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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 05/07/2026, have been entered into the record. Claims 1-8 and 11-12 stand rejected. Claims 9-10 have been cancelled by the applicant.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/07/206, have been carefully considered by the examiner but are not convincing.
On p. 7, the applicant argues that, “Karweck describes measuring the temperature of the environment…Further, Karweck’s para. 0060 describes that calibration of the sensor module can be done before the electronics module 12 is connected thereto. Thus, it is clear that the temperature of Karweck’s electronics module (which the Office Action equated to the claimed sensor circuit) is not taken into account or even measured.” However, the examiner disagrees with this characterization of both the argument laid out in the previous Office Action and Karweck’s temperature sensor. First, in the previous Office Action, the examiner equated the sensor circuit with sensor module 11 and the control circuit with electronics module 12. Reproduced below with underlining added for emphasis,
…a sensor circuit configured to detect one or more measured variables (para. 0051, “The electronics module 12 obtains the distance value d from a sensor module 11 as, in given cases, an already digitized sensor signal x via a second interface 121.”).
Although the examiner cited a sentence from Karweck that references both sensor module 11 and electronics module 12, it is clear from the quote above that the sensor module 11, not the electronics module 12, is analogous to the sensor circuit configured to detect one or measured variables. The evaluation unit 111 (see para. 0059, cited below with respect to claim 1), a sub-element of the sensor module 11, is equated to the control circuit that performs the temperature compensation. The examiner apologizes for any confusion that may have arisen due to the quotation of sentences referencing multiple elements in Karweck, and has added underlining for clarity in the rejection below.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that Karweck teaches only determining the ambient temperature of the room rather than temperature of the sensor circuit, the examiner respectfully points the applicant to para. 0057 of Karweck, quoted below, with underlining added for emphasis.
The accuracy of the calibration 100 can be increased further by adding a temperature compensation 400. The term “temperature compensation” means in this connection that the distance value d represented by the sensor signal x is not corrupted by an ambient temperature deviating from room temperature. In order that the fill-level gauge 1 can implement a compensation, the fill-level gauge 1, e.g. the sensor module 11, does need to be able to measure the ambient temperature, for example, by means of a correspondingly integrated PT 100 temperature sensor.
Karweck first differentiates ambient temperature from room temperature and then indicates that an accurate temperature compensation function would need to measure ambient temperature using an integrated temperature sensor. From this, it is clear that the temperature measured by the temperature sensor 100 integrated into the sensor module 11 measures not just the room temperature but the temperature of the sensor circuit.
The applicant further argues, on pp. 8-12, that the combination of Karweck and Allgaier to produce the claimed invention requires improper hindsight reasoning because no teaching in the art supports a reasonable expectation of success in combining Karweck and Allgaier. However, the applicant does not point to any particular claimed features or combinations of features to support their argument of improper hindsight reasoning. In the previous Office Action, the examiner laid out teachings from Karweck and Allgaier that demonstrate a motivation to combine the references with reasonable expectation of success. For example, with respect to claim 6, the examiner argues that, “Measuring the echo curve is typically a part of this process…”
The examiner further notes that MPEP 2043.02(I) states that, “…reasonable expectation of success can be implicitly shown via the prior art teachings or as part of the obviousness analysis.” The examiner believes that the teachings of Karweck and Allgaier in combination with the obviousness argument laid out by the examiner implicitly indicate a reasonable expectation of success. Absent any specific evidence from the applicant showing that the combination of particular limitations from Karweck and Allgaier would not have a reasonable expectation of success this argument is unpersuasive.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Karweck et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0273064 A1), hereinafter Karweck.
Regarding claim 1, Karweck teaches,
A measuring device for process automation in an industrial or private environment (paras. 0001-0002, “The invention relates to a method for producing and calibrating modular fill-level gauges. In automation technology, especially for process automation, field devices are often applied, which serve for registering diverse measured variables. The measured variable to be determined can be, for example, a fill-level, a flow, a pressure, the temperature, the pH value, the redox potential, a conductivity or the dielectric value of a medium in a process plant. For registering the corresponding measured values, the field devices comprise suitable sensors and are based on suitable measuring principles. A large number of different field device types are manufactured and sold by the Endress+Hauser group of companies.”) comprising: a sensor circuit configured to detect one or more measured variables (para. 0051, “The electronics module 12 obtains the distance value d from a sensor module 11 as, in given cases, an already digitized sensor signal x via a second interface 121.”); and a control circuit configured to determine a measurement result from the detected one or more measured variables and to determine a difference between a temperature of the sensor circuit and a reference temperature detected during a calibration of a self-test function of the measuring device (para. 0059, “After reflection of the signal SHF on the reflector 2, in turn, the various, corresponding received signals RHF are registered. Thus, the sensor module 11, e.g. the evaluation unit 111, can create a compensation function based on such received signals RHF,i and based on the corresponding temperatures Tj…Thus, it is possible for the sensor module 11 in the case of corresponding design to output the sensor signals xi temperature compensated by means of the compensation function (or by means of the expanded calibration function di(RHF,i, Tj)) and the measured ambient temperature.”); and a temperature sensor configured to detect the temperature of the sensor circuit, wherein the temperature sensor is integrated in the measuring device (para. 0057, “In order that the fill-level gauge 1 can implement a compensation, the fill-level gauge 1, e.g. the sensor module 11, does need to be able to measure the ambient temperature, for example, by means of a correspondingly integrated PT 100 temperature sensor.”), and wherein the control circuit is further configured to perform a correction of the measurement result depending on the difference between the temperature of the sensor circuit and the reference temperature during execution of the self-test function (para. 0059, “After reflection of the signal SHF on the reflector 2, in turn, the various, corresponding received signals RHF are registered. Thus, the sensor module 11, e.g. the evaluation unit 111, can create a compensation function based on such received signals RHF,i and based on the corresponding temperatures Tj. Analogously to the calibration function di(RHF,i), also the compensation function can be an analytical function or a pure lookup table. Another option in this connection is that the compensation function be created not as an independent function, but, instead, that the calibration function di(RHF,i, Tj) is created based on the data from the compensation test series in such a manner that it contains the ambient temperature as another variable. Thus, it is possible for the sensor module 11 in the case of corresponding design to output the sensor signals xi temperature compensated by means of the compensation function (or by means of the expanded calibration function di(RHF,i, Tj)) and the measured ambient temperature.”).
Regarding claim 2, Karweck teaches,
The measuring device according to claim 1, wherein the temperature of the sensor circuit is detected before, after, or during the execution of the self-test function (par. 0059, “Thus, it is possible for the sensor module 11 in the case of corresponding design to output the sensor signals xi temperature compensated by means of the compensation function (or by means of the expanded calibration function di(RHF,i, Tj)) and the measured ambient temperature.” The examiner notes that using the measured temperature in the compensation or expanded calibration function requires that the temperature be measured either before or during the execution of either function).
Regarding claim 3, Karweck teaches,
The measuring device according to claim 1, wherein the control circuit is further configured to determine a difference between the corrected measurement result and a reference measurement result determined during a calibration of the self-test function of the measuring device (paras. 0057-0059, “The term “temperature compensation” means in this connection that the distance value d represented by the sensor signal x is not corrupted by an ambient temperature deviating from room temperature…In such case, the compensation test series is performed analogously to the calibration method by having the signal production unit 110 produce the alternating voltage signal SHF at at least one of the set distances di at at least two different temperatures Tj…After reflection of the signal SHF on the reflector 2, in turn, the various, corresponding received signals RHF are registered. Thus, the sensor module 11, e.g. the evaluation unit 111, can create a compensation function based on such received signals RHF,i and based on the corresponding temperatures Tj.”).
Regarding claim 5, Karweck teaches,
The measuring device according to claim 1, wherein the measuring device is configured as a level measuring device, a point level measuring device, a temperature measuring device, a pressure measuring device, and/or a flow measuring device (para. 0001, “The invention relates to a method for producing and calibrating modular fill-level gauges.”).
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 1.
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 1, noting that Karweck further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed, cause a measuring device to perform the relevant steps (para. 0041, “The terms “module” and “unit” mean in the context of the invention, in principle, any electrical circuit and any sensor suitably designed for the contemplated application. It can thus, depending on requirement, be an analog circuit for producing, or processing, corresponding analog signals. It can also be a digital circuit, such as an FPGA or a storage medium interacting with a program. In such case, the program is designed to perform the corresponding method steps, or to apply the necessary computer operations of the particular unit.”).
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.
Claims 4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karweck in view of Allgaier (DE 10 2019 206 531 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Karweck teaches the measuring device according to claim 3. Karweck does not teach,
…wherein the control circuit is further configured to output a warning signal and/or a fault signal when a malfunction is detected in connection with the determination of the difference between the corrected measurement result and the reference measurement result.
Allgaier teaches,
…wherein the control circuit is further configured to output a warning signal and/or a fault signal when a malfunction is detected in connection with the determination of the difference between the corrected measurement result and the reference measurement result (p. 7, para. 6, “The control circuit 14th can also be set up to generate a warning signal, a warning and / or a malfunction message when a malfunction is detected within the scope of the device self-test. The warning signal, the warning and / or the fault message can be shown on a display 20th of the measuring device 10 output and / or displayed to a user.”).
Karweck and Allgaier are both analogous to the claimed invention because both reference teach calibration systems for measuring devices. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measuring device of Karweck to output the warning signal of Allgaier because the warning signal of Allgaier can be used as an early warning of impending device failure, allowing the failure to be corrected before it impacts production (see Allgaier, p. 4, para. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Karweck teaches the measuring device according to claim 1. Karweck further teaches (note: what Karweck does not teach is struck through),
…wherein the measuring device is a level radar device (para. 0010, “The invention achieves the object by a method for manufacturing and calibrating a modular fill-level gauge based on a capacitive, an ultrasonic, or radar based, measuring principle”),
Allgaier teaches,
…wherein the measuring device is a level radar device (p. 2, para. 8, “For example, the measuring device can be designed as…a radar level measuring device”), and wherein the measurement result is an echo curve determined with the sensor circuit of the measuring device (p. 3, para. 4, “If the measurement result is, for example, a measurement curve, for example an echo curve, the test parameter can be representative of a course of the measurement curve, for example in a predetermined and / or specific value range. For example, the test parameter can be representative of an amplitude of the measurement curve, a slope of the measurement curve or the like.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measuring device of Karweck to include the echo curve of Allgaier. Karweck indicates that the measuring device can be a radar level measuring device, but is silent as to the particulars of the radar measurement, noting only that the final measurement result is a level value. Measuring the echo curve is typically a part of this process and, as taught by Allgaier, advantageous to measure because said measurement can be used to detect adhesion and/or soiling of the antenna at an early stage, thus making it possible to fix the problem before the device fails or makes a mismeasurement (see Allgaier, p. 4, para. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Karweck teaches the measuring device according to claim 1. Karweck does not teach,
…wherein the measuring device is configured to trigger and/or start the execution of the self-test function based on a currently determined measurement result
Allgaier teaches,
…wherein the measuring device is configured to trigger and/or start the execution of the self-test function based on a currently determined measurement result (p. 5, para. 2, “According to one embodiment, the measuring device is set up to trigger and / or start the execution of the device self-test based on a currently determined measurement result.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measuring device of Karweck with the trigger of Allgaier because doing so allows for a more accurate evaluation of background noise, thus increasing the accuracy of future measurements (see Allgaier, p. 5, para. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Karweck teaches the measuring device according to claim 1. Karweck does not teach,
…wherein the control circuit is further configured to output an error message and/or not to perform or limit the correction of the measurement result if the difference between the temperature of the sensor circuit and the reference temperature exceeds a predetermined threshold value.
Allgaier teaches,
…wherein the control circuit is further configured to output an error message and/or not to perform or limit the correction of the measurement result if the difference between the temperature of the sensor circuit and the reference temperature exceeds a predetermined threshold value (p. 7, para. 6, “The control circuit 14th can also be set up to generate a warning signal, a warning and / or a malfunction message when a malfunction is detected within the scope of the device self-test” The examiner notes that the reference states that the device can be a temperature measuring device and the measurement result can be a temperature, which is then used during the self-test phase to determine whether there is a malfunction. See p. 8, para. 6-p. 9, para. 1 for use of measurement result to generate warning signal, noting that “limit value” is being understood to refer to a threshold value, per p. 3, para. 5. See p. 2, para. 8 for temperature as a measured variable.).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measuring device of Karweck to output the warning signal of Allgaier because the warning signal of Allgaier can be used as an early warning of impending device failure, allowing the failure to be corrected before it impacts production (see Allgaier, p. 4, para. 2). The examiner further notes that the invention of Karweck states that the temperature compensation function can be stored as a lookup table (see para. 0059). It would be obvious to incorporate the invention of Allgaier in this embodiment of the invention of Karweck because it would prevent temperature measurements not in the lookup table from being mishandled.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna K Gosling whose telephone number is (571)272-0401. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30-4:30 Eastern, Friday, 10:00-2:00 Eastern.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/Anna K. Gosling/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights