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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 14 July 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect the art rejection of the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 15-17 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoferer et al. US 2019/0033116 and Grießbaum et al. US 2020/0103268.
Regarding claim 1, Hoferer teaches a level-measuring device 10 for determining the level of a medium comprising processing circuitry (controller 11) configured to:
generate a measuring signal (via transmitting unit 12) for determining a level (abstract) based on a digitally converted signal (paragraph 0015) emitted from the level-measuring device toward the medium (abstract), wherein the level is determined based on a characteristic feature of the measuring signal (amplitude of the signal, paragraph 0022), and
monitor, by way of a monitoring function, the determination of the level based on the characteristic feature (paragraph 0070),
wherein the monitoring function has multiple sensing functions for monitoring the medium level (paragraph 0013 discloses first and second transmitting powers for the transmission signal wherein one is higher than the other for determination of a level under different conditions). Hoferer does not explicitly teach the monitoring function selectively operable at a first quality level or a second quality level, wherein the quality of the monitoring is higher at the first quality level than the at the second quality level as claimed.
Grießbaum teaches a level-measuring device for determining a level of a medium 103 in which a monitoring function is selectable from two operating modes corresponding to a first quality level and a second quality level, wherein the quality of monitoring is higher at the first quality level than at the second quality level (abstract “in the first operating mode a first measurement rate and a first measurement precision and in the second operating mode showing a second measurement rate and a second measurement precision, wherein the first measurement rate is lower than the second measurement rate and/or the first measurement accuracy is lower than the second measurement accuracy”).1 It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Grießbaum with those of Hoferer in order to provide multiple monitoring functions for when either large changes or small changes are occurring in the system and either a high or a low accuracy is required for determining the changes.
Regarding claim 2, the level measuring device of Hoferer determines the level of the medium based on a propagation time of the emitted signal as claimed (paragraph 0023)
Regarding claim 3, the processing circuitry of Hoferer is configured to determine the level in an operating mode as claimed. The system of Hoferer would further be capable of operating in a start-up mode at the beginning of operation. In operation, the quality level of the two modes can be different depending on which level is selected. However, since the claim recites that the device operates in one mode or the other, the method of operation of the device does not affect the structure claimed and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 15, the level-measuring device of Hoferer is a radar level-measuring device as claimed (paragraph 0075).
Regarding claim 16, the circuitry of Hoferer is capable of receiving signals and processing them and therefore would be configured to receive any signals such as a switching signal provided thereto for witching modes.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is directed towards the method of operating the device and not the structure and therefore, since the device and the processing circuitry of Hoferer is capable of operating in the claimed manner, it satisfies the claim limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-11 and 18-20 may be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record fails to disclose, as best interpreted, the claimed level measuring device including the monitoring function including at least one monitoring sub-function, which selectively generates the higher quality level and the lower quality level, respectively, in order to realize the quality levels of the monitoring function based on the respectively selected quality level of the respective monitoring sub-function, and processing circuitry is further configured to generate an error signal if at least one of the monitoring sub-functions generates an error signal when monitoring the determination of the level corresponding to the selected quality level of the monitoring function in order to indicate an incorrect determination of the level. All claims which depend from claim 5 are allowable for the same reasons due to their dependency thereon.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark A. Shabman whose telephone number is (571)272-8589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/MARK A SHABMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
1 The claim requires that there be two quality levels and therefore although the naming of “first” and second” does not match that of Grießbaum, the two still satisfy the limitation since one is higher than the other with regard to quality.