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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6-18-2026 have been fully considered.
With respect to applicant’s argument that Yamaji uses a single data point and not “measurement value” and “sensor information”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Yamaji, ¶74 speaks to providing sensor details. Yamaji, ¶76 speaks to providing measurement value D.
With respect to the amended claims, please see below.
Examiner’s Note: For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaji, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2014/0120843, published May 1, 2014 in view of Balka, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0115354, published April 27, 2017.
As per claim 1, Yamaji discloses an electronic function interface (1, 21, 22), which cooperates with at least one electronic sensor (2, 11) for detecting a measured quantity, for providing at least one predetermined function depending on sensor information and/or measurement values of the measured quantity detected by the sensor (2, 11), wherein the function interface (1, 21, 22) is configured as a unit that is constructionally independent of and segregable from the sensor (2, 11), and is coupled to the sensor (2, 11) in a wirelessly data-transmitting manner (Yamaji, ¶50, 61 and Fig. 6A and ¶74 and 76 providing both sensor info and measurement info).
Yamaji fails to expressly discloses predetermined switching states and an output terminal of the switch.
Balka teaches a device with predetermined switching states which switch in response to provided measurement data (¶36) and it is understood that a switch, in order to function, would require a terminal to allow the signals to proceed.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make a decision based on sensor information and measurement data in order to gain the obvious benefit of having the system react the information you are gathering as shown by Balka. The examiner submits it is well within the skill of a person in the art to determine what to do with the measured information.
As per claim 2, Yamaji as modified by Balka discloses the function interface according to the preceding claim, further comprising at least one, current output terminal, voltage output terminal and/or a communications module providing the predetermined function (Yamaji, ¶60, controller).
As per claim 3, Yamaji as modified by Balka further discloses the function interface according to claim 1,characterized by further comprising at least one electric energy storage unit (24) and/or an electric energy supply device and/or an electric energy generator providing a current supply f to the function interface (Yamaji, ¶64).
As per claim 4, Yamaji as modified by Balka further discloses the function interface according to claim 3 wherein the energy supply device has a wired coupling, which transmits electric energy, for from a current feed from outside the function interface, and/or has a wireless coupling, which transmits electric energy, for from a current feed from outside the function interface, and/or has an energy generating device for a current generation and current feed into the energy storage unit (24) internal to the function interface (Yamaji, Fig. 1, item 25).
As per claim 5, Yamaji as modified by Balka further discloses the interface according to claim 3 but fails to expressly disclose the electric energy storage being rechargeable. As Yamaji provides a power supply, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to make it rechargeable in order to gain the benefit of not downing the system each time a battery runs out.
As per claim 6, Yamaji as modified by Balka further discloses the function interface according to claim 1, wherein the function interface (1, 21, 22) can be is selectively activated in a permanent or cyclic or event-based manner (Yamaji, ¶61).
As per claims 7-9, Yamaji as modified by Balka further discloses the interface of claim 1 wherein the data transmission is either unidirectional, bidirectional and direct (Yamaji, Fig. 6A, ¶59 and 104).
As per claim 10, Yamaji as modified by Balka further discloses an electronic sensor (2, 11) for detecting a measured quantity, which cooperates with at least one electronic function interface (1, 21, 22) for providing at least one predetermined function depending on sensor information and/or measurement values of the measured quantity detected by the sensor (2, 11), wherein the sensor (2, 11) is configured as a unit that is constructionally independent of and segregable from the function interface (1, 21, 22), and is coupled to the function interface (1, 21, 22) in a wirelessly data-transmitting manner (Yamaji, Fig. 6A and ¶51 and Balka, ¶36).
As per claim 11, Yamaji as modified by Balka further discloses the sensor according to the preceding claim 10,characterized by further comprising a holding device (8) to which the function interface (1, 21, 22) can be attached (Yamaji, Fig. 2A and ¶72 providing for attachment).
As per claims 12 and 13, Yamaji as modified by Balka further discloses the sensor of claim 10 providing a coupling means for energy transfer wither wired or wirelessly (Yamaji, Fig. 10, item 17).
As per claims 14-16, please see the rejection and rationale of claims 7-9 above.
As per claim 17, Yamaji as modified by Balka further discloses the sensor of claim 10 wherein the sensor is a fill level (Balka, abstract).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the measurement function to pressure or fill level, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by Yamaji in providing the necessary communication and data. The examiner submits it is well within the skill of a person in the art to determine what should be measured.
As per claim 18, Yamaji as modified by Balka further discloses an assembly comprising an electronic sensor, and a segregable function interface which communications wirelessly (Yamaji, Fig. 6 and ¶16).
As per claims 19 and 20, Yamaji discloses the assembly of claim 18 but fails to explicitly disclose a second sensor and second interface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the set, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skilled the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on form PTO-892.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS E WINDRICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~7-3:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jack Keith can be reached at 5712726878. 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.
/MARCUS E WINDRICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights