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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP 2023-057522, filed on 31 March 2023.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 4, 6 – 10, and 12 – 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11 May 2026.
Claim 12 has been withdrawn as it depends upon Claim 4 which is drawn to a non-elected Species.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 5 and 11, the claim recites “the detection circuit detects an abnormality at the liquid sensor”. It is unclear as to what specifically an “abnormality” is, thus rendering the claims indefinite. When is a detection considered “normal” and when is a detection considered “abnormal”? E.g. if fluid is below all electrodes, is that considered abnormal or a normal low level situation? If debris is present on the electrodes, is that considered abnormal or expected fouling?
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyama et al. (US 2021/0255023), in view of Tadas et al. (US 2020/0072651) .
Regarding Claim 1, Koyama discloses a liquid sensor that detects a liquid level in a state where at least part of the liquid sensor is immersed in a liquid, in at least Figure 3, the liquid sensor comprising a substrate (104), wherein a plurality of electrodes (106, 110) are formed on the substrate (Figure 3), a first electrode portion is composed of a first pair of electrodes (106, 110) included in the plurality of electrodes (Figure 3), a hole (H1)is formed in the substrate (Figure 3), the first pair of electrodes are formed on an inner peripheral surface of the substrate formed by the hole [0034] (Figure 3).
Koyama fails to expressly disclose a second electrode portion is composed of a second pair of electrodes included in the plurality of electrodes, and the second electrode portion is positioned below the first electrode portion in a state where the liquid sensor is immersed in the liquid.
Tadas teaches a liquid sensor that detects a liquid level in a state where at least part of the liquid sensor is immersed in a liquid, in at least Figure 2, the liquid sensor comprising a substrate (104), wherein a plurality of electrodes are formed on the substrate (in 250, 254) (Figure 2), a first electrode portion is composed of a first pair of electrodes included in the plurality of electrodes (pair in 250) (Figure 2), a second electrode portion is composed of a second pair of electrodes included in the plurality of electrodes (pair in 254) [0040] (Figure 2), and the second electrode portion is positioned below the first electrode portion in a state where the liquid sensor is immersed in the liquid (Figure 2).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Koyama so that a second electrode portion is composed of a second pair of electrodes included in the plurality of electrodes, and the second electrode portion is positioned below the first electrode portion in a state where the liquid sensor is immersed in the liquid for the benefit of compensating the capacitance of the first electrode pair to estimate dielectric constant of the fluid, as taught by Tadas [0042, 0044].
Regarding Claim 2, Tadas teaches a detection circuit that detects a first capacitance at the first electrode portion and a second capacitance at the second electrode portion [0041 – 0044], wherein the detection circuit detects the liquid level based on the first capacitance and the second capacitance [0044].
The combination would have been obvious for the same reasons regarding the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 3, Tadas teaches the detection circuit corrects the first capacitance based on the second capacitance and detects the liquid level based on the first capacitance after correction [0044].
The combination would have been obvious for the same reasons regarding the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Conclusion
A complete search was not possible for claims not rejected under prior art due to the 112(b) Rejections as outlined above. Upon Applicant’s clarification of the claims, additional search and consideration will be made.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER MERCADO whose telephone number is (571)270-7094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am - 4pm 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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
ALEXANDER A. MERCADO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/ALEXANDER A MERCADO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights