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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/13/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, see Page 4, lines 5-7, filed 02/23/2026, with respect to the objection of claim 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim 15 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, see Page 4, lines 8-13 filed 02/23/2026, with respect the 35 U.S.C. §112 rejection of claim 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. §112 rejection of claim 17 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments and arguments, see Page 5, line 20 to Page 7, line 2 filed 02/23/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claims 11-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant advances two arguments against the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of amended independent claim 11, both arguments assert that the cited prior art of Weinzierle (US PG Pub. 20140009323) does not contain all the elements as claimed in amended claim 11. A restatement of each argument with Examiner’s response follows:
Argument 1: Applicant's amendments to claim 11 clarifying that the [dielectric] waveguide is rectangular in cross-section and that the waveguide cannot rotate with respect to its axis of insertion enable the further amendment to claim 11 that the waveguide is designed to transmit the radar signal in a basic mode (See, Application, claim 11). Applicant respectfully submits that such is not taught in Weinzierle (cited in the rejection of dependent claim 13; See, Office Action. p. 11). Rather, Weinzierle's waveguide 105 is circular in cross-section (See, e.g., Weinzierle Figs. 9 and 10), and therefore rotation of Weinzierle's waveguide 105 about its axis of rotation is not critical, for the same cross-section would be presented to the planar radiator element 102 regardless of the rotation of the waveguide 105. (Page 6, lines 4 to 12)
Examiner’s Response: Respectfully, the Applicant is directed to Weinzierle [0009] which teaches a rectangular waveguide and [0016] which teaches a rectangular internal cross-section. The primary reference, Hitzler (US PG Pub. 20210341568), teaches rectangular internal cross-section Hitzler [0021]. While the Applicant is correct that Weinzierle does not explicitly teach of “the waveguide is designed to transmit the radar signal in a basic mode”, that teaching is found in Hitzler [0021]. Additionally, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Argument 2: Weinzierle does not teach either of the webs 1004 or 1005 is used for restricting rotational movement of the end region 104 or the main region 105, but rather Weinzierle teaches these webs offer sealing between the joined components, e.g., web 1004 between the sealing element 111 and the waveguide 105; web 1005 between the PCB 101 and the start region 104 (See, Weinzierle, [0111]). (Page 6, lines 12 to 16)
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner maintains that Weinzierle does teach the webs 1004 and 1005 which can be for restricting rotational movement ([0120] It can be seen from FIG. 12 that the internal, peripheral web 1004 is circular in form and is arranged concentric with the external web 1005. The sealing element 111 is square in form and is adapted to the size of the external web 1005, in such a way that it can be placed on the lower, internal peripheral web 1004. Examiner’s note: In Fig. 12, Ref. no. 1004, the ‘web’ for the waveguide, ref. no. 104, is circular because the example is for a circular waveguide, but translating that to a square or rectangular waveguide would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention since it would only require changing the circular boundary to a rectangular or square boundary.).
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.
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) 11-12 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitzler et al. (US PG Pub. 20210341568) in view of Larsson (US 20220074783), Weinzierle (US PG Pub. 20140009323) and Eckert et al. (US PG Pub. 20120153969).
Regarding claim 11, Hitzler discloses a radar-based, fill-level measuring device for determining a fill-level of a filling material in a container (Fig. 5; fill-level measuring device 2), comprising:
an antenna via which a radar signal can be transmitted towards the filling material and, after the radar signal is reflected on a filling material surface, can be received as a received signal ([0023] With the high-frequency module of the invention, a radar based distance measuring device can be constructed, which can be used for determining distance to a measured object....Besides the high-frequency module of the invention, such a distance measuring device includes at least one antenna adjoining the waveguide.);
a transmitting/receiving unit designed to generate the radar signal and to determine the fill-level on the basis of the received signal (FIG. 1, semiconductor component 10; [0034] The semiconductor component 10 serves in the illustrated form of embodiment, on the one hand, for producing an electrical high-frequency signal SHF; [0035] On the other hand, semiconductor component 10 serves for in-coupling received radar signals RHF);
a waveguide arranged for transmitting the radar signals between the antenna and the transmitting/receiving unit (FIG. 1, waveguide 12; [0037]); wherein the waveguide includes a positioning attachment arranged on the transmitting/receiving unit (Fig. 4, coupling element 11 and jacketing 23; [0046] FIG. 4 shows how the plug contact can be protected mechanically by a jacketing 23 of the waveguide 12 and the coupling element 11.); wherein the waveguide has a rectangular cross-section and wherein the waveguide is designed to transmit the radar signal or the received signal in a basic mode ([0021] With respect to the frequency of the radar signal, the waveguide is preferably so dimensioned that only one mode is capable of propagation, in order to prevent undesired mode dispersion. Mode dispersion is additionally prevented, when the waveguide is so embodied such that the fundamental mode or at least a low mode is capable of propagation. In such case, it is, within the scope of the invention, not fixedly prescribed, whether the waveguide has a rectangular, round or otherwise formed cross section.).
Hitzler fails to disclose the waveguide includes an end stop element designed as a web protruding radially from the insertion axis; wherein the positioning attachment forms an end stop for the waveguide corresponding to the end stop element in a direction of an insertion axis such that the waveguide is contacted with the transmitting/receiving unit, and wherein the positioning attachment has a groove corresponding to the web to form the end stop whereby rotational movement of the waveguide with respect to the insertion axis is prevented and is designed as a dielectric waveguide manufactured from polypropylene (PP), perfluoroalkoxy alkanes (PFA), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), or polyether ether ketone (PEEK).
However, Larsson teaches a radar-based fill-level measuring device ([0001] The present invention relates to a radar level gauge system for determining a filling level of a product in a tank.) where the waveguide includes an end stop element and there is a corresponding end stop element of the positioning attachment in a direction of an insertion axis (Fig. 3, outer surface of waveguide 45 has a step that mates with the thermal conducting structure 43).
Hitzler and Larsson are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of radar-based fill-level measurement device technology. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hitzler in view of Larsson to incorporate the end stop in the waveguide which meets the end stop of the positioning attachment as taught by Larsson to gain the advantage of a means for the waveguide to be in contact with the transmitting/receiving unit while also preventing the waveguide from pressing on the unit – the end stop feature provides a mean to safely contact the waveguide to the unit; and also since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Weinzierle teaches a radar-based fill-level measurement waveguide coupling ([0002] The present invention relates to fill-level measurement. In particular, the invention relates to a waveguide coupling for coupling an electromagnetic signal from a high-frequency module into a waveguide) where the end stop element of the waveguide is designed as a web which protrudes radially from the insertion axis, and wherein the positioning attachment has a groove corresponding to the web to form the end stop whereby rotational movement of the waveguide with respect to the insertion axis is prevented ([0111] Where the starting region 104 of the waveguide transitions into the main region 105 of the waveguide, the waveguide comprises an internal, peripheral web 1004, on which the dielectric sealing element 111 is laid. Further, an external, peripheral web 1005 is provided which is arranged at the end of the waveguide, that is to say at the start of the start region 104 of the waveguide, and is placed on the carrier 101. Between these two webs 1004 and 1005 there is a depression 1011, where the sealing element 111 can be soldered and/or glued to the housing. Examiner’s note: Weinzierle teaches in [0041] that the waveguide and carrier are attached in a gas-tight manner through the use of solder and/or glue. It is well known in the art that such a method of joining would preclude rotation of the waveguide with respect to the carrier.)
Hitzler, Larsson and Weinzierle are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of radar-based fill-level measurement technology. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporate the web design for the end stop of Weinzierle with the radar-based, fill-level measuring device of Hitzler and Larsson to yield a predictable result of a means to securely attach the waveguide to the coupling element and the transmitting/receiving unit to yield a predictable result of high efficiently in and out coupling the RF signal of interest as noted by Hitzler, see [0013]-[0017] and [0039]-[0040].
Finally, Eckert teaches a radar-based fill-level measuring device (Fig. 1; [0043] FIG. 1 a sketch of the principles of a measuring device of the invention in an example of an arrangement for fill level measurement.) wherein the waveguide is designed as a dielectric waveguide which is manufactured from PTFE ([0021] In an embodiment of the invention, the dielectric waveguide comprises a ceramic or a flexible synthetic material, especially polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE).
Hitzler, Larsson, Weinzierle and Eckert are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of radar-based fill-level measurement technology. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the PTFE waveguide of Eckert with the radar-based fill-level measurement system of Hitzler, Larsson and Weinzierle to yield a predictable result of a waveguide with good transmission properties above 70 GHz and is cost effective as noted by Eckert ([0017]).
Additionally, the use of these materials is an obvious design choice. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use PP, PFA, PTFE, or PEEK for the dielectric waveguide 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. (1960)
Regarding claim 12, Hitzler as modified by Larsson, Weinzierle and Eckert discloses the fill-level measuring device according to claim 11. Hitzler further discloses wherein the waveguide includes a guide element, and the positioning attachment is designed to correspond to the guide element so that the waveguide is guided in the direction of the insertion axis(Fig. 4, jacketing 23; [0046] Besides increasing mechanical stability, the jacketing 23 can serve as guide for the waveguide 12 at the plugging in, so that the manufacturing of the high frequency module 1 is, in turn, facilitated thereby.).
Regarding claim 16, Hitzler as modified by Larsson, Weinzierle and Eckert discloses the fill-level measuring device according to claim 12. Hitzler further discloses the positioning attachment along the insertion axis has a cylindrical interior with a defined inner cross-section, and wherein the guide element is designed corresponding with the inner cross-section ([0041] According to the invention, the coupling element 11 and the waveguide 12 form in the case of the embodiments shown in FIG. 1 to FIG. 4 a cone shaped plug contact 13, wherein the cone tapers with an angle of about 45°. According to the invention, this means that the high frequency module 1 can be manufactured with little effort: as soon as the coupling element 11 is secured on the semiconductor component 10, the waveguide 12 can be introduced into the coupling element.).
Regarding claim 17, Hitzler as modified by Larsson, Weinzierle and Eckert discloses the fill-level measuring device according to claim 16. Hitzler further teaches the cylindrical interior of the positioning attachment is designed to be metallically conductive ([0046] In order that the waveguiding properties of the coupling element 11 and of the waveguide 12 are not influenced by the jacketing, the jacketing 23 can be appropriately embodied… Alternatively, an option is to metallize at least the inner surface of the jacketing 23).
Regarding claim 18, Hitzler as modified by Larsson, Weinzierle and Eckert teaches the fill-level measuring device according to claim 11. Hitzler further teaches the transmitting/receiving unit is designed as a monolithic semiconductor component ([0006] Advantageously, a monolithic implementation provides, additionally, that both the signal production as well as also the signal evaluation can be implemented in the same semiconductor component.).
Regarding claim 19, Hitzler as modified by Larsson, Weinzierle and Eckert teaches the fill-level measuring device according to claim 11. Hitzler further teaches the transmitting/receiving unit is designed to generate the radar signal with a frequency of at least 80 GHz ([0034] the semiconductor component 10 is embodied to produce the high-frequency signal SHF, for example, in a frequency band around 100 GHz).
Regarding claim 20, Hitzler as modified by Larsson, Weinzierle and Eckert teaches the radar-based, fill-level measuring device of claim 11. Hitzler further teaches a method for manufacturing the radar-based, fill-level measuring device of claim 11, the method comprising: inserting the waveguide into the positioning attachment in a direction of the insertion axis so that the waveguide is contacted with a transmitting/receiving unit of the fill-level measuring device ([0008] An object of the invention is, therefore, to provide a simply manufactured high-frequency module, with which radar signals can be efficiently out- and in-coupled.). Hitzler fails to teach the waveguide insertion limitation of inserting until the end stop element on the waveguide reaches the end stop of the positioning attachment. As described above with regard to claim 11, Larsson teaches the end stop feature for the waveguide and the positioning attachment.
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
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 JOHN BS ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4145. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Jack Keith can be reached at (571)272-6878. 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.
/JBSA/Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights