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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The instant specification employs the incorrect units for density being: kg/m2 . All instances should be replaced with kg/m3 .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: Instant independent claim 1 recites “liquid” in the preamble, and subsequently recites “fluid.” The claim terms must be consistent. All other claims are similarly objected to due to their dependency.
In addition, instant dependent claims 8 and 10, the claims employ the incorrect units for density, being: kg/m2. All instances should be replaced with kg/m3. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Instant independent claim 1 recites: “an inclinometer” employed with a system for measuring liquid levels in a tank. The instant filed specification states in regards to the recited inclinometer: “The angle measured by the inclinometer is used to calculate the position of the fluid surface in the container;” and “The inclinometer 122 is mounted on the lever arm 116 and measures the angle θ between the lever arm 116 and the liquid surface being tracked.” These statements fail to sufficiently enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and/or use the instant claimed invention. Employing the Wands factors (see In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988), Wands factor (G), being the existence of any working examples, the instant disclosure fails to disclose any details of any actual working examples of an inclinometer capable of measuring an angle of the lever arm, such as a known manufacturer that makes/sells such an inclinometer, or provide any structural details of an inclinometer regarding its sensing components that form the inclinometer and the associated operational functionality of the sensing components and their signal generation from these components to output signals of angle or angular position to measure an angle of the level arm. Without these details, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot make and/or use the claimed invention. Wands factor (H), being the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure, the instant disclosure, as pointed out previously, does not provide any details in regards to the operational functionality and components of the inclinometer to measure an angle of the float arm, thus one of ordinary skill in the art would face undue experimentation in making and/or locating an appropriate inclinometer functionally capable to measure the angle of the float arm and determine the liquid level therefrom. All other claims are similarly rejected due to their dependency.
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.
Claims 1-16 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a lever arm" in line 6. A lever arm is previously recited in line 2, and subsequently, the lever arm in lines 2-3 and 4. It is unclear if the previously recited lever arm is being recited, or a different lever arm, rendering the claim and its dependents indefinite.
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.
As best understood, claim(s) 1-3, 5-7 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2004340665 A to Ishiyama and U.S. 4,610,165 to Duffy et al. Ishiyama discloses a system for measuring liquid levels in a tank (T) (see entire reference and English translation) including a lever arm (1) pivotably attached to an inner wall of the tank at a first end of the lever arm; a float (2) mounted on the lever arm at a location spaced apart from the first end of the lever arm; the float is mounted on a second end of the lever arm opposite the first end of the lever arm (as recited in instant dependent claim 2); wherein the lever arm, based on the disclosure and Figures, has a length between 50% and 100% of a height of the tank and is attached to the inner wall of the tank at half the height of the tank to allow full range of level measurement within the tank (as recited in instant dependent claims 5 and 6); wherein the float is configured to float on the surface of oil (see para 0025)(as recited in instant dependent claim 7); an inclinometer/sensor (4) to measure an angle of the lever arm relative to horizontal, or any other lever arm angle; a processor/controller operable to calculate a height of a surface (H) of the fluid based on the angle (α) of the lever arm relative to horizontal, or any other angle (α) of the lever arm relative to any horizontal height of the tank through basic well known trigonometric and mathematical calculations (i.e. full and low levels of liquid) (see paras 0018 and 0022). Ishiyama does not explicitly disclose the inclinometer/sensor is mounted on the level arm (as recited in instant independent claim 1); a hinge attaching the lever arm to the wall of the container (as recited in instant dependent claim 3); wherein the processor is operable to calculate a height (Hs) of the float in the tank based on the angle of the lever arm using the equation
H
s
=
H
p
-
L
a
×
sin
θ
where Hp is the height at which the lever arm is attached to the tank, La is a length of the lever arm, and θ is the angle of the level arm relative to horizontal (as recited in instant dependent claim 12).
Duffy et al. disclose a system for measuring liquid levels in a tank/vessel (see entire reference); wherein a float-lever arm (12) is pivotably attached/hinged to a tank/vessel wall (see col. 2, lines 62-63) (as recited in instant dependent claim 3); wherein an inclinometer (12) is mounted on the float-lever arm at a fixed/constant distance to a spherical float’s center of buoyancy (R) from the pivot/hinge point (15), wherein angles (A) and (B) are measured by the inclinometer to determine a change in liquid height through basic known trigonometric relationships (see Fig. 5 and col. 5, lines 27-55). Applying the same basic known trigonometric and geometric relationships (see annotated Figure below and basic equations) to a tank and associated known mounting positions of the pivoting lever-float (at horizontal level point P) and other dimensional aspects, one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date produce the recited equation to calculate, by the processor, the height of the float in the tank, relative to the horizonal level at point P, based on the angle θ of the lever arm in instant dependent claim 12.
[AltContent: textbox (F)][AltContent: rect]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (θ)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: oval][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: textbox (Ha)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (θ)][AltContent: textbox ((math)<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<formulawrapper><mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:m="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/math"><mml:msup><mml:mrow><mml:mn>90</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>o</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>θ</mml:mi></mml:math></formulawrapper>)][AltContent: ]
[AltContent: textbox (P)][AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (Hs)][AltContent: textbox (Hp)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (La)][AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: connector]
H
a
=
L
a
×
sin
θ
=
L
a
×
cos
(
90
o
-
θ
)
H
s
=
H
p
+
H
a
(for float (F) above the pivot point P)
H
s
=
H
p
-
H
a
(for float (F) below the pivot point P)
H
s
=
H
p
+
L
a
×
sin
θ
(for float (F) above the pivot point P)
H
s
=
H
p
-
L
a
×
sin
θ
(for float (F) below the pivot point P)
H
s
=
H
p
(for float (F) at the horizontal level (
θ
=
0
) at pivot point P, since
sin
0
o
=
0
)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to employ the teachings of Duffy et al., by employing the inclinometer on the lever arm which angularly displaces in exact accordance with the float relative to the pivot point, modifying the system for measuring liquid levels in a tank disclosed by Ishiyama, employing an inclinometer that is only sensitive to the relative direction of gravity, rather than the intensity of any sensed medium, producing a fluid level sensor of excellent sensitivity, reliability, predictability and reproducibility, improving on the system disclosed by Ishiyama via solid-state inclinometer technology and other benefits (see col. 3, lines 34-46), thus meeting the remaining limitations recited in instant independent claim 1, and all limitations recited instant dependent claims 3 and 12.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2004340665 A to Ishiyama and U.S. 4,610,165 to Duffy et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 66,694 to England. Ishiyama and Duffy et al. disclose a system for measuring liquid levels in a tank having all of the elements and functionality stated previously. Ishiyama and Duffy et a. do not explicitly disclose the lever arm comprises copper, as recited in instant dependent claim 4. As a preliminary matter, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify the lever arm disclosed by Ishiyama to comprise copper, or any other desired material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). In the instant case, choosing a lever arm comprising copper would be chosen by one of ordinary skill based on the liquids the lever arm would be exposed/immersed within, as well as density and associated total weight of the lever arm, as well as stiffness/rigidity desired so the combined lever arm and float to pivot as desired based on the increasing/decreasing fluid level within the tank. Furthermore, the instant filed specification provides no specific material design reasons for the lever arm to comprise copper, that a lever arm comprising copper solves any particular engineering problem in regards to measuring the fluid level, and, as such, it would have been obvious to employ a lever arm comprising copper, or any other material, provided the lever arm angularly displaces accurately. In addition to the above, England discloses a liquid level system/gage (see entire reference) having a lever arm (F) attached to a float (E), wherein the lever arm may each be made of steel, galvanized iron, iron, brass, or of copper, wherein the lever arm may be hollow or solid, and that the use of different materials in the construction of these parts to adapt the gage to fresh or salt water (see third paragraph), thus making it obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify the lever arm disclosed by Ishiyama to comprise copper, to adapt to the system to measuring a level in fresh or salt water.
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2004340665 A to Ishiyama and U.S. 4,610,165 to Duffy et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 3,784,010 to Barra et al. Ishiyama and Duffy et al. disclose a system for measuring liquid levels in a tank having all of the elements and functionality stated previously, including float configured to float on the surface of oil. Ishiyama and Duffy do not explicitly disclose the float has density between 1 and 790 kg/m3 (as recited in instant dependent claim 8); wherein the float is configured to float at an interface between oil and water (as recited in instant dependent claim 9); wherein the float has a density between 790 and 1000 kg/m3 (as recited in instant dependent claim 10); and wherein the float is one of a plurality of floats having different densities and the floats are removably attached to the lever arm (as recited in instant dependent claim 11). Barra et al. disclose a system which includes measuring liquid levels in a tank (10) (see entire reference) a liquid level control device which senses the level of an interface between oil and water (see col. 5, lines 2-4), which includes a float (108) attached to an end of a lever arm and the float floats at the oil water interface (see Fig. 1 )(as recited in instant dependent claim 9); wherein the float must inherently have a density between 790 and 1000 kg/m3, in order for the float to float at the level of the interface between oil and water, since oil density generally ranges between 700 and 950 kg/m3, and water has a density of 1000 kg/m3, thus, the density must include a range of 790 and 1000 kg/m3 to float at the oil-water interface (meeting limitations recited in instant dependent claim 10), thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to employ a float to float on an oil and water interface, as taught by Barra et al., thus monitoring the separated fluids, with the floats of the recited densities. In addition, an identical argument is made for the density of the float to be between 1 and 790 kg/m3, since in order for the float to float on oil, the float disclosed by Ishiyama must inherently be in the recited range of 1 and 790 kg/m3, (meeting the limitations recited in instant dependent claim 8).
As to instant dependent claim 11, to further include a plurality of floats having different densities and wherein the floats are removably attached to the lever arm, the system for measuring liquid levels in a tank disclosed by Ishiyama must provide floats of different densities, since the system can be employed for tanks containing water, lubricating oil or hydraulic oil, or any other liquid within the tank, which would require employing a plurality of floats with different densities which are removably attached to the float arm to accommodate the different liquids, each requiring a float of a particular density, and/or a range of densities in order for the float to float at the surface of the liquid. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to employ removable floats from the lever arm of the system disclosed by Ishiyama and Duffy et al., since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Newin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177 (BdPatApp&Int 1969). For example, if a float is damaged, it can be easily be replaced with a substitute float, or, if different types of fluids with different densities, a removable float allows easy substitution, especially a tank is first used for water, then subsequently used for oil, would require substitution of the float with a float of a different density.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2004340665 A to Ishiyama and U.S. 4,610,165 to Duffy et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 2018/0236381 to Wright. Ishiyama and Duffy et al. disclose a system for measuring liquid levels in a tank having all of the elements and functionality stated previously. Ishiyama and Duffy et a. do not explicitly disclose the system further comprising a SCADA system in communication with the inclinometer, or the processor is part of the SCADA system, or the SCADA system is operable to control at least one pump associated with the tank, as recited in instant dependent claims 13-15. Wright discloses (see entire reference) a SCADA system (900), inherently including a processor, which receives signals from a level sensor (18) in a well/tank (12) fluid level reaching an upper limit, the level sensor in communication with the SCADA system, turns pump (13) on, and turns the pump off, if the liquid level reaches a lower limit, provided by a level sensor (19), also in communication with the SCADA system (see para 0049). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to employ a SCADA system, as taught by Wright, in association with the system for measuring liquid levels in tank disclosed by Ishiyama and Duffey et al., to control a pump, to keep the tank filled between upper and lower limits, thus meeting all the limitations recited in instant dependent claims 13-15.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2004340665 A to Ishiyama and U.S. 4,610,165 to Duffy et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2000313240 A to Yokita et al. Ishiyama and Duffy et al. disclose a system for measuring liquid levels in a tank having all of the elements and functionality stated previously. Ishiyama and Duffy et a. do not explicitly disclose the system wherein the lever arm is one of a plurality of lever arms pivotably attached to the inner wall of the tank and the float is one of a plurality of floats, each float mounted on one of the plurality of lever arms, and the inclinometer is one of a plurality of inclinometers (as recited in instant dependent claim 16). Yokita et al. disclose a system for measuring liquid levels in tank (see entire reference and English translation) employing a plurality floats and associated lever arms, wherein the lever arms are attached to the sidewall of a tank (11) (see Figs. 3, 4 and 10) and associated text within the English translation). It would have been obvious to employ the teachings of Yokita et al., to employ a plurality of floats with lever arms and inclinometers mounted on the lever arms, modifying the system disclosed by Ishiyama and Duffy et al., thus providing a level measuring system that corrects for errors in the even the tank tilts and other advantages (see Abstract and paras 0016 and 0038), thus meeting the limitations recited in instant dependent claim 16. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify the system disclosed by Ishiyama and Duffy et al., employing all the limitations of instant dependent claim 16, to monitor multiple levels of stratified liquids in the tank, each of the stratified liquids having a different density, thus each having a specific level and/or liquid interface level to be monitored, thus all the levels of the liquids each with different density can be independently monitored.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is invited to review PTO form 892 accompanying this Office Action listing Prior Art relevant to the instant invention cited by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner John Fitzgerald whose telephone number is (571) 272-2843. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM E.S.T. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor John Breene, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4107. 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. The central 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.
/JOHN FITZGERALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855