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 .
Status of Claims
Amendments to claims 1, 6, 10, 12 – 15, 23, 32, 24 and 36 have been entered.
Claims 42 – 43 have been added.
Accordingly, claims 1 – 43 are pending.
Response to Remarks
The Examiner will determine whether there is a double patent when it has determined the claims to be allowable.
In view of remarks, the Examiner has modified the 112-b rejection.
The prior art rejection has been modified based on Applicant’s remarks, amendments and the discussion below.
Claim Objection
Claims 1 – 40 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “accurate” in the claims as amended is a term that is typically defined as being error free. The specification throughout defines its invention as an improvement over the prior art. See e.g., Spec. Paras. 2, 26 and 57. An improvement does not mean error free. In engineering, the Examiner does not believe that an error free output exists due to factors that cannot be completely eliminated such as electronic noise. Moreover, the term “accurate” suggests a desired result rather than structure and thus should not receive any patentable weight. Dependent claims 2 – 41 are objected for dependency on an objected base claim.
The specification states “Averaging measurements from all three radar transmitter/receiver pairs that have returns at a specified near range below a specified threshold in the example of FIG. 4 will eliminate any transmitter/receiver pair reading that is outside the threshold from the combined output 160 (Spec. Para. 66).”
The Examiner believes that terms such as refined or optimized would be better than using the term accurate. Nonetheless, averaging would meet the scope of a refined or optimized output even in the presence of blockage or debris because the primary reference discloses returns from different locations and averaging inherently suppresses outliers or at least reduces the impact of outliers.
In an effort to expedite prosecution, the Examiner will interpret the independent claims more narrowly than necessary considering the specification at paragraph 66 even though some of the features of the independent claims are intended use and/or desired result even though the disclosure of averaging as disclosed by the primary reference may already meet the scope of the features as discussed supra.
The Examiner would recommend amending the claims to state what it is that the system is configured to do instead of a result such as averaging only those returns that are within a threshold distance as disclosed by the specification at Para. 66. A result does not distinguish system claims from prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78.
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 23 – 24, 38 and 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.
Regarding claim 23, the term “about” is not defined as having a range so as to give said term metes and bounds thus the claim is indefinite. See Spec. Para. 42.
Looking at Applicant’s remarks 5/11/2026 concerning claims 23 it appears that Applicant is using size to differentiate between recreational and non-recreational vehicles (note that the claims directed to a recreational vehicle do not depend from claim 23) with regard to tank size with respect to gallons. See Remarks Page 10. However, the Examiner believes that a size of a recreational vehicle varies; e.g., truck vs. cruise ship, and thus the size of a water tank may vary. Moreover, claims 24, 38 and 41 do not depend from claim 23 wherein claim 23 provides an indication of size. As such, the metes and bounds of claims 24, 38 and 41 are not believed to be fully defined thus claims 24, 38 and 41 are considered indefinite. Also, the term “recreational” seems to denote description of use rather than structure. In fact, the Examiner is not even certain as to whether a cruise ship would be considered a recreational vehicle, commercial vehicle or both.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 – 3, 6 – 7, 16, 36 and 42 – 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Welle (US 20170141454 A1) in view of Welle (US 20060052954 A1).
Note: all citations are that of the primary reference unless otherwise specified.
As to claim 1, 36 and 42 – 43, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 discloses a liquid level detection system for a liquid storage tank, the system comprising:
a plurality of radar transmitter/receiver combinations providing a plurality of radar returns from respectively different locations relative to the liquid storage tank (Para. 86 “distinguish individual transmitters 202, 204” Para. 81 “different angle ranges 101, 102, 103” see also Fig. 1); and
one or more processors receiving the plurality of radar returns from the plurality of radar transmitter/receiver combinations (Fig. 1 item 123 Para. 83) ;
wherein the one or more processors are configured to a single and accurate liquid level output for the liquid storage tank from the plurality of radar returns from respectively different locations and corresponding liquid level measurements, thereby reducing an influence of a localized effect of a radar return at one or more of the respective different locations and a corresponding inaccuracy of a liquid level measurement due to the localized effect (Para. 79 “it may be possible to determine a fill level of the bulk material 104 within a container 131, for example by averaging a plurality of detected distances.”).
The last limitation in claims 1 and 42 – 43 may be considered a desired result and may not receive patentable weight. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78. Looking at the specification at paragraph 66, it appears that Applicant may intend for improving accuracy based on a threshold distance. See Spec. Para. 66 (quoting “Averaging measurements from all three radar transmitter/receiver pairs that have returns at a specified near range below a specified threshold in the example of FIG. 4 will eliminate any transmitter/receiver pair reading that is outside the threshold from the combined output 160.”).
Although the cited disclosure of Welle Para. 79 meets the scope of the limitation at issue, because averaging reducing the effect of outliers, the Examiner will introduce an additional reference based on the objection and discussion discussed supra, in particular regarding the specification at Para. 66, in order to expedite prosecution.
In the same field of endeavor, Welle ‘954 teaches “These echo groups can then be filtered in relation to location as well as in relation to amplitude using one-dimensional or multi-dimensional signal processing methods, such as for example filtering, averaging, selection and classification. In the case of averaging, for example the location entries and/or amplitude entries of the global echo groups are viewed as a digital signal and are smoothed by settling with adjacent entries. Individual freak values relating to location and amplitude can be effectively suppressed by this measure. Finally, in respect of each echo group of sufficient size the minimum and maximum entries in the categories of location and amplitude are determined and archived in a separate table (Para. 89).”
In view of the teachings of Welle ‘954, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before filing to filter out freak values based on location from the averaging to remove the effect of outliers thereby improving accuracy.
As to claim 2, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the 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 in view of Welle ‘954 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 in view of Welle ‘954 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).
Claims 10 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Welle in view of Welle ‘954 in further view of Bloomberg (US 10775211 B2).
As to claim 10, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 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 in view of Welle ‘954 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, Bloomberg 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 Welle ‘954 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 in view of Welle ‘954: Para. 79).
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Welle in view of Welle ‘954 and in further view of Wu (US 20220349986 A1).
As to claim 12, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 does not disclose the system of claim 1, 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 Welle ‘954 in view of Bloomberg and in further view of McCormick (US 20190316951 A1).
As to claim 13, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 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 Welle ‘954 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 Welle ‘954 and in further view of Gurumohan (US 20180164143 A1).
As to claim 14, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 does not teach the system of claim 1, 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, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 does not teach the system of claim 1, 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 Welle ‘954 in view of Dieterle (US 20210318159 A1).
As to claim 17, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 not disclose the system of claim 16, wherein the respectively unique locations are exterior to the liquid storage tank.
As to claim 18, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 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, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 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, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 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 of Welle ‘954 in view Official Notice.
As to claim 21, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 does not disclose the system of claim 16, wherein the liquid storage tank is a mobile storage tank.
Less than 150 gallons appears to be standard for a mobile storage tank. See PTO-892 references: Proctor (US 5573187 A), Houser (US 4828709 A) Salewski (US 4697609 A), Granderson (US 6340177 B1), Allaire (US 5809941 A) and Bridegum (US 4771762 A). The last three references also indicate low-profile.
Thus, water tanks specifically designed for smaller recreation vehicles are well-known and such designs are not considered esoteric.
As such, the Examiner takes official notice that it may be advantageous to have a smaller tank to allow for mobility to transport resources such as water wherein the motivation would be economic or environmental as well as consumer demand for recreational vehicles. The motivation for low-profile is to make a tank more suitable for assembly into a recreational vehicle. See Allaire col. 2 ll. 20 – 30.
As to claim 22, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 in view of Official Notice teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the liquid storage tank is a low-profile storage tank (same motivation as in claim 21.).
As to claim 23, Well in view of Official Notice teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the liquid storage tank is a low-capacity storage tank (same motivation in claim 21.).
As to claim 24, Well in view of Official Notice 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 (Official Notice Fig. 1, same motivation.).
As to claim 25, Well in view of Official Notice teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the mobile storage tank is a water tank (Official Notice 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 of Welle ‘954 in view Official Notice and in further view of Vander Horst (US 20150198475 A1).
As to claim 26, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 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 of Welle ‘954 in view Ihde (US 20230024527 A1).
As to claim 27, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 does not teach the system of claim 1, further comprising at least one display, wherein a fullness or emptiness status of the liquid storage tank, based upon the last determined single liquid level output, is visually presented on the at least one display.
In the same field, 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 Welle ‘954 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 Welle ‘954 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 Welle ‘954 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, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 and Ihde teaches the system of claim 27, 1 and 32, respectively, 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 Welle ‘954 in view of McCormick and in further view of Vander Horst (US 20150198475 A1) and, additionally, with respect to Idhe regarding claim 35.
As to claim 34, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 does not teach the system of claim 1 further comprising a centralized processor device in communication with the at least one display, the centralized processor device receiving a single liquid level output for each of a plurality of liquid storage tanks, wherein each of the plurality of liquid storage tanks are associated with a plurality of independently operable radar 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 Welle ‘954 in view of Idhe 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, as discussed with respect to claim 34, 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 Welle ‘954 in view of Vander Horst.
As to claim 36, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 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, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 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, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 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 of Welle ‘954 in view Asano (US 6288672 B1).
As to claim 4, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 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, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 and 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 of Welle ‘954 in view Official Notice.
As to claim 8, Welle in view of Welle ‘954 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 in view of Welle ‘954 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 – 40 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 41 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art does not disclose or make obvious all of the features of claims 39 – 41.
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 MICHAEL W JUSTICE whose telephone number is (571)270-7029. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:30 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Kelleher can be reached at 571-272-7753. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL W JUSTICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights