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
This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application Serial No. 63/517,177 filed August 2, 2023.
Status of Claims
Amendments to claims 1, 7 – 12, 18, 24, 26, 32 – 33 and 36 have been entered.
Claims 39 and 40 have been added.
Accordingly, claims 1 – 40 are pending.
Response to Remarks
In view of remarks, the 112(b)-claim rejection rational, as previously specified for claims 19 and 21 – 22 has been withdrawn, but said claims are still rejected for being dependent from rejected base claim 18 as currently amended.
The prior art rejection has been modified based on Applicant’s remarks, amendments and the discussion below.
Claim Objection
Claims 1 – 40 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “accurate” in the claims as amended is a term that is typically defined as being error free. The specification throughout defines its invention as an improvement over the prior art. See e.g., Spec. Paras. 2, 26 and 57. An improvement does not mean error free. In engineering, the Examiner does not believe that an error free output exists due to factors that cannot be completely eliminated such as electronic noise. Moreover, the term “accurate” suggests a desired result rather than structure and thus should not receive any patentable weight. Dependent claims 2 – 38 are objected for dependency on an objected base claim.
The specification states “Averaging measurements from all three radar transmitter/receiver pairs that have returns at a specified near range below a specified threshold in the example of FIG. 4 will eliminate any transmitter/receiver pair reading that is outside the threshold from the combined output 160 (Spec. Para. 66).”
The Examiner believes that terms such as refined or optimized would be better than using the term accurate. Nonetheless, averaging would meet the scope of a refined or optimized output. Claim 40 is the only claim that provides any insight as to what constitutes an accurate output, which is really a refined or optimized output.
In an effort to expedite prosecution, the Examiner will interpret claims 1 and 39 more narrowly than required by considering the specification at paragraph 66 and the language of claim 40 even though all features of the independent claims, having patentable weight, especially claims 1 and 39, appear to be disclosed by the primary reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 18 – 23, 35 and 38 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 claim 18, the term “about” is not defined as having a range so as to give said term metes and bounds thus the claim is indefinite. See Spec. Para. 42.
Looking at Applicant’s remarks 5/11/2026 concerning claim 21, which depends from claim 18, it appears that Applicant is using size to differentiate between recreational and non-recreational vehicles. See Remarks Page 10. However, the Examiner believes that a size of a recreational vehicle varies; e.g., truck vs. cruise ship. Moreover, claims 35 and 38 do not depend from claim 18 wherein claim 18 provides an indication of size. As such, the metes and bounds of claims 35 and 38 are not believed to be fully defined thus claims 35 and 38 are considered indefinite. Also, the term “recreational” seems to denote description of use rather than structure. In fact, the Examiner is not even certain as to whether a cruise ship would be considered a recreational vehicle, commercial vehicle or both.
Dependent claims 19 – 23 are rejected due dependency on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1 – 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Welle (US 20170141454 A1) in view of Welle (US 20060052954 A1).
NOTE: All citations are that of the primary reference unless otherwise specified.
As to claims 1, 13, 39 and 40, Welle discloses a liquid level sensor system for a liquid storage tank, the system comprising:
a plurality of radar transmitter/receiver combinations providing a plurality of radar returns from respectively different locations relative to the liquid storage tank (Para. 86 “distinguish individual transmitters 202, 204” Para. 81 “different angle ranges 101, 102, 103” see also Fig. 1); and
one or more processors receiving the plurality of radar returns from the plurality of radar transmitter/receiver combinations (Fig. 1 item 123 Para. 83) ;
wherein the one or more processors are configured to a single and accurate liquid level output for the liquid storage tank from the plurality of radar returns from respectively different locations and corresponding liquid level measurements, thereby reducing an influence of a localized effect of a radar return at one or more of the respective different locations and a corresponding inaccuracy of a liquid level measurement due to the localized effect (Para. 79 “it may be possible to determine a fill level of the bulk material 104 within a container 131, for example by averaging a plurality of detected distances.”).
The last limitation, and especially the corresponding limitation in claims 1 and 39, may be considered a desired result and may not receive patentable weight. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78. Looking at the specification at paragraph 66, it appears that Applicant may intend for improving accuracy based on a threshold distance. See Spec. Para. 66 (quoting “Averaging measurements from all three radar transmitter/receiver pairs that have returns at a specified near range below a specified threshold in the example of FIG. 4 will eliminate any transmitter/receiver pair reading that is outside the threshold from the combined output 160.”).
Although the cited disclosure of Welle Para. 79 meets the scope of the last limitation of claim 40 and especially the corresponding last limitations of claims 1 and 39, the Examiner will introduce an additional reference based on the objection and discussion discussed supra, in particular regarding the specification at Para. 66, in order to expedite prosecution.
In the same field of endeavor, Welle ‘954 teaches “These echo groups can then be filtered in relation to location as well as in relation to amplitude using one-dimensional or multi-dimensional signal processing methods, such as for example filtering, averaging, selection and classification. In the case of averaging, for example the location entries and/or amplitude entries of the global echo groups are viewed as a digital signal and are smoothed by settling with adjacent entries. Individual freak values relating to location and amplitude can be effectively suppressed by this measure. Finally, in respect of each echo group of sufficient size the minimum and maximum entries in the categories of location and amplitude are determined and archived in a separate table (Para. 89).”
In view of the teachings of Welle ‘954, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before filing to filter out freak values based on location from the averaging to reduce the effect of outliers thereby improving accuracy.
As to claim 2, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors is a single processor (Fig. 1 item 123. The Examiner notes that, unlike other terms such as transmitter, antenna, etc., processing circuitry with respect to integrated chips is a much broader and more arbitrary of a term as to where the one or more processing circuits begins and ends.).
As to claim 3, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 discloses the system of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of radar transmitter/receiver combinations includes at least one transmitter and at least one receiver (Para. “Instead of pure transmission means 202 and pure receiving means 205, transceiver means 207 may also be used, which can transmit and also receive in the same position. Transmission means 202, 204 and receiving means 205, 206 can be replaced with transceiver means 207.”).
As to claim 4, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the plurality of radar transmitter/receiver combinations includes at least one transmitter and at least one receiver which are collocated in a monostatic radar arrangement (Para. 19 “In one example, in which transceiver means are used, the position of each transmission means may be identical to the position of the associated receiving means.”).
As to claim 5, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the plurality of radar transmitter/receiver combinations includes at least one transmitter and at least one receiver which are spaced apart in a bistatic radar sensor arrangement (Para. 20 “The method further comprises alternately exciting the at least two transmission means in such a way that each of the at least two receiving means receives a transmitted signal generated by each of the at least two transmission means.)”.
As to claim 6, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of radar transmitter/receiver combinations is operable through radar transmitter circuitry and radar receiver circuitry (Para. 83 cited items 202, 204, 205 and 206 or, alternatively, item 207. This limitation, as broadly claimed, does not preclude any of said cited items. For example, the same mixer can be used to upconvert for transmission or downconvert for reception or separate mixers could be used. Even for the scenario of using said same mixer, other items for transmitting and different other items for reception would be coupled to said same mixer.);
wherein the radar transmitter circuitry is connected to one or more transmit antennas; and wherein the receiver circuitry is connected to one or more receive antennas (Para. 20 as previously cited and Figs. 2 – 4).
Claims 7 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Welle in view of Welle ‘954 in view of Bloomberg (US 10775221 B2).
As claim 7, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine, within a range of potential liquid level in each respective measured liquid level made through respective differ locations, a liquid level measurement for each of the plurality of radar transmitter/receiver combinations based upon a local maximum in the respective radar return as a function of distance from each of the plurality of radar transmitter/receiver combinations (Para. 36 “S/N”).
Looking at Welle in view of Welle ‘954 at Para. 36 and looking at Welle in view of Welle ‘954 overall, it should be apparent that peaks are used to determine a delay that corresponds to distance, which is the surface level. As such, the Examiner believes that the features of claim 7, in view of the knowledge and understanding of the ordinary skilled, to be disclosed by Welle in view of Welle ‘954. Applicant may argue, so another reference is included.
In the same field of endeavor, Blomberg teaches “said echo threshold profile representing a threshold as a function of distance to the surface and having at least one local maximum substantially coinciding with one of said peaks in said tank signal; an echo tracking module configured to receive said tank signal and said echo threshold profile (claim 1).”
In view of the teachings of Blomberg, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill before filing to use local maximum to represent distance/height of fill level in order to reduce erroneous distances/heights due to surrounding max peaks caused by noise thereby improving accuracy.
As to claim 8, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 in view of Blomberg teaches the system of claim 7, wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine the single liquid level output by averaging the liquid level measurements from the plurality of radar transmitter/receiver combinations (Welle in view of Welle ‘954 Para. 79 and 110 averaging).
Claims 10 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Welle in view of Welle ‘954 in view of McCormick (US 20190316951 A1).
As to claim 10, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 does not teach the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to average liquid level measurements from respective ones of the plurality of radar transmitter/receiver combinations that are within an expected range to determine the single liquid level output.
In the same field of endeavor, McCormick teaches “distances corresponding to known obstructions or tank limitations (e.g., dimensions) are ignored (Para. 61).”
In view of the teachings of McCormick, it would be obvious that distances known to be in error should be ignored thus improving accuracy.
As to claim 24, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 does not teach the system of claim 1, further comprising at least one display, wherein a fullness or emptiness status of the liquid storage tank, based upon the last determined single liquid level output, is visually presented on the at least one display.
In the same field, McCormick teaches “The external control, when used, parses the data to determine obstructions and distances to the levels of different fluids within the tank. The external control can also use the tank dimensions, once received, to filter out undesirable (e.g., nonsensical) level readings. Relevant levels and volume can be shown to the user on a display. This data is often transmitted wirelessly using satellite or cellular telemetry methods for display on web sites where information emails and alerts and reports can be generated depending upon the end user's needs. The external control can also compare previous measurements with new measurements to detect false measurements in some embodiments (Para. 41).”
In view of McCormick, it would have been obvious to display the level of the fluid to a user so that a user would know whether to add or remove liquid overflower or excess thus improving situational awareness.
Claims 31 – 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Welle in view of Welle ‘954 in view of McCormick and in further view of Vander Horst (US 20150198475 A1).
As to claims 31, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 in view of McCormick does not teach the system of claim 24 and 1, further comprising a centralized processor device in communication with the at least one display, the centralized processor device receiving a single liquid level output for each of a plurality of liquid storage tanks, wherein each of the plurality of liquid storage tanks are associated with a plurality of independently operable radar transmitter/receiver combinations to measure the liquid level therein.
In the same field, McCormick teaches “The external control, when used, parses the data to determine obstructions and distances to the levels of different fluids within the tank. The external control can also use the tank dimensions, once received, to filter out undesirable (e.g., nonsensical) level readings. Relevant levels and volume can be shown to the user on a display. This data is often transmitted wirelessly using satellite or cellular telemetry methods for display on web sites where information emails and alerts and reports can be generated depending upon the end user's needs. The external control can also compare previous measurements with new measurements to detect false measurements in some embodiments (Para. 41).”
In the same field, Vander Horst teaches “A typical modern recreational vehicle has a plurality of wastewater holding tanks. There are normally separate tanks for black water (human waste from the toilet) and gray water (waste water from the kitchen sink). There may be a second gray water tank for effluent from a shower.”
In view of the teachings of McCormick and Vander Horst, it would be obvious to report fill levels to the user, based on independent radars (as taught by McCormick) regarding a plurality of tanks (as taught by Vander Horst) so that the user would know whether to add more fluid in order to prevent overflow and it would be obvious to the ordinarily skilled and user to receive reports on all of the plurality of tanks because it be wasteful to receive status reports on some tanks instead of all tanks.
As to claim 32, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 in further view of McCormick does not teach the system of claim 24, wherein the processor is a centralized processor in communication with the at least one display, the centralized processor configured to: determine the single liquid level output for each respective one of a plurality of liquid storage tanks respectively associated with a plurality of independently operable radar transmitter/receiver combinations to measure the liquid level therein; and report the respective single liquid level output for all of the plurality of liquid storage tanks via the at least one display.
In the same field, McCormick teaches “The external control, when used, parses the data to determine obstructions and distances to the levels of different fluids within the tank. The external control can also use the tank dimensions, once received, to filter out undesirable (e.g., nonsensical) level readings. Relevant levels and volume can be shown to the user on a display. This data is often transmitted wirelessly using satellite or cellular telemetry methods for display on web sites where information emails and alerts and reports can be generated depending upon the end user's needs. The external control can also compare previous measurements with new measurements to detect false measurements in some embodiments (Para. 41).”
In the same field, Vander Horst teaches “A typical modern recreational vehicle has a plurality of wastewater holding tanks. There are normally separate tanks for black water (human waste from the toilet) and gray water (waste water from the kitchen sink). There may be a second gray water tank for effluent from a shower.”
In view of the teachings of McCormick and Vander Horst, it would be obvious to report fill levels to the user, based on independent radars (as taught by McCormick) regarding a plurality of tanks (as taught by Vander Horst) so that the user would know whether to add more fluid in order to prevent overflow and it would be obvious to the ordinarily skilled and user to receive reports on all of the plurality of tanks because it be wasteful to receive status reports on some tanks instead of all tanks.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Welle in view of Welle ‘954 in view of Spanke (US 20080302439 A1).
As to claim 10, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 does not teach the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to average liquid level measurements from respective ones of the plurality of radar transmitter/receiver combinations that are within an expected range to determine the single liquid level output.
In the same field of endeavor, Spanke teaches “the measure corresponds to an average value, median or maximum of the amplitudes of the echo function in the region of the particular travel-time to be expected for the predetermined fill level. (Para. 30).”
In view of the teachings of Spanke, it would be obvious that distances known to be in error should be ignored thus improving accuracy.
Claims 11 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Welle in view of Welle ‘954 in view of Gurumohan (US 20180164143 A1).
As to claim 11, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 does not teach the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to select only a liquid level measurement from the respective plurality of radar transmitter/receiver combinations having a lowest near-range return to determine the single liquid level output.
In the same field of endeavor, Gurumohan teaches “the reflection that corresponds to a smallest change from a previously determined fill level is selected as the selected reflection. This may allow the selected reflection to correspond to the shortest distance/direct reflection path from the transmitter to the contents of the container. This selected container fill level is utilized to provide the current detected container fill level (Para. 28).” Gurumohan further teaches “If a previously determined fill level does not exist (e.g., first time measuring fill level), the potential reflection corresponding to the largest fill level (e.g., reflection associated with smallest time/distance traveled or largest amount of content in container) is selected. The detected likely current fill level that corresponds to the selected reflection may be a larger fill level than the previous current fill level (e.g., container refilled, previous fill level measurement was incorrect, etc.). The fill level corresponding to the selected reflection is selected as the detected likely current fill level (Para. 126).”
In view of the teachings of Gurumohan (e.g., Para. 126), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before filing to only estimate the fill-level height using the reflection corresponding to the smallest travel time to quickly determine the most-likely current height of the water tank thereby improving the accuracy of estimating the correct height of the fill-level.
As to claim 12, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 does not teach the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to select only a liquid level measurement from the respective plurality of radar transmitter/receiver combinations that is closest to an expected measurement to determine the single liquid level output.
In view of the teachings of Gurumohan (e.g., Para. 28), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before filing to select a reflection that has the smallest difference to a preceding reflection in order to quickly and more accurately determine the fill-level height thereby minimizing errors due to multipath and other unwanted reflections.
Claims 14 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Welle in view of Welle ‘954 in view of Dieterle (US 20210318159 A1).
As to claim 14, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 does not teach the system of claim 13, wherein the respectively different locations are exterior to the liquid storage tank. Precede to next claim.
Also, as to claim 15, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 does not teach the system of claim 14, wherein the plurality of radar transmitter/receiver combinations transmit and receive radio signals through a common wall of the liquid storage tank. Precede to next claim.
Also, as to claim 16, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 does no teach the system of claim 15, wherein the plurality of radar transmitter/receiver combinations are mounted in fixed relation relative to the common wall. Precede to next claim.
Also, as to claim 17, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 does not teach the system of claim 16, wherein the plurality of radar transmitter/receiver combinations are mounted to the common wall. Precede to next claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Dieterle teaches “The sensor circuitry is configured to emit and/or receive a radar signal through the housing, in particular through a housing wall and/or a housing wall of the housing, the housing being configured in such a way that the radar signal can be transmitted at least partially through the housing, in particular through the housing wall (Para. 9) .” Dieterle further teaches “the radar sensor and/or the housing of the radar sensor can be attached, mounted and/or fastened to the outside of a container (Para. 28).”
In view of the teachings of Dieterle, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled to mount the radar outside of a translucent housing of a fill-level measuring system in order to reduce the risk of contamination from the outside environment thereby preserving the quality of the contents of said system.
Claims 18 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Welle in view of Welle ‘954 in view Official Notice.
As to claim 18 and as best understood, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 does not teach system of claim 13, wherein the liquid storage tank is a low-capacity storage tank having a liquid capacity of about 150 gallons or less.
Less than 150 gallons appears to be standard. See PTO-892 references: Proctor (US 5573187 A), Houser (US 4828709 A) Salewski (US 4697609 A), Granderson (US 6340177 B1), Allaire (US 5809941 A) and Bridegum (US 4771762 A). The last three references also indicate low-profile.
As such, the Examiner takes official notice that it may be advantageous to have a smaller tank to allow for mobility to transport resources such as water wherein the motivation would be economic or environmental as well as consumer demand for recreational vehicles. The motivation for low-profile is to make a tank more suitable for assembly into a recreational vehicle. See Allaire col. 2 ll. 20 – 30.
As to claim 19 and as best understood, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 in view of official notice teaches the system of claim 18, wherein the liquid storage tank is a low-profile storage tank (Same motivation to combine with Gross as in claim 18. Note that the Spec. at Para 33 refers to “low-profile” as small.).
As to claim 20 and as best understood, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 in view of official notice teaches the system of claim 19, wherein the liquid storage tank is a mobile storage tank (as modified by in claim 19).
As to claim 21 and as best understood, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 in view of Gross teaches the system of claim 20, wherein the mobile storage tank is included in a recreational vehicle, a recreational boat, a food truck, or a semi-truck equipped with living quarters (as modified in claim 19 with same motivation regarding transportation for economic gain.).
As to claim 22, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 in view of Grose discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the liquid storage tank is a water tank (Gross Para. 52. The motivation being commercial transportation for water thus profit).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Welle in view of Welle ‘954 in view Grose and in further view of Vander Horst (US 20150198475 A1).
As to claim 23, and assuming there is a engineering/technical difference between a water tank and grey/black water tank, Well in view of Grose does not teach the system of claim 22, wherein the water tank is a grey or black water storage tank.
In same field, Vander Horst teaches “A typical modern recreational vehicle has a plurality of wastewater holding tanks. There are normally separate tanks for black water (human waste from the toilet) and gray water (waste water from the kitchen sink). There may be a second gray water tank for effluent from a shower.”
In view of Vander Horst, it would be obvious to have a water tank for waste removal, the motivation being economic, because there is a need to transport waste such as RV for personal use or waste removal.
Claims 24 – 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Welle in view of Welle ‘954 in view Ihde (US 20230024527 A1).
As to claims 24 and 29, Well does not teach the system of claim 1, further comprising at least one display, wherein a fullness or emptiness status of the liquid storage tank, based upon the last determined single liquid level output, is visually presented on the at least one display.
In the same field, Ihde teaches “A connected display is configured to present an indication of a fluid level. A connected control circuitry configured to receive information from the sensor corresponding to the one or more characteristics; determine a fluid level of the fluid container based on the information; and control the display to present an indication of the fluid level (Para. 24).”
In view of Ihde, it would be obvious to provide a display to a user so that user can know whether more fluid needs to be added, e.g., in order to prevent overflow or if enough fluid to transport.
As to claim 25, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 in view of Ihde teaches the system of claim 24, wherein the at least one display is a touch sensitive display (Ihde: Para. 61 “smart phone” The motivation being that users have come to rely on smart phones on a daily basis thus making them a convenient choice. Smart phones are known to be touch screen. If necessary, the Examiner takes official notice of touch screens and the market forces (motivation) related to such over last decade or so.).
As to claim 26, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 in view of Ihde teaches the system of claim 24, wherein a liquid level alert or notification, based on a last determined single liquid level output, is visually presented on the at least one display (the display in and of itself meets the scope of a notification. Ihde also teaches an audible alert. Official Notice would be appropriate for various different kinds of alerts. Nonetheless, the claimed notification does not differ in scope to the display of the liquid level.).
As to claim 27, Welle in view of Well ‘954 and Ihde teaches the system of claim 24, wherein the at least one display is a central control display for a vehicle system (Idhe Para. 74 “The present methods and/or systems may be realized in a centralized fashion in at least one computing system, processors, and/or other logic circuits, or in a distributed fashion where different elements are spread across several interconnected computing systems, processors, and/or other logic circuits.” Idhe at Para. 19 furhter disclose a “vehicle”).
In view of Idhe, it would be obvious to measure the fluid level of a vehicle because vehicles are used to commercially transport liquid thus realizing the benefit of economic profits. It would further be obvious to have a centralized display to allow for monitoring of the entire system; the motivation being convenience to the user.
As to claims 28 and 30, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 in view of Ihde teaches the system of claim 24 and 29, wherein the at least one display is associated with a user device, the user device being selected from the group of a smartphone, a tablet computer device, a laptop computer, a notebook computer, or a desktop computer (Idhe: Para. 61 smart phone. The motivation being that users have come to rely on smart phones on a daily basis thus making them a convenient choice.).
Claims 33 – 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Welle in view of Welle ‘954 in view of Vander Horst.
As to claim 33, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 does not teach the system of claim 1, wherein the liquid storage tank and wherein the erroneous liquid level measurements made through one of the respective differ locations attributable to solid or liquid buildup.
Note that the features of claim 33 are written in such a way; e.g. “attributable to solid or liquid buildup” (the buildup is not part of the invention’s structure), as to be viewed as intended use. It is known in the art that grey/black water tanks are specifically designed to hold waste. The effects of waste on electromagnetic waves are inherent and that the inventor is not designing or controlling the localized effects (or at least that is not what is claimed). The localized effects are inherent as evidenced by US 20100043543 A1 Para. 3, US 20090217753 A1 Para. 49, and US 6408692 B1 col. 1 ll. 7 – 15. Precede to the next claim.
Also, as to claim 34, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 does not teach the system of claim 33, wherein the liquid storage tank is a grey water tank or a black water tank in a vehicle. Precede to next claim.
Also, as to claim 35, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 does not teach the system of claim 34, wherein the vehicle is a recreational vehicle.
In same field, Vander Horst teaches “A typical modern recreational vehicle has a plurality of wastewater holding tanks. There are normally separate tanks for black water (human waste from the toilet) and gray water (waste water from the kitchen sink). There may be a second gray water tank for effluent from a shower.”
In view of Vander Horst, it would be obvious to have a water tank for waste removal, the motivation being economic, because there is a need to transport waste such as for an RV for personal use or waste removal. One of ordinary skill or the user would also understand the need to monitor various tanks of an RV in order to prevent waste.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 36 – 37 are 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.
Claim 38 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art does not teach all the claimed features.
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 MICHAEL W JUSTICE whose telephone number is (571)270-7029. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:30 M-F.
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, William Kelleher can be reached at 571-272-7753. 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.
/MICHAEL W JUSTICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights