DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/28/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
4. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “FILL LEVEL SENSOR ARRANGEMENT WITH HEAT INSULATION”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-11, 13 & 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by GRIESSBAUM et al. (DE 102005036844 A1)( US 20070188396 A1)
Regarding claims 1, 5 & 18-20 GRIESSBAUM et al. teaches an antenna 5 configured to transmit and/or receive a measurement signal (inherent); a waveguide (abstract)(entire doc) having a first waveguide 1 section for (intended use recitation) connection to the antenna 5 and a second waveguide 2 section and configured to transmit the measurement signal ; and a heat insulator 6 arranged between the first waveguide section 1 and the second waveguide section 2 and configured to at least partially prevent heat conduction 6 [0074](recited as “thermal insulation) between the first waveguide section 1 and the second waveguide section 2.
Regarding claim 2 GRIESSBAUM et al. teaches the antenna 5 is a horn antenna or a parabolic antenna (figs. 7-8).
Regarding claims 3 & 15 GRIESSBAUM et al. teaches the heat insulator 6 is tubular in shape (fig. 9)
Regarding claims 4 5 & 16-17 GRIESSBAUM et al. teaches the heat insulator 6 has an inner wall (fig. 9) which is at least partially metallized (inherent structure for thermal insulation).
Regarding claim 9 GRIESSBAUM et al. teaches a heat insulator 6 configured to transmit a measurement signal (Entire document) within the heat insulator 6 with the inner wall between the first waveguide 1 section and the second waveguide section 2 of the waveguide.
Regarding claims 10 & 11 GRIESSBAUM et al. teaches the heat insulator 6 further comprises a connecter (snap or spring) configured to secure the heat insulator 6 to the first waveguide section and/or the second waveguide section (Connection implied fig. 9).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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) 6-8, 12 & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GRIESSBAUM et al. (DE 102005036844 A1)( US 20070188396 A1)
Regarding claims 6 & 7 GRIESSBAUM et al. discloses all of the basic features of the claimed invention. 6 GRIESSBAUM et al. however does not explicitly disclose a heat insulator having an inner wall which is at least partially metallized. Since GRIESSBAUM et al explicitly discloses thermal insulation [0074], it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of thermally insulated sensing devices before the effective filing date of the claimed invention without undue experimentation to select whatever material readily available to the manufacturer for the purpose of effectively managing unwanted temperature increases and / or decreases within sensing devices. Furthermore it has been held that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a consideration within the skill of the art. (MPEP 2144.07) In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). In this particular instance it would have been well within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art of insulating sensors with respect to GRIESSBAUM et al to select a metal, ceramic, fiberglass and / or thermoplastic in order to provide optimal thermal insulation within a sensor device.
Regarding claims 8, 12 & 14 GRIESSBAUM et al. discloses all of the basic features of the claimed invention. GRIESSBAUM et al. however, does not teach a first insulator configured to receive the first waveguide section and a second insulator configured to receive the second waveguide section. Since GRIESSBAUM et al. at the very least discloses at least one thermal insulating member 6 for waveguide members 1 2, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of thermally insulated sensing devices before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a plurality of thermal insulators for the purpose of effectively mitigating unwanted temperatures within a sensor. Furthermore, it has been held that duplicating the components of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. MPEP 2144.04 VI (B) In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In this particular instance it would have been well within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art of insulating sensors with respect to GRIESSBAUM et al to select one or multiple thermal insulators depending on the sensor and / or problem to be solved.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
TW M658015 U INSULATION ELEMENT AND ELECTRONIC DEVICES COMPRISING THE SAME
DE 102022119383 A1 Field device with thermal conduction structure
CN 116547556 A Filler level measuring device
CN 113383213 A A radar level meter system with improved heat dissipation
US 20100123615 A1 Potential Separation for Filling Level Radar
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2174. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9am-5PM.
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, Kristina M Deherrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/ANDRE J ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855