DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/12/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN 213632303 U - all citations are to the attached English translation) in view of Eda et al. (JP 2004325147 A - all citations are to the attached English translation).Regarding claim 1:Wu teaches (e.g., FIGS. 2 and 4-5) a liquid metal level measurement system, comprising:
a crucible (4) operable to contain a liquid metal;
a probe, comprising: an electrode (e.g., 3 or 1) disposed at a lowermost probe position; and
a processing system configured to receive a signal from the electrode to evaluate whether the electrode is in contact with the liquid (e.g., that which determines when the electrode is in contact with the liquid - e.g., page 6, claims 1 and 4-6)Wu fails to explicitly teach:
fixedly coupled to the crucible
the liquid is a liquid metalEda teaches:
fixedly coupled to the crucible (e.g., via element 31 in FIG. 4; [0038])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the fixing plate of Eda in the device of Wu to hold the liquid level probes in place. Further, by mounting in a plate above the crucible/tank, the electrodes may be set at specific heights and remain there.
Regarding “the liquid is a liquid metal”: The examiner takes Official notice that it is common to use a technique such as that of Wu and Eda (electrode-based discrete liquid level detection) for liquid various liquids, including liquid metal.
Regarding claim 2:Wu and Eda teach or render obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Eda teaches:
wherein the probe further comprises an electrically-conductive component (13) disposed within a probe interior (inside 12) and electrically-coupled to the electrode (11) and the processing system (via 14)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the electrode insulation structure of Eda in the device of Wu as Wu explicitly teaches the electrode being insulated but fails to explicitly show it (see Wu: claim 1; last 2 paragraphs of page 5; page 6 - paragraphs under “Example 2”).
Regarding claim 3:Wu and Eda teach or render obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Wu also teaches:
wherein the crucible comprises an electrically-conductive material (e.g., FIGS. 2-3 show the “crucible” as grounded and FIG. 4 shows the “crucible” as conductive metal, connected to further circuitry)
Regarding claim 4:Wu and Eda teach or render obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Wu also teaches:
wherein the crucible is grounded (e.g., FIGS. 2-3 show the “crucible” as grounded)
Regarding claim 5:Wu and Eda teach or render obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Wu and Eda teach or render obvious:
a circuit configured to provide an open/closed signal to the processing system
Specifically, no electricity flows between the electrodes and the tank unless the liquid contacts the electrodes. As such, the circuit may be interpreted as providing “an open/closed” signal where “open” corresponds to no contact between the liquid and a specific electrode and “closed” corresponds to contact between the liquid and the specific electrode. Said “closed” / “contact” indicating that the liquid has reached the level of the specific electrode.
Regarding claim 6:Wu and Eda teach or render obvious all the limitations of claim 5, as mentioned above.As mentioned in the claim 5 rejection above, Wu and Eda teach or render obvious:
wherein the circuit is configured to send an open circuit status signal to the processing system when the electrode is not in contact with liquid metal(See claim 5 rejection above)
Regarding claim 7:Wu and Eda teach or render obvious all the limitations of claim 5, as mentioned above.As mentioned in the claim 5 rejection above, Wu and Eda teach or render obvious:
wherein the circuit is configured to send a closed circuit status signal to the processing system when the electrode is in contact with liquid metal(See claim 5 rejection above)
Regarding claim 8:Wu and Eda teach or render obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Wu also teaches:
wherein the probe is made of an insulating material (claim 1; last 2 paragraphs of page 5; page 6 - paragraphs under “Example 2”)
Regarding claim 9:Wu and Eda teach or render obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Wu also teaches:
wherein the probe comprises an insulating material on a probe exterior (claim 1; last 2 paragraphs of page 5; page 6 - paragraphs under “Example 2”)
Regarding claim 10:Wu and Eda teach or render obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Eda teaches:
wherein the electrode comprises stainless steel (e.g., [0019])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use stainless steel for the electrode, as taught by Eda, in the device of Wu as it is strong and can withstand high temperatures and corrosion.
Regarding claim 11:Wu teaches (e.g., FIGS. 2 and 4-5) a liquid metal level measurement system, comprising:
a crucible (4 - e.g., FIGS. 2-3 show the “crucible” as grounded and FIG. 4 shows the “crucible” as conductive metal, connected to further circuitry) comprising an electrically-conductive material and operable to contain a liquid metal; at least two probes (1, 2, 3), wherein each of the at least two probes comprises an electrode at a respective lowermost probe position and disposed within a crucible volume; wherein the at least two electrodes are electrically-coupled to a multi-loop circuit (e.g., elements outside 4); and a processing system configured to receive a signal from each of the at least two electrodes to evaluate whether each of the at least two electrodes is in contact with the liquid (e.g., that which determines when the electrode is in contact with the liquid - e.g., page 6, claims 1 and 4-6)Wu fails to explicitly teach:
the electrodes fixedly coupled to the crucible
the liquid is a liquid metalEda teaches:
the electrodes fixedly coupled to the crucible (e.g., via element 31 in FIG. 4; [0038])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the fixing plate of Eda in the device of Wu to hold the liquid level probes in place. Further, by mounting in a plate above the crucible/tank, the electrodes may be set at specific heights and remain there.
Regarding “the liquid is a liquid metal”: The examiner takes Official notice that it is common to use a technique such as that of Wu and Eda (electrode-based discrete liquid level detection) for liquid various liquids, including liquid metal.
Regarding claim 12:Wu and Eda teach or render obvious all the limitations of claim 11, as mentioned above.Wu also teaches (e.g., FIGS. 2 and 4-5):
wherein each of the at least two electrodes (1, 2, 3) is provided at a different height within the crucible volume (4)
Regarding claim 13:Wu and Eda teach or render obvious all the limitations of claim 11, as mentioned above.Wu also teaches:
wherein the crucible is grounded (e.g., FIGS. 2-3 show the “crucible” as grounded)
Regarding claim 14:Wu and Eda teach or render obvious all the limitations of claim 11, as mentioned above.Eda teaches:
wherein each of the at least two probes further comprises an electrically-conductive component (13) disposed within a probe interior (inside 12) and electrically-coupled to a respective electrode (11) and the processing system (via 14)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the electrode insulation structure of Eda in the device of Wu as Wu explicitly teaches the electrode being insulated but fails to explicitly show it (see Wu: claim 1; last 2 paragraphs of page 5; page 6 - paragraphs under “Example 2”).
Regarding claim 15:Wu and Eda teach or render obvious all the limitations of claim 11, as mentioned above.Wu also teaches or renders obvious:
wherein the multi-loop circuit is configured to provide an open/closed circuit loop signal for each circuit loop to the processing system (FIG. 2 and associated discussion regarding independent detection electrodes; the examiner notes that the instant claim is equivalent to the function of FIG. 2 of Wu)
Regarding claim 16:Wu and Eda teach or render obvious all the limitations of claim 15, as mentioned above.Wu also teaches or renders obvious:
wherein each of the at least two electrodes is configured to function as a switch for a distinct circuit loop (see claim 15 rejection above - each electrode is either able to conduct electric current through the liquid due to contact therewith or it is not due to a lack of contact with the fluid)
Regarding claim 17:Wu and Eda teach or render obvious all the limitations of claim 16, as mentioned above.Wu also teaches or renders obvious:
wherein a circuit loop is configured to send a closed circuit loop state signal to the processing system when a corresponding electrode is in contact with liquid metal (see rejection of claims 15-16 above)
Regarding claim 18:Wu and Eda teach or render obvious all the limitations of claim 16, as mentioned above.Wu and Eda teach or render obvious:
wherein a circuit loop is configured to send an open circuit loop state signal to the processing system when a corresponding electrode is not in contact with liquid metal
Specifically, no electricity flows between the electrodes and the tank unless the liquid contacts the electrodes. As such, the circuit may be interpreted as providing “an open/closed” signal where “open” corresponds to no contact between the liquid and a specific electrode and “closed” corresponds to contact between the liquid and the specific electrode. Said “closed” / “contact” indicating that the liquid has reached the level of the specific electrode.
Regarding claim 19:Wu teaches (e.g., FIGS. 2 and 4-5) a method of measuring a liquid metal level within a crucible, comprising:
providing a liquid (represented by the horizontal dashed lines that are within container 4) to a crucible (4), wherein the crucible comprises: at least one insulated (claim 1; last 2 paragraphs of page 5; page 6 - paragraphs under “Example 2”) probe (1, 2, 3), wherein each of the at least one probe comprises an electrode (1, 2, 3) disposed at a lowermost probe position and within a crucible volume;
receiving a signal from each of the at least one electrode with a processing system (e.g., that which determines when the electrode is in contact with the liquid - e.g., page 6, claims 1 and 4-6) that is configured to evaluate whether each of the at least one electrodes is in contact with the liquid;
determining, with the processing system, a liquid level relative to a height of each of the at least one electrode within the crucible (paragraph spanning pages 4-5; page 6 - paragraphs under “Example 2”)Wu fails to explicitly teach:
the probe fixedly coupled to the crucible
the liquid is a liquid metal
Regarding claim 20:Wu and Eda teach or render obvious all the limitations of claim 19, as mentioned above.Wu also teaches (e.g., FIGS. 2 and 4-5):
at least two electrodes (1, 2, 3), wherein each of the at least two electrodes is provided at a different height within the crucible
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Arnold; Christopher John et al., (US 20210356311 A1), "SENSING RODS WITH TIPS FOR FLUID DETECTION";
Hugo; Franz Waldemar Ernst et al., (US 6308767 B1), "Liquid metal bath furnace and casting method";
Murthy; Ashok, (US 4728875 A), "Method and apparatus for monitoring a liquid level";
Luteran; Frank Kenneth, (US 3916213 A), "Liquid level controller";
Haynes; Joel E., (US 3670765 A), "LIQUID LEVEL SENSOR INCORPORATING PULSE TECHNIQUES"; and
MUELLER RICHARD J, (US 3170479 A), "Liquid level control apparatus".
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Herbert Keith Roberts whose telephone number is (571)270-0428. The examiner can normally be reached 10a - 6p MT.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at (571) 272-2375. 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.
/HERBERT K ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855