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
The Amendment filed on 8/21/2026 has been entered. Claims 18 and 20-22 remain pending in the application.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 18 and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Application Publication No. 2013/0209318, hereinafter Garland in view of DE 102017127191, hereinafter Skowaisa.
Regarding claim 18, Garland teaches a hydrocarbon processing plant (figure 1) comprising: a network of tubes (item 20), wherein one tube of said network of tubes has a refill-opening (the opening covered by item 27); a catalyst arranged in said one tube (paragraph [0022]); a plug (item 27) arranged in the refill-opening and closing said refill-opening (figure 2).
Garland fails to teach the plug at least partially made of a refractory material and a radar emitting device, wherein the radar emitting device is arranged outside said one tube, said radar emitting device orientated such that radar waves emitted by said radar emitting device propagate through said plug and in the direction of said catalyst; and wherein said plug material is permeable to radar waves.
Skowaisa teaches a plug which an integrated radar sensor which is made from a refractory material (Skowaisa, items 11 and 12) with the radar emitting device is arranged outside said one tube (Skowaisa, figure 1), said radar emitting device orientated such that radar waves emitted by said radar emitting device propagate through said plug and in the direction of said catalyst (Skowaisa, figure 1); and wherein said plug material is permeable to radar waves (Skowaisa, figure 1) so that the fill level of the device can be measured which is insensitive to pressure, temperature and chemical influences (Skowaisa, page 2, paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the plug and radar device of Skowaisa as the plug in Garland because it would allow for the fill level of the tubes to be measured which is insensitive to pressure, temperature and chemical influences (Skowaisa, page 2, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 20, modified Garland teaches a radar receiving device (Skowaisa, page 2, paragraph 5) for receiving an echo of the radar waves reflected by said catalyst to determine the level of said catalyst (Skowaisa, page 2, paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 21, modified Garland teaches a flange (Skowaisa, item 18 and page 4, paragraph 4) arranged between said radar transmitting emitting device and said plug (Skowaisa, figure 1), wherein said flange comprises: a cylindrical portion (Skowaisa, figure 1); and a rim portion distal to the top of said tube relative to said cylindrical portion (Skowaisa, figure 1); and wherein refractory material is arranged in said cylindrical portion (Skowaisa, figure 1).
Regarding claim 22, modified Garland teaches a lid (Skowaisa, item 18) arranged on said rim portion for closing said flange (Skowaisa, figure 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-8, filed 8/21/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 18 under 102(a)(1) and 18-22 under 103(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Garland and Skowaisa.
Conclusion
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 MATTHEW D KRCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571)270-7698. 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.
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
