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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 5, 7, 10-15, 27, 31, 32, 34-36 and 39, and the addition of new claims 42 and 43, have been entered and fully considered.
No new matter was noticed.
Independent claim 1 has been amended to recite that the at least one processor is configured to determine the single liquid level output from a plurality of radar returns and corresponding liquid level measurements from the combinations of the plurality of radar transmitters and one or more receivers at the respectively unique locations, thereby reducing an influence of a localized effect of a radar return at one or more of the unique locations and a corresponding inaccuracy of a liquid level measurement due to the localized effect. This amendment does not overcome McCormick. First, the clause introduced by thereby is a statement of an intended result of the structure and function that are positively recited earlier in the claim. Under MPEP 2111.04, a “whereby” or “thereby” clause in an apparatus claim is not given patentable weight where it simply expresses the necessary result of the positively recited structure and does not itself add a structural or functional limitation. Here, the antecedent recitation already requires the processor to determine the output from the plurality of radar returns and corresponding liquid level measurements from the combinations of transmitters and receivers at the respectively unique locations; the thereby clause states only the consequence of doing so. It is therefore not accorded patentable weight. Notwithstanding, the rejection below addresses the clause on the merits. Second, the term accurate in the phrase a single and accurate liquid level output is a relative term of degree for which the claim supplies no standard of comparison, and it accordingly does not distinguish over prior art that produces a liquid level output. See the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below. Even reading accurate as requiring some quantified precision, McCormick expressly teaches level determinations with sub-millimeter accuracy.
Applicant’s notice of co-pending applications: Applicant’s identification of co-pending Application Serial Nos. 18/643,571 and 18/643,445, which share the same description and claim benefit of the same provisional application, is acknowledged and appreciated. The claims of those applications have been reviewed. No provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection is being set forth at this time. Should the claims of any of the co-pending applications be amended such that they are not patentably distinct from the claims of the instant application, a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection may be set forth in a subsequent Office action.
Claims 1-43 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 27, 31, 34, 39, and 42-43 objected to because of the following informalities introduced in the Amendment filed 05/11/2026:
Claim 1 recites one or more radar receivers in the antenna limitation but recites one or more receivers, omitting radar, in the processor limitation. Consistent terminology should be used throughout the claim.
Claim 1 recites from the combinations of the plurality of radar transmitters and one or more receivers. The definite article the precedes combinations, which has not been previously recited.
Claim 27 recites based upon the last determined single and accurate liquid level output, using the definite article the before last determined, whereas claim 29 recites the parallel limitation as based on a last determined single and accurate liquid level output, using the indefinite article. Consistent form should be used across the two claims.
Claim 31 now requires “at least one” display but recites the user device being selected from the group of a smartphone, a tablet computer device, a laptop computer device, a notebook computer device or a desktop computer device. Proper Markush form is “selected from the group consisting of A, B, C, D, and E.” The claim omits consisting and joins the final member with or rather than and. See MPEP 2117.
Claim 34 recites receiving a single and liquid level output for each of a plurality of liquid storage tanks. The phrase a single and liquid level output is grammatically incomplete; a word appears to have been omitted following and. The parallel amendments to claims 27, 29, 32 and 35 each recite “single and accurate,” indicating that accurate was intended. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) will not be applied as it is understood that “accurate” was intended.
Claim 39 recites an imperfect and therefore uneven wall thickness and then repeats the imperfect and therefore uneven wall thickness in the same sentence. The word therefore states a conclusion rather than a limitation and adds nothing to the recited structure. Simplification is suggested.
Claim 42 recites by combining the measurements, using the definite article before measurements, which have not been previously recited in claim 42.
Claim 43 recites the respectively different antenna locations, whereas the antecedent recitation in the same claim is a respectively unique location relative to the liquid storage tank. The claim further recites all of the plurality of radar returns, using the definite article before a plurality of radar returns that has not been previously recited.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities resulting from the Amendment filed 05/11/2026:
The specification is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP 608.01(o) because the terminology of the amended claims does not find clear support or antecedent basis in the description. Claims 1, 10-15, 27, 29, 32, 34, 35 and 43 as amended recite a single and accurate liquid level output or the single and accurate liquid level output. The specification nowhere uses that expression. The description uniformly recites the output as a single liquid level output (for example at [0119] and [0125]), as a single output 160 ([0063]), and as a single, robust liquid level output measurement 160 ([0057]). Correction is required so that the terms used in the claims may be readily understood by reference to the description. Applicant is cautioned that amendment of the specification to insert the amended claim language must not introduce new matter under 35 U.S.C. 132(a). The concept of improved accuracy is amply described (for example at [0038], [0041] and [0064]); it is the specific claim expression that is absent.
The specification is further objected to under MPEP 608.01(o) with respect to claim 42, which recites an obstruction to the one or more radar receivers. The specification describes obstruction of the radar signal by solid buildup on the interior of the tank top wall ([0051]: “practical methods to calibrate the sensor 130 or to process the sensor output in a manner which would compensate for the obstruction of radar signal transmissions through solid buildup inside the storage tank 100 are unknown”) but does not describe an obstruction to the receivers. Correction is required to conform the claim terminology to the description, or the claim should be amended to recite obstruction of the radar signal.
The specification is further objected to under MPEP 608.01(o) with respect to claim 43, which recites that the processor is configured to compensate for an erroneous liquid level measurement. The five operations the specification teaches for producing the combined output ([0063]) operate by averaging the qualifying measurements or by selecting one measurement and excluding the others; the description does not use the term compensate for any of them. Correction is required so that the claim terminology may be readily understood by reference to the description.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument that McCormick teaches level determination with only one transmit antenna and one receive antenna. Applicant argues that although McCormick shows multiple transmit and receive antennas in FIG. 1, McCormick’s described examples are limited to determinations made with one transmit antenna and one receive antenna, citing FIGS. 3, 6A, 6C, 7, 8A and 9, and that McCormick is “at best ambiguous” as to whether a plurality of transmit antennas is used with a receive antenna to produce a plurality of radar returns and corresponding liquid level measurements. This argument is not persuasive. A prior art reference must be evaluated for everything it teaches to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and is not limited to its preferred or illustrated embodiments. See MPEP 2123(I) and (II). McCormick is not ambiguous. McCormick states without qualification that the disclosed embodiments use several transmit and receive antennas, and expressly distinguishes its approach from prior tank level radars on that basis. See McCormick at [0042]: “The disclosed embodiments employ several transmit and receive antennas which are unlike other tank level monitoring methods. Typically, the send and receive antenna are the same physically, such as in the case of aircraft or weather radars or even other tank level monitoring radar sensors.” McCormick quantifies the arrangement at [0043]: “There are four such receive antennas (indicated at 122) and three such transmit antennas (indicated at 121) in some embodiments. The transmit antennas 114 transmit the chirp signals which are amplified by amplifiers 113.” McCormick uses the plural, “transmit antennas 114 transmit the chirp signals.”
McCormick further confirms that these several antennas occupy separate physical locations and give rise to separate signal paths of differing length. See McCormick at [0073]: “As mentioned earlier, some embodiments of the mmWave Control unit use multiple transmit and receive antennas so there are multiple signal paths, which makes using a typical conical radar horn impractical. Accordingly, a novel 2-sided horn is disclosed for use herein that does not result in multiple transmit and receive path lengths.” McCormick would have no reason to design a special horn to avoid unequal transmit and receive path lengths unless the several transmit and receive antennas in fact occupied different locations producing different path lengths. This passage is not consistent with the single transmit antenna and single receive antenna operation that Applicant attributes to McCormick.
As to the figures on which Applicant relies, FIGS. 4, 6A and 6C are simplified illustrations of the ranging principle. Each carries the express notation that it assumes the transmit and receive antennas are within 5 mm so that signal angle effects are negligible. An express simplifying assumption stated on a figure for the purpose of explaining the ranging equations is not a statement that the instrument contains only one transmit antenna. McCormick states the contrary in the text at [0039], [0042], [0043] and [0073]. Moreover, FIG. 4 itself is described in terms of a plurality of transmit antennas. See McCormick at [0047]: “Multiple transmit antennas 403 may be used when signal angle determination is needed, which is not usually the case for tank level measurements.”
Finally, and independently, McCormick teaches that the instrument produces and reports many separate distance determinations per measurement sample, which the computer then resolves into the reported level. See McCormick at [0044]: “Many distances and signal strengths may be sent per sample and it is up to a computer 133 in the Telemetry Control unit 129 to determine which signal strengths and/or which distances are important.” This is the plurality of radar returns and corresponding liquid level measurements, resolved by a processor into a single output.
Argument that McCormick does not acknowledge the problem of localized effects and therefore cannot suggest the claimed solution. Applicant argues that because McCormick nowhere acknowledges the problem of localized effects arising from tank wall imperfections and unpredictable buildup, McCormick does not suggest the solution recited in claim 1. This argument is not persuasive for three independent reasons. First, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102, a reference anticipates a claim if it teaches every limitation, whether or not the reference recognizes the problem the applicant identified or appreciates the advantage the applicant obtained. See MPEP 2112(II). Recognition of a property or advantage inherent in the prior art structure is not required. Second, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reason or motivation for making a modification need not be the same as the reason that motivated the Applicant. See MPEP 2144(IV) and KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (C) - “any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed”. Each of the obviousness rationales set forth identifies a motivation stated in the references themselves. Third, McCormick does address the very phenomena Applicant identifies. As to buildup inside the tank at the sensor location, see McCormick at [0058]: “Sand or sludge 657 collecting just below the window/barrier 652 are either not detected because such substances have a low dielectric or the distance thereto is outside the expected range and ignored.” See also McCormick at [0040]: “In addition, embodiments of the invention are impervious to sand, dirt and debris build up because of the novel and inventive methods used.” As to tank wall thickness and its effect on the return, see McCormick at [0072]: “the mmWave Control unit and Telemetry Control unit contained therein can read the tank level through the plastic tank wall even though it may be 1/2 inch thick”; and McCormick at [0073]: “The use of the horn 1408 can increase overall gain of the mmWave Control unit and thus help the emitted signals penetrate thicker plastic tank walls.” McCormick’s provision of additional gain specifically to penetrate thicker walls reflects an appreciation that wall thickness varies and affects the return. As to readings corrupted at a particular path, see McCormick at [0064]: “‘Bad’ readings 811 that do not correlate (e.g., within a certain predefined percentage) with most or a majority of recent samples can be discarded.”
Argument directed to the “thereby” clause of amended claim 1. Applicant relies on the newly added clause thereby reducing an influence of a localized effect of a radar return at one or more of the unique locations and a corresponding inaccuracy of a liquid level measurement due to the localized effect to distinguish McCormick. This is not persuasive. As set forth in the Response to Amendment above, the clause states the necessary result of the structure and function positively recited earlier in claim 1 and is not accorded patentable weight under MPEP 2111.04. A statement of an intended result does not impose a further structural or functional requirement on the claimed system. Even if the clause were given full weight, McCormick teaches the recited result. McCormick collects many distance determinations, screens them against a signal strength threshold and a distance window, and discards readings that disagree with the majority of the collected set, so that a reading corrupted at any single path does not control the reported level. See McCormick at [0064], quoted above, and at [0006]: “A computer is operable to automatically select intermediate frequency signals having a signal strength above a predefined minimum or distances within a predefined distance window for further processing and ignore other intermediate frequency signals and distances.” That is a reduction of the influence of a localized effect at one path on the reported liquid level.
Arguments not commensurate in scope with the claims. Several of Applicant’s arguments rest on features that the claims do not require. Applicant’s discussion is directed to tank imperfections in wall thickness, to unpredictable and transient solid or liquid buildup, and to effects said to be “highly location sensitive” and to “cumulate in an especially problematic manner for certain types of storage tanks.” Claim 1 recites none of these. Claim 1 does not recite any tank as a positively recited element, does not recite any wall thickness, does not recite any buildup, does not recite any minimum spacing between the antenna locations, and does not recite any particular algorithm by which the plurality of returns is resolved into the single output. Arguments directed to features not recited in the claims are not persuasive. See MPEP 2145(VI); In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Applicant’s characterization of the invention as solving a problem that McCormick’s programming “cannot consider” is likewise not reflected in the claim language. Claim 1 requires only that the processor determine the output from the plurality of returns and corresponding measurements obtained through the several transmitter antenna locations. McCormick performs that operation.
Dependent claims: Applicant states that at least some of the dependent claims are believed to be distinguishable from McCormick for reasons apart from claim 1, but reserves comment and does not identify any dependent claim or advance any argument as to any particular dependent claim. Because no separate argument has been presented, the dependent claims stand or fall with the independent claim from which they depend. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP 707.07(f). Each dependent claim has nevertheless been separately addressed on the merits above.
New claims 42 and 43: New claims 42 and 43 do not distinguish over McCormick. Claim 42 recites determining the output by combining measurements from the transmitters and receivers so that the output is accurate even in the presence of an obstruction to the one or more radar receivers. McCormick is expressly directed to that situation and teaches obstructions such as braces and pipes in the signal path, together with the rejection of the resulting readings so that the reported level is unaffected. See McCormick at [0056]: “Reflected signals resulting from an obstruction 608, such as the signal 602, are ignored for distance determination purposes.” Claim 43 recites compensating for an erroneous measurement made through one antenna location while determining the output based on evaluation of all of the returns. That is McCormick’s discarding of “bad” readings that fail to correlate with the majority of the collected set, at [0064]. New claims 42 and 43 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth above.
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 1-43 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.
Claims 1-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite in the recitation of a single and accurate liquid level output (claims 1 and 43) and the single liquid level output is accurate (claim 42). The term accurate is a relative term of degree for which neither the claims nor the specification supplies a standard of comparison — no tolerance, no reference measurement, and no baseline against which an output is to be judged accurate. A skilled reader cannot determine what liquid level output falls within the claims and what output falls outside them. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(I). Claims 2-41 are rejected for the same reason by virtue of their dependency. A term of degree is not indefinite merely because it is a term of degree; it is definite where the specification provides enough certainty to a skilled artisan read in context. See Sonix Technology Co. v. Publications International Ltd., 844 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017), where visually negligible was held definite because the specification supplied examples and guidance for applying it. Sonix is distinguishable here. The specification supplies numerical standards for the other terms of degree in these claims — low-profile at [0046] and low-capacity at [0042], both of which rejections have accordingly been withdrawn at Section 5.3(1) — which demonstrates that Applicant supplied such standards where intended. For accurate the specification supplies nothing comparable. It speaks of accuracy only in comparative terms, stating that the arrangement operates “with vastly improved accuracy than existing systems” ([0041]) and that combining the outputs “mitigate[s] errors represented in the output from each individual transmitter/receiver pair” ([0063]). A comparative improvement over unspecified existing systems is not a standard for the absolute term the claims recite. The specification moreover never uses the claim expression at all, reciting instead a “single liquid level output” ([0119], [0125]).
PNG
media_image1.png
284
790
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Snippet from Sonix Technology Co. v. Publications International Ltd., 844 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
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.
Claims 1-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over McCormick (US 2019/0316951 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, McCormick (‘951) teaches A liquid level sensor system for a liquid storage tank, the system comprising: ([0002]: “Embodiments of the invention relate generally to the use of radar to measure levels of fluids and other materials in a storage tank and particularly to the use of millimeter wave radar to measure such storage tank levels.”)
McCormick (‘951) teaches at least one sensor comprising: ([0043]: “Referring now to FIG. 1, a block diagram of a tank level measurement instrument 100 according to an embodiment of the invention is shown.”)
McCormick (‘951) teaches a plurality of radar transmitters and one or more radar receivers ([0043]: “There are four such receive antennas (indicated at 122) and three such transmit antennas (indicated at 121) in some embodiments.”)
McCormick (‘951) teaches wherein an antenna associated with each of the plurality of radar transmitters is at a respectively unique location relative to the liquid storage tank ([0043]: “Multiple antennas are used when angle measurements are important.”; [0042]: “Multiple antennas are used on the disclosed embodiments to simplify circuitry and also so that a slight change in arrival time of an adjacent antenna’s signal can be used to determine the angle from which the radar signal was sent.”; Fig. 1 shows antenna array 121, 122 with transmit and receive antennas at different positions)
McCormick (‘951) teaches at least one processor configured to determine a single and accurate liquid level output for the liquid storage tank from a plurality of radar returns and corresponding liquid level measurements from the combinations of the plurality of radar transmitters and one or more receivers at the respectively unique locations ([0043]: “A digital front end 106 receives the converted signals and quickly digitizes and stores their values in its analog buffers for use by a digital signal processor 108, which performs digital signal processing of the received signals using the Zoom Fast Fourier transform to determine distance. Computing module 107 works with memory 109 to choreograph all of the digital signal processing and other functions. Serial port 110 sends the determined distance values for each of the desired tank levels to an external control such as Telemetry Control unit 129.”; [0044]: “Many distances and signal strengths may be sent per sample and it is up to a computer 133 in the Telemetry Control unit 129 to determine which signal strengths and/or which distances are important.”; [0044]: “The signal 128 is usually the strongest signal representing a tank level that lies within a desired range of tank levels.”; [0036]: “These embodiments can detect distances from a point on the tank, usually the top of the tank, to fluid in the tank with accuracy less than a millimeter, which is critical in many fluid monitoring applications.”). McCormick’s digital signal processor 108 derives a distance from each received return, many such distances are produced per measurement sample, and computer 133 resolves them into the single reported tank level signal 128. Sub-millimeter accuracy is expressly taught.
McCormick (‘951) teaches thereby reducing an influence of a localized effect of a radar return at one or more of the unique locations and a corresponding inaccuracy of a liquid level measurement due to the localized effect ([0064]: “‘Bad’ readings 811 that do not correlate (e.g., within a certain predefined percentage) with most or a majority of recent samples can be discarded. The power readings are used to focus on the more prominent readings from the many possible distance and power levels sent to computer 133.”; [0041]: “The software filters the data to include only the most prominent reflections, a range of detected fluids and obstructions, or the distances to all of the detected objects.”). This clause states the intended result of the positively recited structure and function and is not accorded patentable weight under MPEP 2111.04. It is nevertheless disclosed: by discarding readings that disagree with the balance of the collected set, McCormick’s computer prevents a reading corrupted at any one signal path from controlling the reported level.
Regarding Claim 2, McCormick (‘951) teaches the system of claim 1.
McCormick (‘951) teaches wherein the one or more processors is a single processor ([0043]: “Computing module 107 works with memory 109 to choreograph all of the digital signal processing and other functions.”; [0039]: “A processor runs Zoom or similar Fourier transforms on the signals to directly determine distance.”; Fig. 1 shows single computing module 107 and digital signal processor 108 in mmWave Control unit 120)
Regarding Claim 3, McCormick (‘951) teaches the system of claim 1.
McCormick (‘951) teaches wherein a liquid level measurement is determined for each combination of a transmitter and receiver via angular processing of the radar return ([0042]: “Multiple antennas are used on the disclosed embodiments to simplify circuitry and also so that a slight change in arrival time of an adjacent antenna’s signal can be used to determine the angle from which the radar signal was sent.”; [0043]: “Multiple antennas are used when angle measurements are important.”; [0039]: “These single-chip sensors can provide range, angle, and velocity determination, all in a small package.”)
Regarding Claim 4, McCormick (‘951) teaches the system of claim 1.
McCormick (‘951) teaches wherein the plurality of radar transmitters and one or more radar receivers comprises a plurality of radar transmitters and a single radar receiver defining a multiple-input, single-output radar sensor arrangement ([0043]: “There are four such receive antennas (indicated at 122) and three such transmit antennas (indicated at 121) in some embodiments.”; [0042]: “The disclosed embodiments employ several transmit and receive antennas which are unlike other tank level monitoring methods.”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the radar system of McCormick (‘951) with multiple transmitters and a single receiver as a multiple-input, single-output arrangement. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because McCormick (‘951) teaches that multiple antennas can be configured in various arrangements, and using multiple transmitters with a single receiver is a known radar configuration that simplifies receiver circuitry while still enabling angle determination. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because McCormick teaches the use of multiple transmit and receive antennas in various configurations.
Regarding Claim 5, McCormick (‘951) teaches the system of claim 4.
McCormick (‘951) teaches wherein the plurality of radar transmitters are respectively operable at different times to obtain the plurality of radar returns and corresponding liquid level measurements ([0038]: “FMCW continuously transmits a frequency modulated signal to determine range, velocity, and angle of the object being detected relative to the antenna plane.”; [0043]: “Mixers 103 multiply the signal currently being transmitted with a returned signal that was previously transmitted a few moments ago.”) McCormick (‘951) teaches that the plurality of radar transmitters and the receiver, and teaches that the returns attributable to the several antennas must be resolvable from one another ([0043]: “There are four such receive antennas (indicated at 122) and three such transmit antennas (indicated at 121) in some embodiments. The transmit antennas 114 transmit the chirp signals which are amplified by amplifiers 113.”; [0042]: “a slight change in arrival time of an adjacent antenna’s signal can be used to determine the angle from which the radar signal was sent”; [0073]: “some embodiments of the mmWave Control unit use multiple transmit and receive antennas so there are multiple signal paths, which makes using a typical conical radar horn impractical”). McCormick further teaches that its chirps are discrete, time-bounded events and that the mixer operates on each transmitted chirp against its own return ([0046]: “The chirp signal 300 lasts about 40 µs, starts at a frequency of about 77 Ghz and ends at about 81 Ghz”; [0043]: “Mixers 103 multiply the signal currently being transmitted with a returned signal that was previously transmitted a few moments ago.”). McCormick’s instrument affirmatively requires that the return associated with each antenna be individually distinguishable: McCormick determines the angle from which a radar signal was sent by comparing the arrival time of an adjacent antenna’s signal ([0042]), and McCormick reports many separate distance and signal strength values to the Telemetry Control unit per measurement sample ([0044]: “Many distances and signal strengths may be sent per sample”). McCormick’s existing hardware and requires no change to the antennas, amplifiers, mixers, analog-to-digital converters, or Zoom Fourier transform processing. McCormick’s ramp generator 111 and synthesizer 112 already generate discrete 40-microsecond chirps ([0046]) and its mixers already pair each transmitted chirp with its own return ([0043]).
Regarding Claim 6, McCormick (‘951) teaches the system of claim 1.
McCormick (‘951) teaches wherein the plurality of radar transmitters and one or more radar receivers define a multiple-input multiple-output radar sensor arrangement ([0043]: “There are four such receive antennas (indicated at 122) and three such transmit antennas (indicated at 121) in some embodiments.”; [0042]: “The disclosed embodiments employ several transmit and receive antennas which are unlike other tank level monitoring methods.”)
Regarding Claim 7, McCormick (‘951) teaches the system of claim 6.
Rejected for the same reasons as Claim 5, its added limitation wherein the plurality of radar transmitters are respectively operable with the common plurality of receivers at different times to obtain the plurality of radar returns and corresponding liquid level measurements differing only in reciting the receivers that claim 6 already requires, McCormick teaching four receive antennas at [0043]. McCormick (‘951) teaches ([0043]: “Mixers 103 multiply the signal currently being transmitted with a returned signal that was previously transmitted a few moments ago.”; [0038]: “FMCW continuously transmits a frequency modulated signal to determine range, velocity, and angle of the object being detected relative to the antenna plane.”).
Regarding Claim 8, McCormick (‘951) teaches the system of claim 1.
McCormick (‘951) teaches wherein the at least one processor is integrally provided with the at least one sensor ([0045]: “FIG. 2C shows an example of a single-board embodiment, indicated at 210, where the Telemetry Control unit 200 and the mmWave Control unit 201 are implemented on a single board.”; [0039]: “The invention in some embodiments employs a single-chip sensor having mmWave measurement capability, such as one of the TI family of mmWave sensors.”)
Regarding Claim 9, McCormick (‘951) teaches the system of claim 1.
McCormick (‘951) teaches wherein the at least one processor comprises a first processor and a second processor at respectively different locations ([0043]: “A digital front end 106 receives the converted signals and quickly digitizes and stores their values in its analog buffers for use by a digital signal processor 108, which performs digital signal processing of the received signals using the Zoom Fast Fourier transform to determine distance. Computing module 107 works with memory 109 to choreograph all of the digital signal processing and other functions.”; [0044]: “it is up to a computer 133 in the Telemetry Control unit 129 to determine which signal strengths and/or which distances are important.”; [0044]: “This tank level Telemetry Control unit 129 (including a display therefor) may be physically co-located with the mmWave Control unit 120 but is typically located on the side of the tank for easier access by the user so he/she does not need to precariously climb on the tank to read the levels.”; [0045]: “Where the Telemetry Control unit 200 is used, the serial data line 208 may be less than an inch (e.g., 0 inches) long or several hundred feet depending upon if this is a self-contained mmWave Control/Telemetry Control unit or a mmWave Control unit that is located remotely from the Telemetry Control unit.”)
Regarding Claim 10, McCormick (‘951) teaches the system of claim 1.
McCormick (‘951) teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to: generate data as a function of distance from each respective one of the plurality of radar returns ([0043]: “A digital front end 106 receives the converted signals and quickly digitizes and stores their values in its analog buffers for use by a digital signal processor 108, which performs digital signal processing of the received signals using the Zoom Fast Fourier transform to determine distance.”; [0061]: “Once the frequency is determined for each fluid layer or obstruction, the distance equation explained earlier, d=fc/2S, is run for each frequency. Each frequency is indicative of a reflection from that liquid, an interface, or an object, and is correlated back to distance.”; Fig. 8A, plot 800 of relative power versus distance; [0066]: “The data string has the format [distance, signal strength] for each pulse in the zoom Fourier transforms.”)
McCormick (‘951) teaches determine from the generated data a local maximum within a range of potential liquid level measurements for each respective one of the plurality of radar returns (Fig. 5 caption: “Fourier transform and Zoom transforms reveal multiple Frequency for each fluid layer.”; [0061]: “Each frequency is indicative of a reflection from that liquid, an interface, or an object, and is correlated back to distance. From there, distances corresponding to known obstructions or tank limitations (e.g., dimensions) are ignored.”; [0063]: “Several peaks 801, 802, 803, 804 in the plot are of interest and correspond with peculiarities in the tank measurement.”; [0063]: “Readings outside of the distance of interest 806 are ignored by the Telemetry Control unit since those readings indicate an obstruction in the tank or a reflection off the bottom of the tank 807, such as peak 804 which is outside the distance of interest 806.”). The peaks of the relative power versus distance plot are local maxima, and the distance of interest 806 is the range of potential liquid level measurements within which a peak qualifies.
McCormick (‘951) teaches determine the single and accurate liquid level output based upon the determined local maxima of the plurality of radar returns ([0044]: “Typically, the computing unit 107 only selects the level that is within a known range associated with a stronger signal level.”; [0044]: “The signal 128 is usually the strongest signal representing a tank level that lies within a desired range of tank levels.”; [0041]: “The external control, when used, parses the data to determine obstructions and distances to the levels of different fluids within the tank.”)
Regarding Claim 11, McCormick (‘951) teaches the system of claim 10.
McCormick (‘951) teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: : determine a position value corresponding to each of the determined local maxima in the plurality of radar returns ([0061]: “Once the frequency is determined for each fluid layer or obstruction, the distance equation explained earlier, d=fc/2S, is run for each frequency. Each frequency is indicative of a reflection from that liquid, an interface, or an object, and is correlated back to distance.”; [0044]: “The tank level data is sent from serial port 110 to serial port 131 in millimeter-accurate distances and signal strengths approximately once every second. Many distances and signal strengths may be sent per sample”; [0066]: “The data string has the format [distance, signal strength] for each pulse in the zoom Fourier transforms.”; [0063]: “Several peaks 801, 802, 803, 804 in the plot are of interest and correspond with peculiarities in the tank measurement.”). Each peak in the relative power versus distance plot is reported with its corresponding distance value, which is the position value.
McCormick (‘951) teaches average the determined position values to determine the single and accurate liquid level output ([0041]: “The external control can also compare previous measurements with new measurements to detect false measurements in some embodiments.”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to average the determined position values to determine the single liquid level output. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because averaging multiple measurements is a well-known technique in the signal processing art to reduce noise and improve measurement accuracy. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because McCormick teaches comparing multiple measurements and selecting optimal values.
Regarding Claim 12, McCormick (‘951) teaches the system of claim 1.
McCormick (‘951) teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to: compare a near-range return in each of the plurality of radar returns to a predetermined power threshold ([0044]: “it is up to a computer 133 in the Telemetry Control unit 129 to determine which signal strengths and/or which distances are important.”; [0009]: “automatically selecting intermediate frequency signals having a signal strength above a predefined minimum”; [0006]: “A computer is operable to automatically select intermediate frequency signals having a signal strength above a predefined minimum or distances within a predefined distance window for further processing and ignore other intermediate frequency signals and distances.”; [0066]: “The barrier distance of 0.09 m and relative signal level of 1.55 are sent in distance-signal strength pair or group 912.”). McCormick reports a relative signal level for the near-range barrier return of every radar return and compares the reported signal strengths against a predefined minimum.
McCormick (‘951) teaches determine the single and accurate liquid level output by averaging liquid level measurements only from ones of the plurality of radar returns with a near-range return that is below the predetermined power threshold ([0013]: “the computer is operable to ignore distances that represent the distance between the top of the tank and one or more of foam, gas, fog, mist, ice, sand, debris, chemical residue, and obstructions in a tank.”; [0059]: “Since plastic obstructions, foam and gases have a lower dielectric than most fluids, they can be ignored by using appropriate software filters, thus allowing the mmWave radar embodiments disclosed herein to determine the desired liquid levels.”)
Regarding Claim 13, McCormick (‘951) teaches the system of claim 1.
McCormick (‘951) teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to: determine whether a liquid level measurement from each of the plurality of radar returns is within an expected range ([0041]: “The external control can also use the tank dimensions, once received, to filter out undesirable (e.g., nonsensical) level readings.”; Abstract: “automatically select intermediate frequency signals having a signal strength above a predefined minimum or distances within a predefined distance window for further processing.”; [0063]: “For example, if the fluid level is only valid (i.e., expected) between 0.05 m and 2.7 m deep, and the tank is 3.8 m tall, any determined distance between 3.75 m (i.e., 3.8 m-0.05 m) and 1.1 m (i.e., 3.8 m-2.7 m) are valid.”; [0063]: “Readings outside of the distance of interest 806 are ignored by the Telemetry Control unit since those readings indicate an obstruction in the tank or a reflection off the bottom of the tank 807.”).
McCormick (‘951) teaches average the liquid level measurements from only the liquid level measurements that are within the expected range to determine the single and accurate liquid level output ([0044]: “Typically, the computing unit 107 only selects the level that is within a known range associated with a stronger signal level.”; [0041]: “The external control can also compare previous measurements with new measurements to detect false measurements in some embodiments.”)
Regarding Claim 14, McCormick (‘951) teaches the system of claim 1.
McCormick (‘951) teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to: generate near range return and corresponding position data for each of the plurality of radar returns ([0012]: “the computer is operable to ignore distances representing the distance between the top of the tank and chemical residue that may collect on the enclosure.”; [0044]: “Many distances and signal strengths may be sent per sample”; [0066]: “The chirp 917 first passes through the enclosure wall of the mmWave Control unit 901 and produces a distance pulse 904 at distance 0.09 m as shown on horizontal axis 908.”; [0066]: “The barrier distance of 0.09 m and relative signal level of 1.55 are sent in distance-signal strength pair or group 912.”). The reflection at 0.09 m from the enclosure barrier is a return from a surface very near the sensor and is therefore a near range return within the construction adopted above, and the paired distance value is the corresponding position data. McCormick reports such a pair for every return ([0066]: “The data string has the format [distance, signal strength] for each pulse in the zoom Fourier transforms.”). McCormick (‘951) further teaches that near-range accumulation on the barrier corrupts the measurement and must be prevented from controlling the reported level ([0058]: “Sand or sludge 657 collecting just below the window/barrier 652 are either not detected because such substances have a low dielectric or the distance thereto is outside the expected range and ignored.”; [0012]: “the computer is operable to ignore distances representing the distance between the top of the tank and chemical residue that may collect on the enclosure.”).
McCormick (‘951) teaches select the position data corresponding to the lowest of the near-range returns to determine the single and accurate liquid level output ([0044]: “Typically, the computing unit 107 only selects the level that is within a known range associated with a stronger signal level.”; [0014]: “the computer is further operable to identify a dissimilar fluid interface by determining whether a first intermediate frequency signal is followed by a second intermediate frequency signal having a lower signal strength than the first intermediate frequency signal”)
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select, from among the several radar returns that McCormick (‘951) collects and for each of which McCormick already reports a near-range magnitude, the return exhibiting the lowest near-range magnitude, and to determine the reported liquid level from the position data corresponding to that return. One would have been motivated to do so because McCormick expressly identifies its disclosed screening arithmetic as one of several available treatments of the same collected data ([0064]: “This is just one of many methods of mathematically isolating valid level readings.”), and because McCormick expressly identifies near-range reflections from sludge, sand and chemical residue accumulating at the barrier as the source of measurement corruption ([0058], [0012]). Where a plurality of returns is available and each carries its own near-range component, the return with the smallest near-range component is, on McCormick’s own reasoning, the return whose path is least obstructed by such accumulation and therefore the return most likely to yield a valid level. Selecting that return directly advances McCormick’s stated objective of preventing residue on the enclosure from corrupting the reported level. The selection is further a choice among a closed set of predictable options — take the largest near-range magnitude, take the smallest, or disregard the criterion — of which only the smallest serves McCormick’s stated purpose. See MPEP 2143(E) and KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). There is a reasonable expectation of success because the modification is purely computational and operates on data McCormick already generates in precisely the required form. Computer 133 already receives the barrier distance and its relative signal level as a discrete distance-signal strength pair for every return ([0066]) and already performs comparisons among the collected values to isolate valid readings ([0064]). Comparing the near-range magnitudes across the collected returns and choosing the smallest requires no new hardware, no additional measurement, and no change in radar physics, and the outcome of that comparison is deterministic. This rationale rests on McCormick’s own express invitation to other mathematical methods and on McCormick’s own identification of near-range residue as the corrupting influence.
Regarding Claim 15, McCormick (‘951) teaches the system of claim 14.
McCormick (‘951) teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to: determine an expected liquid level measurement ([0041]: “The external control can also use the tank dimensions, once received, to filter out undesirable (e.g., nonsensical) level readings.”; [0045]: “The keypad 202 and display 209 are used to program and define undesirable obstructions in the tank, desired tank level windows, and distance to the bottom of the tank.”; [0064]: “The chart 810 may be produced, for example, by computer 133 of the Telemetry Control unit 129 (see FIG. 1) which may keep a record of the last N distance readings, as shown in an array 812.”; [0041]: “The external control can also compare previous measurements with new measurements to detect false measurements in some embodiments.”). The value represented by the record of recent readings is an expected liquid level measurement.
McCormick (‘951) teaches determine a liquid level measurement from the plurality of radar returns that is closest to the expected liquid level measurement to determine the single and accurate liquid level output ([0044]: “Typically, the computing unit 107 only selects the level that is within a known range associated with a stronger signal level.”; [0041]: “The external control can also compare previous measurements with new measurements to detect false measurements in some embodiments.”; [0064]: “‘Bad’ readings 811 that do not correlate (e.g., within a certain predefined percentage) with most or a majority of recent samples can be discarded.”). Discarding every reading that fails to correlate with the expected value within a predefined percentage, and reporting the level from the readings that remain, is determining the measurement closest to the expected measurement.
Regarding Claim 16, McCormick (‘951) teaches the system of claim 1.
McCormick (‘951) teaches in combination with the liquid storage tank ([0072]: “This figure shows a typical tank 1300 which holds a few hundred gallons of liquid chemicals such as fracking fluids.”; Fig. 6C shows mmWave Control unit 600 mounted on tank 650; Fig. 13 shows enclosure 1301 mounted on tank 1300)
Regarding Claim 17, McCormick (‘951) teaches the system of claim 16.
McCormick (‘951) teaches wherein the respectively unique locations are exterior to the liquid storage tank ([0072]: “Embodiments of the invention make monitoring the tank 1300 much more convenient by providing an enclosure 1301 that is extremely easy to use and install, since no holes need to be drilled and the mmWave Control unit and Telemetry Control unit contained therein can read the tank level through the plastic tank wall even though it may be ½ inch thick.”; [0071]: “The mmWave Control unit 1209 typically faces the bottom of the plastic enclosure 1201 and the tank fluid when properly mounted.”)
Regarding Claim 18, McCormick (‘951) teaches the system of claim 17.
McCormick (‘951) teaches wherein the plurality of radar transmitters and one or more radar receivers transmit or receive through a common exterior wall of the liquid storage tank ([0072]: “the mmWave Control unit and Telemetry Control unit contained therein can read the tank level through the plastic tank wall even though it may be ½ inch thick. The radar passes through the tank wall and a return echo from the fluid is similarly received.”; [0070]: “The radar can transmit through plastic tank walls which makes it ideal for smaller plastic ‘tote’ containers.”)
Regarding Claim 19, McCormick (‘951) teaches the system of claim 18.
McCormick (‘951) teaches wherein the plurality of radar transmitters and one or more radar receivers are fixedly mounted at a predetermined distance from the exterior common wall ([0071]: “Double-sided tape 1207 may be used to allow quick attachment to tanks. Screws holes 1210 allow screws to be used for attaching the enclosure 1201 to a tank.”; [0069]: “When the housing 1101 is properly mounted on the tank, the radar antennas 122 (see FIG. 1) are centered over the tank access hole”)
Regarding Claim 20, McCormick (‘951) teaches the system of claim 19.
McCormick (‘951) teaches wherein the plurality of radar transmitters and one or more radar receivers are mounted to the common exterior wall ([0071]: “Double-sided tape 1207 may be used to allow quick attachment to tanks. Screws holes 1210 allow screws to be used for attaching the enclosure 1201 to a tank.”; [0072]: “The enclosure 1301 sits on top of the tank 1300.”)
Regarding Claim 21, McCormick (‘951) teaches the system of claim 16.
McCormick (‘951) teaches wherein the liquid storage tank is a low-profile storage tank ([0072]: “This figure shows a typical tank 1300 which holds a few hundred gallons of liquid chemicals”; Figs. 12-13 show low-profile plastic tote containers). The term “low-profile” is not defined in the claims and has no specific structural meaning. The tank disclosed in McCormick (‘951) is a low-profile storage tank.
Regarding Claim 22, McCormick (‘951) teaches the system of claim 21.
McCormick (‘951) teaches wherein the liquid storage tank is a low-capacity storage tank ([0072]: “This figure shows a typical tank 1300 which holds a few hundred gallons of liquid chemicals”; [0070]: “The radar can transmit through plastic tank walls which makes it ideal for smaller plastic ‘tote’ containers.”). The term “low-capacity” is not defined in the claims and has no specific structural meaning. A tank holding “a few hundred gallons” is a low-capacity storage tank.
Regarding Claim 23, McCormick (‘951) teaches the system of claim 22.
Regarding the limitation wherein the liquid storage tank is a mobile storage tank, McCormick (‘951) teaches tanks including portable tote containers ([0070]: “The radar can transmit through plastic tank walls which makes it ideal for smaller plastic ‘tote’ containers.”; [0072]: “This figure shows a typical tank 1300 which holds a few hundred gallons of liquid chemicals such as fracking fluids.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the generally-disclosed tank of McCormick (‘951) could be any suitable type of tank, including a mobile storage tank. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a mobile storage tank where portability is desired, such as in the oil field applications disclosed by McCormick, and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success because the radar level gauge system operates the same regardless of whether the tank is stationary or mobile.
Regarding Claim 24, McCormick (‘951) teaches the system of claim 23.
Regarding the limitation 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, McCormick (‘951) teaches tanks for various applications ([0003]: “Storage tanks are used to store many types of liquids, such as oil, water, liquid fuels, liquid chemicals, and the like.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the generally-disclosed tank of McCormick (‘951) could be any suitable type of tank in any suitable environment, including a tank included in a recreational vehicle, a recreational boat, a food truck, or a semi-truck equipped with living quarters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the radar level gauge system in these vehicle applications where liquid level monitoring is needed, and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success because the radar level gauge system operates the same regardless of the vehicle in which the tank is installed.
Regarding Claim 25, McCormick (‘951) teaches the system of claim 23.
Regarding the limitation wherein the liquid storage tank is a water tank, McCormick (‘951) teaches tanks for storing various liquids including water ([0003]: “Storage tanks are used to store many types of liquids, such as oil, water, liquid fuels, liquid chemicals, and the like.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the generally-disclosed tank of McCormick (‘951) could be any suitable type of tank for storing any suitable liquid, including a water tank. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a water tank where water storage is needed, and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success because water is explicitly listed as one of the liquids that may be stored in tanks monitored by the system.
Regarding Claim 26, McCormick (‘951) teaches the system of claim 23.
Regarding the limitation wherein the water tank is a grey or black water storage tank, the terms “grey” and “black” refer to the color or type of water stored in the tank. Color does not affect the structure of the liquid level sensor system or the tank. McCormick (‘951) teaches tanks for storing various liquids ([0003]: “Storage tanks are used to store many types of liquids, such as oil, water, liquid fuels, liquid chemicals, and the like.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the generally-disclosed tank of McCormick (‘951) could store any suitable type of water, including grey or black water. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a grey or black water storage tank where waste water storage is needed, and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success because the radar level gauge system operates the same regardless of the color or type of water stored in the tank.
Regarding Claim 27, McCormick (‘951) teaches the system of claim 1.
McCormick (‘951) teaches further comprising at least one display, wherein a fullness or emptiness status of the liquid storage tank, based upon the last determined single and accurate liquid level output, is visually presented on the at least one display ([0071]: “The Telemetry Control unit 1204 includes a display 1202 shows various types of information, such as the depth, volume (e.g., gallons), sensor error messages, setup messages, and the like.”; [0072]: “Display 1303 shows the user the status of the system and current level and volume.”; [0044]: “An OLED display (not expressly shown) may show diagnostics, temperature, and current tank level depth, as well as the number of gallons, barrels, and/or liters”)
Regarding Claim 28, McCormick (‘951) teaches the system of claim 27.
McCormick (‘951) teaches a display ([0071]: “The Telemetry Control unit 1204 includes a display 1202”; [0045]: “keypad 202 and display 209”; [0044-0045], [0041]: “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.”).
Regarding the limitation wherein the at least one display is a touch sensitive display, touch sensitive displays were well-known and commonly used for human-machine interfaces in industrial monitoring and control applications at the time of the invention. Substituting a touch sensitive display for a conventional display is a substitution of known equivalents for the same purpose of displaying information to a user. Under MPEP 2144.06, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a touch sensitive display for the display taught by McCormick (‘951) because both display types were known to be suitable for displaying measurement information to users. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because touch sensitive displays are compatible with display output systems and would modernize the display of McCormick (‘951).
Regarding Claim 29, McCormick (‘951) teaches the system of claim 27.
McCormick (‘951) teaches 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 ([0071]: “The Telemetry Control unit 1204 includes a display 1202 shows various types of information, such as the depth, volume (e.g., gallons), sensor error messages, setup messages, and the like.”; [0068]: “Text, email, and phone information reports are made by the server 1009 to user 1011 as needed or upon a tank alert condition or on a scheduled basis.”)
Regarding Claim 30, McCormick (‘951) teaches the system of claim 27.
McCormick (‘951) teaches display capability at various locations ([0044]: “This tank level Telemetry Control unit 129 (including a display therefor) may be physically co-located with the mmWave Control unit 120 but is typically located on the side of the tank for easier access by the user”).
Regarding the limitation wherein the at least one display is a central control display for a vehicle system, the rearrangement or relocation of parts is generally considered obvious if it does not modify the operation of the device. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) and In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019 (CCPA 1950). The location of the display (whether as a standalone unit or integrated into a vehicle’s central control display) does not change the operation or function of the liquid level sensor system. McCormick (‘951) teaches that the display can be located remotely from the sensor, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that integrating the display with a vehicle’s central control display is merely a rearrangement of the display location that does not affect the liquid level sensing functionality.
Regarding Claim 31, McCormick (‘951) teaches the system of claim 27.
McCormick (‘951) teaches 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 device, a notebook computer device or a desktop computer device ([0068]: “Data is collected from the cellular and satellite provider by server 1009 and web pages are generated for use by user 1011. These web pages can be designed to show current tank fluid levels, volume, tank level changes, days on site, location history, and the like.”; [0044]: “it may be used to send tank level information to an external web site and generate informative emails, charts and graphs of the tank contents”) The alternative relied upon is a smartphone. A phone that receives text and information reports and displays the generated web pages is a smartphone within the recited group.
Regarding Claim 32, McCormick (‘951) teaches the system of claim 1.
McCormick (‘951) teaches wherein the system is further configured to make the single and accurate liquid level output retrievable from a user device ([0068]: “Data is collected from the cellular and satellite provider by server 1009 and web pages are generated for use by user 1011.”; [0068]: “These web pages can be designed to show current tank fluid levels, volume, tank level changes, days on site, location history, and the like.”; [0044]: “Telemetry Control unit 129 may be used to display tank level data to the user and/or it may be used to send tank level information to an external web site”). The web pages are placed on the internet 1010 and retrieved by user 1011.
Regarding Claim 33, McCormick (‘951) teaches the system of claim 32.
McCormick (‘951) teaches wherein the user device is a smartphone, a tablet computer device, or a laptop or notebook computer device ([0068]: “web pages are generated for use by user 1011”; [0044]: “Telemetry Control unit 129 may transmit data to a remote site using a cellular modem 136 or satellite modem 137.”; [0068]: “Text, email, and phone information reports are made by the server 1009 to user 1011 as needed or upon a tank alert condition or on a scheduled basis.”)
Regarding Claim 34, McCormick (‘951) teaches the system of claim 27.
McCormick (‘951) teaches further comprising a centralized processor device in communication with the at least one display ([0045]: “The Telemetry Control unit 200 may have a computer 206 to analyze the data from the mmWave Control unit 201, and the display 209 for the user to show diagnostics, level and volume.”),
McCormick (‘951) teaches the centralized processor device receiving a single and liquid level output for each of a plurality of liquid storage tanks ([0068]: “The cellular provider collects data from remote tanks 1004 using servers 1008 which puts the data on the internet 1010. Satellite data is transmitted to base stations 1006 where the data is sent to satellite servers 1007 where the data may be accessed via the Internet. Data is collected from the cellular and satellite provider by server 1009 and web pages are generated for use by user 1011.”; [0043]: “There are four such receive antennas (indicated at 122) and three such transmit antennas (indicated at 121) in some embodiments.”). Server 1009 is the centralized processor device receiving the level output for each of the plurality of remote tanks 1004, each of which carries its own instrument having three transmit antennas and four receive antennas. As noted in claim objections, a single and liquid level output is read as a single and accurate liquid level output.
McCormick (‘951) teaches wherein each of the plurality of liquid storage tanks are associated with a plurality of independently operable radar transmitters and receivers to measure the liquid level therein ([0043]: “There are four such receive antennas (indicated at 122) and three such transmit antennas (indicated at 121) in some embodiments.”)
Regarding Claim 35, McCormick (‘951) teaches the system of claim 27.
McCormick (‘951) teaches wherein the processor is a centralized processor in communication with the at least one display ([0045]: “The Telemetry Control unit 200 may have a computer 206 to analyze the data from the mmWave Control unit 201, and the display 209 for the user to show diagnostics, level and volume.”),
McCormick (‘951) teaches the centralized processor configured to: determine the single and accurate liquid level output for each respective one of a plurality of liquid storage tanks respectively associated with a plurality of independently operable radar sensors to measure the liquid level therein ([0068]: “The cellular provider collects data from remote tanks 1004 using servers 1008 which puts the data on the internet 1010.”; [0044]: “Typically, the computing unit 107 only selects the level that is within a known range associated with a stronger signal level.”; [0068]: “Data is collected from the cellular and satellite provider by server 1009 and web pages are generated for use by user 1011.”; [0073]: “some embodiments of the mmWave Control unit use multiple transmit and receive antennas so there are multiple signal paths”),
McCormick (‘951) teaches report the respective single and accurate liquid level output for all of the plurality of liquid storage tanks via the at least one display ([0068]: “Data is collected from the cellular and satellite provider by server 1009 and web pages are generated for use by user 1011. These web pages can be designed to show current tank fluid levels, volume, tank level changes, days on site, location history, and the like. Data may be presented in graphical or tabular form.”; [0068]: “These web pages can be designed to show current tank fluid levels, volume, tank level changes, days on site, location history, and the like. Data may be presented in graphical or tabular form.”). Presenting the levels of the several remote tanks in tabular form is reporting the output for all of the plurality of tanks via the display.
Regarding Claim 36, McCormick (‘951) teaches the system of claim 1.
McCormick (‘951) teaches wherein the localized effect of a radar return at one or more of the unique locations and a corresponding inaccuracy of a liquid level measurement is due to solid buildup or liquid buildup inside of the liquid storage tank ([0058]: “Sand or sludge 657 collecting just below the window/barrier 652 are either not detected because such substances have a low dielectric or the distance thereto is outside the expected range and ignored.”; [0040]: “In addition, embodiments of the invention are impervious to sand, dirt and debris build up because of the novel and inventive methods used.”). The alternative relied upon is solid buildup. McCormick expressly teaches solid material accumulating inside the tank immediately beneath the sensor window and affecting the return at that location.
Regarding Claim 37, McCormick (‘951) teaches the system of claim 36.
Regarding the limitation wherein the liquid storage tank is a grey water tank or a black water tank in a vehicle, the terms “grey” and “black” refer to the color or type of water stored in the tank. Color does not affect the structure of the liquid level sensor system or the tank. McCormick (‘951) teaches tanks for storing various liquids ([0003]: “Storage tanks are used to store many types of liquids, such as oil, water, liquid fuels, liquid chemicals, and the like.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the generally-disclosed tank of McCormick (‘951) could be any suitable type of tank in any suitable environment, including a grey water tank or a black water tank in a vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a grey or black water tank in a vehicle where vehicle waste water storage is needed, and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success because the radar level gauge system operates the same regardless of the color or type of water stored in the tank or the environment in which the tank is installed.
Regarding Claim 38, McCormick (‘951) teaches the system of claim 37.
Regarding the limitation wherein the vehicle is a recreational vehicle, McCormick (‘951) teaches tanks for various applications ([0003]: “Storage tanks are used to store many types of liquids, such as oil, water, liquid fuels, liquid chemicals, and the like.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the generally-disclosed tank of McCormick (‘951) could be installed in any suitable vehicle, including a recreational vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the radar level gauge system in a recreational vehicle where liquid level monitoring is needed, and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success because the radar level gauge system operates the same regardless of the vehicle in which the tank is installed.
Regarding Claim 39, McCormick (‘951) teaches the system of claim 1.
McCormick (‘951) teaches wherein the localized effect is due to an imperfect and therefore uneven wall thickness in the liquid storage tank, and wherein the imperfect and therefore uneven wall thickness produces the localized effect of a radar return at one or more of the unique locations and a corresponding inaccuracy of a liquid level measurement ([0072]: “the mmWave Control unit and Telemetry Control unit contained therein can read the tank level through the plastic tank wall even though it may be 1/2 inch thick”; [0067]: “Signal loss is higher but some situations may warrant this approach.”; [0073]: “The use of the horn 1408 can increase overall gain of the mmWave Control unit and thus help the emitted signals penetrate thicker plastic tank walls.”). This limitation is directed to a property of the tank wall, and claim 39 depends from claim 1, in which the tank is not a positively recited element. See MPEP 2115. To the extent it is given weight, McCormick teaches measuring through plastic tank walls of varying thickness, expressly acknowledges the resulting signal loss, and provides additional gain specifically to penetrate thicker walls, which reflects that wall thickness varies from location to location and affects the return.
Regarding Claim 40, McCormick (‘951) teaches the system of claim 39.
Regarding the limitation wherein the liquid storage tank is a water tank, McCormick (‘951) teaches tanks for storing various liquids including water ([0003]: “Storage tanks are used to store many types of liquids, such as oil, water, liquid fuels, liquid chemicals, and the like.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the generally-disclosed tank of McCormick (‘951) could be any suitable type of tank for storing any suitable liquid, including a water tank. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a water tank where water storage is needed, and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success because water is explicitly listed as one of the liquids that may be stored in tanks monitored by the system.
Regarding Claim 41, McCormick (‘951) teaches the system of claim 40.
Regarding the limitation wherein the water tank supplies freshwater or collects nonpotable water inside a recreational vehicle, a recreational boat, a food truck, or a semi-truck equipped with living quarters, McCormick (‘951) teaches tanks for storing various liquids including water ([0003]: “Storage tanks are used to store many types of liquids, such as oil, water, liquid fuels, liquid chemicals, and the like.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the generally-disclosed tank of McCormick (‘951) could be any suitable type of water tank in any suitable environment, including a water tank that supplies freshwater or collects nonpotable water inside a recreational vehicle, a recreational boat, a food truck, or a semi-truck equipped with living quarters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use such configurations where freshwater supply or nonpotable water collection is needed in these vehicle types, and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success because the radar level gauge system operates the same regardless of the type of water stored or the vehicle in which the tank is installed.
Regarding Claim 42, McCormick (‘951) teaches:
McCormick (‘951) teaches A liquid level sensor system for a liquid storage tank ([0002]: “Embodiments of the invention relate generally to the use of radar to measure levels of fluids and other materials in a storage tank”), the system comprising:
McCormick (‘951) teaches at least one sensor comprising: ([0039]: “The invention in some embodiments employs a single-chip sensor having mmWave measurement capability, such as one of the TI family of mmWave sensors.”)
McCormick (‘951) teaches a plurality of radar transmitters and one or more radar receivers ([0043]: “There are four such receive antennas (indicated at 122) and three such transmit antennas (indicated at 121) in some embodiments.”)
McCormick (‘951) teaches wherein an antenna associated with each of the plurality of radar transmitters is at a respectively unique location relative to the liquid storage tank ([0073]: “some embodiments of the mmWave Control unit use multiple transmit and receive antennas so there are multiple signal paths, which makes using a typical conical radar horn impractical”)
McCormick (‘951) teaches and at least one processor configured to determine a single liquid level output for the liquid storage tank ([0044]: “Many distances and signal strengths may be sent per sample and it is up to a computer 133 in the Telemetry Control unit 129 to determine which signal strengths and/or which distances are important.”)
McCormick (‘951) teaches wherein the at least one processor determines the single liquid level output by combining the measurements from the plurality of radar transmitters and one or more radar receivers so that the single liquid level output is accurate even in the presence of an obstruction to the one or more radar receivers ([0056]: “Reflected signals resulting from an obstruction 608, such as the signal 602, are ignored for distance determination purposes.”; [0061]: “From there, distances corresponding to known obstructions or tank limitations (e.g., dimensions) are ignored.”; [0064]: “The power readings are used to focus on the more prominent readings from the many possible distance and power levels sent to computer 133.”). McCormick’s system remains operative and reports an accurate level in the presence of an obstruction in the radar path, the obstruction-derived return being excluded from the determination while the remaining collected readings are combined into the reported level.
Regarding Claim 43, McCormick (‘951) teaches:
McCormick (‘951) teaches A liquid level sensor system for a liquid storage tank ([0002]: “Embodiments of the invention relate generally to the use of radar to measure levels of fluids and other materials in a storage tank”), the system comprising:
McCormick (‘951) teaches at least one sensor comprising: ([0039]: “The invention in some embodiments employs a single-chip sensor having mmWave measurement capability, such as one of the TI family of mmWave sensors.”)
McCormick (‘951) teaches a plurality of radar transmitters and one or more radar receivers ([0043]: “There are four such receive antennas (indicated at 122) and three such transmit antennas (indicated at 121) in some embodiments.”)
McCormick (‘951) teaches wherein an antenna associated with each of the plurality of radar transmitters is at a respectively unique location relative to the liquid storage tank ([0073]: “some embodiments of the mmWave Control unit use multiple transmit and receive antennas so there are multiple signal paths, which makes using a typical conical radar horn impractical”)
McCormick (‘951) teaches and at least one processor configured to compensate for an erroneous liquid level measurement made through one of the respectively different antenna locations while determining, based on evaluation of all of the plurality of radar returns from the plurality of radar transmitters and one or more radar receivers, a single and accurate liquid level output for the liquid storage tank ([0064]: “The chart 810 may be produced, for example, by computer 133 of the Telemetry Control unit 129 (see FIG. 1) which may keep a record of the last N distance readings, as shown in an array 812. ‘Bad’ readings 811 that do not correlate (e.g., within a certain predefined percentage) with most or a majority of recent samples can be discarded.”; [0041]: “The external control can also compare previous measurements with new measurements to detect false measurements in some embodiments.”). McCormick evaluates the entire collected set of readings against one another, identifies the reading that fails to correlate with the balance of the set, and removes its influence from the reported level. That is compensating for an erroneous liquid level measurement based on evaluation of all of the returns.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 REMASH R GUYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-0115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Resha H Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
/REMASH R GUYAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/OLUMIDE AJIBADE AKONAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
