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 .
All objections to the specification and drawings have been overcome or dropped in view of applicants response filed 4/20/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deck et al US 11387543 B2 (hereafter Deck) in view of Vander Aa JP-2011525026-A (see google translation JP2011525026A - Wireless communication adapter for field devices - Google Patents)
5. Consider claims 1 and 12. Deck teaches a metal field device (1 in fig 2) in particular, a fill-level, point-level, flow, pressure or temperature-measurement device (col 1, lines 53-67), with a housing (3), an electrical connection line (7) led into the housing (3) via a cable feedthrough (5) and a radio module (9) held in the housing (3) for remote data transmission (see col 4, lines 10-13), wherein the radio module transmits or receives (col 4, lines 1-4) a remote data transmission signal by means of a field coupling (see capacitive coupling at col 5 lines 21-24) with a section of the connection line located in the housing into or out of a section of the connection line located outside the housing (cable 7 can be seen in figure to both in and out of housing (3). Deck teaches a sealed device, but fails to teach the connection line section outside the housing contains waterproof insulation. However, Vander Aa teaches such (second to last paragraph). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to make Decks housing waterproof to keep the electronics protected from the outside elements thus extending longevity and value.
6. For what is called for in claims 2 and 13, Deck field coupling is designed as capacitive coupling (see col 4, lines 51-53).
7. For what is called for in claim 5, see cable bushing 5 of Deck.
8. For what is called for in claim 6, this reads on shield (13) of Deck.
9. For what is called for in claim 9, see shielding discussed in col 3,
lines 53-58 of Deck.
10. Regarding claim 10. Deck is silent as to the length of his connection lines located outside the housing has a length of at least at least 5 m, and the maximum length of the section of the connection line located outside the housing is not more than 50 m. However, given the variation of ranges claimed and the lack of claim criticality of these ranges, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to manufacture the cable lengths as such depending on the usage of the field device.
11. For what is called for in claim 14, see col 4, lines 52-53 of Deck where the remote signal is coupled to the connection line via galvanic coupling.
12. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deck et al US 11387543 B2 in view of in view of Vander Aa JP-2011525026-A further in view of Gansen US 7787921 B2.
13. Consider claim 3, Deck fails to explicitly teach an alternating field coupling. However, from the same field of endeavor Gansen teaches such (see inductive coupling 226) for his field measurement device. It would have been obvious before the effective date to substitute Gansen’s inductive coupling for Deck’s capacitive coupling in order to have more stable communication.
14. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deck et al US 11387543 B2 in view of in view of Vander Aa JP-2011525026-A further in view of Andreas et al. WO 2022122397(hereafter Andreas).
15. Consider claim 8. Deck fails to specifically state that his measurement means is a transducer is equipped with a metallic measuring electrode on the inner side of the housing. However, Andreas, from the same field of endeavor teaches that its well known in the art to using a ceramic transducer (13) with metallic electrodes (see last two paragraphs of Andreas) for his field unit. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use this specific measure transducer/electrode combination as taught by Andreas in Deck in order to provide more shielding inside the device thus giving more accurate readings.
16. Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deck et al US 11387543 B2 in view of Vander Aa JP-2011525026-A further in view of Edwards 7142985 B2.
17 Regarding claims 11 and 15. Although Deck et al shows the cable attached to the field device, he doesn’t teach that the field device is actually suspended during operation of the field device. However, such is well known as taught by Edwards which shows lowering and supporting his measurement transducer (20 in fig 1) via cable 2. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the cable taught by Deck as a support mechanism depending on the usage of the field device. The connector and cable of Deck et al are both sufficiently designed structurally to handle the load.
18. Applicant's arguments filed 4/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
19. Applicant argues on page 7 that Deck’s field device is not inherently waterproof. However, claims only call for the insulation being water proof and the insulation is claimed to be only in the connection line outside the housing. As a side note, Deck’s specification describes his housing as “sealed” which inherently implies that its waterproof at least to some degree. Vander Aa teaches potting 136 which is an insulation and is described as “waterproof”. Whether or not Vander Aa has an antenna in the adapter is not applicable to the claimed invention as only the waterproof insulation is relied on for his teaching. And it would have been obvious to incorporate Vander Aa teachings in Deck if it were to be used in a wet environment whether there is electronics in the conduit or only in the field housing. As a side note, potting 136 runs and longitudinally (fig 2) and even though it’s a 2D picture, the potting must runs from at least one side to the other for sealing.
20. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cho KR-20230051011-A teaches well test system, comprising: a measuring unit introduced into the interior of a tube well using a cable from a cable winder; and a control unit for controlling the cable winder to enable the measuring unit to measure the entire area inside the tube well and to derive a normal position and an abnormal position of the tube well, wherein the measuring unit is measures sound waves or vibrations generated inside the tube well. According to the present invention, a simple and cost-saving tube well inspection system and a method using the same, which can continuously manage the water quality of groundwater tube wells and regularly inspect the level of contaminated water, are provided. The measuring unit 10 may have an external housing (not shown) made of a waterproof and dustproof material to protect built-in devices from surface water W or scattering dust, and can sufficiently withstand the water pressure of the surface water W. It can be configured in any thickness and shape. The outer housing is formed of, for example, a cylindrical structure having a length of about 30 to 50 cm and a diameter of about 10 cm, and may be formed of a metal material that withstands water pressure, but is not limited thereto.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS A KUNTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7499. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th from 530am to 330pm and Fri from 530am to 10am.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew D Anderson, can be reached at telephone number 5712724177. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/CURTIS A KUNTZ/Primary examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights