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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1 – 41 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.
The claim language at issue is “an antenna associated with each of the plurality of radar receivers at a respectively unique location relative to the storage tank” is ambiguous. The term “antenna” is singular. The claim language at issue may possibly mean that there is a singular antenna associated with each receiver, such as a singular transmit antenna that is associated with a plurality of separately located receivers. Looking at Applicant’s relevant drawings Figures 3 – 9, it appears that there are multiple transmitters and multiple receivers wherein each transmitter has its own antenna(s) and wherein each receiver has its own antenna(s). Perhaps, Applicant intended for each radar receiver to have its own antenna and that each receive antenna is positioned at a respectively unique location relative to the liquid storage tank. Unfortunately, the Examiner would have to speculate as to which interpretation is correct. As such, the metes and bounds of the claims cannot fully be determined, thus the claims are indefinite.
The specification describes a "low-profile" storage tank as small and shallow but often has non-uniform wall thickness as a result of the distribution of weight of said tank's contents. See Spec. Para. 33. However, the specification does not state that all "low-profile" storage tanks have to have a non-uniform thickness, thus the metes and bounds of the claim 22 is not fully defined and is indefinite.
Also, the specification states that low-capacity tanks are relatively small and lightweight and are thus mobile. See Spec. Para. 24. However, the specification states that marine vehicles such as shipping vessels have higher-capacity storage tanks. See Spec. Para. 44. Even for mobile storage tanks, the Examiner cannot exactly determine the metes and bounds as to was constitutes relatively small and lightweight. Thus, claim 23 is also indefinite.
Also, the specification appears to differentiate between commercial and recreational vehicles. See e.g., Para. 44. However, many different types of vehicles can be both recreational and/or commercial, thus it is not clear what the structural differences required by the claim would be. For example, the same type of boat used to fish and make money could also be used to go fishing for sport. Also, it is common to see regular personal trucks being used as work trucks, e.g., hauling construction materials and/or lawn care equipment. Thus, claims 24, 38 and 41 are indefinite.
Based on Examiner's research, it appears that fresh water tank, grey water tank and black water tank are terms of art that have some level of specificity with respect to design construction, such as, e.g., protection against UV rays. However, the claimed language of "water tank" without the modifier freshwater in claims 25 and 40 may make this ambiguous. For example, there may be design differences between fresh water tank and salt water tank. Of course, this may just be an issue of broadness, but more importantly, it is an issue of whether the term "water tank" alone is considered a term of art because many containers can hold water, even if not purposely designed to do so. If Applicant disagrees, please provide an explanation, otherwise, the Examiner recommend "fresh water tank" in lieu of "water tank" in claims 25 and 40. The additional terms "grey water tank" and "black water tank" are not ambiguous and those said additional terms are not rejected.
Also claim 32 has an antecedent issue with language “the user device.”
Claims 2 – 41 are rejected due to a dependency on rejected base claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(2)
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mayer (US 20250189359 A1) having effective filing date Nov. 21, 2022.
As to claim 1, Mayer discloses a liquid level detection system for a liquid storage tank, the system comprising:
at least one sensor (Para. 49 radar) comprising: one or more radar transmitters (Fig. 1 item 11); a plurality of radar receivers (Para. 83 Fig. 2 items 205, 206, 207); and
an antenna associated with each of the plurality of radar receivers at a respectively unique location relative to the liquid storage tank (Fig. 2 items 112a-c); and
at least one processor (Fig. 1 item 4) configured to determine, based on radar returns from combinations of the one or more radar transmitters and the plurality of receivers, a single liquid level output for the storage tank (Para. 18 “averaged value of the fill level values”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 3, 6 – 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Welle (US 20170141454 A1).
As to claim 1, Welle discloses a liquid level detection system for a liquid storage tank, the system comprising:
at least one sensor (Para. 79) comprising: one or more radar transmitters (Para. 83 Fig. 2 items 202, 204, 207); a plurality of radar receivers (Para. 83 Fig. 2 items 205, 206, 207); and
an antenna associated with each of the plurality of radar receivers at a respectively unique location relative to the liquid storage tank (Figs. 2 – 4. At least item 202 is separately located from items 205, 207. Also, the specification states “The respectively unique locations may be exterior to the liquid storage tank (Para. 129).” The Examiner believes that the term “may” suggests that the unique location may be interior to the liquid storage tank as well.); and
at least one processor (Fig. 1 item 123 Para. 83) configured to determine, based on radar returns from combinations of the one or more radar transmitters and the plurality of receivers, a single liquid level output for the storage tank (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.”).
As to claim 2, Welle discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is integrally provided with the sensor (Fig. 1 item 123. Para. 79 “The level measuring instrument 105 comprises a control means 111 and an evaluation means 123.”).
As to claim 3, Welle discloses the system of claim 1, wherein a liquid level measurement is determined for each combination of the one or more radar transmitters and the plurality of radar receivers via angular processing of the radar return (Fig. 1 angle ranges 101 – 103).
As to claim 6, Welle discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more radar transmitters and a plurality of radar receivers define a multiple-input multiple-output radar sensor arrangement (Fig. 2).
As to claim 7, Well discloses the system of claim 6, wherein the plurality of radar receivers are respectively operable with the one or more radar transmitters at different times to obtain a plurality of liquid level measurements (Para. 99 “time-multiplexing”).
As to claim 16, Well discloses the system of claim 1, in combination with the liquid storage tank (Para. 5).
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.
Claims 10 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Bloomberg (US 10775211 B2).
As to claim 10, Will suggests the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: generate data as a function of distance from each respective radar return; determine from the generated data a local maximum within a range of potential liquid level measurements for each respective radar return; and determine the single liquid level output based upon the determined local maxima of the radar returns (Para. 36 “S/N”).
Looking at Welle at Para. 36, it should be apparent that peaks are used to determine the round-trip delay, which corresponds to distance. In effort to expedite prosecution, another reference is brought in to provide more specificity.
In the same field of endeavor, Bloomber 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; and echo tracking module configured to receive said tank signal and said echo threshold profile (claim 1).”
In view of the teachings of Bloomberg, it would be obvious to use a local maximum to represent distance/height of fill level in order to reduce erroneous measurements due to surrounding max peaks caused by noise thereby improving accuracy.
As to claim 11, Welle in view of Bloomberg teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine a position value corresponding to each of the determined local maxima in the radar returns; and average the determined position values to determine the single liquid level output (Welle: Para. 79).
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Welle in view Bloomberg and in further view of Wu (US 20220349986 A1).
As to claim 12, Welle in view of Bloomberg does not disclose the system of claim 11, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: compare a near-range return in each radar return to a predetermined power threshold; and determine the single liquid level output by averaging liquid level measurements only from ones of the radar returns with a near-range return that is below the predetermined power threshold.
In the same field of endeavor, Wu teaches “Portions of the signals that exceed such a threshold may be identified as interference and either discarded, set to zero value or otherwise not used, and the desirable signals in the frequency domain can be used to reconstruct the reflections (e.g., as a range response with interference removed).”
In view of the teachings of Wu, it would be obvious to the ordinarily skilled before filing to discard reflections that are large enough to be considered interference thereby improving accuracy.
Claims 13 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Welle in view of Bloomberg and in further view of McCormick (US 20190316951 A1).
As to claim 13, Welle in view of Bloomberg does not teach the system of claim 11, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: determine whether a liquid level measurement from each of the radar returns is within an expected range; and average the liquid level measurements from only the liquid level measurements that are within the 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 27, Welle in view of Bloomberg 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 14 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Welle in view of Bloomberg in further view of Gurumohan (US 20180164143 A1).
As to claim 14, Welle in view of Bloomberg does not teach the system of claim 10, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: generate near range return and corresponding position data for each of the radar returns; and select the position data corresponding to the lowest of the near-range returns 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 15, Well in view of Bloomberg does not teach the system of claim 10, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: determine an expected liquid level measurement; and determine a liquid level measurement from the radar sensors that is closest to the expected liquid level 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 17 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Welle in view of Dieterle (US 20210318159 A1).
As to claim 17, Well does not disclose the system of claim 16, wherein the respectively unique locations are exterior to the liquid storage tank.
As to claim 18, Well does not disclose the system of claim 17, 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.
As to claim 19, Well does not disclose the system of claim 18, wherein the plurality of radar transmitters and one or more radar receivers are fixedly mounted at a predetermined distance from the exterior common wall.
As to claim 20, Well does not disclose the system of claim 19, wherein the plurality of radar transmitters and one or more radar receivers are mounted to the common exterior wall.
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 21 – 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Welle in view Grose (US 20210255020 A1).
As to claim 21, Welle does not disclose the system of claim 16, wherein the liquid storage tank is a mobile storage tank.
In the same field of endeavor, Grose teaches a mobile water tank 12 shown in Fig. 1. See Grose Para. 34 and Para. 52.
In view of the teachings of Grose, 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 environment
As to claim 22, Welle in view of Grose teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the liquid storage tank is a low-profile storage tank (small enough to be mobile).
As to claim 23, Well in view of Grose teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the liquid storage tank is a low-capacity storage tank (small enough to be mobile).
As to claim 24, Well in view of Grose teaches the system of claim 21, 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 (Grose Fig. 1, same motivation.).
As to claim 25, Well in view of Grose teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the mobile storage tank is a water tank (Grose Para. 52 wherein water is known to be sold for economic reasons and may be used for environmental reasons.).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Welle in view Grose and in further view of Vander Horst (US 20150198475 A1).
As to claim 26, Welle does not teach the system of claim 25, 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 27 - 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Welle in view Ihde (US 20230024527 A1).
As to claim 27, Welle 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 the teachings of Ihde, it would be obvious to provide a display of fluid level 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 28, Welle in view of Ihde teaches the system of claim 27, 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 29, Welle in view of Ihde teaches the system of claim 27, 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 30, Welle in view of Ihde discloses the system of claim 27, 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").
As to claims 31 – 33, Well in view of Ihde teaches the system of claim 27, wherein the at least one display is associated with a user device, the user device being selected from the group of from the group of a smartphone, a tablet computer device, a laptop computer device, a notebook computer device or a desktop computer device (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. Also, it would be obvious to provide a display of a fluid level 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).
Claims 34 – 35 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over Welle in view of McCormick and in further view of Vander Horst (US 20150198475 A1).
As to claim 34, Well in view of Idhe does not teach the system of claim 27, 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 sensors 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 would be wasteful to receive status reports on some tanks instead of all tanks.
As to claims 35, Welle in view of McCormick does not teach system of claim 27, 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 sensors 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 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 would be wasteful to receive status reports on some tanks instead of all tanks.
Claims 36 – 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Welle in view of Vander Horst.
As to claim 36, Well does not explain the system of claim 1, wherein the liquid storage tank is subject to solid or liquid buildup inside of the liquid storage tank, the solid or liquid buildup producing transient localized effects in liquid level measurements with the plurality of independently operable radar sensors.
Note that the features of claim 33 are written in such a way 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. 111. 7 - 15. Precede to the next claim.
As to claim 37, Well does not disclose the system of claim 36, wherein the liquid storage tank is a grey water tank or a black water tank in a vehicle.
As to claim 38, Well does not discloses the system of claim 37, wherein the vehicle is a recreational vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, 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 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
Claims 4 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Welle in view Asano (US 6288672 B1).
As to claim 4, Welle does not disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more radar transmitters and the plurality of radar receivers comprises a single radar transmitter and a plurality of radar receivers defining a single-input, multiple-output radar sensor arrangement.
In the same field of endeavor, Asano shows a single input transmission and multiple output reception as shown in Fig. 5.
In view of Asano, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled before filing to apply the SIMO arrangement in order to reduce hardware costs associated with having less transmission circuitry. Here, the modification results in Fig. 2 of Well having a single transmission antenna 202 or 207.
As to claim 5, Well in view of Asano teaches the system of claim 4, wherein the plurality of radar receivers are respectively operable at different times to obtain a plurality of liquid level measurements.
In the same field of endeavor, Asano teaches “the connection of the plurality of reception antennas to a receiver being switched in sequence to thereby acquire radar signals in a time-shared manner, … (background).”
In view of Asano, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled before filing to further modify Fig. 2 of Well to include a switch to sequence through the receiving antenna means 205, 207 in order to reduce interference and/or ambiguities between antenna thereby improving accuracy.
Claims 8 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Welle in view Official Notice.
As to claim 8, Welle does not teach the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor comprises at least a first processor at a first location and a second processor at a second location, the second location being different from the first location.
As to claim 9, Welle does not teach the system of claim 8, wherein each of the first and second locations are defined in a vehicle.
Processing circuitry, whether more than one processing circuitry, to interface with sensors and other electronics is well-known, routine and conventional and thus not considered esoteric. Also, processing circuitry as claimed is capable of instant demonstration because Aircraft have long made use of a pilot side and co-pilot side electronics wherein each pilot and co-pilot have, e.g., their own control display unit CDU to interface with the flight management system and various other electronics including sensors. Such arrangement is known to be redundant by design to prevent total failure in the event of any one failure.
As such, the Examiner takes official notice that it would be obvious to have two processors separately located in a vehicle in order to have redundancy thereby reducing the risk of total operational failure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 39 – 41 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.
The prior art does not disclose or make obvious all of the features of claims 39 – 41.
Conclusion
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