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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/28/2026 has been entered.
The examiner notes that the claims filed 2/24/2026 have been examined in the current office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 10/14/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 14 is 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.
The term “substantially larger” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially larger” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-3, 9, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 8,938,938 issued to Konno et al. (“Konno”) in view of U.S. Patent 9,890,029 issued to Comsa et al. (“Comsa”), CN 213956534 by Zhang et al. (“Zhang”) and U.S. Patent 6,923,057 issued to Sabatino (“Sabatino”).
As for claim 1, Konno discloses a level reader system for determining a level of liquid in a tube of packaging material, wherein the level reader system comprises:
a magnetic (col. 2, lines 9-22) float (34, 35) and
a level reader device (31; col. 2, lines 9-22), wherein the level reader device comprises:
a longitudinal direction (vertical direction in Fig. 5) being substantially parallel to a filling direction of a tube of packaging material (see Fig. 5);
a sensor being distributed along the longitudinal direction and configured to provide one or more sensor readings; and
a processing unit (33), and
wherein the tube of packaging material is arranged (see Fig. 5) between the level reader device (31) and the magnetic float (34, 35).
Konno does not disclose that the level reader device comprises a housing, a plurality of sensors and a processing unit as recited. Instead, Konno discloses that the level reader device is a liquid level sensing device that uses a magnetic float (col. 2, lines 9-22).
However, Comsa discloses a level reader device (Fig. 8) that comprises:
a housing (80A) extending in a longitudinal direction (vertical in Fig. 8);
a plurality of sensors (40A-1 - 40A-4) being distributed in the housing (col. 17, lines 22-27) along the longitudinal direction and configured to continuously (col. 9, line 64 - col. 10, line 1) provide one or more sensor readings (col. 10, lines 5-29); and
a processing unit (50) being configured to determine a level of liquid based on the one or more sensor readings (col. 11, lines 34-40).
Comsa discloses that the level reader device is a liquid level sensing device that uses a magnetic float (Fig. 8t).
Because Comsa and Konno both disclose liquid level sensing devices that use a magnetic float, 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 level reader device of Deak for the level reader device of Konno to achieve the predictable result of providing a level reader device that uses a magnetic float to detect a liquid level.
Konno as modified by Comsa does not disclose that the magnetic float comprises a cylinder and ring shaped holder. Instead, Konno discloses a generic magnetic float (34, 35) that is used to detect a liquid level (col. 2, lines 9-22).
However, Zhang discloses a magnetic float (3) that comprises a cylinder (32) and a ring-shaped holder (33) arranged in the cylinder (32). Zhang discloses that the magnetic float is used to detect a liquid level (Abstract).
Because Konno and Zhang both disclose magnetic floats that are used to detect 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 magnetic float of Zhang for the magnetic float of Konno to achieve the predictable result of providing a magnetic float that can detect a liquid level.
Konno as modified by Comsa and Zhang does not disclose that the ring-shaped holder comprises a plurality of magnets being distributed around said holder. Instead, Konno as modified by Comsa and Zhang discloses that the ring shaped holder comprises a single magnet around said holder (Zhang: see Fig. 3).
However, Sabatino discloses a ring-shaped holder (230) that comprises a plurality of magnets (300) distributed around said holder (see Figs 4A-5B).
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 holder of Konno, Comsa and Zhang to hold a plurality of magnets as disclosed by Sabatino in order to provide a desired magnetic field strength (Sabatino: col. 7, lines 8-19).
As for claim 2, Konno as modified by Comsa, Zhang and Sabatino discloses that the plurality of sensors (Comsa: 40A-1 - 40A-4) are configured to provide the one or more sensor readings which are indicative of defined values separated from zero (Comsa: col.10, lines 16-29), wherein one sensor reading among the one or more sensor readings is indicative of a value higher than the other sensor readings (Comsa: col. 11, lines 30-40).
As for claim 3, Konno as modified by Comsa, Zhang and Sabatino discloses that the processing unit (Comsa: 50) is configured to determine the level of liquid in the tube of packaging material from said one sensor reading which is indicative of a value higher than the other sensor readings (Comsa: col. 11, lines 30-40).
As for claim 9, Konno as modified by Comsa, Zhang and Sabatino discloses that the plurality of sensors (Comsa: 40A-1 - 40A-4) are magneto resistive sensors (Comsa: col. 10, lines 5-11).
As for claim 14, Konno as modified by Comsa, Zhang and Sabatino discloses that the longitudinal extension of the housing (Comsa: 80A and Zhang: 2) is substantially larger than a vertical extension of the ring-shaped holder (Comsa: 60 and Zhang: 33).
As for claim 15, Konno as modified by Comsa, Zhang and Sabatino discloses a package producing machine (Konno: Figs. 4 and 5) comprising the level reader system according to claim 1.
Claims 7, 8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 8,938,938 issued to Konno et al. (“Konno”) in view of U.S. Patent 9,890,029 issued to Comsa et al. (“Comsa”), CN 213956534 by Zhang et al. (“Zhang”) and U.S. Patent 6,923,057 issued to Sabatino (“Sabatino”) as applied to claims 1 and 9, further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0355014 by Deak et al. (“Deak”).
As for claim 7, Konno as modified by Comsa, Zhang and Sabatino discloses the level reader device according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Konno as modified by Comsa, Zhang and Sabatino does not explicitly disclose that the plurality of sensors is in the range of 15 to 45 sensors.
However, Deak discloses that the number of sensors can vary so that the level measurement can have high resolution (paragraphs [0053]-[0057] and [0061]. It has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B). Furthermore, it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A).
Therefore, 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 number of sensors (in part, by duplicating the sensors) of Konno, Comsa, Zhang and Sabatino to be in the claimed range to achieve the predictable result of providing a desired level measurement resolution.
As for claim 8, Konno as modified by Comsa, Zhang and Sabatino discloses the level reader device according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Konno as modified by Comsa, Zhang and Sabatino does not explicitly disclose that the plurality of sensors are distributed along a length of 10 to 35 cm.
However, Deak discloses that the length may be from 1-1200 cm (paragraphs [0051] and [0055]. Deak suggests that the length depends on the environment and condition of use of the level reader device (paragraph [0051]). Furthermore, it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A).
Therefore, 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 distribution length of the sensors of Konno, Comsa, Zhang and Sabatino to be in the claimed range to achieve the predictable result of providing a desired level measurement resolution.
As for claims 10 and 11, Konno as modified by Comsa, Zhang and Sabatino discloses the level reader device according to claim 9 (see the rejection of claim 9 above).
Konno as modified by Comsa, Zhang and Sabatino does not explicitly disclose that the magneto resistive sensitivity of the sensors is in the range of 5 to 15 G or is in the range of 10 to 25 G.
However, Deak suggests that the sensitivity is chosen to be appropriate for the magnetic field applied by the magnet (Figs. 5-7 and paragraphs [0066]-[0069]. Furthermore, it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A).
Therefore, 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 sensitivity of the sensors of Konno, Comsa, Zhang and Sabatino to be in the claimed range to achieve the predictable result of providing sensors that can sense the magnet.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 8,938,938 issued to Konno et al. (“Konno”) in view of U.S. Patent 9,890,029 issued to Comsa et al. (“Comsa”), CN 213956534 by Zhang et al. (“Zhang”) and U.S. Patent 6,923,057 issued to Sabatino (“Sabatino”) as applied to claim 2, further in view of U.S. Patent 10,371,555 issued to Philipson (“Philipson”).
As for claim 4, Konno as modified by Comsa, Zhang and Sabatino discloses the level reader device according to claim 2 (see the rejection of claim 2 above).
Konno as modified by Comsa, Zhang and Sabatino does not disclose that the processing unit is configured to determine the level of liquid in the tube of packaging material as recited. Instead, Comsa discloses that the processing unit determine the liquid level based on a relative values (Comsa: col.11, lines 34-40).
However, Philipson discloses that one sensor reading (14h) among one or more sensor readings is indicative of a value lower than other sensor readings (see Fig. 5), and a processing unit (44) that is configured to determine a level of liquid from an average value of said sensor reading which is indicative of a value higher than the other sensor readings and said sensor reading being indicative of a value lower than the other sensor readings (see claim 12; col. 11, lines 1-20).
Because Comsa and Philipson both disclose methods of determining 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 method of Philipson for the method of Comsa to achieve the predictable result of providing a processing unit that determines the liquid level.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 8,938,938 issued to Konno et al. (“Konno”) in view of U.S. Patent 9,890,029 issued to Comsa et al. (“Comsa”), CN 213956534 by Zhang et al. (“Zhang”), U.S. Patent 6,923,057 issued to Sabatino (“Sabatino”) and U.S. Patent 10,371,555 issued to Philipson (“Philipson”) as applied to claim 4, further in view of U.S. Patent 10,788,355 issued to Khazaai et al. (“Khazaai”) and DE 10-2016-122298 by Rahe (“Rahe”).
As for claim 5, Konno as modified by Comsa, Zhang, Sabatino and Philipson discloses the level reader device according to claim 4 (see the rejection of claim 4 above).
Konno as modified by Comsa, Zhang, Sabatino and Philipson does not disclose that the processing unit is configured to determine the level of liquid in the tube of packaging material from a moving average of a predetermined number of previously provided sensor readings.
However, Khazaai discloses a processing unit (1005) that is configured to determine a level of liquid in a tube (1105) from a moving average of a predetermined number of previously provided sensor readings (col. 6, lines 18-23). Rahe discloses that using a moving average to determine a level can compensate for measured value fluctuations.
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 processing unit of Konno, Comsa, Zhang, Sabatino and Philipson to determine a level from a moving average as disclosed by Khazaai and Rahe in order to increase accuracy by compensating for measured value fluctuations.
As for claim 6, Konno as modified by Comsa, Zhang and Sabatino, Philipson, Khazaai and Rahe discloses that the processing unit (Khazaai: 1005) is configured to determine the level of liquid in the tube of packaging material by selecting one of:
said one sensor reading which is indicative a higher value than the other sensor readings,
said average value, or
said moving average (Khazaai: col. 6, lines 18-23).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 and the Deak reference have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
On pages 8-9 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that the examiner has not established any rational basis as to why Sabatino’s multi-magnet ring distribution would be adapted to the prior art float. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Sabatino discloses using multiple magnets in order to obtain a desired magnetic field strength (Sabatino: col. 7, lines 7-19).
Conclusion
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