration) into a sensor signal that represents a distance between the fill-level gauge and the reflector ([0202] The adjustment values include the information on the vessel and the structural position of the sensor 1, allowing the relationship of the values of the distance between the sensor and the filling matter to the vessel filling level to be established.); and
an electronics module (evaluation unit 10 including sensor specific calibration and adjustment values stored in the evaluation unit’s EEPROM and communicated to the evaluation unit 10 by means of the output unit 13) designed to use a known, installed height to convert the sensor signal into a standardized measured value signal representing the fill-level, the electronics module including: a first interface ([0204] information paths 8,11) to the evaluating unit to receive the sensor signal; and a second interface (communication paths: output value 12, information channel 14) to output the measured value signal to a superordinated unit (13); connecting the transmission module (sensor element 4) with the sensor module (sensor electronics unit 7);
calibrating the sensor module by: transmitting the alternating voltage signal in a presence of at least one defined distance between the fill-level gauge and the reflector; in each case, registering the corresponding, received variable; and based on the at least one registered, received variable and, in each case, the corresponding distance, creating the calibration function; and the electronics module by inputting the installed height of the fill-level gauge ([0176-0177, 0202-0204]).
Fehrenbach does not explicitly teach connecting the electronics module to the sensor module only after the calibration of the sensor module.
However, connecting the electronics module of the instant invention to the sensor module only after calibration is a manner of feeding necessary information in order to parametrize the sensor for the target location of use. Similarly, Fehrenbach teaches [0044, 0202] an adjustment process when the sensor is first operated at its location of use. The adjustment process “determines”/receives vessel-specific information to be input via the input and output unit 13 at/during the sensor’s first use [0176-0177]. In order to use the sensor and have an output related to the vessel, the sensor must receive vessel-specific parameters via an input unit. Fehrenbach suggests extending the output unit 13 to include an input unit [0117-0118] The input and output unit is for outputting the desired information that the sensor determines and for inputting the above calibration and adjustment values, or for parametrizing the sensor. In the most basic case, the output unit has an interface for connecting the sensor to the usual field bus system. Via this field bus system, the sensor is connected, for example, to a process control. [0203] The necessary calibration and adjustment values are fed to the sensor 1 from the outside via the input and output unit 13 and communicated to the a valuation unit 10 via the information channel 14. Therefore, in order to use the sensor, the vessel specific information must be input.
Separating or reconfiguring hardware and software is taught by Fehrenbach: [0180-0181] While the partitioning of the hardware components results in the individual physical components of the sensor, the distribution of the software components reflects individual functional units or parts of functional units. Therefore, while the units may have different labels, the principle of operation, required electronics, and process is the same: pre-calibrate the sensor at manufacture and receive vessel-specific information at first use to correspond with a vessel.
The nature of the problem to be solved: a precalibrated sensor which can be updated with vessel-specific information at first use [with said vessel]. Fehrenbach does not limit what the input unit can be, nor when or how the output unit can be extended to include an input unit, only that it receives information fed from the outside [0203], and that the functional units (hardware/software) can be combined or split-up. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to extend the output unit (via connection, wired or wireless, to another device capable of communication with the output unit) in order to include an input unit capable of inputting the vessel-specific information to the output unit.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to connect the electronics module to the sensor module after the calibration of the sensor module in order to obtain the vessel specific information.
Claim 12: Fehrenbach discloses the method as claimed in claim 8, wherein the electronics module is designed to produce the measured value signal according to the 4-20 mA standard ([0012, 0206, 0212]).
Claim 13: Fehrenbach discloses the method as claimed in claim 8, wherein the sensor module (sensor electronics unit 7) is designed to produce the sensor signal as a digital signal (a-to-d converter [0174]; claim 2), and wherein the electronics module (evaluation unit 10) is designed to process the digital sensor signal and to receive the digital sensor signal via the first interface ([0204] information paths 8,11).
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fehrenbach in view of Wiedekind-Klein (US20110314907).
Claim 9: Fehrenbach teaches the method as claimed in claim 8. Fehrenbach discusses sensor-specific information including calibration and adjustment values using the example of the microwave filling level sensor [0202]. Fehrenbach teaches using a zero-distance point and a measured value to determine a slope and therefore relationship between the fill level and sensor.
Fehrenbach fails to teach wherein the alternating voltage signal is transmitted in the presence of two or more defined distances between the fill-level gauge and the reflector for the calibrating of the sensor module, and wherein the calibration function is created based on these distances and the corresponding received variables.
However, Wiedekind-Klein teaches using two calibration values/distances ([0067, 0074]) including empty and full.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use two defined distances, as taught by Wiedekind-Klein, with the device of Fehrenbach in order to be able to determine a level of the medium correctly (Wiedekind-Klein [0067]).
Claim 10: Fehrenbach in view of Wiedekind-Klein teaches the method as claimed in claim 9. Fehrenbach teaches creating a calibration protocol by: transmitting the signal in the presence of at least one defined, set distance to the reflector and, after reflection, receiving the corresponding, received variable; producing the sensor signal based on the received variable and the calibration function (measured value 8); converting the sensor signal into the standardized measured value signal using a known, installed height (output value 12); and reconciling the at least one fill-level value represented by the measured value signal with the defined, set distance ([0202] The adjustment values include the information on the vessel and the structural position of the sensor 1, allowing the relationship of the values of the distance between the sensor and the filling matter to the vessel filling level to be established.).
Claim 11: Fehrenbach in view of Wiedekind-Klein teaches the method as claimed in claim 10, wherein the sensor signal (measured value 8) produced by the sensor module (sensor electronics unit 7) is stored in an external memory unit (the sensor electronics unit includes peripheral RAM, ROM, EEPROM [0174]), and wherein the sensor signals are transmitted to the electronics module (evaluation unit 10 including sensor specific calibration and adjustment values stored in the evaluation unit’s EEPROM and communicated to the evaluation unit 10 by means of the output unit 13) from the external memory unit via the first interface.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fehrenbach in view of Dages (US5226320).
Claim 14: Fehrenbach teaches the method as claimed in claim 8, but fails to teach wherein in the calibration of the sensor module a temperature compensation is performed by: producing the signal at at least one defined distance and at least two different temperatures; after reflection, registering the corresponding, received variables; and creating a compensation function based at least on the received variables and the corresponding temperatures, wherein the sensor module is designed to measure the ambient temperature, and wherein the sensor unit is designed to output the sensor signals temperature compensated by means of the compensation function and the measured ambient temperature.
However, Dages teaches a fill level determination device, Fig. 1, which uses temperature sensors 14, 15, 16 and defined distance (a reference path indicated by double arrow 11, Fig. 1) to determine sound velocity within the fluid at different temperatures using a correction factor Kk and corresponding compensation equation(s) (col. 5, lines 30-50).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use temperature sensors and compensation function as taught by Dages with the device of Fehrenbach in order to improve the measuring tolerance (Dages, col. 2, lines 17-19).
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 JEAN MORELLO whose telephone number is (313)446-6583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/JEAN F MORELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2855 2/11/26
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855