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 .
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.
1. Claim(s) 1,4,5,7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geissler
(2021/0012957) in view of Azancot (11837399) and Brown (2017/0269018).
Regarding claim 1, Geissler teaches a probe and a probe holding element 12 that is detachably connected to the probe. See figures 1, 2a and 2c. Geissler also teaches the use of galvanically isolated interface to send power to the probe. See paragraph 65.
The interfaces 3, 13 are configured as galvanically separate interfaces, especially as inductive interfaces, which can be coupled to one another by means of a mechanical plug connection. The mechanical plug connection is hermetically sealed, so that no fluid, such as the medium to be measured, air, or dust, can enter from the outside.
Geissler teaches a second interface (generally items 5 and 15). In various embodiments set forth by Geissler the first interface is used for power and the second interface is used for communication data. See paragraph 77 and the table in paragraph 102.
Sensor 1 comprises a second interface 5. The second interface 5 is configured to receive energy from the remote station 11. In one embodiment, data are also transmitted and received via the second interface 5. Thus, data can be transmitted and received only by means of the first interface 3, by means of the first and second interfaces 3, 5 or in one embodiment only by means of the second interface 5. Furthermore, energy can be received via the first and second interfaces 3, 5 or only via the second interface 5. Transmitting and receiving occur in each case via the corresponding interface at the remote station 11, i.e. the interfaces with the reference numbers 13 or 15.
Note the use of the OR language in the table. P OR Cis understood to mean that the interface in question can be used for Power OR Communication. It doesn't say and, so thus it is interpreted to mean Power or Communication can be communicated. Furthermore, in referencing the second interface (5) it is stated that in some embodiments power can be transmitted only via the second interface. Geissler further teaches that the second interface can be optical. See paragraph 80.
[0080] In one embodiment, the second or fourth (see below) interface 5, 15 is an optical or capacitive interface. LEDs or laser diodes or photoreceivers or capacitor plates are then used for this purpose.
Geissler doesn't specifically show an embodiment with an inductive first interface (galvanically isolated) and an optical second interface where the first interface is configured exclusively for energy transmission from the holder to the probe. Based on the numerous examples given of what is carried over an inductive interface and an optical (second) interface, it would have been obvious to have used these know techniques to come to try the combination of features set forth in this claim.
Regarding the limitation that transmitter and receiver of the optical interface is arranged on the probe and probe holding element Geissler would meet the claimed limitations in an embodiment when the second interface is an optical link. An optical transmitter would be on either the probe or the holder and an optical receiver would be on the other of the holder or the probe.
Regarding the limitation that the transmitter and receivers are arranged on a different circuit board from the PC board of the inducted interface, it is clear that integrating or separating circuit boards has been held as obvious variations. See MPEP 2144.04.V.B and 2144.04.V.C.
Geissler does not specifically teach the use of printed circuit boards for holding the conducting tracks. In an analogous art Azancot teaches the use of a printed circuit board for holding inductive coils that are used for a power interface. Col. 18 lines 20-29.
The inductive power receiver 5120 consists of a secondary inductive coil 5122 a ferromagnetic disk 5124 and a printed circuit board (PCB) 5126. The heat sink 5130 of the exemplary embodiment consists of a metallic disk sandwiched between the inductive receiver 5120 and the upper casing 5160U. The ferromagnetic disk 5124 may serve as a flux guiding core to improve inductive coupling between the secondary inductive coil 5122 and a primary inductive coil 5220 (FIG. 1) of an inductive power outlet 5200.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have mounted Geissler's inductive coils on a printed circuit board in order to provide a stable mounting surface for the coils.
Regarding the limitations of including an optical waveguide “configured” do more easily position an optical signal of the optical interface for the bidirectional data transmission and the waveguides are coupled to the transmitter. Brown shows a fuel sensor using optical waveguide 118 that is positioned to convey optical signals. See figure 2 and paragraph 11.
[0011] FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating electronic assembly 100 of fuel characteristic sensor 10 that includes optical interface 12. Electronic assembly 100 may be housed in electronics enclosure 14 illustrated in FIG. 1. Electronic assembly 100 includes optical interface 12, optical power converter 104, energy storage device 106, power supply 108, sensor interface electronics 110, controller 112, output driver 114, and light-emitting diode (LED) 116. Optical interface 12 is connectable to optical link 118. Electronic assembly 100 is connected to capacitive probe 16 and/or resistive element 120. Resistive element 120 may be a resistance temperature detector (RTD) or any other element capable of providing information about the environment based upon a change in resistance of the device. While illustrated as an LED, LED 116 may be any other light source, such as a laser, capable of emitting light to optical link 118. Controller 112 may be implemented as any electronic circuit such as, for example, a digital signal processor (DSP) or other microprocessor, a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), or any other digital logic circuit. Sensor interface electronics 110 may include an integrator circuit, for example, that provides timing outputs indicative of measurements of capacitive probe 16 and/or resistive element 120. While illustrated with both capacitive probe 16 and resistive element 120, sensor assembly 10 may include only a capacitive probe 16 or only a resistive element 120.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used Waveguides as suggested by Brown in the fuel sensor system in order to improve optical communication by channeling or tunneling through the waveguide.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Azancot's teachings and Geissler's figures 3,4,5a and 6a would provide an arrangement where the coils and thus the printed circuit boards would be parallel to each other in order to line up the coils for optimal transmission.
Regarding claim 5, Geissler teaches coils in figure 5a such that they are arranged parallel to an end face of the prove and probe holder. See figure 5a
Regarding claim 7, Geissler teaches the Optical interface includes an LED. See paragraph 80.
Regarding claim 8, Geissler teaches the probe is plugged into the holder. See paragraph 73.
Regarding claim 9, Geissler teaches that the interfaces 3 and 5 are located "at an end" of the probe 2. See figure 2a.
Regarding claim 10, Geissler teaches where the transmitter and receiver of the second interface are aligned parallel to a longitudinal axis of the probe.
Regarding claim 11, Geissler teaches a variation where the transmitter and receiver of an interface are aligned perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the probe. See 3 and 13 of figure 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues that Brown does not teach a waveguide and doesn’t mention a waveguide in the document. Brown does specifically discuss the use of an “optical link” 118 as set forth in figure 2. First, element 118 of Brown is drawn using typical symbolism of an optical fiber. It is also noted that an optical fiber meets the definition of a waveguide.
Waveguide: a physical structure designed to guide waves from one point to another while minimizing signal loss.
The terms Optical Link and Waveguide tend to mean different things but are often used interchangeably. An Optical Link is a type of waveguide that propagates optical signals. Often the term Optical Link is used to include the fiber cable and the Optical transmitters and receivers at the ends of the fiber. In Brown, element 118 is separate from the optical interface 112, thus element 118 is more like the optical fiber than the link in totality as the term typically is used. One of ordinary skill in the art would realize the element 118 is the medium in which the optical signal is guided to the element. Furthermore, paragraph 10 of Brown discussed that the optical link can be an optical fiber cable. Since Brown clearly shows an optical fiber it teaches a waveguide.
See also https://www.britannica.com/technology/waveguide
The applicant argues that Brown’s link 118 is not bidirectional. Geissler is cited for teaching bidirectionality in the optical signaling.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN A ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3059. The examiner can normally be reached m,t,tr 6-4; w,f 6-noon.
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.
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.
/BRIAN A ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2686