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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/16/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
Oath/Declaration as file 11/16/2023 is noted by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 9, 11, 17 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Independent Claims 9 and 17 each disclose a “TDR” and “DUT” without disclosing anywhere in each Independent Claim what “TDR” and “DUT” stand for. Please disclose what “TDR” and “DUT” stand for in each Independent Claim.
Claims 11 and 20 each disclose a “PCB” limitation for the first time in their respective claim tree without disclosing what “PCB” stands for. Please disclose what “PCB” stands for in said claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dayal US 2016/0003662 (Hereinafter Dayal).
Regarding claim 1, Dayal teaches a liquid-controlled delay (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; system for measuring a liquid level) comprising:
a transmission line (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; transmission line, long coaxial cable; 118) configured to couple at a first end (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; transmission line, long coaxial cable; 118) to a time-domain reflectometer (TDR) (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; pulsing unit (TDR pulse sending and receiving unit), 120 (see [0045])) and at a second end (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; transmission line, long coaxial cable; 118) to a device under test (DUT) (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; probe, 106);
a liquid (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; water, 104), wherein the transmission line (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; transmission line, long coaxial cable; 118) is submerged in the liquid (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; water, 104); and
a heater (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; [0079]; heater) configured to control a temperature of the liquid (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; [0079]; heater) to affect a delay of a signal of the TDR (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; pulsing unit (TDR pulse sending and receiving unit), 120) propagating through the transmission line (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; transmission line, long coaxial cable; 118).
Regarding claim 5, Dayal further teaches the liquid-controlled delay of claim 1, comprising: a fluid circulator configured to circulate the liquid within a container (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; tank, 102).
Regarding claim 6, Dayal further teaches the liquid-controlled delay of claim 1, further comprising: a sealed container that contains the transmission line, the liquid, and the heater (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; [0040] tank, 102).
Regarding claim 9, Dayal teaches a system (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; system for measuring a liquid level), comprising:
a TDR (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; pulsing unit (TDR pulse sending and receiving unit), 120 (see [0045]));
a DUT (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; probe, 106);
a liquid-controlled delay (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; system for measuring a liquid level) coupled between the TDR Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; pulsing unit (TDR pulse sending and receiving unit), 120 (see [0045])) and the DUT (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; probe, 106); and
a controller (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; [0079]; heater) configured to control a temperature of liquid (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; water, 104) in the liquid-controlled delay (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; system for measuring a liquid level) to shift a window of the TDR (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; pulsing unit (TDR pulse sending and receiving unit), 120 (see [0045])) to multiple points of interest along a signal path of the DUT (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; probe, 106).
Regarding claim 10, Dayal further teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the liquid-controlled delay comprises: a transmission line (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; transmission line, long coaxial cable; 118) configured to couple at a first end (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; transmission line, long coaxial cable; 118) to the TDR (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; pulsing unit (TDR pulse sending and receiving unit), 120 (see [0045])) and at a second end (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; transmission line, long coaxial cable; 118) to the DUT (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; probe, 106); and a heater (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; [0079]; heater) configured to control the temperature of the liquid (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; water, 104).
Regarding claim 14, Dayal further teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the liquid-controlled delay comprises: a fluid circulator configured to circulate the liquid within a container (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; tank, 102).
Regarding claim 15, Dayal further teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the liquid-controlled delay comprises: a sealed container that contains the transmission line, the liquid, and the heater (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; tank, 102).
Regarding claim 17, Dayal teaches a method (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; system for measuring a liquid level) comprising:
performing a first scan using a TDR (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; pulsing unit (TDR pulse sending and receiving unit), 120 (see [0045])) to identify a plurality of points of interest (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; pulsing unit (TDR pulse sending and receiving unit), 120) along a signal path of a DUT (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; probe, 106), wherein the TDR is coupled to the DUT (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; probe, 106) through a liquid-controlled delay (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; system for measuring a liquid level);
configure the TDR (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; pulsing unit (TDR pulse sending and receiving unit), 120) to place a window at a first point of interest of the plurality of points of interest (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; pulsing unit (TDR pulse sending and receiving unit), 120); and
adjusting a temperature (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; [0079]; heater) of the liquid-controlled delay (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; system for measuring a liquid level) to shift the window from the first point of interest to a second point of interest of the plurality of points of interest (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; pulsing unit (TDR pulse sending and receiving unit), 120).
Regarding claim 18, Dayal further teaches the method of claim 17, further comprising: adjusting the temperature of the liquid-controlled delay to shift the window from the second point of interest to a third point of interest of the plurality of points of interest (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; [0079]; heater).
Regarding claim 19, Dayal further teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the liquid-controlled delay comprises: a transmission line (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; transmission line, long coaxial cable; 118) configured to couple at a first end (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; transmission line, long coaxial cable; 118) to the TDR (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; pulsing unit (TDR pulse sending and receiving unit), 120) and at a second end (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; transmission line, long coaxial cable; 118) to the DUT (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; probe, 106); a liquid (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; water, 104), wherein the transmission line is submerged in the liquid (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; water, 104); and a heater (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; [0079]; heater) configured to control the temperature of the liquid to shift the window (Figs. 1A-1C, 4A; [0079]; heater).
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.
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) 2, 3, 11, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dayal in view of Okuyama US 10,185,020 (Hereinafter Okuyama).
Regarding claim 2, Dayal teaches the liquid-controlled delay of claim 1, but not specifically further comprising: a printed circuit board (PCB), wherein the transmission line is disposed on the PCB.
However, Okuyama does teach a printed circuit board (PCB), wherein the transmission line is disposed on the PCB (Fig. 1; Col. 3, line 51 to Col. 4, line 3; transmission line, printed circuit board (PCB)).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the remote pulse TDR liquid level measurement system of Dayal by implementing the teachings of Okuyama regarding a printed circuit board (PCB), wherein the transmission line is disposed on the PCB; in order to compensate “distortions in transmission line measurement by obtaining a frequency response of a transmission line responsive to a test signal” (See Okuyama; Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Dayal and Okuyama teaches the liquid-controlled delay of claim 2, wherein Okuyama further teaches wherein the transmission line is a microstrip disposed on the PCB (Col. 3, lines 63-64; “Transmission line 120 may be a coaxial cable, a stripline, a microstrip, a waveguide…”).
Regarding claim 11, Dayal teaches the system of claim 10, but not specifically wherein the liquid-controlled delay comprises: a PCB, wherein the transmission line is disposed on the PCB.
However, Okuyama does teach wherein the liquid-controlled delay comprises: a PCB, wherein the transmission line is disposed on the PCB (Fig. 1; Col. 3, line 51 to Col. 4, line 3; transmission line, printed circuit board (PCB)).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the remote pulse TDR liquid level measurement system by implementing the teachings of Okuyama regarding a PCB, wherein the transmission line is disposed on the PCB; in order to compensate “distortions in transmission line measurement by obtaining a frequency response of a transmission line responsive to a test signal” (See Okuyama; Abstract).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Dayal and Okuyama teaches the system of claim 11, wherein Okuyama further teaches wherein the transmission line is a microstrip disposed on the PCB (Col. 3, lines 63-64; “Transmission line 120 may be a coaxial cable, a stripline, a microstrip, a waveguide…”).
Regarding claim 20, Dayal teaches the method of claim 19, but not specifically wherein the liquid-controlled delay comprises: a PCB, wherein the transmission line is disposed on the PCB.
However, Okuyama does teach wherein the liquid-controlled delay comprises: a PCB, wherein the transmission line is disposed on the PCB (Fig. 1; Col. 3, line 51 to Col. 4, line 3; transmission line, printed circuit board (PCB)).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the remote pulse TDR liquid level measurement system by implementing the teachings of Okuyama regarding a PCB, wherein the transmission line is disposed on the PCB; in order to compensate “distortions in transmission line measurement by obtaining a frequency response of a transmission line responsive to a test signal” (See Okuyama; Abstract).
Claim(s) 7, 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dayal in view of Guim Bernat et al. US 2023/0273659 (Hereinafter Guim Bernat).
Regarding claim 7, Dayal teaches the liquid-controlled delay of claim 1, but not specifically wherein the liquid is a cooling fluid selected to cool electronic devices.
However, Guim Bernat does teach wherein the liquid is a cooling fluid selected to cool electronic devices ([0045, 0047]; cooling fluid).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the remote pulse TDR liquid level measurement system of Dayal by implementing the teachings of Guim Bernat regarding wherein the liquid is a cooling fluid selected to cool electronic devices; in order “to cool electronic components” (See Guim Bernat; [0045]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Dayal and Guim Bernat teaches the liquid-controlled delay of claim 7, wherein Guim Bernat further teaches wherein the cooling fluid does not corrode electronic devices ([0045, 0047]; cooling fluid).
Regarding claim 16, Dayal teaches the system of claim 10, but not specifically wherein the liquid is a cooling fluid selected to cool electronic devices that does not corrode electronic devices.
However, Guim Bernat does teach wherein the liquid is a cooling fluid selected to cool electronic devices that does not corrode electronic devices ([0045, 0047]; cooling fluid).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the remote pulse TDR liquid level measurement system of Dayal by implementing the teachings of Guim Bernat regarding wherein the liquid is a cooling fluid selected to cool electronic devices; in order “to cool electronic components” (See Guim Bernat; [0045]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (As well as overcome the Claim Objections disclosed earlier in the Office Action).
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 4, the prior art does not teach or suggest, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 1 and 2,
“…further comprising: a pair of transmission lines on the PCB, which includes the transmission line, wherein the pair of transmission lines are configured to couple at respective first ends to the TDR and at respective second ends to the DUT.”
Regarding claim 13, the prior art does not teach or suggest, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 9, 10 and 11,
“…wherein the liquid-controlled delay comprises: a pair of transmission lines on the PCB, which includes the transmission line, wherein the pair of transmission lines are configured to couple at respective first ends to the TDR and at respective second ends to the DUT.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Duncan et al. US 2017/0242419 - A method and system for determining short, open, and good connections using digital input and output (TO) structures in a device under test (DUT) continuity test, through the combined methods of using resistance-capacitance (RC) delay, time domain reflectometry (TDR), and forcing voltage on to a single IO pin of the DUT while measuring voltage on remaining IO pins of said DUT.
Johnson et al. US 2017/0023632 - Briefly, a method and system is provided for testing a cable using a high performance Time Domain Reflectometry (TRD) system and method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL J RIOS RUSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-3459. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 10am-6pm, 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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/RAUL J RIOS RUSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 2858