LEVEL METER
FIRST OFFICE ACTION
DRAWINGS
The drawings have been considered and approved.
TITLE
The title is objected to because it is vague and not clearly descriptive of the claimed invention.
ABSTRACT
The abstract has been considered and approved.
SPECIFICATION
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. The Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which the Applicant may become aware of in the specification.
CLAIMS
In the event that the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the rationale supporting the rejection would be the same.
35 U.S.C. § 112
In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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.
Claims 1 - 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventors regard as the invention.
Independent claim 1, line 2; the phrase “on one end side” is indefinite as to what the side is in reference to.
Independent claim 1, line 4; the phrases “at another end side” and “the one end side” are indefinite as to what the sides are in reference to.
Independent claim 1, line 7; the phrase “with respect to a color graph” is indefinite since no such color graph has been previously set forth.
Claim 4; the term “a larger value” is indefinite as to what the value is large than.
Claim 15, lines 2 - 3; the phrase “transmitting a radio wave to be a transmission wave” is indefinite as to the proper meaning thereof.
Claim 16, lines 2 - 3; the phrase “transmitting a radio wave to be a transmission wave” is indefinite as to the proper meaning thereof.
35 U.S.C. § 103
In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 103, 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1 - 6, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antocci (2015/0082882) in view of Martinec et al. (4,250,750) and further in view of Lewis et al. (2015/0324106).
With respect to independent claim 1, Antocci sets forth a level meter for measuring a level of an object (see Fig. 3), the level meter comprising:
a sensor unit (15) disposed on one end side along a measurement axis, and configured to
measure the level (of liquid L) along the measurement axis (centerline of container C);
a housing (30) mounted on the sensor unit at another end side different from the one end
side; and
a display unit (73) disposed on the housing (Fig. 2), and configured to display the level measured by the sensor unit with respect to a color graph (paragraph 46).
Antocci fail to set forth that the color graph has a plurality of level ranges color-coded with different colors. However, Martinec et al. set forth a graph that has a plurality of level ranges (Fig. 2B) and Lewis et al. teach that the use of colors in graphs to enhance features of the graph is known (paragraph 2).
As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art armed with these teachings to use a display as taught by Martinec and Lewis with the device of Antocci.
The motivation being to quickly and easily identify the measured level upon a quick glance of the display to minimize distractions due to the observing of the display.
With respect to claim 2, Antocci in view of Martsets set forth that the display unit displays a gauge including a plurality of sections arranged along an increasing/decreasing direction of the level in the display unit, each of the plurality of sections corresponding to each level range of the plurality of level ranges (Antocci Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 3, Antocci in view of Martinec et al. and Lewis et al. suggest that the display unit displays the level measured by the sensor unit in a bar graph (Antocci; 393 in Fig. 5) together with the color gauge (Lewis; paragraph 2) having a common coordinate system along an increasing/decreasing direction of the level in the display unit, wherein a length of the bar graph expands and contracts according to the level (Martinec; Fig. 2b).
With respect to claim 4, Antocci in view of Martinec et al. and Lewis et al. suggest that the bar graph indicates a larger value as the bar graph extends to a position farther from the sensor unit (Fig. 2B).
With respect to claim 5, Antocci in view of Martinec et al. and Lewis et al. suggest that the display unit displays the level measured by the sensor unit as a numerical value (ie. 1/2) in addition to the bar graph (Martinec; Fig. 2B).
With respect to claim 6, Antocci in view of Martinec et al. and Lewis et al. suggest that an upper limit of a measurement range is set for the level measured by the sensor unit, and the display unit displays the level at a ratio (ie. 1/4, 1/2, 3/4) to an upper limit of a measurement range (Martinec; Fig. 2B).
With respect to claim 11, Antocci suggests that the housing (30) has a flat portion parallel to a direction of the measurement axis and the display unit is disposed in the flat portion (Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 14, Antocci suggests that the housing includes an operation unit (61 in Fig. 2) for changing setting of the level range.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 - 10, 12, 13, 15, and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the above rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claim 7, the prior art fails to teach or suggest an output unit configured to output a control signal based on a comparison result between a level measured by the sensor unit and each of the thresholds, and each of the plurality of the section of the color gauge is defined by each of the thresholds.
With respect to claim 8, the prior art fails to teach or suggest the level meter further comprises a state lamp displaying a status of the object based on a comparison result between the level measured by the sensor unit and each of the thresholds and each of the plurality of sections of the color gauge is defined by each of the thresholds. Claims 9 and 10 depend from claim 8.
With respect to claim 12, the prior art fails to teach or suggest that the housing is rotatably mounted on the sensor unit via a rotation mechanism, and a rotation angle of the display unit with respect to the sensor unit about a rotation axis parallel to a direction of the measurement axis is adjustable.
With respect to claim 13, the prior art fails to teach or suggest that the terminal unit is separable from the base, and the display unit displays the measured level in a state where the terminal unit is separated from the base.
With respect to claim 15, the prior art fails to teach or suggest that the sensor unit includes a transmission unit transmitting a radio wave to be a transmission wave toward the object, and a dielectric lens guiding the transmission wave toward the object is provided.
With respect to claim 16, the prior art fails to teach or suggest that the sensor unit includes a transmission unit transmitting a radio wave to be a transmission wave toward the object, and a horn antenna guiding the transmission wave toward the object is provided.
CITED DOCUMENTS
The Applicant’s attention is directed to the “PTO-892” form for the relevant art made of record at the time of this Office Action.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the Examiner should be directed to Eric S. McCall whose telephone number is 571-272-2183.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. For questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is advised to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at:
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Eric S. McCall/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855