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 3-17-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s that the prior art combination does not provide a deformed sealing region at an end face and that the waveguides do not have end faces resting on each other, the examiner fails to see the significance. The purpose of the applicant’s sealing region is to “develop a good sealing effect” as per page 2 of the specification. The deformable seal of Vendier also provides a good, pressure tight seal. The applicant has provided no evidence or reasoning as to why end faces resting on each other and the deformable portion being on a waveguide end are new, novel or improve upon existing waveguide seals as provided in the prior art.
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) 1-3, 6-8, 11, 12, 16, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kienzle, et. al, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0145813, published May 16, 2019 in view of Vendier, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0403288, published December 24, 2020.
As per claim 1, Kienzle discloses a level measuring device configured for use in an industrial environment, comprising:
radar measuring device electronics configured to generate a transmission signal; an antenna configured to emit the transmission signal in direction of a product and to receive a reflected transmission signal (Kienzle, ¶58);
and a first waveguide and a second waveguide, which are connected to each other and are configured to transmit the transmission signal from the measuring electronics to the antenna, wherein the first waveguide is plugged or screwed into the second waveguide (Kienzle, ¶37).
Kienzle fails to disclose the waveguides having a deformed sealing region on one end face and the two waveguides butting up against each other.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the ends touching, 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 Kienzle is letting the signal pass through.
Vendier teaches a deformed sealing region between two connected waveguides (¶35).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to using a sealing region in order to gain the benefit of providing good ECM insulation as taught by Vendier (¶36) and whether the sealing region is on a waveguide end or the waveguide end plugs into it is well within the skill of a person in the art to determine.
As per claim 2, Kienzle as modified by Vendier discloses the level measuring device according to claim 1, wherein a pressure-tight connection is created by the plugging or screwing of the first waveguide into the second waveguide (Vendier, ¶35).
As per claim 3, Kienzle as modified by Vendier further discloses the level measuring device according to claim 1, wherein the connection of the first waveguide to the second waveguide is a positive connection (Vendier, ¶35).
As per claims 6 and 16, 17 and 20, Kienzle as modified by Vendier further discloses the level measuring device according to claim 1, wherein the first waveguide has a same internal diameter as the second waveguide (Kienzle, ¶42).
As per claim 7, Kienzle as modified by Vendier further discloses the level measuring device according to claim 1, wherein the antenna is integrally connected to the second waveguide (Kienzle, Fig. 11).
As per claim 8, Kienzle as modified by Vendier further discloses the level measuring device according to claim 1, wherein the second waveguide has a cylindrical or conical guide surface against which the first waveguide lies radially in order to guide and center the first waveguide during insertion or screwing in (Kienzle, Fig. 1).
As per claims 11 and 12, Kienzle as modified by Vendier further discloses the level measuring device according to claim 2, wherein the plastically deformed sealing region is an integral part of the first waveguide or the second waveguide (Vendier, ¶35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the sealing region integral, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kienzle and Vendier as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Osswald, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2008/0134778, published June 12, 2008.
As per claim 9, Kienzle as modified by Vendier discloses the device of claim 1 but fails to expressly disclose the use of threads to screw the waveguides together.
Osswald teaches threads in a fill level device (¶47).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use threads, 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 Kienzle and Vendier in providing a solid connection.
As per claim 10, Kienzle as modified by Vendier and Osswald discloses the level measuring device according to claim 1, wherein the connection of the first waveguide to the second waveguide is designed to withstand a pressure of 640 bar (Osswald, ¶5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the pressure limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
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